1. A CONTENT ANALYTIC COMPARISON OF LEARNING PROCESSES IN ONLINE and FACE- TO-FACE CASE STUDY DISCUSSIONS by Heckman and Annabi (2005)

2. INTRODUCTION It is commonly espoused that one of the strengths of online education [asynchronous learning networks--ALNs] is its discussion-based learning; We are reminded of increased reflection time, democratic participation, and benefits of writing; Much research has shown that ALNs can produce learning equivalent to or better than FTF classrooms;

3. INTRODUCTION There is little research available that compares FTF and ALN discussions: How are they similar and how are they different from one another? The study presented here compared case study discussions in both FTF and ALN modes;

4. METHODS Subjects: –120 seniors in a large northeastern university, enrolled in 2 sections [53 and 67 students respectively] of the capstone course for the B.S. in Information Management;

5. PROCEDURES Case-based discussion was a normal part of the course; Each student took part in 2 discussions, one discussion was FTF and the other was conducted asynchronously in a discussion board (WebCT);

6. PROCEDURES Each section was randomly divided into 2 equal subgroups; Dividing into subgroups allowed the researcher to observe 8 individual discussions: 4 in FTF mode and 4 in ALN mode, with 1 week for each discussion; Having 8 groups also allowed for control over order effects, group composition effects, and effects due to the 2 cases used for discussion;

7. PROCEDURES The same instructor facilitated in both the ALN and FTF modes; Identical starting and transitional questions were used in each mode, and the instructor attempted to keep his part similar in both modes; The instructor attempted to control for things like calling on people, questions asked, time allocated, care in bringing up points;

8. PROCEDURES In-class discussions were recorded and transcribed, and an observer kept detailed notes of the meetings; Complete texts of ALN discussions were extracted from WebCT logs;

9. PROCEDURES Coding: –With a content analytic framework, transcripts were coded for: Cognitive Process: components of critical thinking (triggering, exploration, integration, & resolution); Social Process: characteristics of the social interacton, such as cohesiveness; Teaching Process: design of the learning experience, as well as its delivery and facilitation [either student or teacher behaviors]; Discourse Process: responses between learners and learners and learners and instructors;

10. CODING Sub-Categories: –Affective response –Cohesive response –Interactive response –Rote factual response –Analysis –Speaker –Informal speech –Passive voice

11. RESULTS SUMMARY Teacher presence was much greater in FTF discussions; Virtually all student utterances in FTF were responses to the teacher. In ALN discussions nearly two-thirds of student utterances were responses to other students; FTF discussions used more informal language and active voice; Student utterances were longer in ALN, while teacher utterances were shorter;

12. The major interactive operation in ALN was continuing a thread, while in FTF it was asking a question (usually by the teacher); There was a greater incidence of direct instruction in the FTF discussion. This was true of confirming understanding (a feedback function), presenting content, and focusing the discussion;

13. There was a greater incidence of drawing in participants, especially through cold calling on students, in the FTF discussions; More than half of the instances of Teaching Process in the ALN discussion were performed by students rather than the teacher; In the average FTF discussion there were nearly twice as many instances of Cognitive Process as in the average ALN discussion;

14. In FTF discussions, the instances of Cognitive Process were predominantly in the lower order exploration category; In contrast, the ALN discussions contained more high-level Cognitive Process instances, both in absolute and relative terms; Student-to-student interactions contain a greater proportion of high-level cognitive indicators;