Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
Lecture Notes in Computer Science- P79:This year, we received about 170 submissions to ICWL 2008. There were a total of 52 full papers, representing an acceptance rate of about 30%, plus one invited paper accepted for inclusion in this LNCS proceedings. The authors of these accepted papers | A Sociogram Analysis on Group Interaction in an Online Discussion Forum 379 Fig. 1. The interface of group discussion forum 2.4 Data Collection Data in this research were collected from group discussion forum in WebCL. The postings in the discussion forum included two sessions produced by students when they were working for the group task one and two. The data also included two categories based on group task accordingly. When a posting was analysed it needed to be identified who posted it its purpose and communication target. The results were used for a sociogram analysis. 3 Data Analysis 3.1 Interaction within Group One Group interaction within group one of the group task one is presented in Figure 2. Fig. 2. The interactions within the group one for the first group task The total number of messages posted for the group task one was 29 and the average number of postings was 5.8. Mr. Zxl107 posted 12 messages to other 2 persons and the centre of the group. Miss Zhenzhen posted 10 messages to other 2 persons and the centre 380 J. Zhao of the group. Mr. Einstein posted 5 messages to other 3 persons and the centre of the group. Mr. Dongweidan posted 1 message to the centre of the group. Mr. Missuxp posted only 1 message to the centre of the group. The number of messages to the group centre was 14 48.3 . The result reveals that almost the half messages were posted to the group task. It means that the half of the interaction was taken place among group centre and participants rather than among participants. Einstein was the best active student in group one because he communicated with other 3 persons. Zhenzhen and Zxl107 were the second active students because they interacted with other 2 students. Dongweidan was the third active student. During the interaction process he communicated with other 1 student. Missuxp was the weakest active student and no other students communicated with him. Figure 2 demonstrates that 93.1 messages were sent by 3 most active students .
