When Students Want to Stand Out: Discourse Moves in Online Classroom Discussion That Reflect
Students’ Needs for Distinctiveness
Li-Tang Yu and the D-Team1
The University of Texas at Austin
Abstract
This study extends the research on uniqueness-seeking theory (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980) to explore how
students with different needs for uniqueness participate in online discussion. Using a multiple case study
methodology, we studied students’ experiences in a graduate-level seminar with face-to-face and
computer-mediated discussion at each meeting. To analyze students’ discourse moves, we adapted a
coding scheme from Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (1999) community of inquiry model. Results
showed that students with different levels of uniqueness-seeking needs engaged in online classroom
discussion by making different amounts of social and cognitive discourse moves, were either more
cognitive than social in their moves, more social than cognitive, or made equal use of these moves. The
dynamic nature of online discussion entailed that more factors than simply uniqueness-seeking needs
seemed involved in explaining students’ identity negotiations and contributions to the classroom
discussion in service of their learning.
Table 1. Example Items from the Self-attributed Need for Uniqueness Scale (adapted from Lynn &
Harris, 1997)
Item
Choices
In this class, I prefer to be ___ different from other people. (1) no, (2) slightly, (3) moderately, (4) very, (5) extremely
In this class, I prefer to be ___ different from other people (1) no, (2) slightly, (3) moderately, (4) very, (5) extremely
in what I contribute to a class discussion.
Expressing distinctive ideas in class is ___ important to
(1) not at all, (2) slightly, (3) moderately, (4) very,
me.
(5) extremely
In this class, being distinctive is ___ important to me.
(1) not at all, (2) slightly, (3) moderately, (4) very,
(5) extremely
1
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, December, Dallas TX. The D-Team is a group
of research collaborators at the University of Texas led by Diane Schallert interested in phenomena associated with the use of
computer-mediated discussion in learning environments. For this project, the members of the team, in addition to Li-Tang Yu
and Diane Schallert, were Kyle M. Williams, Jeongbin Park, Eunjin Seo, Anke J. Z. Sanders, Zachary H. Williamson, Eunjeong
Choi, Rachel E. Gaines, & Marissa Knox.
1
Table 2. Participants’ Number of Postings to Online Discussion Across the Semester and Perceived
Uniqueness-seeking Need
Participant
Total # of
Contribution
(Sex; Background)
contributions
designation
across semester
Dee
403
(F; U.S.)
Nelson
Self-attributed need for uniqueness
pre-
grouping
survey
High contributor
postsurvey
2.7
L/H
4
& special case
341
High contributor
3.5
MM
3
330
High contributor
2
L
2
230
2.5
L
2.5
202
2.1
L
3
2
L
1.5
3.5
MM
3
108
3
M
2.5
107
3
M
2
(M; U.S.)
Beate
(F; Germany)
HeeYoung
(F; So. Korea)
Monica
(F; U.S.)
Taehee
196
(F; So. Korea)
Donna
Medium
contributor
191
Instructor
146
Medium
(F; U.S. citizen)
Drinna
(F; U.S.)
Olivia
contributor
(F; U.S.)
Dayna
(F; U.S.)
Kyungmi
104
Low contributor
3.3
MM
3
99
Low contributor
3
M
2
97
Low contributor
2.3
L
1.5
3
M
3.3
(F; So. Korea)
Kyungsoon
(F; So. Korea)
Ming-Liang
(M; Taiwan)
Lorraine
96
(F; U.S.)
2
Table 3. Codes for Discourse Moves
Element/ Category
Indicator Codes (with
elaborations and definitions)
Examples
Social presence
Emotional expression =
ability/confidence to
express feelings related to
educational experience
Open communication=
reciprocal/respectful
exchanges
A. Mutual Awareness
(recognizing others’
presence in the
discussion)
B. Recognition of each
other’s contributions
C. Face work
(comments that address
face needs and
anticipate face threat)
Group Cohesion =
comments that
build/sustain group morale
1. Playfulness (Use for humorous
comments, use of orthographic or tonal
change, language other than English, or
echoing other’s tone.)
Dee: soooooo ware and kramsch (Oct 18,
group 1)
Monica: that one took a while:) (Sep 27,
group 2)
Dee: again... technology (sigh) (Nov 1,
group 1)
2. Self-Disclosure of emotional
reaction in reference to course
(shares or reveals positive and/or
negative feelings/attitudes toward
readings)
Dee: I LOVED this article. (Oct 18, group
1)
Taehee: Wow... i REALLY ENJOYED
today discussion. (Nov 15, grp 1)
3. Self-Disclosure/Connection to real
world: (what is happening in class or
wherever the student is situated, or an
event in real life not related to course
content)
Donna: Ach!! Sometimes I wish I had
actually learned to type like a secretary! I
just hit a bunch of keys by accident and it
closed the whole program on me! (Sep
20)
Hee-young: Nothing much really. Just
sitting in a hotel room (Nov 15, grp 1)
4. Self-disclosure of personal
connection to the discussion
MingLiang: Of course. My dad is an
excellent example of being against the
odds. He changed our family life. (Oct 18)
5. Asking for support (explicitly or
implicitly) /Encouraging others
(One classmate mentioned she did not read
the article)
Dee: No worries (Nov 1 Group 1).
6. Greetings and good-byes
Taehee: Have a wonderful Thanksgiving
(Nov 15, group 1)
7. Complimenting others (direct
compliments, including complimenting
cognitive comments)
Dee: nicely done Olivia :) (Nov 15, group
1)
8. Explicitly expressing appreciation/
agreement (with no or few additional
words)
Drinna: I agree Nelson, common-bond!
(Nov 15, group 1)
9. Hedging (making a statement that
softens a claim and seems to take care
of possible face-threat)
Taehee: @Kyungmi, yes, sure... I thinks
so... because the quantitative research also
comes from the researcher's assumption
and world view.
Monica: (in my opinion) (Nov 1, group 2)
10. Expressing humility relative to
others
Dayna: I am interested in what you are
conversing about talented FL scholars.
(Oct 18, group 1)
11. “Social” statements that can’t be
coded anything else
Donna: Ok! I AM back. I wonder if
there’s an acronym for that like IAB (Nov
15 group 2).
3
Moderator presence
Instructional
Management = structural
concerns
12. Establishing/Referring to time
parameters
Donna: So then OOOOOOOH. It’s time
to quit!!! (Nov 15)
13. Referring to online medium itself
Donna: I can never believe how long it
takes to get to our chat space! (Sep 13)
Kyungsoon: Sorry about the capital. It
was on (Nov 8 Grp2) S (rr
14. Eliciting a topic (in a general way)
Dayna: Which article would you like to
chat about? (Nov 1 Grp 2 )
Cognitive presence
Triggering Event = state
of dissonance/feeling of
unease about an idea
15. Expressing a sense of puzzlement
about course content/ reading
(expressing uncertainties in declarative
sentences or question format)
Drinna: Are we a common-bond
community or a common-identity
community? (Nov 15, group 1)
Drinna: @27 how is a text in the media
different from a discourse in the media?
(Oct 25, group 2)
Exploration = search for
information/ knowledge/
alternatives that might help
make sense of a situation/
problem; seek clarification
16. Discussion of complexities
(Oppose a person/group’s implicit
consensus; offer special position from
an outside point of view; express
deeper/extra knowledge about readings
or authors; these acts may be expressed
in the form of questions or declarative
statements)
(Before Monica’s comments, all
comments favored Ho’s article) Monica:
Hhmm, the Ho article was my least
favorite, actually (Nov 1, group 2)
Monica: the ecology metaphor as novel
concept was surprising to me, since in
language policy/bilingual studies, it's very
widespread... (Sep 20)
17. Suggestions for consideration;
brainstorming; seek to reach
consensus/ understanding:
Donna: BM -- how about design
experiments that are meant to check out
whether a certain discourse practice is tied
to a particular context? (Oct 4, group 2)
18. Information exchange (use when
there is a rather straightforward,
limited, question-answer exchange, a
clarification exchange)
Beate: yeah, but having mistakes
recorded can also be useful. I am thinking
about a language learning situation where
the teacher can go back to such mistakes
and clarity (Nov 15, group 2).
Olivia: Pith helmet is what Indiana Jones
and people “in the field” wear (Oct 4,
group 1) [in response to MingLiang’s Q
about what a pith helmet means in the title
of a reading]
19. Offer solution; information
display
Lorraine: @109 – Identity is very
complicated and influenced by many
things – and roles are more clearly
defined (Nov 8, grp 2)aine
20. Connect ideas (lots of ways to
express this but may use quotes from
reading to emphasize ideas or words)
Dayna: So would all the classics already
made it to World 3? (Nov 27 group 2)
Hee-young: “For example, the discourse
socialization in mixed groups with NESs
and NNESs can be different from groups
with members of the same …
backgrounds. It was observed that the
Integration = integrating
information into a concept/
idea; looking for insights/
expressing an
understanding of acquired
knowledge
4
identity construction by Group C of three
NESs and one NNES seemed to be more
vigorous than Group A with all NNESs of
the same linguistic backgrounds (p. 448).”
So, it looks that it affects group
dynamics? (Nov 1)
Resolution/Reflection =
evaluation of idea/concept
21. Vicariously apply new ideas (e.g.,
what if schools used a constructive
approach)
Monica: IHmmmm, what do y’all think
about the idea that nonfiction gives more
access to world 3 than fiction? (Sep 27
grp 2)
Lorraine: It would be interesting to see if
these kids tried this type of discourse in
other classrooms. (Nov 1, Grp 2)
22. Critically assess solutions
(evaluate if previous solutions or
integrations are useful or make sense)
Kyungmi: @Hee-young, but I wonder do
we really think ecologically when we
conduct studies? I'm not sure. I feel like
F's argument seems quite abstract and I
don't get it fully. (Sep 20)
23. Identifying areas of
(dis)agreement among group
members (make a final conclusion;
provide a summary showing how
people agree/disagree)
Drinna: @Hee-young, wouldn’t that be
world 2 since they are constructing an
understanding not creating a new
understanding? (Sep 20)
References
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1),
20-39.
Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30,
169-192.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in
higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in
distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer
conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147-166.
Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schriffrin, D. Tannen, & H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of
discourse analysis (pp. 612-634). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Herring, S. C. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Jordan, R. (2008). Preparing participants for computer mediated communication. In S. Kelsey & K. St. Amant (Eds.),
5
Handbook of research on computer mediated communication (pp. 25-34). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Kreiner, G. E., & Hollensbe, E. C. & Sheep, M. L. (2006). Where is the "me" among the "we"? Identity work and the search for
optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1031-1057.
Lee, J. E., & the D-team. (2012, April). When discourse environment meets students’ goals: Situated and emerging goals when
learning in online classroom discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Lee, S., Schallert, D. L., Song, K., Park, Y., Chiang, Y. V., Vogler, J. S., Jordan, M. E., Lee, J., Cheng, A. J., Sanders, A. Z., &
Park, J. (2011). Resistance phenomena in collaborative online discussions. Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association,
60, 370-388.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet
and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and
processes of reading, (5th ed., pp. 1568-1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). Individual differences in the pursuit of self‐uniqueness through consumption. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 27(21), 1861-1883.
Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 24(2), 151-158.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2007). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based
computer conferencing. The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'Éducation à Distance, 14(2), 50-71.
Selfe, C. L. (1990). Technology in the English classroom: Computers through the lens of feminist theory. In C. Handa (Ed.),
Computers and community: Teaching composition in the twenty-first century (pp. 118-139). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Vogler, J. S., Schallert, D. L., Park, Y., Song, K., Chiang, Y. H. V., Jordan, M. E., Lee, S. A., Cheng, A. C. J., Lee, J. E., Park, J.
B., & Sanders, A. J. (2013). A microgenetic analysis of classroom discussion practices how literacy processes intermingle in
the negotiation of meaning in an online discussion. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(3), 211-239.
Wade, S. E., & Fauske, J. R. (2004). Dialogue online: Prospective teachers' discourse strategies in computer‐mediated
discussions. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 134-160.
6