摘要：This paper presents a detailed mapping of the interaction patterns and level of cognitive processing that characterised online communication between educational researchers and L2 teachers during six weeks of asynchronous forum-based discussions of six research articles. The project was designed to investigate and ultimately bridge the linkage gap between researchers and practitioners, following the Graham et al (2006) knowledge to action framework. We used NodeXL to map the different types of interaction patterns (user-to-user and user-to-thread) and adapted the Hara et al (2000) framework to identify and describe the level of social cues used and cognitive processing mechanisms evident in the participants’ texts. The findings showed little direct interaction between the two groups as evidenced by the low use of social clues and reluctance of practitioners to respond directly to the researchers. On the other hand, the mapping of the user-to-thread patterns showed clustering around some discussion topics that were raised by both researchers and practitioners, which suggests that the discussion was meaningful and co-constructed by members of both groups. The exchange of ideas in the forum space seemed to transcend issues of identity and conventional roles as it allowed both groups to be equal contributors to the dialogue. Moreover, there was clear evidence of in-depth cognitive processing in the messages of both groups. We propose that, in spite of the seeming guarded distance and practitioners’ reluctance to address researchers directly, the forum facilitated knowledge exchange and meaningful discussion of issues of interest to both groups.
其他摘要：This paper presents a detailed mapping of the interaction patterns and level of cognitive processing that characterised online communication between educational researchers and L2 teachers during six weeks of asynchronous forum-based discussions of six research articles. The project was designed to investigate and ultimately bridge the linkage gap between researchers and practitioners, following the Graham et al (2006) knowledge to action framework. We used NodeXL to map the different types of interaction patterns (user-to-user and user-to-thread) and adapted the Hara et al (2000) framework to identify and describe the level of social cues used and cognitive processing mechanisms evident in the participants’ texts. The findings showed little direct interaction between the two groups as evidenced by the low use of social clues and reluctance of practitioners to respond directly to the researchers. On the other hand, the mapping of the user-to-thread patterns showed clustering around some discussion topics that were raised by both researchers and practitioners, which suggests that the discussion was meaningful and co-constructed by members of both groups. The exchange of ideas in the forum space seemed to transcend issues of identity and conventional roles as it allowed both groups to be equal contributors to the dialogue. Moreover, there was clear evidence of in-depth cognitive processing in the messages of both groups. We propose that, in spite of the seeming guarded distance and practitioners’ reluctance to address researchers directly, the forum facilitated knowledge exchange and meaningful discussion of issues of interest to both groups.
