Why Answer this Question? Experts’ Behaviors on Educational Community Question-Answering Platforms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.2.2240Keywords:
Educational platform, expert contribution, theory of planned behavior, student questioning, expert motives, structural modelAbstract
This study explores the factors that influence experts’ regular contribution to educational community question-answering (CQA) platforms. Providing answers is essential for sharing knowledge on CQA platforms, but it also affects learners’ progressive inquiry. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop and test a theoretical model that aims to explain which factors influence whether experts answer questions on educational CQA platforms and how these factors correlate with each other to form a “map” of experts’ respective behavior. We examined experts’ perceptions of three dimensions: the CQA platform’s usability, the quality of questions asked, and the added value of answering these questions. We examined the factors involved in these dimensions from the perspective of the Theory of Planned Behavior to connect them with the experts’ perceptions, intentions, and actions on a CQA platform. As our case study, we took the 100mentors web and mobile app, a small-scale platform that addresses learning communities around the world, and we conducted a survey for their registered experts (N=126). The factorial structure indicated that experts first perceived the question quality mostly based on its relevance to their expertise or experience (question quality); secondly, that their intention to answer was mainly set by their motives to make a difference for the learner and partially by the user-friendliness of the platform (added value of answering and CQA platform’s usability); and finally, that their actions were connected to the regular use of the platform for answer-sharing (CQA platform’s usability). A future research challenge is to test the factorial structure in large-scale educational CQA platforms. The further confirmation of the expert behavior pattern can have a practical implication for the platforms to guide their expert community more efficiently and for the learners to pursue their learning through progressive inquiry.
References
Ajzen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: a commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. In Health Psychology Review (Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 131–137). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.883474
Albergaria-Almeida, P. (2010). Classroom questioning: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 305–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.015
Baltadzhieva, A., & Chrupała, G. (2015). Question Quality in Community Question Answering Forums. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 17(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/2830544.2830547
Blooma, M. J., Goh, D. H. L., & Chua, A. Y. K. (2012). Predictors of high-quality answers. Online Information Review, 36(3), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211241413
Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the Editors: Common method variance in international business research. In Journal of International Business Studies (Vol. 41, Issue 2, pp. 178–184). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88
Cheng, E. W. L. (2019). Choosing between the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the technology acceptance model (TAM). Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9598-6
Chua, A. Y. K., & Balkunje, R. S. (2012). Comparative Evaluation of Community Question Answering Websites. In H.-H. Chen & G. Chowdhury (Eds.), 14th International Conference on Asia-Pacific Digital Libraries (pp. 209–218). Springer. https://dr.ntu.edu.sg/handle/10356/50815
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised). Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
Espina, A., & Figueroa, A. (2017). Why was this asked? Automatically recognizing multiple motivations behind community question-answering questions. Expert Systems with Applications, 80, 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.03.014
Fang, C., & Zhang, J. (2019). Users’ continued participation behavior in social Q&A communities: A motivation perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.036
Figueroa, A. (2017). Automatically generating effective search queries directly from community question-answering questions for finding related questions. Expert Systems with Applications, 77, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.041
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Guan, T., Wang, L., Jin, J., & Song, X. (2018). Knowledge contribution behavior in online Q&A communities: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.023
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10121
Hao, G. K. W., Shu, Z., & Irawan, J. (2014). Good or Bad Question? A Study of Programming CQA in Stack Overflow. 1–45.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Herranen, J., & Aksela, M. (2019). Student-question-based inquiry in science education. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1658059
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
Jin, X. L., Lee, M. K. O., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2009). Understanding users’ continuance intention to answer questions in online question answering communities. Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Business (ICEB), 679–688. http://ks.cn.yahoo.com/
Kumar, B. A., & Goundar, M. S. (2019). Usability heuristics for mobile learning applications. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1819–1833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09860-z
LaToza, T. D., & Myers, B. A. (2010). Hard-to-answer questions about code. Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools, PLATEAU’10, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/1937117.1937125
Le, L. T., Shah, C., & Choi, E. (2017). Bad Users or Bad Content? Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Conference Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1145/3020165.3020181
Lin, F., & Huang, H. (2013). Why people share knowledge in virtual communities? Internet Research, 23(2), 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241311313295
Liu, Z., & Jansen, B. J. (2018). Questioner or question: Predicting the response rate in social question and answering on Sina Weibo. Information Processing and Management, 54(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2017.10.004
Lou, J., Fang, Y., Lim, K. H., & Peng, J. Z. (2013). Contributing high quantity and quality knowledge to online Q&;A communities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22750
Mahalanobis, P. C. (1936). On the generalized distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India, 49–55.
Mamykina, L., Manoim, B., Mittal, M., Hripcsak, G., & Hartmann, B. (2011). Design lessons from the fastest Q&A site in the west. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2857–2866. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979366
Nam, K. K., Ackerman, M. S., & Adamic, L. A. (2009). Questions in, knowledge in? Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 09, 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518821
Neshati, M., Fallahnejad, Z., & Beigy, H. (2017). On dynamicity of expert finding in community question answering. Information Processing and Management, 53(5), 1026–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2017.04.002
Newman, R. S. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 315–337). Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203831076
Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 152–158.
Oh, S. (2012). The characteristics and motivations of health answerers for sharing information, knowledge, and experiences in online environments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21676
Procaci, T. B., Siqueira, S. W. M., Pereira Nunes, B., & Nurmikko-Fuller, T. (2019). Experts and likely to be closed discussions in question and answer communities: An analytical overview. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.004
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of Composite Reliability for Congeneric Measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
Revelle, W. (2020). psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Sanchez, G. (2013). PLS path modeling with R. Trowchez Editions. http://www.gastonsanchez.com/PLS Path Modeling with R.pdf
Sanchez, G., Trinchera, L., & Russolillo, G. (2017). plspm: Tools for partial least squares path modeling (PLSPM). R package version 0.4.9. https://cran.r-project.org/package=plspm
Shah, C., & Pomerantz, J. (2010). Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community QA. SIGIR 2010 Proceedings - 33rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, March 2008, 411–418. https://doi.org/10.1145/1835449.1835518
Shang, S. S. C., Wu, Y.-L., & Li, E. Y. (2017). Field effects of social media platforms on information-sharing continuance: Do reach and richness matter? Information & Management, 54(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.06.008
Veenman, M. V. J. (2006). Self-questioning as a metacognitive skill. In Research on questioning. University of Aveiro.
Wang, G., Gill, K., Mohanlal, M., Zheng, H., & Zhao, B. Y. (2013). Wisdom in the social crowd. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web - WWW ’13, 1341–1352. https://doi.org/10.1145/2488388.2488506
Wu, P. F., & Korfiatis, N. (2013). You scratch someone’s back and we’ll scratch yours: Collective reciprocity in social Q&A communities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(10), 2069–2077. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22913
Yuan, S., Zhang, Y., Tang, J., Hall, W., & Cabotà, J. B. (2020). Expert finding in community question answering: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(2), 843–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-018-09680-6
Zaza, I., Junglas, I., & Armstrong, D. (2019). Studying the Artifacts of Q&A Platforms: The Central Role of the Crowd. ICIS 2019 Proceedings, 18. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2019/crowds_social/crowds_social/18
Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Luo, N., Wang, Y., & Niu, T. (2019). Understanding the formation mechanism of high-quality knowledge in social question and answer communities: A knowledge co-creation perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.022
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Harry Stokhof, Kalliopi Meli, Konstantinos Lavidas, Dimitrios Grammenos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access Publishing
The Electronic Journal of e-Learning operates an Open Access Policy. This means that users can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, is that authors control the integrity of their work, which should be properly acknowledged and cited.
