Table 4.
Code frequencies
| Main code | Sub-code | Discourse type a | Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge sharing | Knowledge construction | Knowledge creation | |||||||
| Community | 60 (18.2%) | 13 (7.2%) | 29 (17.6%) | 9 (5.5%) | 111 (13.2%) | ||||
| Apologizing | ** | ** | *** | 5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 14 | |
| Co-authoring | ** | ** | ** | 4 | 1 | 8 | – | 13 | |
| Innovating | ** | ** | ** | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 14 | |
| Giving credit | * | ** | ** | 7 | 1 | – | – | 8 | |
| Deciding | ** | ** | *** | 11 | – | 4 | – | 15 | |
| Encouraging | ** | ** | *** | 19 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 33 | |
| Seeking views | ** | ** | *** | 8 | 1 | 5 | – | 14 | |
| Ideas | 63 (19.1%) | 46 (25.4%) | 30 (18.2%) | 32 (19.4%) | 171 (20.4%) | ||||
| Concept | * | *** | *** | 13 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 23 | |
| Elaboration | * | ** | ** | 12 | 8 | – | 4 | 24 | |
| Explanation | * | *** | *** | 12 | 6 | 10 | 1 | 29 | |
| Fact | *** | * | * | 8 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 40 | |
| Conjecture | * | *** | *** | 11 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 23 | |
| Opinion | *** | * | * | 6 | 9 | 3 | 10 | 28 | |
| Rise-above | * | ** | *** | 1 | – | 3 | – | 4 | |
| Question | 36 (10.9%) | 15 (8.3%) | 4 (2.4%) | 10 (6.1%) | 65 (7.7%) | ||||
| Clarification | ** | ** | ** | 3 | 1 | 1 | – | 5 | |
| Fact-seeking | *** | * | * | 13 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 26 | |
| Explanation-seeking | * | *** | *** | 20 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 34 | |
| Information | 42 (12.8%) | 31 (17.1%) | 15 (9.1%) | 36 (21.8%) | 124 (14.8%) | ||||
| Item described | *** | * | * | 14 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 49 | |
| Item interpreted | * | *** | *** | 8 | 12 | 2 | 4 | 26 | |
| Item evaluated | * | *** | *** | 10 | 3 | – | 6 | 19 | |
| Collection described | ** | * | * | 7 | 1 | – | 7 | 15 | |
| Collection evaluated | * | ** | ** | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Linking | 74 (22.5%) | 42 (23.2% | 43 (26.1%) | 47 (28.5%) | 206 (24.5%) | ||||
| Using KF features | * | ** | *** | 6 | – | 2 | – | 8 | |
| To KF text | * | ** | *** | 27 | 8 | 16 | 15 | 66 | |
| Quotes outside KF | ** | ** | ** | 10 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 26 | |
| To WWW | *** | * | * | 31 | 26 | 20 | 29 | 106 | |
| Agency | 31 (9.4%) | 17 (9.4%) | 30 (18.2%) | 20 (12.1%) | 98 (11.7%) | ||||
| Inquiry planning | ** | ** | ** | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 10 | |
| Inquiry reflection | * | *** | *** | 7 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 22 | |
| Project planning | ** | ** | *** | 12 | 4 | 22 | 12 | 40 | |
| Project reflection | * | ** | *** | 9 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 16 | |
| Meta-discourse | 23 (7.0%) | 17 (9.4%) | 14 (8.5%) | 11 (6.7%) | 65 (7.7%) | ||||
| Deepening inquiry | * | ** | *** | 9 | 12 | – | 1 | 22 | |
| Major review | * | ** | *** | 2 | – | 2 | 3 | 7 | |
| Lending support | * | ** | *** | 12 | 5 | 12 | 7 | 36 | |
| Total | 329 | 181 | 165 | 165 | 840 | ||||
Percentages indicate frequencies relative to the total number of code instances
aThree-point scale indicates the relevance of the sub-codes to each discourse mode: low (*), medium (**), and high (***)