Student engagement with course content and peers in synchronous online courses discussions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1389Keywords:
Online debate, Roles, Reflections, Critical thinking, Socratic questioning, Student agencyAbstract
As higher education institutions in United States offer online courses to growing audiences, there is increasing desire to understand how best to engage students with both course content and their peers. This case study examines the effects of assigning chat roles and facilitating self and group reflection on student-content and student-student interaction outcomes in four synchronous chats conducted in an online introductory-level sustainability course. We also considered what occurred within group reflections to inform how they are structured in the future. We found that assigning roles increased the proportion of critical student-student interactions. Self-reflections had no effect on either interaction type. Groups completing group reflections had a greater proportion of critical student-content interactions in the third chat and critical student-student interactions in the fourth chat than the groups that did not complete the group reflections. Based on our results, we plan to keep roles and group reflections going forward, and eliminate self-reflections. Furthermore, to increase the effectiveness of the group reflections, we propose some ideas to increase student ability to convert their ideas into change during subsequent chats.
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Group. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-report-card-tracking-online-education-united-states-2015/
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Bradley, M. E., Thom, L. R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: how question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 888–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00804.x
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups by introducing roles: Do students act in line with assigned roles? Small Group Research, 39(6), 770–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408323227
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.001
Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: The role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6
Gibbs, G. (1994). Learning in teams. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Gibbs, G. (2012). Grounded theory, coding and computer-assisted analysis. In Understanding Research for Social Policy and Social Work: Themes, Methods and Approaches (2nd ed., pp. 337–343). Bristol: Policy Press.
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003764722829
Holden, J. T., & Westfall, P. J.-L. (2007). An instructional media selection guide for distance learning. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED501248
Kayler, M., & Weller, K. (2007). Pedagogy, self-assessment, and online discussion groups. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 136–147. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ814021
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250107
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Murphy, E., & Jerome, T. (2005). Assessing students’ contributions to online asynchronous discussions in university-level courses. Electronic Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 8. Retrieved from http://ascilite.org/archived-journals/e-jist/docs/vol8_no1/commentary/stu_contrib_ansynch.htm
Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education: College presidents, public differ on value of online learning. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED524306
Pear, J. J., Crone-Todd, D. E., Wirth, K. M., & Simister, H. D. (2001). Assessment of thinking levels in students’ answers. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(4), 94–99.
Persell, C. H. (2004). Using focused web-based discussions to enhance student engagement and deep understanding. Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 61–78. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3211348
R Core Team. (2015). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org./
Schellens, T. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36(6), 704–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405281771
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9016-2
Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2007). The effect of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative learning: a matter of triangulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.016
Sun, A., & Chen, X. (2016). Online education and its effective practice: A research review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 157–190. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1103754
Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526865
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis.
Walker, S. A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil’s advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 172–182. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00082.x/
Williams, K. M. (2015). Doing research to improve teaching and learning. Taylor & Francis.
Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 445–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9120-1
Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2012). Towards more precise design guidance: specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7
Zhu, E. (1998). Learning and mentoring: Electronic discussion in a distance-learning course. In Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse (pp. 233–257). New York, NY: Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
