STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE DISCUSSIONS: THE ADVANTAGE GOES TO . . .

Katrina A. Meyer

Abstract


Thirteen students in a graduate-level course on Historical and Policy Perspectives in Higher Education held face-to-face and online discussions on five controversial topics: Diversity, Academic Freedom, Political Tolerance, Affirmative Action, and Gender. Students read materials on each topic and generated questions for discussion that were categorized by Bloom’s taxonomy so that the level of questions in the two discussion settings would be closely parallel. Upon completion of each discussion, they answered questions that addressed depth and length of the discussion, ability to remember, and a self-assessment of how the student learned. Students’ assessments show a consistent preference for the face-to-face discussion but a small number of students preferred the online setting. However, what is perhaps more interesting is a minority of approximately one-third of the students who perceived no difference between
the settings, or that the two settings were perhaps complementary.


Keywords


Blended Learning,Face-to-Face and Online Discussions

Full Text:

PDF

References


Picciano, A. G. and C. D. Dziuban. (Eds.) Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium, 2007.

Shea, P. Towards a conceptual framework for learning in blended environments. In A. G. Picciano and C. D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, 19–35. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium, 2007.

Bonk, C. J., and C. R. Graham. The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. New York: Pfeiffer, 2005.

Thorne, K. Blended Learning: How to Integrate Online and Traditional Learning. Sterling, VA: Kogan Page, 2003.

Vaughan, N. Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning 6(1): 81–94, 2007.

Graham, C. R. Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham (Eds.), The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, 3–21. New York: Pfeiffer, 2005.

Garrison, D. R., T. Anderson and W. Archer. Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 15(1): 7–23, 2001.

Arrow, H., J. E. McGrath and J. L. Berdahl. Small Groups as Complex Systems. New York: Sage Publications, 2000.

Frey, L. R. (Ed.) New Directions in Group Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.

Wyatt, N. Methodological procedures: Ethnographic practices in group communication research. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New Directions in Group Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.

Gulley, H. E. Discussion, Conference and Group Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1968.

Meyer, K. A. The method (and madness) of evaluating online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 10(4): 83–97, 2006. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n4/pdf/v10n4_meyer1.pdf.

Moore, M. G. Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. John and D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance Education: New Perspectives, 19–24. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Garrison, R. Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 1(1): 2000. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2/333.

Gunawardena, C. N., C. A. Lowe and T. A. Anderson. Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research 17(4): 397–431, 1997.

Newman, D. R., B. Webb and C. Cochrane. A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology 3(2): 56–77, 1995.

Aviv, R. Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 4(2): 53–72, 2000.

Aviv, R., Z. Erlich, G. Ravid and A. Geva. Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7(3): 1–23, 2003.

Brown, R. E. The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5(2): 2001.

Curtis, D. D. and M. J. Lawson. Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5(1): 21–34, 2001.

Swan, K. Immediacy, social presence, and asynchronous discussion. In J. Bourne and J.C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education, Volume 3. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Picciano, A. G. Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 6(1): 21–40, 2002.

Meyer, K. A. Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 8(2): 2004.

Meyer, K.A. The ebb and flow of online discussions: What Bloom can tell us about our students’ conversations. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 9(1): 2005.

Tiene, D. Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 9(4): 369–382, 2000.

Meyer, K. A. Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7(3): 55–65, 2003.

An, Y., and T. Frick. Student perceptions of asynchronous computer-mediated communication in face-to-face classes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(2): 2006. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/an.html.

Neuhauser, C. Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. American Journal of Distance Education 16(2): 99–113, 2002.

Johnson, S. D., S. R. Aragon, N. Shaik and N. Palma-Rivas. Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 11(1): 29–49, 2000.

Suthers, D., L. Girardeau and C. Hundhausen. Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen and U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.

Schweizer, K., M. Paechter and B. Weidenmann. Blended learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task performance. Journal of Educational Media 28(2–3): 211–224.

Etzioni, A. and O. Etzioni. Communities: Virtual vs. real. Science Magazine 277(5324): 295, 1997.

Hammond, M. Learning through online discussion. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 7(3): 331–346, 1998.

Allen, I. E. and J. Seaman. Entering the Mainstream: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium, 2004. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/entering_mainstream.pdf.

Allen, I. E. and J. Seaman. Making the Grade: Online Education in the United States, 2006. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium, 2006. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/making_the_grade.pdf.

Allen, I. E. and J. Seaman. Why blended learning: A survey of practitioners In A. G. Picciano and C. D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, 65–80. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium, 2007.

Picciano, A. G. Blended learning: Implications for growth and access. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 10(3): 95–102, 2006.

Meyer, K. A. When topics are controversial: Is it better to discuss them face-to-face or online? Innovative Higher Education 31(3): 175–186, 2006.

Anderson, L. W. and D. R. Krathwohl (Eds). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman, 2001.

Maxwell, J. A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

Starenko, M., K. Vignare and J. Humbert. Enhancing student interaction and sustaining faculty instructional innovations through blended learning. In A. G. Picciano and C. D. Dziuban (Eds.),

Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, 161–178. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium, 2007.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i4.1715



Copyright (c) 2019 Katrina A. Meyer