AN ONLINE DISCUSSION FOR SUPPORTING STUDENTS IN PREPARATION FOR A TEST
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i4.1748Keywords:
Participation, Test Preparation, Discussion Groups, Question Pool, AchievementAbstract
This research examines classroom-based student participation in online discussion groups while preparing for a test, as well as the relation between the type of participation and student achievement. The online discussion groups were set up towards particular tests in a large-scale course, Introduction to Ecology, during the academic years of 2004 (N=99) and 2005 (N=72). They were intended to be a virtual meeting place for students to exchange information related to a question pool, when no face-to-face meetings with the teachers take place. The results indicate that a high percentage of the students who take the test (85%) participate in the discussion groups. Mixed results were found regarding the relations between the participation in the discussion and achievements. Based on the quantitative data and interviews with students we outline recommendations with regard to the effective use of discussion groups for supporting students in their preparation for tests.
References
Rosen, D., J. Woelfel, D. Krikorian and G. A. Barnett. Procedures for analyses of online communities. JCMC 8(4): 2003. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue4/rosen.html.
Taylor, J.C. Teaching and Learning Online: The Workers, the Lurkers and the Shirkers. University of Southern Queensland, Australia, 2002. http://www.ouhk.edu.hk/CRIDAL/cridala2002/speeches/taylor.pdf.
Boekaerts, M. Self regulated learning: where we are today? International Journal of Educational Research 31: 445–457, 1999.
Brown, A. Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding, 65–116. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1987.
Lin, X., C. Hmelo, C. Kinzer and T. Secules. Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development 47(3): 43–62,1999.
Skager, R. Organizing School of Encourage Self-Direction in Learners, UNESCO Institute for Education, Hamburg and Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1984.
Tabak, I., W. A. Sandoval, B. K Smith, F. Steinmuller and B. J. Reiser. Reflection as a vehicle towards local and global understanding. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 1998. http://www.letus.org/bguile/Papers/tabak_et_al_aera98.pdf.
Anderson, D. A. Individual Characteristics and Web-Based Courses. In: C. R. Wolpe (Ed.), Learning and Teaching on the World Wide Web, 47–68. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2001.
McCrindle, A. and C. Christensen. The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction 5: 167–185, 1995.
Paris, S. G. and P. W. Winograd. How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B.J. Jones and L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction, 15–44. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1990.
Garrison, D. R., M. Cleveland-Innes and T. Fung. Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 8(2): 2004. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n2/v8n2_garrison.asp.
Kumari, D. S. Connecting graduate students to virtual guests through asynchronous discussions: Analysis of an experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5(2): 2001. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_kumari.asp.
Moore, M. G. What does research say about the learners using computer-mediated communication in distance learning? American Journal of Distance Education 16(2): 65–81, 2002.
Yuen, H.K. and W.K. Ma. Knowledge sharing through web-based learning system, In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.) Innovation through Information Technology, 337–340. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc., 2004.
Arbaugh, J. How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student’s satisfaction and learning in webbased courses. Business Communication Quarterly 64(4): 42–54, 2001.
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid. The social life of information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School. Education Media International 38(1): 4–12, 2000.
Brown, R. E. Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. EDUCAUSE Review 38(5): 29–38, 2003.
Hung, D. W. L. and D. Chen. Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of Web-based e-Learning. Education Media International 38(1): 4–12, 2001.
Conrad, D. Deep in the hearts of learners: Insights into the nature of online community. Journal of Distance Education 17(1): 1–19, 2002.
Rimor, R. and E. Kozminsky. Learners’ reflections in technological learning environments: Why to promote and how to evaluate. Proceedings of SITE 2000, 2000. http://burdacenter.bgu.ac.il/publications/finalReports2001-2002/rimor.pdf.
Vaughan N. and D. R Garrison. Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. The Internet and Higher Education 8(1): 1–12, 2005.
Tikochinsky, M. Student’s participation patterns in Web-Based academic forums. M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University, School of Education, 2002.
Bagherian, F. and W. Thorngate. Horses to Water: Why course newsgroups fail? First Monday 5(8): 2000. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_8/thorngate/index.html.
Rovai, P. A. Preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education classroom communities in traditional and ALN Courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 6(2): 2002. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/v6n1_rovai.asp.
Koory, M. Different in learning outcomes for the online and f2f versions of an introduction to Shakespeare. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7(2): 2003. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n2/v7n2_koory.asp.
Meyer, K. A. Technological horizons in education journal Online: The Web’s Impact on Student Learning. T.H.E Journal: 2005. http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A4401.cfm.
Ragan, R. E. and J. W. Kleoppel. Comparison of outcomes on like exams administered to inresidence and asynchronous distance based Pharm. D. students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 8(4): 2004. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n4/v8n4_ragan.asp.
Russell, T. The No Significant Differences Phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University, 1999.
Saba, F. Research in distance education: A status report. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education 1(1): 1–9, 2000.
Beaudoin, M. F. Learning or lurking? Tracking the invisible online student. The Internet and Higher Education 5(2): 147–155, 2002.
Picciano, A. Beyond student perception: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an on line course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 6(1): 2002. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/v6n1_picciano.asp.
Suler, J. In Class and Online: Using discussion boards in teaching. CyberPsychology & Behaviour 7(4): 379–407, 2004.
Garrison, D. R., T. Anderson and W. Archer. Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education 15(1): 7–23, 2001.
Anderson, T., L. Rourke, D. R. Garrison and W. Archer. Assessing Teaching Presence in a Computer Conferencing Context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5(2): 1–17, 2001. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_anderson.asp.
Shea, P., C. Li, K. Swan and A. Pickett. Developing learning community in online asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 9(4): 59–82, 2005. http://www.sloanc.org/publications/jaln/v9n4/v9n4_shea.asp.
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
