EVALUATING ONLINE DISCUSSIONS: FOUR DIFFERENT FRAMES OF ANALYSIS

Katrina A. Meyer

Abstract


This study uses four different “frames” to analyze 17 online discussions that occurred in two doctoral level classes in educational leadership. Two of the frames were developmental models: King and

Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model and Perry’s model of intellectual and ethical development. Two of the frames captured levels of thinking: Garrison’s four-stage critical-thinking model and Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Of the 278 individual postings, 45.3% were at levels five through seven of the King and Kitchener model, 100% were at levels five through nine of the Perry model, 52.2% were at the two highest levels of the Garrison model, and 54.3% were at levels four through six in Bloom’s taxonomy. These results seem appropriate to the level of response expected of doctoral students. For each frame, the analysis resulted in additional findings. The study concludes that each frame has value and focuses attention on different aspects of the student’s thinking as evidenced in his/her posting to an online discussion; however, some frames are more difficult to use than others, which argues for specific training and/or tailoring the topic of discussions to address issues in a particular manner. Lastly, the question initiating each of the online discussions influenced the level of the responses from students. Each frame has the potential to illumine students’ online discussions, although using multiple frames may have more benefit than using any one frame exclusively.


Keywords


Online Learning,Evaluation of Online Discussions,Developmental Models,Critical Thinking,Bloom’s Taxonomy

Full Text:

PDF

References


Meyer, K. A. Face-to-Face Versus Threaded Discussions: The Role of Time and Higher-Order Thinking. JALN 7(3): September 2003. Available online: http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/pdf/v7n3_meyer.pdf.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education 15(1): 7–23, 2001.

Drops, G. Assessing Online Chat Sessions. Online Cl@ssroom, 1–8, April 2003.

Pickett, N. Rubrics for Web Lessons, n.d. Available online: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/triton/july/rubrics/Rubrics_for_Web_Lessons.html

Edelstein, S., and Edwards, J. If You Build It, They Will Come: Building Learning Communities Through Threaded Discussions. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 5(1): Spring 2002. Avaliable online: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/edelstein51.html.

Roblyer, M. D., & Ekhaml, L. How Interactive Are YOUR Distance Courses? A Rubric for Assessing Interaction in Distance Learning. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 3(2): Summer 2000. Available online: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/roblyer32.html.

King, P. M., and Kitchener, K. S. Developing Reflective Judgment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Perry, W. G., Jr. Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years: A Scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Bloom, B. S., and Krathwohl, D. R. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: Longmans, Green, 1956.

Krumme, G. Major Categories in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom 1956), n.d. Available online: http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/guides/bloom.html.

Gunawardena, C. N., and Zittle, F. J. Social Presence as a Predictor of Satisfaction Within a Computer-Mediated Conferencing Environment. The American Journal of Distance Education 11(3): 6–26, 1997.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v8i2.1830



Copyright (c) 2019 Katrina A. Meyer