Effect of Role-Play in Online Discussions on Student Engagement and Critical Thinking

Laurie A. Berry, Kristin B. Kowal

Abstract


Without a strategy in place, online discussions in asynchronous courses rarely rise above the level of information sharing. As a result, it is important to design discussion strategies that push students further in their interactions with both the content and each other. In this case study, the role-play strategy was examined to determine whether it fosters critical thinking and student engagement. Student discussion transcripts were examined from an online, self-paced human biology course using both Garrison et al.’s four-phase model of cognitive presence and Gunawardena et al.’s five-stage model of knowledge construction to look for evidence of higher-order thinking. Furthermore, the transcripts were examined qualitatively for phrasing that signified evidence of student engagement. The findings indicate that the role-play instructional strategy, when used in online discussions, does support student engagement and critical thinking. This strategy places students in authentic, real-world contexts and enables them to explore different perspectives while engaging with the content to discover new knowledge and construct new meaning. The research presented here also supports evidence that written reflection should be incorporated when employing the role-play strategy. Based on the insights from this study, the researchers have developed a framework for students to achieve deeper, more engaging online discussions. This framework is called the “Framework for Student Engagement and Critical Thinking in Online Discussions.”


Keywords


Online Discussions, Student Engagement, Critical Thinking, Role-Play Strategy

Full Text:

PDF

References


Acolatse, T. W. (2016). Enhancing the online classroom: Transitioning from discussion to engagement. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 19(3).

Berry, L. A., & Kowal, K. B. (2019, April 2). Discussion on the rocks? Add a fresh twist of alternatives! [Conference session]. OLC Innovate Conference 2019, Denver, CO, United States.

Brokensha, S., & Greyling, W. (2015). Dispelling e-myths and pre-empting disappointment: Exploring incongruities between instructors’ intentions and reality in asynchronous online discussions. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(4), 50–76.

Buelow, J. R., Barry, T., & Rich, L. E. (2018). Supporting learning engagement with online students. Online Learning, 22(4), 313–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1384

Chan, K., Lai, S., Lueng, H., & Wan, K. (Eds.). (2016). Proceedings from ICEL ‘16: 11th International Conference on E-Learning. Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.

Cowan, J. (2019). The potential of cognitive think-aloud protocols for educational action research. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735614

Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 216–227.

Domakin, A. (2013). Can online discussions help student social workers learn when studying communication? Social Work Education, 32(1), 81–99.

Dracup, M. (2012). Designing online role plays with a focus on story development to support engagement and critical learning for higher education. Journal of Learning Design, 5(2), 12–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/jld.v5i2.104

Dye, C. (2022). Learner engagement and instructional outcomes. The Learning Guild Research. https://www.learningguild.com/insights/272/learner-engagement-and-instructional-outcomes/?utm_campaign=research-lei22&utm_medium=link&utm_source=lspub

Galikyan, I., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Students’ engagement in asynchronous online discussion: The relationship between cognitive presence, learner prominence, and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 43, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100692

Gao, F. (2014). Exploring the use of discussion strategies and labels in asynchronous online discussion. Online Learning, 18(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i3.460

Gao, F., Wang, C. X., & Sun, Y. (2009). A new model of productive online discussion and its implications for research and instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 21(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.0201.05

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1998, August 5–7). Transcript analysis of computer mediated conferences as a tool for testing constructivist and social constructivist learning theories [Conference presentation]. Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI, United States.

Hittepole, C. (2019). Nontraditional students: Supporting changing student populations. NASPA, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/Hittepole_NASPA_Memo.pdf

Jarosewich, T., Vargo, L., Salzman, J., Lenhart, L., Krosnick, L., Vance, K., & Roskos, K. (2010). Say what? The quality of discussion board postings in online professional development. New Horizons in Education, 58(3), 118–132.

Kalelioğlu, F. & Gülbahar, Y. (2014). The effect of instructional techniques on critical thinking and critical thinking dispositions in online discussion. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 248-258.

Martin, F., & Bollinger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092

Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement online: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40(6), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20018

Pelletier, S. G. (2010). Success for adult students. Public Purpose, 12, 2–6.

Schindler, L., & Burkholder, G. J. (2014). Instructional design and facilitation approaches that promote critical thinking in asynchronous online discussions: A review of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 4(4), 11–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v4i4.222

Wang, Y.-m., & Chen, V. D.-T. (2008). Essential elements in designing online discussions to promote cognitive presence - A practical experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 157–177.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i3.3367



Copyright (c) 2022 Laurie A. Berry, Kristin B. Kowal

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/