A Case Study Investigating the Utilization of ChatGPT in Online Discussions

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i2.4407

Keywords:

ChatGPT, artificial intelligence (AI), online discussions, online learning, critical thinking

Abstract

This study explored the impact of integrating ChatGPT into asynchronous online discussions. The analysis encompassed students’ log data from Canvas and their perspectives on using ChatGPT. Results revealed a significant enhancement in overall discussion participation when ChatGPT is encouraged, emphasizing its potential as a catalyst for constructive conversations and the development of generic skills. Students also acknowledge ChatGPT’s positive influence on critical thinking and knowledge exploration. In summary, integrating ChatGPT not only enhances participation and engagement but also fosters a sense of community, promotes online interaction, and cultivates essential skills. This study concluded by discussing issues associated with using ChatGPT for online discussions and highlighting implications for its appropriate integration into online discussion boards.

Author Biographies

Xi Lin, East Carolina University

Xi Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Professions at East Carolina University. Her research focuses on student engagement and interaction in online and distance learning and international students and faculty in the US higher education. More information about her can be found at http://whoisxilin.weebly.com/  

Ken Luterbach, East Carolina University

Ken Luterbach is an associate professor of Instructional Technology in the College of Education at East Carolina University. His professional interests focus primarily on creative use of computers for learning and productivity, which involves work in computational thinking, CS for All, AI for All, and educational robotics. In teaching, he favors the development of lessons that challenge students to innovate through design and development.

Kristen H. Gregory, East Carolina University

Kristen H. Gregory is an associate professor of elementary education in the College of Education at East Carolina University. Previously, she worked as an elementary classroom teacher, K12 reading specialist, community college faculty, and faculty professional development manager. She currently teaches courses on classroom assessment, curriculum development, and educational research for undergraduate and graduate students. Her research focuses on the relationship between professional learning and in-service and pre-service teachers’ pedagogical decisions, professional identity, and use of reflective practice. 

Sarah E. Sconyers, East Carolina University

Sarah Sconyers is the Director of Assessment, Data Management, and Digital Learning for East Carolina University’s College of Education. She previously served as the edTPA Coordinator and as an Instructional Consultant for the college. Before coming to ECU, Sarah spent twelve years as a secondary social studies teacher with Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools.  

References

Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z. K. (2009). Applying Kolb's experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 283–294.

An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). Different instructor facilitation approaches affect students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53(3), 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brierton, S., Wilson, E., Kistler, M., Flowers, J., & Jones, D. (2016). A comparison of higher order thinking skills demonstrated in synchronous and asynchronous online college discussion posts. Nacta Journal, 60(1), 14–21.

Brookfield, S. D. (2015). Critical reflection as doctoral education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2015(147), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20138

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

Carwile, J. (2007). A constructivist approach to online teaching and learning. Inquiry, 12(1), 68–73.

Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2005). How can we facilitate students’ in-depth thinking and interaction in an asynchronous online discussion environment? A case study. Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, USA, 28(114–121).

Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33, 483–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1277-4

Cotton D. R., Cotton P. A., & Shipway J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081376

DeNoyelles, A., Mannheimer Zydney, J., & Chen, B. (2014). Strategies for creating a community of inquiry through online asynchronous discussions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 10(1), 153–165.

Floridi L., & Chiriatti M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(2), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1

Fung, Y. Y. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 19(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051042000224743

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, 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100692

Gregory, K. H., Luterbach, K., Lin, X., & Sconyers, S. (in press). Elementary educators’ perceptions of the ethical use of ChatGPT as a classroom assessment generator. In H. Crompton & D. Burke (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence Applications in K–12: Theories, Ethics, and Case Studies for Schools. Routledge.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). 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. https://doi.org/10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG

Guzdial, M. (1997). Information ecology of collaborations in educational settings: Influence of tool. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning'97 (pp. 83–90). Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Han, S., & Hill, J. R. (2006). Building understanding in asynchronous discussions: Examining types of online discourse. Online Learning, 10(4), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i4.1744

Haque M. U., Dharmadasa I., Sworna, Z. T., Rajapakse R. N., & Ahmad H. (2022). I think this is the most disruptive technology: Exploring sentiments of ChatGPT early adopters using Twitter data. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.05856.pdf

Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38, 571–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0

Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning: A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered that each supports different purposes. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55.

Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13558000210121399

Khine, M. S., Yeap, L. L., & Chin Lok, A. T. (2003). The quality of message ideas, thinking and interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment. Educational Media International, 40(1–2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952398032000092161

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Konak, A., Clark, T. K., & Nasereddin, M. (2014). Using Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle to improve student learning in virtual computer laboratories. Computers & Education, 72, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.013

Kumi-Yeboah, A., Sallar, A. W., Kiramba, L. K., & Kim, Y. (2020). Exploring the use of digital technologies from the perspective of diverse learners in online learning environments. Online Learning, 24(4), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2323

Kung T. H., Cheatham M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon L., Elepaño, C., & Tseng V. (2023). Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digital Health, 2(2), e0000198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198

Levine, S. (2007). The online discussion board. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2007(113), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.248

Lin, X. (2023). Exploring the role of ChatGPT as a facilitator for motivating self-directed learning among adult learners. Adult Learning, https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595231184928

Lin, X. (2024). Using a student-developed case study activity for online discussion guided by a three-tier case method model. Adult Learning, 35(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595231151732

Lin, X., Chan, R. Y., Sharma, S., & Bista., K. (2024). The impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on global higher education: Through the lens of ChatGPT. In X. Lin, R. Y. Chan, S. Sharma, K. Bista. (Eds.), ChatGPT and global higher education: Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning (pp. 1–17). STAR Scholars Press.

Lin, X., & Schmidt, S. W. (2023). Making ChatGPT work for you. eLearn Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1145/3594636

Lin, X., & Sun, Q. (2023). Student‐generated memes as a way to facilitate online discussion for adult learners. Psychology in the Schools, 60(12), 4826–4840. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22884

Lin, X., & Sun, Q. (2024). Discussion activities in asynchronous online learning: Motivating adult learners’ interactions. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 72(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2022.2119803

Lin, X., Sun, Q., & Zhang, X. (2023). Increasing student online interactions: Applying the video timeline-anchored comment (VTC) tool to asynchronous online video discussions. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2247554

Lindeman, E. C. (1961). The meaning of adult education. Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.

Liu, M., & Yu, D. (2023). Towards intelligent e-learning systems. Education and Information Technologies, 28(7), 7845–7876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11479-6

Luan, L., Lin, X., Dai, Y., Hu, S., & Sun, Q. (2024a). Exploring the cognitive dynamics of artificial intelligence in the post-COVID-19 and learning 3.0 era: A case study of ChatGPT. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10990472

Luan, L., Lin, X., Dai, Y., Allen, L., & Hu, S. (2024b). Transforming STEM education: Leveraging ChatGPT for enhanced learning in psychology and neuroscience. In X. Lin, R. Y. Chan, S. Sharma, & K. Bista. (Eds.), ChatGPT and global higher education: Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning (pp. 100–121). STAR Scholars Press.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338122.pdf

Qadir, J. (2022). Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education. TechRxiv. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.21789434.v1

Radford, A. W., Cominole, M., & Skomsvold, P. (2015). Demographic and enrollment characteristics of nontraditional undergraduates: 2011–12. Web Tables. NCES 2015-025. National Center for Education Statistics.

Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81(3), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002

Stephenson, J. (Ed.). (2018). Teaching & learning online: New pedagogies for new technologies. Routledge.

Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 153–169). Sage.

University of Phoenix. (2019). University of Phoenix academic annual report. https://www.phoenix.edu/content/dam/ altcloud/doc/about_uopx/Academic-Annual-Report-Digital-2019.pdf

Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–53.

Yang, Y. T. C., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163–181.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). Sage.

Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4312418

Zhao, N., & McDougall, D. (2005, October). Cultural factors affecting Chinese students' participation in asynchronous online learning. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2723–2729). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/21612/

Downloads

Published

2024-06-01

How to Cite

Lin, X., Luterbach, K., Gregory, K. H., & Sconyers, S. E. (2024). A Case Study Investigating the Utilization of ChatGPT in Online Discussions. Online Learning, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i2.4407

Issue

Vol. 28 No. 2 (2024): Online Learning

Section

Online and Blended Learning in the Age of Generative AI

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Xi Lin, Ken Luterbach, Kristen H. Gregory, Sarah E. Sconyers

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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