Exploring the Use of Discussion Strategies and Labels in Asynchronous Online Discussion

Authors

  • Fei Gao Bowling Green State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i3.460

Keywords:

Online discussion, constrained discussion environment, strategy instruction, collaborative knowledge construction

Abstract

Drawing on research in both constrained online discussion environments and strategy instruction, this approach combines explicit instruction on discussion strategies with the use of post type labels. In a trial of this approach in an online course, students actively used the discussion strategies and post type labels in their discussion. Analysis of student posts and survey responses suggested that students in the experimental group used discussion strategies more frequently after the intervention as compared to the control group and perceived that this approach positively impacted their discussions. In addition, there is a certain degree of improvement in the quality of discussion measured by Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson’s (1997) critical analysis model.

References

An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students' interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53(3), 749-760. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015

Anderson, T. (1996). The virtual conference: Extending professional education in Cyberspace. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 2, 121-135.

Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. (2002). Questions for online, adult learning. In A. Rossett (Ed.), The ASTD E-learning Handbook: Best Practices, Strategies and Case Studies for an Emerging Field (pp. 183-190). Chicago: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Bradley, M. E., Thom, L. R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: How question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 888-900.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130. doi: 10.1017.S0267190505000061

Chiu, C.-H., Wu, C.-Y., Hsieh, S.-J., Cheng, H.-W., & Huang, C.-K. (2013). Employing a structured interface to advance primary students' communicative competence in a text-based computer mediated environment. Computers & Education, 60(1), 347-356. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.002

Choi, H. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2005). The effect of context-based video instruction on learning and motivation in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 215-227.

Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Luyegu, E., & Kimble, B. E. (2012). An analysis of asynchronous discussions: A case study of graduate student participation in online debates. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(1), 29-51.

Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1988). An instructional model for teaching students how to learn. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students. Washington D. C.: National Association of School Psychologist.

Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., & Ellis, E. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 108-117.

Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. (1987). Improving reading instruction through the use of responsive elaboration. The Reading Teacher, 40, 514-520.

Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. (1989). Improving classroom reading instruction: A decision-making approach (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.

Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., . . . Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412-433.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F.Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x

Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187-207). New York: Guilford.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global on-line 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.

Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437-469.

Hara, N. M., Bonk, C. J. M., & Angeli, C. M. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.

Hoadley, C., & Linn, M. (2000). Teaching science through online peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 839-857.

Hock, M. F., & Mellard, D. F. (2011). Efficacy of Learning Strategies Instruction in Adult Education. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(2), 134-153. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2011.555291

Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers and Education, 48(3), 427-445.

Joeng, A. (2003). Sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(4), 397-413.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 28(11), 13-16.

Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Compbell, J., & Hagg, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9, 7-26.

Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(4), 439-457. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8

Jonassen, D. H., & Remidez, H. (2005). Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1(1/2), 113-129.

Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.

King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307-317.

Larson, B. E., & Keiper, T. A. (2002). Classroom discussion and threaded electronic discussion: Learning in two arenas. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(1), 45-62.

MacArthur, C. A., & Lembo, L. (2009). Strategy instruction in writing for adult literacy learners. Reading & Writing, 22(9), 1021-1039. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9142-x

Mellard, D. D. (2006). Feasibility of explicit instruction in Adult Basic Education: Instructor-learner interaction patterns. Adult Basic Education, 16(1), 21-37.

Moore, J. L., & Marra, R. M. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191-212.

Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Educational Contemporary Psychology, 30(3), 286-313.

Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 113-136.

Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x

Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2013). Exploring asynchronous and synchronous tool use in online courses. Computers & Education, 60(1), 87-94. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.007

Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.

Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161.

Pressley, M., & Woloshyn, V. (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children's academic performance. Cambridge, Mass: Brookline Books.

Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., & Martin, V. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91-109.

Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19-48.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

Scheuer, O., McLaren, B., Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S. (2013). Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science, 1-31. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-125. doi: 10.1023/A:1003044231033

Schumaker, J., & Deshler, D. (2006). Teaching adolescents to be strategic learners. In D. Deshler & J. Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum (pp. 121-156). New York: Corwin.

Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21-36.

Thomas, J. (2013). Exploring the use of asynchronous online discussion in health care education: A literature review. Computers & Education, 69(0), 199-215. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.005

Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351-366.

Tsai, P.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). College students' experience of online argumentation: Conceptions, approaches and the conditions of using question prompts. The Internet and Higher Education, 17(0), 38-47. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.001

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.

Yang, Y. 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.

Zydney, J. M., deNoyelles, A., & Seo, K.-J. K. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1), 77-87. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.009

Downloads

Published

2014-09-04

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 3 (2014)

Section

Student Retention and Interaction

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