A Review of Research on A Review of Research on Factors that Impact Factors that Impact Aspects of Online Aspects of Online Discussions QualityDiscussions Quality

Spatariu, A., Quinn, L. F., &  Hartley, K. (2007). A review of research on factors that impact aspects of online discussions quality. TechTrends.51(3), p44-50.

Presenter: Feng Chia-YenAdvisor: Chen Ming-PuuDate: July 17, 2007

Introduction Introduction (1/2)(1/2)

Two concerns regarding distance education research. Gibson (2003)

◦the scarce supply of learner-focused research in this field.

◦the lack of a sound theoretical foundation regarding learners and the learning process.

Introduction Introduction (2/2)(2/2)

Two categories◦instructional interventions

group structure mentoring and scaffolding argumentative instructions guiding frameworks

◦Learner characteristics personal epistemology personality characteristics

Instructional InterventionsInstructional InterventionsResearchers interested in

◦interaction and facilitating critical thinking◦Reflection have manipulated the group

structure◦boosting argumentation on course topics have

implemented specific instructions

Group Structure Group Structure (1/2)(1/2)

The high structured groups had◦ pre-assigned debate positions◦argumentation scaffolding◦evaluation scaffolding

The low structure group(control group)The results indicated

◦high level structured group was more instrumental facilitating critical thinking and interaction in the online

environment.

◦group conferences with role assignment had higher levels of interconnected messages.

Group Structure Group Structure (2/2)(2/2)

Students conducted asynchronous online discussions in a problem-based learning activity. ◦The results

group conferences with role assignment had higher levels of interconnected messages than the group conferences with no role assignments.

◦ This study is congruent with existing research that relates certain group structures to quality of online postings (Heflich & Putney, 2001; Peterson-Lewinson, 2002; Joung, 2004).

Mentoring and scaffolding Mentoring and scaffolding (1/3)(1/3)

Through qualitative analysis of postings, that assigning a discussion leader may have a role in triggering student reflection. (Heflich & Putney, 2001)

Qualitative analysis of the growth of topical discussions demonstrated an increase in student reflection.

Utilization of a leader questioning technique seemed to be related to more reflective thought while a scaffolding.

Mentoring discussion leader approach appeared to be related to developing critical thinking skills.

Mentoring and scaffolding Mentoring and scaffolding (2/3)(2/3)

The potential for computer mediated communication (CMC) tools to promote reflective thinking among pre-service teachers.(Pete on-Lewinson , 2002)

◦Two of the groups displayed statistically higher levels of cognitive processing than the other groups. One of the group members, through peer mentoring and

scaffolding, led her peers toward more complex levels of thinking.

The second group displayed high levels of social dialogue as well as high levels of cognitive processing.

Mentoring and scaffolding Mentoring and scaffolding (3/3)(3/3)

This finding contrasts with face-to-face classrooms where social dialogue usually takes time away from on task behaviors.

Results of the study indicated that the flexibility of online discussion forums' mentoring and scaffolding processes can lead to deep levels of cognitive processing.

Argumentative Instructions Argumentative Instructions (1/5)(1/5)

The roles of triggers in asynchronous CMC (Poscente and Fahy ,2003) .

Triggers and duds◦Triggers

defined as postings which either included evidence of intending to generate interaction (posing questions or trying to take the discussion to a new level).

generate action (if posting received four or more responses).

◦Duds postings that were intended to trigger interaction, but

failed, yielding no response.

Argumentative Instructions Argumentative Instructions (2/5)(2/5)The results and findings

◦Triggers were associated with open-ended questions, experience, and maturity.

◦Community of inquiry appeared to influence student responses to triggers, and discussion mediator behavior appeared in one circumstance to be mirrored by the students.

◦Finding ways to generate more triggers may lead to increased interaction (Nussbaum, 2005; Abbeduto, 2000).

Argumentative Instructions Argumentative Instructions (3/5)(3/5)

Analysis Tool was used to identify patterns in interactions and determine which interactions were related to critical thinking.◦ Interactions involving conflicting viewpoints promoted

more discussion and critical thinking.◦Disagreements were rarely posted in response to

position statements and arguments, whereas agreements were ten times more likely to be posted in response.

◦Students rarely evaluated of the accuracy, validity, or relevancy of each others arguments.

◦Students' tendencies to agree with each other without questioning the soundness of evidence supporting a claim appears to be common in threaded discussions even on controversial topics (ethical issues in this case).

Argumentative Instructions Argumentative Instructions (1/5)(1/5)43 pre-service teachers were assigned to three groups.

◦ One treatment group was set up so students had to select a prescribed response category (arguments, evidence, explanation, and critique) for their postings.

◦ A second treatment group had students insert response labels into message headings in addition to selecting prescribed response categories.

◦ The control group students did not use response categories or message labeling.

The results suggested that labeling messages lead to increased argumentation and explanation but reduced the overall interaction among students.

Argumentative Instructions Argumentative Instructions (1/5)(1/5)Cognotes

◦as evaluation frameworks that students use to assess their own postings (MacKinnon, 2003).

◦provide students with a clear hierarchy of competencies to master and exhibit in discussions (higher order responses get higher numerical value assigned)

◦Findings of the study revealed that the communication of expectations and accountability within the cognotes exercise seem to have made an impact on higher order argumentation.

Learner CharacteristicsLearner CharacteristicsPersonal Epistemology

◦Beliefs about knowledge and knowing◦Each participant's personal epistemology was

assessed using the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory (Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle, 2002).

◦Bendixen et al. (2003) explored new personality traits, epistemological beliefs or beliefs about knowledge, and their relationship to argumentation.

Learner CharacteristicsLearner CharacteristicsPersonality Characteristics

◦Three factors assertiveness, anxiety, and openness to ideas

◦Note starters were more helpful for students with low openness to idea and students low in assertiveness, and less helpful for anxious students.

◦A new element of online argumentation, that of personal characteristics of learners, which proved to interact with note starters in the argumentation process (Nussbaum et al. ,2002) .

ConclusionsConclusionsTwo main conclusions

◦Cooperative learning structures, message types, and use of open-ended problems can influence aspects of quality in online discussions ( Jeong, 2004; Heflich & Putney, 2001; Peterson-Lewinson,

2002; and Rose, 2004).◦Certain interventions (peer mentoring and

scaffolding and group structure) appeared to influence students' critical thinking and interaction patterns (Peterson-Lewinson, 2002, Joung, 2004).