Instructional Science

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 571–606 | Cite as

Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration

  • Khe Foon Hew
  • Wing Sum Cheung
  • Connie Siew Ling Ng


The increasingly prevalent use of Internet in schools and homes has resulted in asynchronous online discussion becoming an increasingly common means to facilitate dialogue between instructors and students, as well as students and students beyond the boundaries of their physical classrooms. This article is organized into two main sections. In the first section, we review 50 empirical studies in order to identify the factors leading to limited student contribution. Limited student contribution is defined as students making few or no postings, or students exhibiting surface-level thinking or low-level knowledge construction in online discussions. We then identify the various empirically based guidelines to address the factors. In the second section, we discuss three potential guideline dilemmas that educators may encounter: (a) use of grades, (b) use of number of posting guideline, and (c) instructor-facilitation. These are guidelines where previous empirical research shows mixed results when they are implemented. Acknowledging the dilemmas is essential for educators and researchers to make informed decisions about the discussion guidelines they are considering implementing. Finally, we report two exploratory case studies on student-facilitation that we conducted. Using students as facilitators may be an alternative solution to educators who wish to avoid the instructor-facilitation guideline dilemma.


Asynchronous online discussion Student facilitation Discussion guidelines Student contribution 


  1. Bodzin, A., & Park, J. (2000). Factors that influence asynchronous discourse with preservice teachers on a public, web-based forum. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 16(4), 22–30.Google Scholar
  2. Bonk, C. J. (2004). The perfect E-storm: Emerging technologies, enormous learner demand, enhanced pedagogy, and erased budgets. Part 2: Storms 3 and 4. London: UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from
  3. Brewer, S., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Types of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 331–354. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9603-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2). Retrieved on November 23, 2006, from
  5. Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720–735.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, S.-J., & Caropreso, E. J. (2004). Influence of personality on online discussion. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(2). Retrieved July 9, 2007, from
  7. Chen, G., & Chiu, M. M. (2006). Online discussion processes: Effects of earlier messages’ evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages. Computers & Education. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.007.
  8. Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2004). Evaluating the extent of ill-structured problem solving process among pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion and reflection log environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(3), 197–227. doi:10.2190/9JTN-10T3-WTXH-P6HN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2005). Factors affecting learners’ satisfaction on the use of asynchronous online discussion in a hypermedia design environment. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 5(1&2), 56–70.Google Scholar
  10. Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2006). Examining students’ creative and critical thinking and student to student interactions in an asynchronous online discussion environment: A Singapore case study. Asia-Pacific Cybereducation Journal, 2(2). Retrieved from
  11. Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2007). Use of ground rules in online discussion. Paper Presented at the ED-Media World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Toronto: Canada.Google Scholar
  12. 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. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-1277-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K. L., Segur, R., & Kodali, S. (1997). Design considerations for computer conferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 177–201.Google Scholar
  14. Dennen, V. P. (2001). The design and facilitation of asynchronous discussion activities in web-based courses: Implications for instructional design theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  15. Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. doi:10.1080/01587910500081376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Workload reduction in online courses: Getting some shuteye. Performance Improvement, 44(5), 18–25. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140440507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duphorne, P. L., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2005). The effect of three computer conferencing designs on critical thinking skills of nursing students. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 37–50. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1901_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K., & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x.
  19. Fauske, J., & Wade, S. E. (2003–2004). Research to practice online: Conditions that foster democracy, community, and critical thinking in computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 137–153.Google Scholar
  20. Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 16(2), 169–186.Google Scholar
  21. Fung, Y. Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135–149. doi:10.1080/0268051042000224743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Granovetter, M. S. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25–56). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 (pp. 83–90). Toronto, Canada: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2003a). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part I. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(3), 247–262.Google Scholar
  29. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2003b). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part II. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(4), 355–366.Google Scholar
  30. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2003c). An exploratory study of the use of asynchronous online discussion in hypermedia design. Journal of Instructional Science & Technology, 6(1). Retrieved from
  31. Hew, K. F., Knapczyk, D., & Frey, T. (2005). Electronically training teachers at a distance: What We’ve learned from an analysis of six different online pedagogical activities. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 414–419). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  32. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hewitt, J., & Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference, Dec. 12–15. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  34. Hummel, H. G. K., Burgos, D., Tattersall, C., Brouns, F., Kurvers, H., & Koper, R. (2005a). Encouraging contributions in learning networks using incentive mechanisms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 355–365. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00140.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hummel, H. G. K., Tattersall, C., Burgos, D., Brouns, F., Kurvers, H., & Koper, R. (2005b). Facilitating participation: From the EML web site to the learning network for learning design. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1–2), 55–69. doi:10.1080/10494820500173474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jeong, A. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth patterns of discussion threads in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 36–53.Google Scholar
  37. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. doi:10.1007/BF02299613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194–210. doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. doi:10.1080/14703290252934603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kear, K. (2001). Following the thread in computer conferences. Computers & Education, 37, 81–99. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00036-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kear, K., & Heap, N. W. (2007). ‘Sorting the wheat from the chaff’: Investigating overload in educational discussion systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 235–247. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00212.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Khan, S. (2005). Listservs in the college science classroom: Evaluating participation and “richness” in computer-mediated discourse. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 325–351.Google Scholar
  43. Khine, M. S., Yeap, L. L., & Lok, A. T. C. (2003). The quality of message ideas, thinking and interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment. Educational Media International, 40(1/2), 115–125. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00212.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kienle, A., & Ritterskamp, C. (2007). Facilitating asynchronous discussions in learning communities: The impact of moderation strategies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(1), 73–80. doi:10.1080/01449290600811594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Lu, L. L., & Jeng, I. (2006). Knowledge construction in inservice teacher online discourse: Impacts of instructor roles and facilitative strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 183–202.Google Scholar
  47. Masters, K., & Oberprieler, G. (2004). Encouraging equitable online participation through curriculum articulation. Computers & Education, 42, 319–332. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2003.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–300.Google Scholar
  49. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40, 237–253. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00129-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  51. Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). Retrieved April 3, 2007, from
  52. Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported cooperative learning. Journal of the American Society for Information Science American Society for Information Science, 48, 484–495. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199706)48:6<484::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-Q.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2000). Shrewd investments. Science, 288, 819–820. doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002). Enhancing the quality of online discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  55. Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 56–67.Google Scholar
  56. Painter, C., Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2003). Impacts of directed tutorial activities in computer conferencing: A case study. Distance Education, 24(2), 159–174. doi:10.1080/0158791032000127455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162–177.Google Scholar
  58. Poscente, K. R., & Fahy, P. J. (2003). Investigating triggers in CMC text transcripts. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved June 26, 2007, from
  59. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.Google Scholar
  60. Schellens, T., Keer, H. V., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups. Small Group Research, 36(6), 704–745. doi:10.1177/1046496405281771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tagg, A. C., & Dickinson, J. A. (1995). Tutor messaging and its effectiveness in encouraging student participation on computer conferences. Journal of Distance Education, 10(2). Retrieved November 29, 2006, from
  62. Teigland, R., & Wasko, M. M. (2004). Extending richness with reach: Participation and knowledge exchange in electronic networks of practice. In P. Hildreth & C. Kimble (Eds.), Knowledge networks: Innovation through communities of practice (pp. 230–242). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Thoms, K. J., & Junaid, N. (1997). Developing critical thinking skills in a technology-related class. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430526.Google Scholar
  64. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Wan, D., & Johnson, P. M. (1994). Computer supported collaborative learning using CLARE: The approach and experimental findings. In R. Furuta & C. Neuwirth (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCW’94 (pp. 187–198). Chapel Hill, NC: ACM.Google Scholar
  67. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does:” Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 155–173. doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00045-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., Hill, W., & Cherny, L. (1998). The dynamics of mass interaction. In Proceedings of ACM’s Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 257–264, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  69. Winiecki, D. J., & Chyung, Y. (1998, August). Keeping the thread: helping distance education students and instructors keep track of asynchronous discussions. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  70. Xie, K., DeBacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67–89. doi:10.2190/7BAK-EGAH-3MH1-K7C6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163–181. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yang, Y. T. C., Newby, T., & Bill, R. (2008). Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: A quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1572–1585. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yeh, H. T., & Buskirk, E. V. (2005). An instructor’s methods of facilitating students’ participation in asynchronous online discussion. In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 682–688). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  74. Zhao, N., & McDougall, D. (2005). Cultural factors affecting Chinese students’ participation in asynchronous online learning. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 2723–2729).Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  75. Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451–480. doi:10.1007/s11251-006-0004-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khe Foon Hew
    • 1
  • Wing Sum Cheung
    • 1
  • Connie Siew Ling Ng
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations