Student-content interactions in online courses: the role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content
This study examined the relationships among question types and levels and students’ subsequent responses/interactions in online discussion forums. Question prompts were classified both by type, as outlined by Andrews (POD Q J Prof Organ Dev Net Higher Eduction 2(34):129–163, 1980), and by levels of critical thinking, as outlined by Bloom (Taxonomy of educational objectives, David McKay, New York, 1956). Students’ responses (n = 850), taken from 19 discussion forums, were coded using Bloom’s six levels of cognitive processing: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Interaction patterns were determined using three of Andrews’ “mileage” indicators: average number of responses/student, average number of student–student sequences per question prompt, and average number of threads (and posts within a thread) for each question prompt. Results support the hypothesis that questions at the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy facilitate higher levels of students’ responses. Among Andrews’ nine question types, lower divergent questions were most effective in generating high levels of student thinking compared to other question types. In terms of interaction patterns, brainstorming and playground questions averaged the highest number of posts/student as well as highest average number of student responses/prompt. Questions at the comprehension, application, and synthesis levels resulted in the highest average number of student–student sequences. Implications for the development of effective question prompts are discussed.
KeywordsOnline discussions Question prompts Student-content interaction
- Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/downloadreports.
- Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280–318.Google Scholar
- Andrews, J. (1980). The verbal structure of teacher questions: Its impact on class discussion. POD Quarterly: Journal of Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, 2(3 & 4), 129–163.Google Scholar
- Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Blanchette, J. (2001). Questions in the online learning environment. Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 37–57.Google Scholar
- Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
- Chin, C. (2004). Questioning students in ways that encourage thinking. Teaching Science, 50(4), 16–21.Google Scholar
- Crone-Todd, D. E., Pear, J. J., & Read, C. N. (2000). Operational definitions for higher-order thinking objectives at the post-secondary level. Academic Exchange, 4(3), 99–106.Google Scholar
- Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2004, July). Examining the relationship between higher-order learning and students’ perceived sense of community in an online learning environment. In Proceedings of the10th Australian world wide web conference, Gold Coast, Australia.Google Scholar
- Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., et al. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2). Available online: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html.
- Gibson, J. (2009). Discussion approach to instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models, Vol III: Building a common knowledge base (pp. 99–116). New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Haavind, S. (2006). Key factors of online course design and instructor facilitation that enhance collaborative dialogue among learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Halpern, D. (2003). Thought and knowledge (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards for students. Eugene, OR: Author.Google Scholar
- Lee, Y. (2008). The effects of different levels of interaction on measures of critical thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.Google Scholar
- Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (Fall, 2005). Questioning the lecture format. The NEA Higher Education Journal: Thought and Action, 20(1), 47–56. Retrieved on January 18, 2011, from http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubThoughtAndAction/TAA_05_05.pdf.
- Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
- Meyer, K. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Networks, 8(2), 101–114.Google Scholar
- Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Framework for 21st Century learning. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
- Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Solomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Pear, J. J., Crone-Todd, D. E., Wirth, K. M., & Simister, H. D. (2001). Assessment of thinking levels in students’ answers. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(4), 94–98.Google Scholar
- Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71.Google Scholar
- Szabo, Z., & Schwartz, J. (2008, October). Better teaching methods for teacher education: Blackboard discussions improve critical thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
- Thurmond, V. A., & Wombach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://www.itdl.org/journal/Jan_04/article02.htm.
- Vogler, K. E. (2008, Summer). Asking good questions. Educational Leadership, 65(9). Available online at http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/summer08/vol65/num09/Asking-Good-Questions.aspx.
- Wilen, W. (1991). Questioning skills for teachers (2nd ed.). Washington DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
- Yang, Y.-T. C. (2002). Use of structured web-based bulletin board discussions with Socratic questioning to enhance students’ critical thinking skills in distance education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.Google Scholar
- Zsohar, H., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Transition from the classroom to the Web: Successful strategies for teaching online. Nursing Education Perspective, 29(1), 23–28.Google Scholar