Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 95–113 | Cite as

Using online discussion boards with large and small groups to enhance learning of assistive technology

  • John W. McCarthy
  • Julia L. Smith
  • Danielle DeLuca
Article
First Online:

Abstract

There is a need for further research to understand the potential uses of asynchronous electronic discussions in higher education courses. Electronic discussion boards were conducted with two different graduate speech-language pathology student cohorts to supplement in-class instruction regarding assistive technology. One year’s discussions were done as a single large group while the second year’s were done in multiple-small groups. These discussion boards were analyzed for emerging themes. Students’ opinions of the discussion board, along with their suggestions for improvement, were also requested and analyzed. Results indicated that the discussion boards were a successful tool in maximizing the potential for knowledge acquisition outside the classroom and that several enhancements could be added to improve the overall experience. In particular, instructor involvement was more easily incorporated into large groups and small groups had fewer students reporting about redundancy of posts. Practical applications and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords

Questionnaire Graduate Online Discussion boards Assistive technology Augmentative and alternative communication 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Aitken, J., & Shedletsky, L. (2002). Using electronic discussion to teach communication courses. Communication Education, 51(3), 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with online discussions. Communication Education, 46(3), 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bender, T. (2003). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory, practice and assessment. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.Google Scholar
  4. Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children & adults with complex communication needs (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  5. Blackboard, Inc. (1997–2006). Blackboard Academic Suite 6.3.1.505 ® (Computer software). (http://www.blackboard.com/us/index.aspx).
  6. Blignaut, S., & Trollip, S. R. (2003). Developing a taxonomy of faculty preparation in asynchronous environments: An exploratory investigation. Computer and Education, 41, 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke, R., Beukelman, D. R., Ball, L., & Horn, C. (2002). Augmentative and alternative communication technology learning part 2: Pre-professional students. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(4), 242–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christopher, M., Thomas, J., & Tallent-Runnels, M. (2004). Raising the bar: Encouraging high level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review, 26(3), 166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Figallo, C. (1998). Hosting web communities: Building relationships, increasing customer loyalty, and maintaining a competitive edge. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haythornwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., Robbins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  13. Kay, R. H. (2006). Developing a comprehensive metric for assessing discussion board effectiveness. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 761–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lebel, T., Olshtain, E., & Weiss, P. L. (2005). Teaching teachers about augmentative and alternative communication: Opportunities and challenges of a web-based course. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(4), 264–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D. (2001). Techtalk: Expanding the online discussion. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(2), 38.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McNaughton, D., Light, J., & Arnold, K. B. (2002). “Getting your wheel in the door”: Successful full-time employment experiences of individuals with cerebral palsy who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(2), 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Offerman, D., Pearce, K., & Tassava, C. (2006). Assessing the relationship between learner satisfaction and faculty participation in online courses. In S. L. Howell & M. Hricko (Eds.), Online assessment and measurement: Case studies from higher education, K-12, and corporate (pp. 27–41). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Resnik, D. (2005). Using electronic discussion boards to teach responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rocco, S. (2007). Online assessment and evaluation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 113, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Romeo, L. (2001). Asynchronous environments for teaching and learning: Literacy trends and issues online. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 6(3), 24–28.Google Scholar
  24. Rovai, A. P. (2000). Online and traditional assessments: What is the difference? The Internet and Higher Education, 3, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, S. B., Smith, S. J., & Boone, R. (2000). Increasing access to teacher preparation: The effectiveness of traditional instructional methods in an online learning environment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 37–46.Google Scholar
  26. Thomas, M. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waldeck, J., Kearney, P., & Plax, P. (2001). Teacher e-mail message strategies and students’ willingness to communicate. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 12, 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wickersham, L., & Dooley, K. (2006). A content analysis of critical thinking skills as an indicator of quality of online discussion in virtual learning communities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(2), 185–193.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John W. McCarthy
    • 1
  • Julia L. Smith
    • 1
  • Danielle DeLuca
    • 1
  1. 1.W218 Grover CenterOhio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations