Facilitating critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: comparison between peer- and instructor-redirection

  • Eunjung Grace Oh
  • Wen-Hao David Huang
  • Amir Hedayati Mehdiabadi
  • Boreum Ju
Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore and compare learners’ critical thinking and interaction during an asynchronous online discussion when peer- or instructor-facilitation was provided. Current literature on online discussion reveals a controversy between peer facilitation and instructor facilitation regarding their strengths and weaknesses. However, the effect of peer-facilitation on critical thinking learning outcome has not been clearly discussed. Situated in a graduate-level program evaluation course, the learners engaged in a debate using a scenario-based case on ethical decision-making. A content analysis of discussion using the Cognitive Presence framework and a social network analysis revealed a significant difference between peer-redirected group and instructor-redirected group in their cognitive presence as well as in interaction dynamic upon receiving the redirection message. Based on findings regarding cognitive presence level, interaction dynamic and perspective change on the debate topic in each group, a peer-facilitation approach is more effective for fostering critical thinking and collaborative discourse.

Keywords

Asynchronous online discussion Critical thinking Facilitation strategies Interaction dynamic 

References

  1. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 233–250.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65–83.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765.Google Scholar
  3. An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53, 749–760.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  5. Baran, E., & Correria, A. P. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30, 339–361.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910903236510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Celestin, P. (2007). Online education: Analysis of interaction and knowledge building patterns among foreign language teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 39–58.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, L., & Bartholomew, A. (2014). Digging beneath the surface: Analyzing the complexity of instructors’ participation in asynchronous discussion. Online Learning, 18(3), 3.  https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i3.414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Correia, A. P., & Baran, E. (2010). Lessons learned on facilitating asynchronous discussion for online learning. Educacao, Formacao & Technologias, 3(1), 59–67.Google Scholar
  10. Darabi, A., Arrastia, D. W., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 216–227.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darabi, A., & Jin, L. (2013). Improving the quality of online discussion: The effects of strategies designed based on cognitive load theory principles. Distance Education, 34(1), 21–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.770429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of online discussion strategies: A meta analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 228–241.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.837651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28, 281–297.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910701611328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.  https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v20i1.2254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and direction (Vol. 4, pp. 47–58). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
  16. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.Google Scholar
  17. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghadirian, H., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2017). Peer moderation of asynchronous online discussions: An exploratory study of peer e-moderating behaviour. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2882.Google Scholar
  22. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003764722829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hew, K. F. (2015). Student perceptions of peer versus instructor facilitation of asynchronous online discussion: Further findings from three case studies. Instructional Science, 43, 19–38.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9329-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51, 1111–1124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38, 571–606.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012). The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation: Student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Educational Media International, 49, 217–229.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu, C., & Yang, S. C. (2012). Applying the practical inquiry model to investigate the quality of students’ online discourse in an information ethics course based on Bloom’s teaching goal and Bird’s 3C model. Computers & Education, 59, 466–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49(2), 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phirangee, K., Epp, C. D., & Hewitt, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between facilitation methods, students’ sense of community, and their online behaviors. Online Learning, 20(2), 134–154.  https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i2.775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 52–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richardson, J. C., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Relationship between types of question prompts and critical thinking in online discussions. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice (pp. 197–222). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  36. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.5334/2002-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70.Google Scholar
  38. Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 54–62.Google Scholar
  39. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  40. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701298688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543–553.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thormann, J., Gable, S., Fidalgo, P. S., & Blakeslee, G. (2013). Interaction, critical thinking, and social network analysis (SNA) in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 294–317.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1306.Google Scholar
  43. Tirado, R., Hernando, Á., & Aguaded, J. I. (2015). The effect of centralization and cohesion on the social construction of knowledge in discussion forums. Interactive Learning Environments, 23, 293–316.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 25–47). London: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students’ motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 916–930.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01140.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yang, D., Richardson, J. C., French, B. F., & Lehman, J. D. (2011). The development of a content analysis model for assessing students’ cognitive learning in asynchronous online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 43–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9166-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education Policy, Organization and LeadershipUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations