Advertisement

Introduction

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents the basic concepts that characterize asynchronous online discussion environments from the standpoint of collaborative learning. Collaborative learning essentially focuses on the negotiation or discussion of ideas among participants. Traditionally, discussion occurs in face-to-face learning classroom environments. However, face-to-face classroom discussions are typically limited by several factors. In this chapter, the various limitations of face-to-face discussions are first discussed. Then, the role of asynchronous online discussion, its potential benefits to student learning, and an actual example of how asynchronous online discussion can be integrated into a blended learning course are presented.

Keywords

Collaborative learning Discussion Asynchronous online discussion Face-to-face discussion Blended learning Learning Integration Negotiation Online discussion Classroom discussions 

References

  1. Almasi, J. F. (1996). A new view of discussion. In L. B. Gambrell & J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions: Fostering engaged reading (pp. 2–24). Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  2. Althaus, S. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with on-line discussions. Communication Education, 46(3), 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy of learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is larry cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Retrieved on July 11, 2005 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51/
  5. Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper’s World 3. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 21–23.Google Scholar
  6. Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. S. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–272). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burt, M.T., Grady, M. & McMann, G. (1994). Interaction analysis of an inter-university computer conference. Paper presented at the Distance Learning Research Conference, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 June 11, 2010 from http://www.acecjournal.org/current_issue_current_issue.php.
  12. Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2011). Design and evaluation of two blended learning approaches: Lessons learned. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), 1319–1337.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6–28.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning?’ In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: Pergamon Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  17. Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Workload reduction in online courses: Getting some shuteye. Performance and Improvement, 44(5), 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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), 412–433. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaspar, A., Langevin, S., Boyer, N., & Armitage, W. (2010). Students’ activity focus in online asynchronous peer learning forums. Informatics in Education, 9(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  20. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137.Google Scholar
  21. 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 Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2003). 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
  26. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010a). Possible factors influencing Asian students’ degree of participation in peer-facilitated online discussion forums: A case study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010b). Fostering higher knowledge construction levels in online discussion forums: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Web-based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 5(4), 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hew, K. F., & Knapczyk, D. (2007). Analysis of Ill-structured problem solving, mentoring functions, and perceptions of practicum teachers and mentors toward online mentoring in a field-based practicum. Instructional Science, 35(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 207–221.Google Scholar
  30. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2007). The relationship between class size and online activity patterns in asynchronous computer conferencing environments. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1258–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Hsu, J. F., Chen, D., & Hung, D. (2000). Learning theories and IT: The computer as a tutor. In M. D. Williams (Ed.), Integrating technology into teaching and learning (pp. 71–92). Singapore: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Jamaludin, A., & Quek, C. L. (2006). Using asynchronous online discussions in primary school project work. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 64–87.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in online and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online Social Interchange, Discord, and Knowledge Construction. The Journal of Distance Education, 13(1). Retrieved September 30, 2008 from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/137/412.
  38. Kearsley, G. (2000). Online Education: Learning and Teaching in cyberspace. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kucuk, M., Genc-Kumtepe, E., & Tasci, D. (2010). Support services and learning styles influencing interaction in asynchronous online discussions. Educational Media International, 47(1), 39–56.Google Scholar
  41. Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, A. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41, 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee, H., Kim, J. W., & Hackney, R. (2011). Knowledge hoarding and user acceptance of online discussion board systems in elearning: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1431–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lim, S. C. R., Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2011). Critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: An investigation of student facilitation techniques. New Horizons in Education, 59(1), 52–65.Google Scholar
  44. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maor, D. (2010). Examining cognitive attributes in student-teacher and student–student online interactions. In Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010 (pp. 4247–4252). AACE.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. McLoughlin, C. & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? In A. Herrmann and M.M. Kulski (Eds), Flexible Futures in Tertiary Teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2–4 February 2000. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved on November 7, 2008 from http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html.
  48. Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). Retrieved August 5, 2011 from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/128/122.
  49. Nagel, L., Blignaut, A. S., & Cronje, J. C. (2009). Read-only participants: A case for student communication in online courses. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., Harland, J., & Warburton, G. (2011). How active are students in online discussion forums. In J. Hamer & M. de Raadt. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Computing Education Conference 2011 (Vol. 114, pp. 125–134). Perth, Australia: Australia Computer Society.Google Scholar
  51. 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 of Information Science, 48, 484–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ng, C. S. L. (2011). The influence of peer facilitation techniques and other factors on online forum interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Institute of Education, Singapore.Google Scholar
  53. Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2002). Designing collaborative learning contexts. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 847–858. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00780.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning (pp. 6–42). Cambridge: Brookline Books.Google Scholar
  58. Rollag, K. (2010). Teaching business cases online through discussion boards: Strategies and best practices. Journal of Management Education, 34(4), 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-Mediated Communication. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 397–431). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  60. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Converging conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rovai, A. & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: a comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5, 2. Retrieved January 27, 2012, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/795.
  63. Ruhleder, K., Jordan, B., & Elmes, M. B. (1996). Wiring the “new organization”: Integrating collaborative technologies and team-based work. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management.Google Scholar
  64. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stahl, G., Koshmann, T. & Suthers, D.D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R.K.Sawyer, (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of sciences (pp. 409-425). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 575–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Wu, A. (2003). Supporting electronic discourse: Principles of design from a social constructivist perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(2), 167–184.Google Scholar
  72. Yukselturk, E. (2010). An investigation of factors affecting student participation level in an online discussion forum. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2). Retrieved August 11, 2011 from http://tojet.net/articles/923.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Education, Learning Sciences, and TechnologiesNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations