Challenges: Findings from Previous Empirical Research

Chapter

Abstract

Although asynchronous online discussions may afford certain advantages, such benefits can only be enjoyed if students choose to participate in the discussions. While students could participate by merely reading messages, such an act does not really encourage the exchange of ideas in the online discussion because if no messages are posted in the first place there will be no messages in the discussion for students to read. Unfortunately, students who actively contribute in online discussions are usually few in numbers. This chapter discusses the various factors or reasons that could lead to limited student contribution. Limited student contribution is defined as students making few postings, students exhibiting surface-level thinking, or students displaying low-level knowledge construction in online discussions. A comprehensive literature search across six electronic databases was conducted. Ten main factors that could lead to limited student contribution were identified after a review of more than 110 empirical research studies.

Keywords

Asynchronous online discussion Limitations of online discussion Online contribution Literature review Surface thinking Critical thinking Knowledge construction Online posting Problems of online discussion Limited contribution 

References

  1. Alavi, M., & Leider, D. E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: Issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(7), 1–37.Google Scholar
  2. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1). Retrieved February 15, 2012 from http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume6Number1/Arendpaper.pdf.
  4. Blessinger, K., & Olle, M. (2004). Content analysis of the leading general academic databases. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 28, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bradley, M. E., Thom, L. R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: How question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 888–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2). Retrieved February 23, 2012 from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/140/394.
  8. Burt, M.T., Grady, M. and McMann, G. (1994). Interaction analysis of an inter-university computer conference. Paper presented at the Distance Learning Research Conference, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
  9. Chai, C. S., & Khine, M. S. (2006). An analysis of interaction and participation patterns in online community. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 250–261.Google Scholar
  10. Chapman, D. D., Storberg-walker, J., & Stone, S. J. (2008). Hitting reply: A qualitative study to understand student decisions to respond to online discussion postings. E-Learning, 5(1), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/index.cfm.
  12. Chen, C.-Y., Pedersen, S., & Murphy, K. L. (2012). The influence of perceived information overload on student participation and knowledge construction in computer-mediated communication. Information Science, 40(2), 325–349.Google Scholar
  13. Cheong, C. M., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Online discussion and critical thinking skills: A case study in a Singapore secondary school. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 556–573.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 16(2), 169–186.Google Scholar
  18. Fung, Y. Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72.Google Scholar
  20. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerbic, P. (2006). To post or not to post: Undergraduate student perceptions about participating in online discussions. In Who’s learning? Whose technology? Proceedings Ascilite Sydney 2006. Retrieved January 27, 2012 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p124.pdf.
  22. 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
  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. Hammond, M. (1999). Issues associated with participation in on line forums—the case of the communicative learner. Education and Information Technologies, 4(4), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 II. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(4), 355–366.Google Scholar
  28. 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 http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/Vol6_No1/contents2.htm.
  29. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). 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
  30. Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Knowledge sharing in online environments: A qualitative case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(14), 2310–2324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 207–221.Google Scholar
  33. Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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, December 12–15. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  36. Hummel, H. G. K., Tattersall, C., Burgos, D., Brouns, F., Kurvers, H., & Koper, R. (2005). Facilitating participation: From the EML web site to the learning network for learning design. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1–2), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Jeong, A., & Frazier, S. (2008). How day of posting affects growth patterns of asynchronous discussion threads and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 875–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.
  42. Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kear, K. (2001). Following the thread in computer conferences. Computers & Education, 37, 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Koh, J. H. L., Herring, S. C., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Project-based learning and student knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 284–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Liu, X., Doore, B. & Li, L. (2008). Scaffolding knowledge co-construction in web-based discussions through message labeling. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3041-3046). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  50. Luppicini, R. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Science, 35, 141–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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 9 th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4 February 2000. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved November 7, 2008 from http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html.
  53. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.Google Scholar
  54. 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.
  55. 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 13 th Australasian Computing Education Conference 2011. Google Scholar
  56. Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 56–77.Google Scholar
  57. Ng, C. S. L., & Cheung, W. S. (2007). Comparing face to face, tutor led discussion and online discussion in the classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 455–469.Google Scholar
  58. Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 56–67.Google Scholar
  59. Osman, G., & Herring, S. C. (2007). Interaction, facilitation, and deep learning in crosscultural chat: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(2), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: Regents of the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  61. Quek, C. L. (2010). Analysing high school students’ participation and interaction in an asynchronous online project-based learning environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 327–340.Google Scholar
  62. Rinke, C. R. (2008). Understanding teachers’ careers: Linking professional life to professional path. Educational Research Review, 3, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rollag, K. (2010). Teaching business cases online through discussion boards: Strategies and best practices. Journal of Management Education, 34(4), 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schafersman, S. D. (1991). An introduction to critical thinking. Retrieved August 26, 2011 from http://smartcollegeplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Critical-Thinking.pdf.
  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. Shakirova, D. M. (2007). Technology for the shaping of college students’ and upper-grade students’ critical thinking. Russian Education & Society, 49(9), 42–52.Google Scholar
  67. Skinner, E. (2009). Using community development theory to improve student engagement in online discussion: a case study. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 17(2), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Swartz, R. J., & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the teaching of critical and creative thinking into content instruction. Pacific Grove, CA: A lesson design handbook for the elementary grades. Critical Thinking Press & Software.Google Scholar
  69. Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2004). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on beginning teachers’ teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Winiecki, D. J., & Chyung, Y. (1998, August). Keeping the thread: helping distance education students and instructors keep track of asynchronous discussions. In Proceedings of the 14 th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, 98 (pp. 451-460). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yeh, H.-T., & Lahman, M. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of asynchronous online discussion on blackboard. The Qualitative Report, 12(4), 680–704.Google Scholar
  76. 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
  77. Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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