Possible Strategies to Overcome Limited Student Contribution: Empirical Findings From Previous Research



This chapter presents various empirically based strategies or solutions from previous research to address the problem of limited student contribution in asynchronous online discussion. Limited student contribution is defined as students making few or no postings, students exhibiting surface-level thinking, or students displaying low-level knowledge construction in online discussions. The empirically based strategies include the use of certain ground rules, discussion deadlines, discussion incentives, open-ended questions or topics, sentence openers and message labels, Socratic questions, and asynchronous voice or audio discussion.


Asynchronous online discussion Strategies for online discussion Solutions for online discussions Problems of online discussion Online contribution Literature review In-depth thinking Critical thinking Knowledge construction Discussion deadlines Socratic questions Voice discussion 


  1. Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1). Retrieved February 15, 2012 from
  2. Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertera, E. M., & Littlefield, M. B. (2003). Evaluation of electronic discussion forums in social work diversity education: A comparison of anonymous and identified participation. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 21(4), 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang, C-K. (2010). Acceptability of an asynchronous learning forum on mobile devices. Behavior and Information Technology, 29(1), 23–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chanlin, L.-J., Chen, Y.-T., & Chan, K.-C. (2009). Labeled postings for asynchronous interaction. AACE Journal, 17(4), 317–332.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2005). Factors affecting learners’ satisfaction on the use of asynchronous online discussion in a hypermedia design environment. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 5(1&2), 56–70.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Cheung, W., & Hew, K. (2007). Use of Ground Rules and Guidelines in Online Discussion: A Case Study. In C. Montgomerie and J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 2753–2758). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  10. Cheung, W. S., Hew, K. F., & Foo, A. (2009). Examining the impact of object owners’ anonymity on learners’ participation rate and critical thinking in an asynchronous online discussion environment. In L. Cameron and J. Dalziel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International LAMS and Learning Design Conference (pp. 48-53). Sydney, Australia: LAMS Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33, 483–511.Google Scholar
  13. Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K. L., Segur, R., & Kodali, S. (1997). Design considerations for computer conferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 177–201.Google Scholar
  14. Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., 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.Google Scholar
  15. De Bono, E. (1991). Six thinking hats for schools: resource book for adult educators. Logan: USA Perfection Learning.Google Scholar
  16. Dennen, V. P. (2001). The design and facilitation of asynchronous discussion activities in web-based courses: Implications for instructional design theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Dysthe, O. (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gao, F. (2011). Designing a discussion environment to promote connected and sustained online discussion. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(1), 43–59.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.Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  22. Girasoli, A. J., & Hannafin, R. D. (2008). Using asynchronous AV communication tools to increase academic self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 51, 1676–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Jumain, S. N. (2010a). Critical thinking in asynchronous online discussions: Examining the role of the student facilitator. In Z. Abas et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010 (pp. 4210–4215). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Hummel, H. G. K., Burgos, D., Tattersall, C., Brouns, F., Kurvers, H., & Koper, R. (2005). Encouraging contributions in learning networks using incentive mechanisms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kear, K. (2001). Following the thread in computer conferences. Computers & Education, 37, 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kear, K., & Heap, N. W. (2007). ‘Sorting the wheat from the chaff’: Investigating overload in educational discussion systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 235–247.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Kienle, A., & Ritterskamp, C. (2007). Facilitating asynchronous discussions in learning communities: The impact of moderation strategies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(1), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Lu, L. L., & Jeng, I. (2006). Knowledge construction in inservice teacher online discourse: Impacts of instructor roles and facilitative strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 183–202.Google Scholar
  37. Marriott, P. & Hiscock, J. (2002). Voice vs Text-based Discussion Forums: an implementation of Wimba Voice Boards. In M. Driscoll & T. Reeves (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2002 (pp. 640–646). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  38. Masters, K., & Oberprieler, G. (2004). Encouraging equitable online participation through curriculum articulation. Computers and Education, 42, 319–332.Google Scholar
  39. McIntosh, S., Braul, B., & Chao, T. (2003). A case study in asynchronous voice conferencing for language instruction. Educational Media International, 40(1), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Ng, C. S. L., Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Solving ill-structured problems in asynchronous online discussions: Built-in scaffolds vs no scaffolds. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(2), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002). Enhancing the quality of online discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  44. Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 56–67.Google Scholar
  45. Painter, C., Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2003). Impacts of directed tutorial activities in computer conferencing: A case study. Distance Education, 24(2), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Poscente, K. R., & Fahy, P. J. (2003). Investigating triggers in CMC text transcripts. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved on June 26, 2007 from
  47. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1997). Getting started in instructional technology research (3rd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  48. Salam, S., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Enhancing social studies students’ critical thinking through blogcast and socratic questioning: A Singapore case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(4), 391–401.Google Scholar
  49. Schellens, T., Keer, H. V., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2009). Tagging thinking types in asynchronous discussion groups: effects on critical thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Strang, K. D. (2011). How can discussion forum questions be effective in online MBA courses? Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(2), 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tagg, A. C., & Dickinson, J. A. (1995). Tutor messaging and its effectiveness in encouraging student participation on computer conferences. Journal of Distance Education, 10(2). Retrieved on November 29, 2006 from
  54. 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
  55. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does:” Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Yaneske, E., & Oates, B. (2010). Using Voice Boards: pedagogical design, technological implementation, evaluation and reflections. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang, Y.-T. C. (2008). A catalyst for teaching critical thinking in a large university class in Taiwan: Asynchronous online discussions with the facilitation of teaching assistants. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yang, Y.-T. C., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yang, Y.-T. C., Newby, T., & Bill, R. (2008). Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: A quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1572–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yeh, H. T., & Buskirk, E. V. (2005). An instructor’s methods of facilitating students’ participation in asynchronous online discussion. In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, and R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 682-688). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  62. 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

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