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.
Keywords: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
- 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.
- Chanlin, L.-J., Chen, Y.-T., & Chan, K.-C. (2009). Labeled postings for asynchronous interaction. AACE Journal, 17(4), 317–332.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- De Bono, E. (1991). Six thinking hats for schools: resource book for adult educators. Logan: USA Perfection Learning.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Masters, K., & Oberprieler, G. (2004). Encouraging equitable online participation through curriculum articulation. Computers and Education, 42, 319–332.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 56–67.Google Scholar
- 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 http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/141/221.
- 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
- 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
- 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 http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol10.2/taggdickinson.html.
- 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
- 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