Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discussion on Strategy Dilemmas

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Student Participation in Online Discussions

  • 1290 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses five main strategy or solution dilemmas that educators might encounter in asynchronous online discussion environments. Strategy dilemmas refer to those strategies where previous empirical research shows mixed results when they are implemented. Acknowledging the dilemmas is essential for educators and researchers to make informed decisions about the discussion strategies they are considering implementing. The five strategy dilemmas include the following: use of grades or marks, use of number of posting guideline and posting deadlines, use of message labels or sentence openers (online scaffolds), extending the duration of the online discussion, and instructor/facilitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers and Education, 53, 749–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1). Retrieved on February 15, 2012 from http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume6Number1/Arendpaper.pdf.

  • Bai, H. (2009). Facilitating students’ critical thinking in online discussion: An instructor’s experience. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 156–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31–63). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baran, E., & Correia, A.-P. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30(3), 339–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., & Keller, M. (2003). Use of rubrics in online assessment. In the Evaluations and Assessment Conference 2003. Adelaide: University of South Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudin, B. P. (1999). Keeping online asynchronous discussions on topic. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, S., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Types of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 331–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2). Retrieved on February 23, 2012 from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/140/394.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Correia, A. P., & Baran, E. (2010). Lessons learned on facilitating asynchronous discussions for online learning. Educacao, Formacao & Tecnologias, 3(1), 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correia, A. P., & Davis, N. E. (2007). The design of collaboration in the virtual classroom. In M. Simonson (Ed.), 30th annual proceedings of selected papers on the practice of educational communications and technology (pp. 84–87). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dysthe, O. (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 on January 27, 2012 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p124.pdf.

  • Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2009). Participation in student-facilitated discussion forums: An empirical analysis of facilitators’ habits of mind. In B. H. Tan & S. R. Galea (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Thinking 2009 (pp. 268–279). Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Putra Malaysia.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2011). Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions: An analysis of group size, duration of online discussion, and student facilitation techniques. Instructional Science, 39(3), 303–319.

    Article  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 

  • Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010b). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz. R. S. (1988). Learning in a virtual classroom. Final evaluation report (Vol. 25). Newark, N.J.: Computerized Conferencing and Communications Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, H. G. K., Burgos, D., Tattersall, C., Brouns, F., Kurvers, H., & Koper, R. (2005a). Encouraging contributions in learning networks using incentive mechanisms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, H. G. K., Tattersall, C., Burgos, D., Brouns, F., Kurvers, H., & Koper, R. (2005b). Facilitating participation: From the EML web site to the learning network for learning design. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1–2), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikpeze, C. (2007). Small group collaboration in peer-led electronic discourse: An analysis of group dynamics and interactions involving preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 383–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, K. (2010). What value assessment rubrics in shaping students’ engagement in asynchronous online discussions? In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppel, P. Gerbic & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 454–458). Retrieved on January 27, 2012 from http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/crisp-symposium.pdf.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klemm, W. R. (1998). Eight ways to get students more engaged in online conferences. T.H.E. Journal, 26(1), 62–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, D. (2000). Critical thinking in web courses. Syllabus, 9, 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, K. O. (2006). Evaluation of online group activities: Intra-group member peer evaluation. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on February 16, 2012 from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/06_4136.pdf.

  • Light, P., Nesbitt, E., Light, V., & White, S. (2000). Variety is the spice of life: Student use of CMC in the context of campus-based study. Computers and Education, 34(3), 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49, 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, J., & Burton, K. (2010). Assessment of online discussion forums for law students. Journal of University Teaching and Learning, 6(2). Retrieved on August 12, 2011 from http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol6/iss2/6.

  • Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). Retrieved on August 5, 2011 from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/128/122.

  • Murphy, K. L., Cifuentes, L., Yakimovicz, A., Segur, R., Mahoney, S., & Kodali, S. (1996). Students assume the mantle of moderating computer conferences: A case study. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(3), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’ Grady, G. K. (2001). Maximising the potential of computer mediated discussion: guidelines for facilitation. Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning (CDTL) Brief, 4(4). Retrieved on September 1, 2011 from http://www.cdtl.nus.sg/Brief/v4n4/sec3.asp.

  • Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulsen, M. F. (1995). Moderating educational computer conferences. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom: Vol. 3. Distance Learning (pp. 81–89). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, J. (1999). Electronic networking in initial teacher education: Is a virtual faculty of education possible? Computers and Education, 32(3), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1. Retrieved on August 31, 2011 from http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/2002-1/80.

  • Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, G. (2000). Making use of online discussion groups. Australian Educational Computing, 15(2), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smet, M. D., Keer, H. V., & Valcke, M. (2008). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behavior. Computers & Education, 50, 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winiecki, D. J., & Chyung, Y. (August, 1998). Keeping the thread: Helping distance education students and instructors keep track of asynchronous discussions. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, 98 (pp. 451–460). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, & 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Education, Learning Sciences, and Technologies, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Khe Foon Hew & Wing Sum Cheung

Authors
  1. Khe Foon Hew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wing Sum Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khe Foon Hew .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S. (2012). Discussion on Strategy Dilemmas. In: Student Participation in Online Discussions. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2370-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation