article

Participation in online discussion environments: Is it really effective?

Authors:

Fatma Betül Kurnaz,

Hale IlgazAuthors Info & Claims

Education and Information Technologies, Volume 23, Issue 4

Pages 1719 - 1736

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9688-4

Published: 01 July 2018 Publication History

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a rubric to assess participation of students in online discussion environments. For this purpose, the study included 168 students who participated in a course offered online during the spring semester of the 2015---2016 academic year. Developed based on the literature, the rubric consists of two parts (Form and Content, and Number and Density) and seven criteria in total. "Form and Content" consists of congruity of the message in terms of subject, clarity of the message, original value of the message, interactional value of the message, and directing the subject; whereas, "Number and Density" consists of the number of messages and their density. Four different discussion subjects were presented to the students in an online discussion environment. The researchers analyzed the students' messages individually. Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed in order to obtain evidence for construct validity. After conducting the factor analysis, results showed that the first dimension, which is "form and content" sub-factor, is unidimensional. The "number and density" sub-factor was included in the graded scoring key based on the literature and expert opinion. The findings show that the graded scoring key is reliable and valid.

References

[1]

Acar, M., & Anil, D. (2009). Sinif öðretmenlerinin performans deðerlendirme sürecindeki deðerlendirme yöntemlerini kullanabilme yeterlikleri, karþilaþtiklari sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi, 2(3), 354-363.

[2]

Ak, Þ. (2016). The role of technology-based scaffolding in problem-based online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 680-693.

[3]

An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students' interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53(3), 749-760.

Digital Library

[4]

Andrade, G. H. (2001). The effects of instructional rubrics on learning to write. Current Issues in Education, 4(4), 1-21.

[5]

Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249-257.

[6]

Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers' social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language, Learning and Technology, 10(1), 42-66.

[7]

Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The art and science of classroom assessment: The missing part of pedagogy. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report (Vol. 27, No. 1). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

[8]

Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 13(2), 1-32.

[9]

Büyüköztürk, Þ. (2006). Sosyal Bilimler Için Veri Analizi El Kitabi. Istatistik, Araþtirma Deseni SPSS Uygulamalari ve Yorum (6th ed.). Ankara: Pegem A Yayincilik.

[10]

Cheng, C. K., Paré, D. E., Collimore, L.M., & Joordens, S. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of a voluntary online discussion forum on improving students' course performance. Computers & Education, 56(1), 253-261.

Digital Library

[11]

Cho, M. H., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 123-140.

[12]

Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34.

[13]

Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657-663.

[14]

Demir, B. P., & Kutlu, Ö. (2016). The effect of electronic portfolio applications on 6th graders' research skills. Education in Science, 41(188), 227-253.

[15]

Dennen, V. P. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning: Assessment and analysis methods for online discourse. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 205-219.

[16]

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(1), 6-28.

[17]

De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: The impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students' levels of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 177-188.

[18]

Gelbal, S., & Kelecioglu, H. (2007). Ögretmenlerin ölçme ve degerlendirme yöntemleri hakkindaki yeterlik algilari ve karsilastiklari sorunlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 135-145.

[19]

Guan, Y.-H., Tsai, C.-C., & Hwang, F.-K. (2006). Content analysis of online discussion on a senior-high-school discussion forum of a virtual physics laboratory. Instructional Science, 34(4), 279-311.

[20]

Güler, N. (2011). Rasgele veriler üzerinde Genellenebilirlik Kurami ve Klasik Test Kurami'na göre güvenirligin karsilastirilmasi. Egitim ve Bilim, 36(162), 225-234.

[21]

Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Writing test item to evaluate higher order thinking. USA: Allyn & Bacon.

[22]

Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2002). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.

[23]

Haslaman, T., Demiraslan, Y., Kuskaya-Mumcu, F., Dönmez, O., & Askar, P. (2008). Çevrimiçi ortamda yapilan grup tartismasindaki iletisim örüntülerinin söylem çözümlemesi yoluyla incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 162-174.

[24]

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.

[25]

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Student participation in online discussions: Challenges, solutions, and future research. New York: Springer.

[26]

Hillman, D., Willis, D., & Gunawardena, C. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

[27]

Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1755-1765.

Digital Library

[28]

Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78- 82.

Digital Library

[29]

Hsiao, Y.-T., Wise, A. F., & Marbouti, F. (2012). The impact of task type on learners' online interaction patterns. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.

[30]

Huang, H. M. (2000). Instructional technologies facilitating online courses. Educational Technology, 40(4), 41-46.

[31]

Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.

[32]

Kalelioglu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2010). Çevrimiçi Tartismalarin Degerlendirilmesi için Ölçütlerin Belirlenmesi. Egitim Teknolojileri Arastirma Dergisi, 1(3). http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423877264.pdf. Accessed 08 July 2017.

[33]

Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.

[34]

Kay, R. H. (2006). Developing a comprehensive metric for assessing discussion board effectiveness. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 761-783.

[35]

Kizilkaya, G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2008). Web tabanli ögrenme ortamlarinda etkilesim. Paper presented at the 8th International Educational Technology Conference (IECT). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.

[36]

Kim, B., & Johnson, P. (2006). Graphical Interface for visual exploration of online discussion forums. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 4(4), 43-47.

[37]

Kutlu, Ö., Bilican, S., & Yildirim, Ö. (2010). A study on the primary school teachers' attitudes towards rubrics with reference to different variables. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5398-5402.

[38]

Kutlu, Ö., Dogan, C. D., & Karakaya, I. (2009). Ögrenci basarisinin belirlenmesi (2nd ed.). Ankara: PegemaA Yayincilik.

[39]

MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussion. Educause Quarterly, 4, 38-41.

[40]

Marbouti, F., & Wise, A. F. (2016). Starburst: A new graphical interface to support purposeful attention to others' posts in online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 87-113.

[41]

Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40(3), 237-253.

Digital Library

[42]

Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10), 71-81.

[43]

Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Cochrane, C., & Webb, B. (1996). An experiment in group learning technology: Evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-supported seminars. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 4(1), 57-74.

[44]

Ömür, S., & Erkus, A. (2013). Dereceli puanlama anahtariyla, genel izlenimle ve ikili karsilastirmalar yöntemiyle yapilan degerlendirmelerin karsilastirilmasi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 308-320.

[45]

Perkins, C., & Murphy, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring individual engagement in critical thinking in online discussions: An exploratory case study. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 298-307.

[46]

Popham, J. W. (1997). What's wrong and what's right with rubric. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 72-75.

[47]

Rovai, A. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77-88.

[48]

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.

[49]

Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351-366.

[50]

Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.

[51]

Wee, M., & Abrizah, A. (2011). An analysis of an assessment model for participation in online forums. Computer Science and Information Systems, 8(1), 121-140.

[52]

Wickersham, L. E., & Dooley, K. E. (2006). A content analysis of critical thinking skills as an indicator of quality of online discussion in virtual learning communities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(2), 185-193.

[53]

Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2012). Towards more precise design guidance: Specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 55-82.

[54]

Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., & Rose, C. P. (2013). Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in massive open online courses. In NIPS workshop on data driven education, advances in neural informa t i on processing systems (NIPS - DDE 2013). http://lytics.stanford.edu/datadriveneducation/papers/yangetal.pdf. Accessed: 30 June 2017.

[55]

Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34(6), 451-480.

[56]

Zhu, Y., Au, W., & Yates, G. (2016). University students' self-control and self-regulated learning in a blended course. The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 54-62.

Cited By

Demir ÖCinar MKeskin S(2023)Participation style and social anxiety as predictors of active participation in asynchronous discussion forums and academic achievementEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-022-11517-328:9(11313-11334)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-022-11517-3

Recommendations

Paper or Online?: A Comparison of Exam Grading Techniques
ITiCSE '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

As computer science enrollments continue to surge, exam grading requires significant instructional resources. Online grading platforms have been developed in recent years and have been adopted at a number of institutions; however, their effectiveness ...
Assessing computational thinking across a STEM curriculum for pre-service teachers
Abstract
In order to assess computational thinking (CT) modules embedded into multiple STEM courses for educators, we created a CT rubric which incorporates key CT components using Bloom’s Taxonomy. We implemented the rubric in four different courses in ...
Students' views of collaboration and online participation in Knowledge Forum

This study examined students' views of collaboration and learning, and investigated how these predict students' online participation in a computer-supported learning environment. The participants were 521 secondary school students in Hong Kong, who took ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Education and Information Technologies

Education and Information Technologies Volume 23, Issue 4

July 2018

337 pages

ISSN:1360-2357

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Copyright © 2018 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Publisher

Kluwer Academic Publishers

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 July 2018

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 28 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Demir ÖCinar MKeskin S(2023)Participation style and social anxiety as predictors of active participation in asynchronous discussion forums and academic achievementEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-022-11517-328:9(11313-11334)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-022-11517-3

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents