Top

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

Published in:

09-04-2018

Facilitating critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: comparison between peer- and instructor-redirection

Authors: Eunjung Grace Oh, Wen-Hao David Huang, Amir Hedayati Mehdiabadi, Boreum Ju

Published in: Journal of Computing in Higher Education | Issue 3/2018

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore and compare learners’ critical thinking and interaction during an asynchronous online discussion when peer- or instructor-facilitation was provided. Current literature on online discussion reveals a controversy between peer facilitation and instructor facilitation regarding their strengths and weaknesses. However, the effect of peer-facilitation on critical thinking learning outcome has not been clearly discussed. Situated in a graduate-level program evaluation course, the learners engaged in a debate using a scenario-based case on ethical decision-making. A content analysis of discussion using the Cognitive Presence framework and a social network analysis revealed a significant difference between peer-redirected group and instructor-redirected group in their cognitive presence as well as in interaction dynamic upon receiving the redirection message. Based on findings regarding cognitive presence level, interaction dynamic and perspective change on the debate topic in each group, a peer-facilitation approach is more effective for fostering critical thinking and collaborative discourse.

previous article A DEMATEL method in identifying design requirements for mobile environments: students’ perspectives

next article How ready are our students for technology-enhanced learning? Students at a university of technology respond

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x.CrossRef

Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765.CrossRef

An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53, 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015.CrossRef

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.

Baran, E., & Correria, A. P. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30, 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910903236510.CrossRef

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Celestin, P. (2007). Online education: Analysis of interaction and knowledge building patterns among foreign language teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 39–58.

Clarke, L., & Bartholomew, A. (2014). Digging beneath the surface: Analyzing the complexity of instructors’ participation in asynchronous discussion. Online Learning, 18(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i3.414.CrossRef

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

Darabi, A., Arrastia, D. W., 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x.CrossRef

Darabi, A., & Jin, L. (2013). Improving the quality of online discussion: The effects of strategies designed based on cognitive load theory principles. Distance Education, 34(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.770429.CrossRef

Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of online discussion strategies: A meta analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.837651.CrossRef

Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28, 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910701611328.CrossRef

Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v20i1.2254.CrossRef

Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and direction (Vol. 4, pp. 47–58). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071.CrossRef

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001.CrossRef

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2.CrossRef

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002.CrossRef

Ghadirian, H., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2017). Peer moderation of asynchronous online discussions: An exploratory study of peer e-moderating behaviour. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2882.CrossRef

Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003764722829.CrossRef

Hew, K. F. (2015). Student perceptions of peer versus instructor facilitation of asynchronous online discussion: Further findings from three case studies. Instructional Science, 43, 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9329-2.CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.002.CrossRef

Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38, 571–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0.CrossRef

Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4.CrossRef

Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012). The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation: Student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Educational Media International, 49, 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738014.CrossRef

Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.CrossRef

Liu, C., & Yang, S. C. (2012). Applying the practical inquiry model to investigate the quality of students’ online discourse in an information ethics course based on Bloom’s teaching goal and Bird’s 3C model. Computers & Education, 59, 466–480.CrossRef

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

Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49(2), 193–213.CrossRef

Phirangee, K., Epp, C. D., & Hewitt, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between facilitation methods, students’ sense of community, and their online behaviors. Online Learning, 20(2), 134–154. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i2.775.CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.018.CrossRef

Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009.CrossRef

Richardson, J. C., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Relationship between types of question prompts and critical thinking in online discussions. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice (pp. 197–222). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5334/2002-1.CrossRef

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70.

Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 54–62.

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701298688.CrossRef

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007.CrossRef

Thormann, J., Gable, S., Fidalgo, P. S., & Blakeslee, G. (2013). Interaction, critical thinking, and social network analysis (SNA) in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 294–317. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1306.CrossRef

Tirado, R., Hernando, Á., & Aguaded, J. I. (2015). The effect of centralization and cohesion on the social construction of knowledge in discussion forums. Interactive Learning Environments, 23, 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745437.CrossRef

Van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 25–47). London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_2.CrossRef

Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students’ motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 916–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01140.x.CrossRef

Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003.CrossRef

Yang, D., Richardson, J. C., French, B. F., & Lehman, J. D. (2011). The development of a content analysis model for assessing students’ cognitive learning in asynchronous online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 43–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9166-1.CrossRef

Title: Facilitating critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: comparison between peer- and instructor-redirection
Authors: Eunjung Grace Oh
Wen-Hao David Huang
Amir Hedayati Mehdiabadi
Boreum Ju
Publication date: 09-04-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Computing in Higher Education / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1042-1726
Electronic ISSN: 1867-1233
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9180-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

A DEMATEL method in identifying design requirements for mobile environments: students’ perspectives

How ready are our students for technology-enhanced learning? Students at a university of technology respond

Acceptance and usage of mobile assisted language learning by higher education students

Cyberloafing in IT classrooms: exploring the role of the psycho-social environment in the classroom, attitude to computers and computing courses, motivation and learning strategies

The design, development, and implementation of student-facing learning analytics dashboards

Online learning in higher education: exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement

Premium Partner