Top

Education and Information Technologies

Published in:

19-01-2018

Participation in online discussion environments: Is it really effective?

Authors: Fatma Betül Kurnaz, Esin Ergün, Hale Ilgaz

Published in: Education and Information Technologies | Issue 4/2018

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

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

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.

previous article Transformative learning in designing algorithms for reporting information systems

next article Learning activities as enactments of learning affordances in MUVEs: A review-based classification

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 "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

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

Available only for authorised users

Total score of the student was calculated by averaging the scores obtained from all messages of that student.

Acar, M., & Anıl, D. (2009). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin performans değerlendirme sürecindeki değerlendirme yöntemlerini kullanabilme yeterlikleri, karşılaştıkları sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi, 2(3), 354–363.

Ak, Ş. (2016). The role of technology-based scaffolding in problem-based online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12254 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(3), 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015 CrossRef

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

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

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.

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

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

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabi. İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum (6th ed.). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.024 CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x CrossRef

Demir, B. P., & Kutlu, Ö. (2016). The effect of electronic portfolio applications on 6th graders’ research skills. Education in Science, 41(188), 227–253. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6724

Dennen, V. P. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning: Assessment and analysis methods for online discourse. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.010 CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005 CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00292.x CrossRef

Gelbal, S., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2007). Öğretmenlerin ölçme ve değerlendirme yöntemleri hakkındaki yeterlik algıları ve karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 135–145.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-3345-1 CrossRef

Güler, N. (2011). Rasgele veriler üzerinde Genellenebilirlik Kuramı ve Klasik Test Kuramı’na göre güvenirliğin karşılaştırılması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(162), 225–234.

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

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

Haşlaman, T., Demiraslan, Y., Kuşkaya-Mumcu, F., Dönmez, O., & Aşkar, P. (2008). Çevrimiçi ortamda yapılan grup tartışmasındaki iletişim örüntülerinin söylem çözümlemesi yoluyla incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 162–174.

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.

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

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.CrossRef

Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1755–1765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.005 CrossRef

Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009 CrossRef

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.

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

Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00236 CrossRef

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

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

Kay, R. H. (2006). Developing a comprehensive metric for assessing discussion board effectiveness. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 761–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00560.x CrossRef

Kızılkaya, G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2008). Web tabanlı öğrenme ortamlarında etkileşim. Paper presented at the 8 ^th International Educational Technology Conference (IECT). Eskişehir: Anadolu University.

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

Kutlu, Ö., Bilican, S., & Yıldırım, 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.CrossRef

Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C. D., & Karakaya, İ. (2009). Öğrenci başarısının belirlenmesi (2nd ed.). Ankara: PegemaA Yayıncılık.

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

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9400-y 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(3), 237–253.CrossRef

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

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.

Ömür, S., & Erkuş, A. (2013). Dereceli puanlama anahtarıyla, genel izlenimle ve ikili karşılaştırmalar yöntemiyle yapılan değerlendirmelerin karşılaştırılması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 308–320.

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.

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

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

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463631022000005016 CrossRef

Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.03800.x CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2 CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.2298/csis100113036c CrossRef

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.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7 CrossRef

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 information processing systems (NIPS – DDE 2013). http://lytics.stanford.edu/datadriveneducation/papers/yangetal.pdf. Accessed: 30 June 2017.

Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34(6), 451–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-0004-0 MathSciNetCrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.04.001 CrossRef

Title: Participation in online discussion environments: Is it really effective?
Authors: Fatma Betül Kurnaz
Esin Ergün
Hale Ilgaz
Publication date: 19-01-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Education and Information Technologies / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9688-4

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 "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Comparing loops misconceptions in block-based and text-based programming languages at the K-12 level

Lines, roamers, and squares: Oh my! using floor robots to enhance Hispanic students’ understanding of programming

Enhancing future K-8 teachers’ computational thinking skills through modeling and simulations

Assessing alignment between information technology educational opportunities, professional requirements, and industry demands

ViLLE – collaborative education tool: Designing and utilizing an exercise-based learning environment

The effect of culture and belief systems on students’ academic buoyancy

Premium Partner