Understanding Cognitive Engagement in Online Discussion: Use of a Scaffolded, Audio-based Argumentation Activity
ARTICLE
Eunjung Oh, Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ; Hyun Kim, Department of Professional Learning and Innovation Georgia College and State University
IRRODL Volume 17, Number 5, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore how adult learners engage in asynchronous online discussion through the implementation of an audio-based argumentation activity. The study designed scaffolded audio-based argumentation activities to promote students’ cognitive engagement. The research was conducted in an online graduate course at a liberal arts university. Primary data sources were learners’ text-based discussions, audio-recorded argumentation postings, and semi-structured interviews. Findings indicate that the scaffolded, audio-based argumentation activity helped students achieve higher levels of thinking skills as well as exert greater cognitive efforts during discussions. In addition, most students expressed a positive perception of and satisfaction with their experience. Implications for practice and future research areas are discussed.
Citation
Oh, E. & Kim, H. (2016). Understanding Cognitive Engagement in Online Discussion: Use of a Scaffolded, Audio-based Argumentation Activity. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved March 19, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/173729/.
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Akyol, Z., Garrison, D.R., & Ozden, M.Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring
- Bannerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., and Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27(1), 3-23.
- Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. In B. Bloom (Ed.), Handbook 1: Cognitive 42
- Borup, J., West, R.E., & Graham, C.R. (2013). The influence of asynchronous video communication on learner social presence. Distance Education, 34(1), 48-63.
- Brooks, C.D., & Jeong, A. (2006). Effects of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and
- Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2013). Collaborative learning using VoiceThread in an online graduate course. Knowledge Management& E-Learning, 5(3), 298–314.
- Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media, Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-59.
- Clark, R.E., & Hannafin, M.J. (2012). Debate about the benefits of different levels of instructional guidance. In R.A. Reiser, & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 367-382). Boston, MA: Pearson.
- Clark, D.B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to related structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293321.
- Clark, D.B, D’Angelo, C.M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discussions to improve
- Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
- Corno, L., & Mandinach, E.B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88-108.
- Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Singapore: Sage Publications.
- 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.
- Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of online discussion strategies: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 228-241.
- Dennen, V.P. & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28, 281–297.
- Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and Innovation. London: Routledge.
- 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(1), 7–23.
- Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (2012). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
- Hew, K.F., & Cheung, W.S. (2011). Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online
- Hew, K.F., & Cheung, W.S. (2013). Audio-based versus text-based asynchronous online discussion: two case studies. Instructional Science, 41(2). 365-380. Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S., & Ng, C.S.L.
- Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567-589.
- Jin, L., & Jeong, A. (2013). Learning achieved in structured online debates: Levels of learning and types of postings. Instructional Science, 41(6), 1141-1152.
- Jonassen, D. & Kim, B. (2009). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439-457.
- Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online
- Kim, J. (2013). Influence of group size on students' participation in online discussion forums. Computers& Education, 62, 123-129.
- Kim, H., & Oh, E. (2014, April). Design of an argumentation activity in an asynchronous online learning
- Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
- McCrory, R., Putnam, R. & Jansen, A. (2008). Interaction in online courses for teacher education:
- Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2), 29-46.
- 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.
- Rotgans, J.I., & Schmidt, H.G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(4), 465-479.
- Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 321-350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Schellens, T., van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2007). Learning in asynchronous discussion
- Shaw, R.S. (2013). The relationships among group size, participation, and performance of programming language learning supported with online forums. Computers& Education, 62, 196-207.
- 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), 45
- Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34. 451-480.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to ReferencesCited By
View References & Citations Map-
Critical Thinking in Asynchronous Online Discussions: A Systematic Review
Joshua DiPasquale & William Hunter
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie Vol. 43, No. 2 (Dec 31, 2017)
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.