You are here:

A Critical Analysis of Characteristics that Influence the Effect of Instructor Discussion Interaction on Student Outcomes
ARTICLE

Online Learning Journal Volume 21, Number 4, ISSN 2472-5730

Full Text

Abstract

Teacher presence facilitates students\u2019 social and cognitive presence in online courses. Instructor interaction in discussion forums, a widely adopted instructional strategy, establishes teacher presence but research on the optimal frequency and content of instructor interaction in discussion is underdeveloped. This research evaluated 1625 instructor posts in 36 graduate-level courses in education to determine their impact on students\u2019 perceptions of the quality of the instructor and course, students\u2019 perceptions of their learning, and students\u2019 actual achievement. Findings suggest the frequency of instructor interaction in discussion has no effect on student outcomes, but posts that are instructional improve students\u2019 perceptions of their learning, and posts that are conversational improve students\u2019 perceptions of instructor and course quality and their actual academic achievement. Implications for instructors and policymakers are addressed.

Citation

Hoey, R. (2017). A Critical Analysis of Characteristics that Influence the Effect of Instructor Discussion Interaction on Student Outcomes. Online Learning Journal, 21(4),. Retrieved March 26, 2023 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. 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(2), 233-250.
  2. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., and Archer W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2).
  3. Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(5).
  4. Arbaugh, J.B. (2014). System, scholar or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 349-362.
  5. Baran, E., Correia, A., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education,32(3), 421-439.
  6. Beal, D. (2005). SAS code to select the best multiple linear regression for multivariate data using information criteria. Paper presented at the 13th Annual SouthEast SAS Users Group Conference, Portsmouth, VA. Retrieved from the Institute for Advanced Analytics, North Carolina State University.
  7. Chickering, A & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED282491.pdf Cho, M. & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects on online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction and achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2).
  8. Davidson-Shivers, G. (2009). Frequency and types of instructor-interactions in online instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/8.1.2.pdf Ertmer, P.A., & Koehler, A.A. (2015). Facilitated versus non-facilitated online case discussions: Comparing differences in problem space coverage. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,27(2), 69-93.
  9. Garrison, R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London, England: Routledge.
  10. Garrison, R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
  11. Garrison, R. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
  12. Gravetter, F. & Wallnau, L. (2007). Statistics for the behavior sciences, 7th edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
  13. Hew, K. (2015). Student perceptions of peer versus instructor facilitation of asynchronous online discussions: further findings from three cases. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 43(1), 19-38.
  14. 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(3), 217-229.
  15. Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23.
  16. Knowles, M. (1988). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.
  17. Li, D., Benton, S., Brown, R., Sullivan, P. & Ryalls, K. (2016). Analysis of IDEA student ratings of instruction system 2015 pilot data. Retrieved from http://ideaedu.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/Technical-Report-19.pdf
  18. Mandernach, B., Gonzales, R., & Garrett, A. (2006). An examination of online instructor presence via threaded discussion participation. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(4). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol2no4/mandernach.pdf Mazzolini, M. & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers& Education, 49(2), 193-213.
  19. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M. & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-basedpractices/finalreport.pdf
  20. Merriam, S., Caffarella, R. & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide, 3rd Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  21. Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A system’s view. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  22. Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33(1), 5-30.
  23. Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, Ltd.
  24. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Wendt, J., Wighting, M. & Nisbet, D. (2016). The predictive relationship among the community of inquiry framework, perceived learning and online, and graduate students’ course grades in online synchronous and asynchronous courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3).
  25. Rourke, L. & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. International Journal of E-Learning& Distance Education, 23(1).
  26. Schiewer, T. (2013). Teacher-student relationships. Pedagogy, 13(3), pp. 544-548.
  27. Sebastianelli, R., Swift, C., & Tamimi, N. (2015). Factors affecting perceived learning, satisfaction, and quality in the online MBA: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Education for Business, 90(6).
  28. Shea, P., Hayes, S. & Vickers, J. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: Are-examination of measures and approaches. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3).
  29. Shea, P., Hayes, S., Uzuner-Smith, S., Gozza-Cohen, M., Vickers, J., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Reconceptualizing the community of inquiry framework: An exploratory analysis. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 9-17.
  30. Shea, P., Li, C., & Pickett, P. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9.
  31. Swan, K. & Shih, L. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Online Learning Journal, 9(3).
  32. Tello, S.F. (2007). An analysis of student persistence in online education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 3(3).
  33. Thoms, B., Garrett, N., Soffer, M., & Ryan, T. (2008). Resurrecting graduate conversation through an online learning community. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 4(3), 59-68.
  34. Whipp, J. & Lorentz, R. (2009). Cognitive and social help giving in online teaching: An exploratory study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2), 169-192.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links