Graduate Students' Perspectives on the Meaningful Nature of Online Discussions
Article
Jianxia Du, Mississippi State University, United States ; Ke Zhang, Wayne State University, United States ; Anthony Olinzock, James Adams, Mississippi State University, United States
Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 19, Number 1, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC
Abstract
This study investigated graduate students' perceptions of the online collaborations and the factors that contribute to the quality of online discussion with a qualitative case study. Data were collected through interviews with 20 graduate students in an online course, their online discourse, and the instructor's observation notes. The case study found out that manner of response, size of the group, and the topic of discussion in the online discussions were identified by the students as the important factors that determined the quality of online discussions. From students' perspective, this study helped identify patterns in which online discussion is conducted in conjunction with course context and individual characteristics for enhancing learning growth. Knowledge of such patterns can facilitate new designs and improvement of online collaborative learning.
Citation
Du, J., Zhang, K., Olinzock, A. & Adams, J. (2008). Graduate Students' Perspectives on the Meaningful Nature of Online Discussions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 21-36. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 19, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/21871/.
© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Erlbaum. Du, J. X., & Havard, B. (2003). A framework for deep learning in distance education. Delta Pi Epsilon, 45(3), 204-214.
- Hare, A. P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25, 443-448.
- Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Ensuring quality e-learning: Creating engaging tasks. Educational Media International, 40(3-4), 175-186.
- Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Stanne, M. (1986). Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 382-392. Kaye, A. R. (Ed.). (1991). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. New York: Spring-Verlag.
- Kitchner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemistic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232.
- Laszlo, F., & Kupritz, V. W. (2003). The identification of online learning motives in use by undergraduate students. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 45(1), 63-72.
- Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., & Muukkonen, H. (2000). Computer supported collaborative learning: A review. In H. Meijden, R. Simons, & F. De Jong (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. A final report for the European Commission, Project 2017 (pp. 1-46). Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen. McNabb, J. (1994). Telecourse effectiveness: Findings in the current literature. TechTrends, 39(4), 39–40.
- Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters LTD.
- Moore, M.G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1–6.
- Moore, M.G. (1992). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
- Moore, M.G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). London & New York: Routledge.
- Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1995). Distance education: A systems view. NY: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Muirhead, B. (1999). Attitudes toward interactivity in a graduate distance education program: A qualitative analysis, Parkland, FL: Dissertation.Com.
- Parker, A. (1999). Interaction in distance education: The critical conversation. Educational Technology Review, 12, (Autumn-Winter), 13–17.
- Popolov, D., Callaghan, M., & Luker, P. (2002). Tying models of learning to design of collaborative learning software tools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 46-47.
- Saba, F., & Shearer, R.L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36–59.
- Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
- Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunication, 1(4), 337–365.
- Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
- Stake, R. E. (1995). Art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35(2), 195-229.
- Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 2: 257-285.
- Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4: 295-312.
- Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved December 10, 2000, from http://www.bie.org/tmp/research/researchreviewPBL.pdf Vonderwell, S.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Wang, M., Sierra, C., & Folger, T. (2003). Building a dynamic online learning community among adult learners. Educational Media International, 40(1-2), 49-61.
- Yin, R. K. & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Vol. 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Zhang, K., & Ge, X. (2005). The dynamics of online collaborative learning: Team task, group development, peer relationship, and communication media. In A. D. De Figueiredo & A. A. Afonso (Eds.), Managing learning in virtual settings: The role of context. 97-115. Idea Group.
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-
Discussion of Controversial Issues in an Online Teacher Preparation Course
Jessamay Pesek, Bemidji State University, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (Mar 05, 2017) pp. 280–282
-
An investigation on college students’ low motivation toward asynchronous online discussions
Ninghua Han & Steven Crooks, Texas Tech University, United States
EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2013 (Jun 24, 2013) pp. 2041–2043
-
How Do Students View Asynchronous Online Discussions As A Learning Experience?
Penny Bassett, Victoria University, Australia
Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan 01, 2011) pp. 69–79
-
An Investigation of How Discussion Group Composition, Discussion Topic, and Topic Expertise Affect the Quality of Online Discussion Posts
Ninghua Han & Steven Crooks, Texas Tech University, United States
EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2012 (Jun 26, 2012) pp. 893–898
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.