DOES ONLINE DISCUSSION PRODUCE INCREASED INTERACTION AND CRITICAL THINKING?

[Discussion & Critical Thinking]

[Lenny Shedletsky]

Handout at: http://media.usm.maine.edu/~lenny/what_we_know_handout.doc

SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

TWO OPPOSING VIEWS:

1. ONLINE DISCUSSION IS THE STRENGTH OF WEB-BASED COURSES;

2. DISCUSSION IN THE CLASSROOM IS RICH AND HUMAN;

BACKGROUNDGergen (1995) wrote of ongoing exchange (not

specifically online) as part of the collaborative construction of knowledge, where students are involved in “. . .engaging, incorporating, and critically exploring the views of others” ( p. 34).

Numerous theorist have pointed to online discussion as a strength (Meyer, 2003);

BACKGROUND Lapadat (2002) maintained that discussion promotes

critical thinking and that asynchronous online discussion, because it is written, even further enhances the higher order thinking processes;

Pena-Shaff & Nicholls (2004) explained that:

“Dialogue serves as an instrument for thinking because in the process of explaining, clarifying, elaborating, and defending our ideas and thoughts we engage in cognitive processes such as integrating, elaborating and structuring” (Brown & Palinscar, 1989; Johassen et al., 1995; Norman, 1993);

A COMPLICATIONWe hear from teachers that they are

disappointed with the level of discussion in their online environments;

One college professor said of the discussions that “sometimes they seem to go nowhere/everywhere.”

Teachers say the online discussion is lifeless;

RESEARCH ON ONLINE DISCUSSIONGarrison, Anderson, & Archer (2001, 2000)

found little evidence of any critical discourse in students’ online discussion. While there was:– some brainstorming (Trigerring and Exploration,

42%);– there was only13% Integration (construction of a

possible solution); -- and only 4% of responses in the highest stage of critical discourse, Resolution (assessment of a solution);

RESEARCHOne review of the literature (Rourke &

Kanuka, 2007) reported that “Observers of interaction as it takes shape in computer conferencing rarely report significant instances of critical discourse, dissenting opinion, challenges to others, or expressions of difference.”

This makes it difficult to assess the relationship between the various models of running online discussion in comparison to running classroom discussion;

RESEARCH Meyer (2003a) performed a content analysis of the

threaded discussions of graduate level students; She coded each posting as one of the four cognitive

processing categories derived from Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001;

1. Triggering questions refers to posing the problem;2. Exploration refers to a search for information; 3. Integration refers to construction of a possible solution;4. Resolution refers to critical assessment of a solution;

RESULTS OF MEYER’S STUDY: ONLINE DATA ONLYShe reported the following results: “ 18%

were triggering questions, 51% were exploration, 22% were integration, and 7% resolution” (para. 1);

Clearly, evidence of critical or higher-order thinking was scarce;

SUMMARY STATEMENTRourke and Kanuka (2007) add this:

“Empirical observations of computer conferencing in distance learning consistently find a predominance of monologues, relational communication, or superficial interaction and a meager amount of collaboration and knowledge co-construction.”

SOME EXCEPTIONS

There are some notable exceptions to this pattern of disappointing online discussions;

HECKMAN & ANABI STUDYHeckman and Annabi (2005) compared 120

seniors in a course in Information Management, using the same facilitator for both online and face-to-face discussions of case studies;

The study was careful to make the behaviors of the instructor as consistent across modes as possible, and to randomly assign students to groups for comparison, controlling for order effects;

HECKMAN & ANABI STUDY An extensive content analysis was done on the transcriptions of

the discussions; Heckman and Annabi reported dramatic differences

between the online and face-to-face modes with regard to student to student interaction;

With regard to critical thinking, they found that the online discussions contained nearly twice as many instances of high level analysis compared to the face-to-face discussions;

However, the highest level of cognitive processing, Integration, was identical in both modes;

CONCLUSIONSSome other studies also find the online

discussion to generate more critical thinking than the face-to-face discussion (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2003; Vess, 2005);

As for critical thinking, Heckman & Annabi’s results are a bit mixed as far as which mode is better, although encouraging for the use of online discussion;

CLASSROOM DISCUSSION & CRITICAL THINKINGMost of the studies reviewed, unlike the

Heckman and Annabi (2005) study, did not observe the classroom side of discussion, but only reported on levels of critical thinking and other categories for the online discussion;

Just how much interaction is found in classroom discussion and how high a level of critical thinking is found in most classroom discussions?

SCRATCHING OUR HEADSWe would be remiss if we did not notice what

appears to be two different and contradictory stories being told here;

On the one hand, it appears that online discussion does not really live up to the promise of engaged students, applying critical thinking to their online discussions;

On the other hand, some evidence demonstrates a dramatically more involved student online than in the classroom. How do we resolve this apparent contradiction?

BUILDING HYPOTHESESRourke & Kanuka (2007) offer an important idea

that may answer this conundrum. They propose that computer conferencing that results in increased critical thinking takes place in conditions of collaborative meaning making;

Features that characterize this design are small group size and purposive collaboration (e.g., case-based learning, problem based learning);

The design that produces low levels of interaction and low levels of critical thinking is the open-ended forum of the whole class, with little structure;

NEED TO INTERACTNicholls (2004) points to the need for

students to reach consensus in the collaborative small group that encourages the interaction. Without this need, disagreements can be ignored;

MOTIVATION TO ENGAGERovai (2007) reviewed the literature on

running effective online discussions, and concluded that “Online courses need to be designed so that they provide motivation for students to engage in productive discussions and clearly describe what is expected, perhaps in the form of a discussion rubric” (p. 77).

OUR STUDYTo determine the influence of online vs.

classroom environment, case (or problem) vs. abstract question to discuss and degree of collaborative interdependence (consensus vs. individual posting), the following study design is proposed: SEE NEXT SLIDE

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Table. Research Design Experimental Groups (2X2X2) Factorial Design

CONSENSUS DRIVEN INDIVIDUAL DRIVEN TO DISCUSS:

FACE-to-FACE [4 groups]

ONLINE [4 groups]

FACE-to-FACE [4 groups]

ONLINE [4 groups]

ABSTRACT ANALYSIS

Transcript 2, group 1 Transcript 1, group 2

Transcript 1, group 1 Transcript 2, group 2

Transcript 2, group 3 Transcript 1, group 4

Transcript 1, group 3 Transcript 2, group 4

EXAMPLES OF CONCEPTS

Transcript 4, group 1 Transcipt 3, group 2

Transcript 3, group 1 Transcript 4, group 2

Transcript 4, group 3 Transcript 3, group 4

Transcript 3, group 3 Transcript 4, grouop 4

HERE IS WHAT WE DID

Ss were students in an undergraduate communication course about conversation;

Ss were randomly divided into 4 groups of approximately 6 people each;

ProcedureEach group met twice online in

Blackboard to discuss a transcribed conversation, an exercise that fit into the course assignments and applied course learning;

Ss had 11 days to discuss online;Each group also met twice as a small

group in the classroom to discuss a transcribed conversation--meetings lasted for one class, approximately 1 hour;

ProcedureWhen Ss came to the online site

they were given instructions to read and discuss a transcript and to either:–Write a summary of the discussion as

an individual; or–Write a summary of the discussion as

a group (consensus);

ProcedureWhen Ss came to the classroom to

discuss in a small group (audio tape recorded) they were given instructions to read and discuss a transcript and to either:–Write a summary of the discussion as

an individual, or; –Write a summary of the discussion as

a group (consensus);

ProcedureSs were instructed to analyze the

transcript either with:– Reference to finding specific

examples of concepts from the course, or;

– Reference to an abstract analysis of the transcript in terms of the social actions and relationships observed in the transcript;

ProcedureEach discussion was transcribed;A rater read each turn in each

transcript and ranked the turn according to Garrison, Anderson & Archer’s (2000, 2001) 4 category system for critical thinking:– Triggering– Exploration– Integration– Resolution

Handout at: http://media.usm.maine.edu/~lenny/what_we_know_handout.doc