Discussions blooms

DELVING INTO ONLINE DISCUSSIONS TO DETERMINE

WHAT WORKS BEST (OR BETTER)

Dr. Brenda Bagwell, Faculty Development Trainer and ResearcherDr. Lori Poole, Program Coordinator and Research Initiative Coordinator

CSU-Global Campus: Brief History•Nation’s first, independent, 100%

online public university

•Created to serve adult learners in completing their degrees

•85% of faculty members have terminal degrees; all faculty members at the graduate level have a terminal degree

Multi-Layered Courses• Readings (textbook, articles, online)

• Interactive Lecture Pages

•DISCUSSIONS

•Mastery Exercises

• Critical Thinking Assignments

• Portfolio Paper

Research Project Questions

PHASE I:What is going on in our class discussions?

How does instructor and student interaction affect the class discussions?

PHASE II:Are we really working through the Bloom’s levels in our discussions as the courses are designed to?

Online Class Discussions• CSU-Global Class Discussions:

One discussion question per week about a topic related to the week’s learning outcomes in each 8-week long courses.

• Outcomes: Outcomes refer to the learning goals at each level—at the program level, at the course level, and at the module level (referred to as Learning Outcomes).

Research Project: Phase I• Determine if the type of overall discussion

prompt impacts discussion postings and interactions

• Categorize the types of discussion posts students are making

• Evaluate how instructor replies impact discussion participation and course evaluations

Research Project: Phase IDetermine if the type of overall discussion prompt impacts discussion postings and interactions

• Bullet point the discussion prompt

• Class expectations

• Instructor seeding

• Extra discussion prompts for class

• Summary discussion posting by instructor

Jarosewich, T., Vargo, L., Salzman, J., Lenhart, L., Krosnick, L., Vance, K., & Roskos, K. (2010). Say What? The Quality of Discussion Board Postings in Online Professional Development . New Horizons in Education, 58(3), 118-132.

Research Project: Phase ICategorize the types of discussion posts students are making

• Categories: appreciation, questioning, prompting, expressing agreement/disagreement, elaboration, opinions

• Students building community

• Most reach module-level outcomes

Lim, S., Cheung, W., & Hew, K. (2011). Critical Thinking in Asynchronous Online Discussion: An Investigation of Student Facilitation Techniques. New Horizons In Education, 59(1), 52-65.

Research Project: Phase IEvaluate how instructor replies impact discussion participation and course evaluations

• Categories: appreciation, questioning, prompting, restatement/re-link with challenge prompting, expressing agreement/disagreement, elaboration, explanations

• Teaching methods/tips for discussions

• Class discussion set-up tips and techniques

• Outcomes: program level, course level, module level


Online Class Discussions• Bloom’s is a classification of

levels of intellectual behavior important in learning.

• All CSU-Global courses employ Bloom’s verbs in all kinds of learning outcomes, with the intent for students to work through the levels.

Bloom’s TaxonomyRemembering: can the student recall/remember information?

Understanding: can the student explain ideas or concepts?

Applying: can the student use the information in a new way?

Analyzing: can the student distinguish between different parts?

Evaluating: can the student justify a stand or decision?

Creating: can the student create new product or point of view?

Research Project: Phase II•What Bloom’s level are students reaching in

initial posting?

• Is there any relation to the cognitive level reached and the overall discussion prompt?

• Does the cognitive level deepen throughout the term?

Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging Critical Thinking in Online Threaded Discussions. Journal of Educators Online, 6(1).

Research Project: Phase II• What Bloom’s level are students reaching in initial posting? • Is there any relation to the cognitive level reached and the

overall discussion prompt?

Initial Posting Overall Discussion Prompt

M1 (34 participants; 176 postings)

Remembering, Understanding (some moving toward Applying)

Understanding, Applying

M4(34 participants; 177 postings)

Applying, Analyzing Applying, Analyzing

M8(31 participants; 150 postings)

Applying, Analyzing(some moving toward Evaluate)

Analyzing, Evaluating

Research Project: Phase II• Does the cognitive level deepen throughout

the term?

• Peaked in middle, but dropped in the end (for both students and instructors)

• BUT…often the level noted in the course outline/development was not the level actually reached

Research Project: Phase IIDoes student interaction lead to a higher level? When fellow students reply and/or ask questions is a deeper level attained? Do instructor prompts and questions lead to a higher level? When students are asked questions by the instructor is a deeper level attained? Does the cognitive level deepen throughout the term?

• Average levels are remembering and analysis

• Replies varied from student to student

• Peaked in middle, but dropped in the end (for both students and instructors)

• BUT…often the level noted in the course outline/development was not the level actually reached

Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging Critical Thinking in Online Threaded Discussions. Journal of Educators Online, 6(1).

Q&ASharing Time!

ReferencesArend, B. (2009). Encouraging Critical Thinking in Online Threaded Discussions. Journal

of Educators Online, 6(1).

DeLoach, S. B., & Greenlaw, S. A. (2007). Effectively Moderating Electronic Discussions. Journal of Economic Education, 38(4), 419-434.

Jarosewich, T., Vargo, L., Salzman, J., Lenhart, L., Krosnick, L., Vance, K., & Roskos, K. (2010). Say What? The Quality of Discussion Board Postings in Online Professional Development. New Horizons in Education, 58(3), 118-132.


Matheson, R. R., Wilkinson, S. C., & Gilhooly, E. E. (2012). Promoting critical thinking and collaborative working through assessment: combining patchwork text and online discussion boards. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 49(3), 257-267. doi:10.1080/14703297.2012.703023