I would agree interaction between the students is a good learning process. I find the best interaction in upper level classes particularly when the students have outside business or other environmental activity away from the class room. The findings seem to support that position. Undergrad student with little worldly experience generally have little to offer beyond their social and practical day by day interactions with social relationships in many cases in social media , or family.
The focus of this manuscript was relevant for today’s world of online education and whether online discussion provides an environment to foster learning. I was curious to see how the Rountree, 1995 citation was relevant for support of the premise of online learning since it was somewhat dated. I was unable to find the citation in the references. One question that could be addressed in this study is the value of anonymity as it relates in current online modalities. The argument is made in the paper that online discussions equal the playing field because of the anonymity of online. At the same time, to foster a connection in the classroom, it is a common practice to have student’s post a little about themselves so that the class can “get to know” each other. This may be a consideration for a future comparison study. Another area that I was curious about is what the elements are of a “well designed discussion” and how important is the instructor’s facilitation of the discussion in providing a positive learning environment for academic discourse. Since instructor’s in the study were not engaging beyond monitoring and posting the questions, is instructor facilitation of discussions a valued component? I was also curious about the premise of face to face instruction that was used by Cross, 1987. Since it was a dated reference I wondered if the comparison was around a lecture where students could not ask questions. Current teaching methodologies encourage active learning and discussion in face to face classrooms. This raised the question of what is the difference between engaging academic discussion in face to face versus online. I was also unable to find the Cross reference in the listed references. Another question I was left with was that the hypothesis all assumed that students would provide academic responses that further the discussions. It was also stated that students were not given guidance on the elements of a “good” post beyond word count and the requirement to respond and reply. Was there unanimous engagement across all three classes? Some specifics of how students were motivated enough to actively engage in the discussions would have been of interest. This article was informative and it was encouraging to read about the ability of online discussion forums to foster learning for college and university students.
The basis of this research is based on practical and relevant assertions concerning online learning. Learning online and across cultural environments has a distinctive advantage to a synchronous face to face class, especially located in a rural or closed in area. The relevance of an online education today, grounded based on various cultural groups is tremendous within higher education. The ability of an online student to experience and work with various races and cultures of different peoples brings a new dynamic for an online education. The asynchronous environment of an online educations detracts barriers of time and place, allowing students' to participate anywhere at any time to perform their studies. In addition, the flexibility of being able to perform their studies based on the time zones they are in, which is not afforded students' in a synchronous face to face class, which is based on a precise time frame.
Peer to peer collaboration and learning within an online environment creates exciting abilities for students. As peers, they are more willing to share, help each other, and perform higher tasks based on the encouragement of their peers. This is a very important dynamic, especially when performing studies across cultural barriers. Within a face to face synchronous class, due to the current student population and the constraint of time, this would be very difficult for students' to achieve.
This article does a good job of identifying some of the benefits of discussions in the online forum to facilitate student interaction with the course materials and with each other. I found the "anonymity" argument somewhat unrealistic (in a practical sense) because student's names are displayed in the DQ Forum and students are encouraged to post a brief bio of themselves and their interests. Also, students are encouraged to address each other by name, and to address their responses to other student posts with the name of that student. I have also found that students will know each other from previous online and ground classes, thus removing much of the anonymity in a classroom.
The article mentions "critical thinking" (via several identifications) throughout. Critical thinking is an important aspect of the learning process; I was encouraged by your frequent mention of this necessary mental engagement process. To foster critical thinking and analysis, the questions should be presented, or phrased, in an open-ended, non-leading manner.
The article explained that only one question was posed weekly, allowing students to reflect on the question and apply knowledge and perspective to their responses. One questions per week gives students ample time to formulate a response and consider others opinions in their student-to-student posts. The article also explains that instructors did not engage in the discussion, something that circumvents the requirements of GCU classroom engagement by instructors. The lack of instructor engagement might have a tendency to let the discussions "chase rabbits" rather than engage the text and course goals until the week-ending grade was recorded.
Overall, I found this article interesting and relevant for the development of online discussion forums. A larger sample size would be beneficial, as well a comparison of the performance of those students engaged in the sample with those taking the same course and not engaged in the sample group would enhance the viability of the results.
This focus of the manuscript has high relevance based on its contribution to the field of online higher education: “This research contributes to knowledge about the effectiveness of online deliberations as an innovative means for providing online education.”
The content is well organized; the methodology and design was well thought out: “Using a mixed methods approach, student peer exchanges are analyzed on a collaborative website structured around interactive weekly discussions in politics offered across three types of institutions: a four-year public university, a four-year private university, and a community college.”
**Re: mixed study (qualitative and quantitative):It would be helpful to address the (qualitative and quantitative) research questions and hypotheses to inform readers.
The literature review is clear.
**Consider that conducting this study requires the specific gap in literature, which needs to be addressed.
**It would be helpful to address and/or specify the theories in the literature review (the activity and cognitive theories?) and link them to the study’s focus.
Results have the potential to benefit students, practitioners, the community, and the field of higher education: “Findings show that despite differences in institution type the 81 students responded and personalized their discussions with academic reflectivity across classes in their peer-discussions.”
This topic is pertinent to education and one that most of us can identify with easily. I thought your use of a mixed method design made the study stronger, though I would have liked a bit more discussion about mixed method design (purpose, intentionality, etc.). You provided good detail about the design and your findings. I am not sure if I missed it, but I was unsure whether the faculty asked the same questions across courses. This could certainly play a role in student discussion.
6 Comments
I would agree interaction between the students is a good learning process. I find the best interaction in upper level classes particularly when the students have outside business or other environmental activity away from the class room. The findings seem to support that position. Undergrad student with little worldly experience generally have little to offer beyond their social and practical day by day interactions with social relationships in many cases in social media , or family.
The focus of this manuscript was relevant for today’s world of online education and whether online discussion provides an environment to foster learning. I was curious to see how the Rountree, 1995 citation was relevant for support of the premise of online learning since it was somewhat dated. I was unable to find the citation in the references. One question that could be addressed in this study is the value of anonymity as it relates in current online modalities. The argument is made in the paper that online discussions equal the playing field because of the anonymity of online. At the same time, to foster a connection in the classroom, it is a common practice to have student’s post a little about themselves so that the class can “get to know” each other. This may be a consideration for a future comparison study. Another area that I was curious about is what the elements are of a “well designed discussion” and how important is the instructor’s facilitation of the discussion in providing a positive learning environment for academic discourse. Since instructor’s in the study were not engaging beyond monitoring and posting the questions, is instructor facilitation of discussions a valued component? I was also curious about the premise of face to face instruction that was used by Cross, 1987. Since it was a dated reference I wondered if the comparison was around a lecture where students could not ask questions. Current teaching methodologies encourage active learning and discussion in face to face classrooms. This raised the question of what is the difference between engaging academic discussion in face to face versus online. I was also unable to find the Cross reference in the listed references. Another question I was left with was that the hypothesis all assumed that students would provide academic responses that further the discussions. It was also stated that students were not given guidance on the elements of a “good” post beyond word count and the requirement to respond and reply. Was there unanimous engagement across all three classes? Some specifics of how students were motivated enough to actively engage in the discussions would have been of interest. This article was informative and it was encouraging to read about the ability of online discussion forums to foster learning for college and university students.
The basis of this research is based on practical and relevant assertions concerning online learning. Learning online and across cultural environments has a distinctive advantage to a synchronous face to face class, especially located in a rural or closed in area. The relevance of an online education today, grounded based on various cultural groups is tremendous within higher education. The ability of an online student to experience and work with various races and cultures of different peoples brings a new dynamic for an online education. The asynchronous environment of an online educations detracts barriers of time and place, allowing students' to participate anywhere at any time to perform their studies. In addition, the flexibility of being able to perform their studies based on the time zones they are in, which is not afforded students' in a synchronous face to face class, which is based on a precise time frame.
Peer to peer collaboration and learning within an online environment creates exciting abilities for students. As peers, they are more willing to share, help each other, and perform higher tasks based on the encouragement of their peers. This is a very important dynamic, especially when performing studies across cultural barriers. Within a face to face synchronous class, due to the current student population and the constraint of time, this would be very difficult for students' to achieve.
This article does a good job of identifying some of the benefits of discussions in the online forum to facilitate student interaction with the course materials and with each other. I found the "anonymity" argument somewhat unrealistic (in a practical sense) because student's names are displayed in the DQ Forum and students are encouraged to post a brief bio of themselves and their interests. Also, students are encouraged to address each other by name, and to address their responses to other student posts with the name of that student. I have also found that students will know each other from previous online and ground classes, thus removing much of the anonymity in a classroom.
The article mentions "critical thinking" (via several identifications) throughout. Critical thinking is an important aspect of the learning process; I was encouraged by your frequent mention of this necessary mental engagement process. To foster critical thinking and analysis, the questions should be presented, or phrased, in an open-ended, non-leading manner.
The article explained that only one question was posed weekly, allowing students to reflect on the question and apply knowledge and perspective to their responses. One questions per week gives students ample time to formulate a response and consider others opinions in their student-to-student posts. The article also explains that instructors did not engage in the discussion, something that circumvents the requirements of GCU classroom engagement by instructors. The lack of instructor engagement might have a tendency to let the discussions "chase rabbits" rather than engage the text and course goals until the week-ending grade was recorded.
Overall, I found this article interesting and relevant for the development of online discussion forums. A larger sample size would be beneficial, as well a comparison of the performance of those students engaged in the sample with those taking the same course and not engaged in the sample group would enhance the viability of the results.
Thank you for sharing your ideas and research.
Ron Steadman
This focus of the manuscript has high relevance based on its contribution to the field of online higher education: “This research contributes to knowledge about the effectiveness of online deliberations as an innovative means for providing online education.”
The content is well organized; the methodology and design was well thought out: “Using a mixed methods approach, student peer exchanges are analyzed on a collaborative website structured around interactive weekly discussions in politics offered across three types of institutions: a four-year public university, a four-year private university, and a community college.”
**Re: mixed study (qualitative and quantitative): It would be helpful to address the (qualitative and quantitative) research questions and hypotheses to inform readers.
The literature review is clear.
**Consider that conducting this study requires the specific gap in literature, which needs to be addressed.
**It would be helpful to address and/or specify the theories in the literature review (the activity and cognitive theories?) and link them to the study’s focus.
Results have the potential to benefit students, practitioners, the community, and the field of higher education: “Findings show that despite differences in institution type the 81 students responded and personalized their discussions with academic reflectivity across classes in their peer-discussions.”
Thank you for sharing unique research.
This topic is pertinent to education and one that most of us can identify with easily. I thought your use of a mixed method design made the study stronger, though I would have liked a bit more discussion about mixed method design (purpose, intentionality, etc.). You provided good detail about the design and your findings. I am not sure if I missed it, but I was unsure whether the faculty asked the same questions across courses. This could certainly play a role in student discussion.