You are here:

An Analysis of Higher-Order Thinking: Examining a Secondary Physics I Web-Enhanced Instructional Design.
ARTICLE

, Central Connecticut State University, United States

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 1, Number 1, Publisher: University of Arizona Libraries

Full Text

Abstract

This paper discusses a small-scale study assessing the extent to which the instructional design of a web-enhanced educational learning environment using the specific CMC discussion board tool facilitated higher-order thinking processes. The study was carried out in a secondary Physics I online module with 38 male and female high school students. Group discussion posts and final analyses data was coded and analyzed using the Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001) Community of Inquiry (CoI) model. Two raters coded over 311 discussion messages using the cognitive presence categories and indicators to determine the level of higher-order thinking processes. Each message was given a number relating to the model’s categories: 1=triggering, 2=exploration, 3=integration, and 4=resolution, plus an additional category of 5=social to determine the level of social presence. Results determined that 8% of participant groups’ postings moved to higher levels of thinking processes through the use of authentic learning activities, CMC discussion board tool, and teacher presence, however 32% could not move beyond exploration. Over 43% of student postings scored in the social category, an increased result than previous studies in higher education. Data also indicated 19 out of 38 that is 50% of the participants were able to score in the higher-order thinking levels on their final analyses rather than in the discussion thread. Well-designed online learning modules offering learners authentic learning activities, CMC collaborative tools, prompting questions, and teacher presence must be accompanied with precise structured directives for secondary learners to achieve higher levels of critical thinking within collaborative discussion groups.

Citation

Coolidge Manley, L. (2013). An Analysis of Higher-Order Thinking: Examining a Secondary Physics I Web-Enhanced Instructional Design. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 1(1), 25-52. University of Arizona Libraries. Retrieved August 5, 2024 from .

© 2013 University of Arizona Libraries

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Complete edition. New York, NY: Longman.
  2. Anderson, T., Poelhuber, B., & McKerlich, R. (2010). Self-paced learners’ meet social software: An exploration of learners’ attitudes, expectations and experience. Journal of Distance Education Administration, 13(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/Fall133/anderson_poellhuber_mcKerlich133.html
  3. Andresen, M.A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcome, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology& Society, 12(1), 249-257.
  4. Baird, D.E., & Fisher, M. (2006). Neomillennial user experience design strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support “always on” learning styles. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5-32. Doi:10.2190/6WMW-47L0-M81Q12G1
  5. Campbell, J.P., & Oblinger, D.G. (2007). Top ten teaching and learning issues. Educause Quarterly, 30(3), 15-22. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/Eqm0732.pdf
  6. Cavanaugh C.S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1). 73-88. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/8461Cavanaugh,C.,Gillan,K.,Kromrey,J.,Hess,M.,&Blomeyer,R.(2004).TheeffectsofdistanceeducationonK-12studentoutcomes:Ameta-analysis.Naperville,IL:LearningPointAssociates.Retrievedfromwww.ncrel.org/tech/distance/index.html
  7. Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Education Technology, Research, and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Doi:10.1007/BF02299088
  8. Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009) Beyond Web 2.0: Mapping the technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 56-69.
  9. Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 49
  10. Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. (3rd ed.) Boston: Pearson Estrad, O. (2003) Electracy as empowerment: Student activities in learning environment using technology. Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 11(1), 11-28.
  11. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. Doi:10.1080/08923640109527071
  12. Garrison, D.R., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the Community of Inquiry framework: Review, issues and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. Doi:10.1016/J.iheduc.2007.04.001
  13. Garrison D.R., & Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 8(2), 61-74. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/system/Files/v8n2_garrison.pdf
  14. Hein, T.L. & Irvine, S.E. (1998). Assessment of student understanding using on-line discussion groups. 28th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Moving from ‘Teacher-Centered’ to ‘Learner-Centered’ Education. Conference Proceedings, 130-135.
  15. Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Don Mills, ON: Addison-Wesley.
  16. Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W.F., & Coleman, C. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. TechTrends, 52(5), 63-67. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/223118296?accountid=27965
  17. Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R. And Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report, The New Media Consortium. Austin, TX. Available at: http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2010/ Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Vol. II (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ:
  18. Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & LaFlamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260-271. Doi:10.111/J.1467-8535.2006.00620.x
  19. Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers& Education, 55, 808-820. Doi:10.1016/J.compedu.2010.03.013
  20. Krebs, T.J. (2004). Implementing an online web design course module at a suburban high school: A phenomenological case study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (305042889)
  21. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls of social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335-353. Doi:10.1016/S07475632(02)00057-2
  22. Lichtman, M. (2010). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  23. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2008). Mapping the digital terrain: New media and social software as catalysts for pedagogical change. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. 641652.
  24. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
  25. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.
  26. Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.), Quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education, 25 (pp. 562-567). Jamison, ACT: HERDSA.
  27. Rice, K. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-447. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/27245 Rockinson-Szapkiw, A.J. (2009). The impact of asynchronous and synchronous instruction and discussion on cognitive presence, social presence, teaching
  28. Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers& Education, 46, 49-70. Doi:10.1016/J.Compedu.2005.04.006
  29. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers& Education, 52(3), 543-553. Doi:10/1016/J.compedu.2008.10.007 52
  30. Shea, P., Li, C.S., & Pickett, A. (2006) Teacher presence student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190. Doi:10.1016/jheduc.2006.06.005
  31. Tu, C.H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.

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