Enhancing Learners’ Cognitive Engagement in Online Discussions: Implementation of Audio- and Video-Based Argumentation Activity
PROCEEDINGS
Eunjung Oh, Georgia College and State University, United States ; Hyun Song Kim, The University of Georgia, United States
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Las Vegas, NV, USA ISBN 978-1-939797-05-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to discuss 1) the influence of the audio-and video-based argumentation activity on adult learners’ cognitive engagement in online discussions and 2) the influence of the participation in the activity on learners’ perceptions regarding the online asynchronous discussion activities. The context of the study is an online graduate level course at a small liberal arts university in United States. The data collection starts in end of May, 2013 and data will be collected using student profile surveys, student artifacts such as discussion postings, and their initial and final arguments and semi-structured interviews. The findings of the study will contribute to the educational research community by adding to the knowledge base in methods for supporting asynchronous online argumentation in a higher education context. Also, the study will benefit college instructors with practical design principles as well as students with meaningful engagement in asynchronous online
Citation
Oh, E. & Kim, H.S. (2013). Enhancing Learners’ Cognitive Engagement in Online Discussions: Implementation of Audio- and Video-Based Argumentation Activity. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2013--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2031-2036). Las Vegas, NV, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 5, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/115178/.
© 2013 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
References
View References & Citations Map- Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
- Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In J. Andriessen& P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
- Belland, B.R., Glazewski, K.D., & Richardson, J.C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401-422.
- Borup, J., West, R.E., & Graham, C.R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education. 15(3), 195-203.
- Borup, J., West, R.E., & Graham, C.R. (2013). The influence of asynchronous video communication on learner social presence. Distance Education, 34(1), 48-63.
- Clark, R., & Hannafin, M.J. (2012). Chapter 38 Debate About the Benefits of Different Levels of Instructional Guidance. In R.A. Reiser, & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 367-382), Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
- Cho, K.L., & Jonassen, D.H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.
- Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Dede, C. (2009). Technologies that facilitate generating knowledge and possibly wisdom. Educational Researcher. 38(4), 260-263.
- Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
- Ertmer, P.A., Richardson, J.C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K., & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412-433.
- Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London and New York: Routledge-Falmer.
- Garrison, D.R., & Arbaugh, J. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3). 157-172.
- Ge, X., & Land, S.M. (2004). A conceptual framework of scaffolding ill-structured problem solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22.
- Ge, X., Chen, C., & Davis, K.A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designer’s problem-solving process using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 219-248.
- Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1/2), 41-61.
- Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S., & Ng, C.S.L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science. 38(6), 571-606.
- Hew, K.F., & Cheung, W.S. (2013). Audio-based versus text-based asynchronous online discussion: two case studies. Instructional Science. 41(2). 365-380.
- Jonassen, D.H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer/Jossey-Bass.
- Jonassen, D. & Kim, B. (2009). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development. 58(4), 439-457.
- Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hamalainen, R., Hakkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 211-224.
- Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. (2006). Computer-supported cooperation scripts—A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.
- Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Kuhn, D., & Udell, W (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260. Leita˜o, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments. Written Communication, 20(3), 269–306.
- Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). Retrieved from http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/128/122 Nussbaum, E.M., & Kardash, C.M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157–169.
- Nussbaum, E.M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.
- Oh, S., & Jonassen, D.H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95-110.
- Spector, J.M. (2006). A methodology for assessing learning in complex and ill-structured task domains. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(2), 109-120.
- Spector, J.M., Dennen, V.P., & Koszalka, T.A. (2006). Causal maps, mental models and assessing acquisition of expertise. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 3(1-2), 167-183.
- Walton, D.N. (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- Woo, Y. & Reeves, T. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15-25.
- Yin, R.K. (2006). Case study methods. In J.L. Green, G. Camilli, and P.B. Elmore, (eds.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (pp. 111-122). Washington, DC:
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References