The Effects of Contrasting Models in an Online Discussion Environment
PROCEEDINGS
Heejung An, William Paterson University, United States
Global TIME, in Online, Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Abstract
Although online asynchronous discussions have been incorporated widely into higher education courses as a means to promote knowledge construction, reflection, and critical thinking, research suggests that such discussions rarely generate meaningful learning opportunities. The purpose of this study is therefore to examine the effects of a contrasting example model on preservice teachers' online discussions and peer-feedback in an online course, to determine whether this would be an effective instructional approach in the development of students’ adaptive expertise in writing asynchronous online discussion postings as well as in their interactions while participating in such discussions. Specifically, this study examines three approaches (Contrasting Model, Good Model, and Rubric) on the quality of students’ online postings, including their initial discussion postings and the feedback they provide to their peers.
Citation
An, H. (2012). The Effects of Contrasting Models in an Online Discussion Environment. In Proceedings of Global TIME -Online Conference on Technology, Innovation, Media & Education (pp. 246-249). Online,: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 5, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/39435/.
© 2012 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Benfield, G. (2000). Teaching on the Web– Exploring the Meanings of Silence, UltiBase Online Journal, Melbourne.
- Berge, Z.L. (1995). Facilitating Computer Conferencing: Recommendations From the Field. Educational Technology. 35(1) 22-30.
- Bhattacharaya, M. (1999, October). A study of asynchronous and synchronous discussion on cognitive maps in a distributed learning environment. WebNet 99 World Conference on the WorldWide Web and Internet Proceedings, Honolulu, HI. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED448698).
- Biederman, I. & Shiffrar, M.M. (1987) Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual-learning task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 13(4), 640-645.
- Black, A. (2005) the Use of Asynchronous Discussion: Creating a Text of Talk. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5-24.
- Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1-36.
- Bransford, J.D., Franks, J.J., Vye, N.J., & Sherwood, R.D. (1989). New Approaches to Instruction: Because Wisdom Can't Be Told. In S. Vosiadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (pp. 470
- Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss3/general/article1.cfm
- Davidson-Shivers, G, Tanner, E., & Muilenburg, L. (2000, April). Online discussion: How do students participate? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED443410).
- Hara, N., Bonk, C.J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.
- Lowenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Gentner, D. (1999). Analogical encoding facilitates knowledge transfer in negotiation. Psychonomic Bulletin& Review, 6(4), 586-597.
- Mandernach, B.J., Dailey-Hebert, A., & Donnelli-Sallee, E. (2007). Frequency and Time Investment of Instructors’ Participation in Threaded Discussions in the Online Classroom. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/6.1.1.pdf
- Martin, L.L., Seta, J.J., & Crelia, R.A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people’s willingness and ability to expand effort informing an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27-37.
- Moore, M.G. (2002). What does research say about learners using computer-mediated communication in distance learning. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2). 61-64.
- Muilenburg, L.Y. & Berge, Z.L. (2005). Student Barriers to Online Learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Learning, 26(1). 29-48.
- Qi, D.S., & Wilson, M.M. (1997). Writing the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303.
- Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers& Education, 46, 49-70.
- Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing. Elements of a social thoery of CSCL. In P. Dillenbourg (Series Ed.) & J.W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner& R.L. Martens (Vol Eds.), Computer Supported collaborative learning, Vol 3. What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education (pp. 53-85). Boston,
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References