Muutke küpsiste eelistusi

Student Participation in Online Discussions: Challenges, Solutions, and Future Research 2012 [Kõva köide]

  • Formaat: Hardback, 142 pages, kõrgus x laius: 235x155 mm, kaal: 454 g, XIV, 142 p., 1 Hardback
  • Ilmumisaeg: 14-Jun-2012
  • Kirjastus: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
  • ISBN-10: 1461423694
  • ISBN-13: 9781461423690
  • Kõva köide
  • Hind: 95,02 €*
  • * hind on lõplik, st. muud allahindlused enam ei rakendu
  • Tavahind: 111,79 €
  • Säästad 15%
  • Raamatu kohalejõudmiseks kirjastusest kulub orienteeruvalt 2-4 nädalat
  • Kogus:
  • Lisa ostukorvi
  • Tasuta tarne
  • Tellimisaeg 2-4 nädalat
  • Lisa soovinimekirja
  • Formaat: Hardback, 142 pages, kõrgus x laius: 235x155 mm, kaal: 454 g, XIV, 142 p., 1 Hardback
  • Ilmumisaeg: 14-Jun-2012
  • Kirjastus: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
  • ISBN-10: 1461423694
  • ISBN-13: 9781461423690
The increasingly prevalent use of online- or blended-learning in schools universities has resulted in asynchronous online discussion forum becoming an increasingly common means to facilitate dialogue between instructors and students, as well as students and students beyond the boundaries of their physical classrooms. This proposed academic book contributes to the literature on asynchronous online discussions in the following three main ways: First, it reviews previous research studies in order to identify the factors leading to limited student contribution. Limited student contribution is defined as students making few or no postings, students exhibiting surface-level thinking or students demonstrating low-level knowledge construction in online discussions. It then identifies the various empirically-based guidelines to address the factors. Second, three potential guideline dilemmas that educators may encounter: (a) use of grades, (b) use of number of posting guideline, and (c) instructor-facilitation are introduced. These are guidelines where previous empirical research shows mixed results when they are implemented. Acknowledging the dilemmas is essential for educators and researchers to make informed decisions about the discussion guidelines they are considering implementing. Third, nine exploratory case studies related to student-facilitation and audio-based discussion are reported on and examined. Using students as facilitators may be an alternative solution to educators who wish to avoid the instructor-facilitation guideline dilemma. Using audio discussion would be useful for participants with poor typing skills or those who prefer talking to typing. The proposed book is distinctive in comparison to current competitor titles because all the findings and guidelines are empirically-based. Furthermore, the nine expanded case studies provided specifically address the issue of student/peer facilitation and audio-based discussion. Student/peer facilitation and audio discussion are two areas that hitherto received comparatively lesser attention compared to instructor facilitation and text-based discussion. ?

This book incorporates nine expanded case studies to explore the challenges and dilemmas of inspiring, improving and student participation in online discussion. Explores innovative approaches such as student/peer facilitation and audio discussion.
1 Introduction
1(14)
1.1 Introduction
1(1)
1.2 The Role of Discussion
2(1)
1.3 Asynchronous Online Discussion
3(7)
1.3.1 Potential Benefits of Asynchronous Online Discussion
3(1)
1.3.2 An Example of How Asynchronous Online Discussion Could be Integrated into Teaching and Learning
4(3)
1.3.3 Participation in Asynchronous Online Discussions
7(2)
1.3.4 Limited Student Contribution
9(1)
1.4 The Purpose and Plan of this Book
10(5)
References
11(4)
2 Challenges: Findings from Previous Empirical Research
15(16)
2.1 Sources of Data
15(1)
2.2 Factors Leading to Limited Student Contribution
16(15)
2.2.1 Not Seeing the Need for Online Discussion
16(1)
2.2.2 Behavior or Practice of Instructor or Participants
17(1)
2.2.3 Student Personality Traits
18(1)
2.2.4 Difficulty in Keeping Up with the Discussion
19(1)
2.2.5 Not Knowing What to Contribute/Lack of Worthwhile Comments to Contribute
19(1)
2.2.6 Exhibiting Surface-Level/Lower Order Critical Thinking
20(1)
2.2.7 Displaying Low-Level Knowledge Construction
21(3)
2.2.8 Technical Aspects
24(1)
2.2.9 Lack of Time
24(1)
2.2.10 Risk of Being Misunderstood
25(1)
References
25(6)
3 Possible Strategies to Overcome Limited Student Contribution: Empirical Findings From Previous Research
31(18)
3.1 Addressing Students Not Seeing the Need for Online Discussion
31(3)
3.2 Addressing the Behavior of Other Participants
34(1)
3.3 Addressing Personality Traits
35(1)
3.4 Addressing Student Difficulty in Keeping Up With the Discussion
36(1)
3.5 Addressing Students Being at Loss of What to Contribute
37(1)
3.6 Addressing Students' Surface-Level Critical Thinking
38(3)
3.7 Addressing Students' Low-Level Knowledge Construction
41(2)
3.8 Addressing Technical Aspects
43(1)
3.9 Addressing the Problem of Lack of Time
43(1)
3.10 Addressing the Risk of Being Misunderstood
44(5)
References
45(4)
4 Discussion on Strategy Dilemmas
49(14)
4.1 Use of Grades or Marks
49(1)
4.2 Use of Number of Posting Guideline and Posting Deadlines
50(2)
4.3 Use of Sentence Openers or Message Labels
52(1)
4.4 Extending the Duration of the Online Discussion
53(1)
4.5 Use of Instructor Facilitation
54(3)
4.6 The Case for Peer Facilitation
57(6)
References
58(5)
5 Case Studies on Peer Facilitation: What Motivates Participants to Contribute?
63(14)
5.1 Examining Habits of Mind
63(4)
5.1.1 Peer Facilitators Should Display the Following Two Habits of Mind More Frequently: Awareness of Own Thinking and Open-Mindedness
66(1)
5.2 Examining Other Possible Reasons Why Students Contribute in Online Discussions
67(10)
5.2.1 Emphasize Efforts to Nurture Relational Capital Among Students
70(1)
5.2.2 Remind Students to "Help Other People First"
71(1)
5.2.3 Choose Interesting Discussion Topics or Questions, Especially Those That are Relevant and Controversial
72(1)
5.2.4 Peer Facilitators Should Periodically Summarize the Main Points of a Discussion and Follow Up with Relevant Questions After the Summary
73(1)
References
74(3)
6 Case Studies on Peer Facilitation: How to Sustain Participants' Online Discussion?
77(1)
6.1 Examining Thread Development Patterns
77(2)
6.1.1 The Mere Number of Peer Facilitator Postings Appears to Have No Influence. Also Avoid Trying To Resolve Differences Early
78(1)
6.2 Investigating the Role of Questions and Other Facilitation Techniques
79(8)
6.2.1 The Use of Questions Appears to Sustain the Discussion
82(1)
6.2.2 Encourage Peer Facilitators to Convey Sincere Appreciation for Other People's Contribution
82(1)
6.2.3 Refrain from Citing Sources Too Often
83(1)
6.2.4 Show Openness to Feedback
83(2)
References
85(2)
7 Case Studies on Peer Facilitation: How to Foster Higher Levels of Knowledge Construction
87(12)
7.1 Investigating the Role of Group Size, Duration of Discussion, and Peer Facilitation Techniques
87(4)
7.2 Major Findings of Studies 8, 9, and 10 Regarding Possible Ways to Foster Higher Knowledge Construction Levels
91(8)
7.2.1 Split the Online Discussion Into Groups of About 10 People Each
91(2)
7.2.2 Higher Level Knowledge Construction Occurrences Not Linked to the Duration of the Online Discussion
93(1)
7.2.3 Need to Explicitly Point Participants to Unresolved Issues
93(2)
7.2.4 Summarizing
95(1)
7.2.5 Providing Own Opinions
95(1)
7.2.6 Fostering an Open Environment for Argument
96(1)
References
96(3)
8 Peer Versus Instructor: Under What Conditions do Students Prefer?
99(4)
8.1 Investigating Peer Versus Instructor Facilitation
99(1)
8.2 Major Findings Learned Regarding Conditions or Situations That May Best Be Addressed Using Peer or Instructor Facilitation
100(3)
8.2.1 Conditions Under Which Students Prefer the Instructor as the Facilitator
100(1)
8.2.2 Conditions Under Which Students Prefer Their Peers as the Facilitator
101(1)
Reference
102(1)
9 Asynchronous Audio Discussion
103(12)
9.1 Introducing Audio-Based Online Discussion
103(2)
9.2 Descriptions of Studies 1 and 2
105(2)
9.3 Findings of Studies 1 and 2
107(8)
9.3.1 Advantages of Asynchronous Audio Discussion
107(2)
9.3.2 Students' Actual Preference
109(2)
9.3.3 Possible Relation between Knowledge Construction Levels and the Mode of Online Discussion
111(2)
References
113(2)
10 Future Research Directions
115(8)
10.1 Implications for Future Research
115(4)
10.1.1 Examine the Use of Peer Facilitation in Different Contexts
115(1)
10.1.2 Investigate Possible Solutions to Overcome the Strategy Dilemmas
116(1)
10.1.3 Examine the Use of Online Discussion on Mobile Devices
117(2)
10.2 Epilogue
119(4)
References
120(3)
Authors Biography 123(2)
Appendix 125(14)
Index 139
Dr. Cheung Wing Sum is an Associate Professor in the Learning Sciences and Technologies Academic Group at teh Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. . He is also the MAIDT Program Coordinator of LST. He was educated at Northern Illinois University where he rreceived undergraaduate degrees in  Management and Computer Science, an MS in Computer Science and an EdD in Curriculum & Supervision. His research areas of interest include: Asynchronous Online Discussion, E-Learning, Instructional Design, and Multimedia Design.

Dr Khe Foon Hew earned his doctorate in Instructional Systems Technology from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is currently with the Learning Sciences and Technologies academic group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Dr. Hew's areas of research interest include: Online facilitation strategies; Student interaction & cognition in computer-supported environments; Online communities of practice; and  Integrating Technologies in teaching and learning contexts.