DOES ONLINE DISCUSSION PRODUCE INCREASED INTERACTION AND CRITICAL THINKING? [Discussion & Critical Thinking] [Lenny Shedletsky] This presentation will probably involve audience discussion, which will create action items. Use PowerPoint to keep track of these action items during your presentation In Slide Show, click on the right mouse button Select “Meeting Minder” Select the “Action Items” tab Type in action items as they come up Click OK to dismiss this box This will automatically create an Action Item slide at the end of your presentation with your points entered. Handout at:

SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? TWO OPPOSING VIEWS: 1.ONLINE DISCUSSION IS THE STRENGTH OF WEB-BASED COURSES; 2. DISCUSSION IN THE CLASSROOM IS RICH AND HUMAN;

BACKGROUND Gergen (1995) wrote of ongoing exchange (not specifically online) as part of the collaborative construction of knowledge, where students are involved in “... engaging, incorporating, and critically exploring the views of others” ( p. 34). Numerous theorist have pointed to online discussion as a strength (Meyer, 2003);

BACKGROUND Lapadat (2002) maintained that discussion promotes critical thinking and that asynchronous online discussion, because it is written, even further enhances the higher order thinking processes; Pena-Shaff & Nicholls (2004) explained that: “ Dialogue serves as an instrument for thinking because in the process of explaining, clarifying, elaborating, and defending our ideas and thoughts we engage in cognitive processes such as integrating, elaborating and structuring” (Brown & Palinscar, 1989; Johassen et al., 1995; Norman, 1993);

A COMPLICATION We hear from teachers that they are disappointed with the level of discussion in their online environments; One college professor said of the discussions that “sometimes they seem to go nowhere/everywhere.” Teachers say the online discussion is lifeless;

RESEARCH ON ONLINE DISCUSSION Garrison, Anderson, & Archer (2001, 2000) found little evidence of any critical discourse in students’ online discussion. While there was: – some brainstorming (Trigerring and Exploration, 42%); – there was only13% Integration (construction of a possible solution); -- and only 4% of responses in the highest stage of critical discourse, Resolution (assessment of a solution);

RESEARCH One review of the literature (Rourke & Kanuka, 2007) reported that “Observers of interaction as it takes shape in computer conferencing rarely report significant instances of critical discourse, dissenting opinion, challenges to others, or expressions of difference.” This makes it difficult to assess the relationship between the various models of running online discussion in comparison to running classroom discussion;

RESEARCH Meyer (2003a) performed a content analysis of the threaded discussions of graduate level students; She coded each posting as one of the four cognitive processing categories derived from Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; 1.Triggering questions refers to posing the problem; 2.Exploration refers to a search for information; 3.Integration refers to construction of a possible solution; 4.Resolution refers to critical assessment of a solution;

RESULTS OF MEYER’S STUDY: ONLINE DATA ONLY She reported the following results: “ 18% were triggering questions, 51% were exploration, 22% were integration, and 7% resolution” (para. 1); Clearly, evidence of critical or higher- order thinking was scarce;

SUMMARY STATEMENT Rourke and Kanuka (2007) add this: “ Empirical observations of computer conferencing in distance learning consistently find a predominance of monologues, relational communication, or superficial interaction and a meager amount of collaboration and knowledge co-construction.”

SOME EXCEPTIONS There are some notable exceptions to this pattern of disappointing online discussions;

HECKMAN & ANABI STUDY Heckman and Annabi (2005) compared 120 seniors in a course in Information Management, using the same facilitator for both online and face-to-face discussions of case studies; The study was careful to make the behaviors of the instructor as consistent across modes as possible, and to randomly assign students to groups for comparison, controlling for order effects;

HECKMAN & ANABI STUDY An extensive content analysis was done on the transcriptions of the discussions; Heckman and Annabi reported dramatic differences between the online and face-to-face modes with regard to student to student interaction ; With regard to critical thinking, they found that the online discussions contained nearly twice as many instances of high level analysis compared to the face-to-face discussions; However, the highest level of cognitive processing, Integration, was identical in both modes;

CONCLUSIONS Some other studies also find the online discussion to generate more critical thinking than the face-to-face discussion (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2003; Vess, 2005); As for critical thinking, Heckman & Annabi’s results are a bit mixed as far as which mode is better, although encouraging for the use of online discussion;

CLASSROOM DISCUSSION & CRITICAL THINKING Most of the studies reviewed, unlike the Heckman and Annabi (2005) study, did not observe the classroom side of discussion, but only reported on levels of critical thinking and other categories for the online discussion; Just how much interaction is found in classroom discussion and how high a level of critical thinking is found in most classroom discussions?

SCRATCHING OUR HEADS We would be remiss if we did not notice what appears to be two different and contradictory stories being told here; On the one hand, it appears that online discussion does not really live up to the promise of engaged students, applying critical thinking to their online discussions; On the other hand, some evidence demonstrates a dramatically more involved student online than in the classroom. How do we resolve this apparent contradiction?

BUILDING HYPOTHESES Rourke & Kanuka (2007) offer an important idea that may answer this conundrum. They propose that computer conferencing that results in increased critical thinking takes place in conditions of collaborative meaning making; Features that characterize this design are small group size and purposive collaboration (e.g., case-based learning, problem based learning); The design that produces low levels of interaction and low levels of critical thinking is the open-ended forum of the whole class, with little structure;

NEED TO INTERACT Nicholls (2004) points to the need for students to reach consensus in the collaborative small group that encourages the interaction. Without this need, disagreements can be ignored;

MOTIVATION TO ENGAGE Rovai (2007) reviewed the literature on running effective online discussions, and concluded that “Online courses need to be designed so that they provide motivation for students to engage in productive discussions and clearly describe what is expected, perhaps in the form of a discussion rubric” (p. 77).

OUR STUDY To determine the influence of online vs. classroom environment, case (or problem) vs. abstract question to discuss and degree of collaborative interdependence (consensus vs. individual posting), the following study design is proposed: SEE NEXT SLIDE

DESIGN OF THE STUDY Table. Research Design Experimental Groups (2X2X2) Factorial Design

HERE IS WHAT WE DID Ss were students in an undergraduate communication course about conversation; Ss were randomly divided into 4 groups of approximately 6 people each;

Procedure Each group met twice online in Blackboard to discuss a transcribed conversation, an exercise that fit into the course assignments and applied course learning; Ss had 11 days to discuss online; Each group also met twice as a small group in the classroom to discuss a transcribed conversation--meetings lasted for one class, approximately 1 hour;

Procedure When Ss came to the online site they were given instructions to read and discuss a transcript and to either: –Write a summary of the discussion as an individual; or –Write a summary of the discussion as a group (consensus);

Procedure When Ss came to the classroom to discuss in a small group (audio tape recorded) they were given instructions to read and discuss a transcript and to either: –Write a summary of the discussion as an individual, or; –Write a summary of the discussion as a group (consensus);

Procedure Ss were instructed to analyze the transcript either with: –Reference to finding specific examples of concepts from the course, or; –Reference to an abstract analysis of the transcript in terms of the social actions and relationships observed in the transcript;

Procedure Each discussion was transcribed; A rater read each turn in each transcript and ranked the turn according to Garrison, Anderson & Archer’s (2000, 2001) 4 category system for critical thinking: –Triggering –Exploration –Integration –Resolution

Handout at: