Student-content interactions in online courses: the role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content

Journal of Computing in Higher Education - 2011
Peggy A. Ertmer1, Ayesha Sadaf1, David J. Ertmer1
1Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

Tóm tắt

This study examined the relationships among question types and levels and students’ subsequent responses/interactions in online discussion forums. Question prompts were classified both by type, as outlined by Andrews (POD Q J Prof Organ Dev Net Higher Eduction 2(34):129–163, 1980), and by levels of critical thinking, as outlined by Bloom (Taxonomy of educational objectives, David McKay, New York, 1956). Students’ responses (n = 850), taken from 19 discussion forums, were coded using Bloom’s six levels of cognitive processing: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Interaction patterns were determined using three of Andrews’ “mileage” indicators: average number of responses/student, average number of student–student sequences per question prompt, and average number of threads (and posts within a thread) for each question prompt. Results support the hypothesis that questions at the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy facilitate higher levels of students’ responses. Among Andrews’ nine question types, lower divergent questions were most effective in generating high levels of student thinking compared to other question types. In terms of interaction patterns, brainstorming and playground questions averaged the highest number of posts/student as well as highest average number of student responses/prompt. Questions at the comprehension, application, and synthesis levels resulted in the highest average number of student–student sequences. Implications for the development of effective question prompts are discussed.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/downloadreports.

Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280–318.

Andrews, J. (1980). The verbal structure of teacher questions: Its impact on class discussion. POD Quarterly: Journal of Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, 2(3 & 4), 129–163.

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844v1.

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press.

Blanchette, J. (2001). Questions in the online learning environment. Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 37–57.

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.

Bradley, M. E., Thom, L. R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: How question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 888–900.

Chin, C. (2004). Questioning students in ways that encourage thinking. Teaching Science, 50(4), 16–21.

Crone-Todd, D. E., Pear, J. J., & Read, C. N. (2000). Operational definitions for higher-order thinking objectives at the post-secondary level. Academic Exchange, 4(3), 99–106.

Cunningham, R. D. (1992). Beyond educational psychology: Steps toward an educational semiotic. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 165–194.

De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valeck, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6–28.

Dillon, J. T. (1994). The effect of questions in education and other enterprises. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14, 127–152.

Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2004, July). Examining the relationship between higher-order learning and students’ perceived sense of community in an online learning environment. In Proceedings of the10th Australian world wide web conference, Gold Coast, Australia.

Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., et al. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2). Available online: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.

Gibson, J. (2009). Discussion approach to instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models, Vol III: Building a common knowledge base (pp. 99–116). New York: Taylor and Francis.

Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.

Haavind, S. (2006). Key factors of online course design and instructor facilitation that enhance collaborative dialogue among learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association, San Francisco, CA.

Halpern, D. (2003). Thought and knowledge (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards for students. Eugene, OR: Author.

Jonassen, D., Davison, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Bannan-Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26.

Kunen, S., Cohen, R., & Solman, R. (1981). A levels-of-processing analysis of Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 202–211.

Lee, Y. (2008). The effects of different levels of interaction on measures of critical thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (Fall, 2005). Questioning the lecture format. The NEA Higher Education Journal: Thought and Action, 20(1), 47–56. Retrieved on January 18, 2011, from http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubThoughtAndAction/TAA_05_05.pdf.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.

McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2009). An analysis of higher-order thinking in online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 147–160.

Meyer, K. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Networks, 8(2), 101–114.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.

Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies. Computers & Education, 57, 1098–1108.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Framework for 21st Century learning. Washington, DC: Author.

Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Solomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Pear, J. J., Crone-Todd, D. E., Wirth, K. M., & Simister, H. D. (2001). Assessment of thinking levels in students’ answers. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(4), 94–98.

Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigation students’ level of thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 52–59.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71.

Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70.

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23–49.

Szabo, Z., & Schwartz, J. (2008, October). Better teaching methods for teacher education: Blackboard discussions improve critical thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL.

Thurmond, V. A., & Wombach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved February 19, 2011, from http://www.itdl.org/journal/Jan_04/article02.htm.

Vogler, K. E. (2008, Summer). Asking good questions. Educational Leadership, 65(9). Available online at http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/summer08/vol65/num09/Asking-Good-Questions.aspx.

Walker, S. A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil’s advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 20, 172–182.

Wang, C. H. (2005). Questioning skills facilitate online synchronous discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 303–313.

Wilen, W. (1991). Questioning skills for teachers (2nd ed.). Washington DC: National Education Association.

Yang, Y.-T. C. (2002). Use of structured web-based bulletin board discussions with Socratic questioning to enhance students’ critical thinking skills in distance education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Zsohar, H., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Transition from the classroom to the Web: Successful strategies for teaching online. Nursing Education Perspective, 29(1), 23–28.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

Thông tin tác giả