1. bookVolumen 23 (2020): Edición 1 (July 2020)
Detalles de la revista
License
Formato
Revista
eISSN
1027-5207
Primera edición
11 Dec 2014
Calendario de la edición
2 veces al año
Idiomas
Inglés
access type Acceso abierto

Exploring the Relationship Between Interaction and the Structure of Questions in Online Discussions Using Learning Analytics

Publicado en línea: 13 Sep 2020
Volumen & Edición: Volumen 23 (2020) - Edición 1 (July 2020)
Páginas: 46 - 60
Detalles de la revista
License
Formato
Revista
eISSN
1027-5207
Primera edición
11 Dec 2014
Calendario de la edición
2 veces al año
Idiomas
Inglés
Abstract

While research has established the importance of questions as a key strategy used to facilitate student interaction in online discussions, there is a need to explore how the structure of questions influence students’ interactions. Using learning analytics, we explored the relationship between student-student interaction and the structure of initial questions with and without the Practical Inquiry Model (PIM). Degree centrality was used as the method to analyse the number of responses each student sent (out-degree centrality) and the number of responses each student received (in-degree centrality). Findings showed that the number of responses each student sent and received was higher in the discussions initiated by the PIM-question prompts. In addition, analysis revealed a positive relationship between students’ interaction and the discussions structured with PIM and non-PIM questions. Finally, there was a significant difference in out-degree centrality but no significant difference in in-degree centrality between discussions structured with the PIM and non-PIM questions. We conclude that initial questions can be structured using PIM as a guiding framework to facilitate student-student interaction in online discussions.

Keywords

1. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2).10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149Search in Google Scholar

2. 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.Search in Google Scholar

3. Avella, J.T., Kebritchi, M., Nunn, S., & Kanai, T. (2016). Learning analytics methods, benefits, and challenges in Higher Education: A systematic literature review. Online Learning, 20(2), http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i2.790.10.24059/olj.v20i2.790Search in Google Scholar

4. Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition (pp. 1-60). The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2017-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

5. Berland, M., Baker, R. S., & Blikstein, P. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics: Applications to constructionist research. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1-2), 205-220.10.1007/s10758-014-9223-7Search in Google Scholar

6. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243–1289.10.3102/0034654309333844Search in Google Scholar

7. Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? Distance Education, 33(3), 311–329.10.1080/01587919.2012.723162Search in Google Scholar

8. Brooks, C. D., & Jeong, A. (2006). Effects of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Distance Education, 27(3), 371-390.10.1080/01587910600940448Search in Google Scholar

9. Cheng, C. K., Paré, D. E., Collimore, L. M., & Joordens, S. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of a voluntary online discussion forum on improving students’ course performance. Computers & Education, 56(1), 253–261.10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.024Search in Google Scholar

10. Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 216-227.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.xSearch in Google Scholar

11. Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of online discussion strategies: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 228-241.10.1080/08923647.2013.837651Search in Google Scholar

12. Dawson, S., Macfadyen, L., Lockyer, L., & Mazzochi-Jones, D. (2011). Using social network metrics to assess the effectiveness of broad based admission practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 16–27.10.14742/ajet.979Search in Google Scholar

13. Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2014). Online case-based discussions: Examining coverage of the afforded problem space. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 617-636.10.1007/s11423-014-9350-9Search in Google Scholar

14. Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). 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, 23(2-3), 157–86.10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6Search in Google Scholar

15. 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), 7–23.10.1080/08923640109527071Search in Google Scholar

16. Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18.10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.xSearch in Google Scholar

17. Hernández-García, Á., & Suárez-Navas, I. (2017). GraphFES: A web service and application for Moodle message board social graph extraction. In Daniel, B.K. (Ed.), Big data and learning analytics in Higher Education: Current theory and practice (pp.167-194). Springer.Search in Google Scholar

18. Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012). Strategies and principles to develop cognitive presence in online discussions. Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice, 148-167.Search in Google Scholar

19. Huss, J. A., Sela, O., & Eastep, S. (2015). A case study of online instructors and their quest for greater interactivity in their courses: Overcoming the distance in distance education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4).10.14221/ajte.2015v40n4.5Search in Google Scholar

20. Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Are Higher Education institutions prepared for learning analytics? TechTrends, 61, 366-371. doi: 10.1007/s11528-016-0154-010.1007/s11528-016-0154-0Search in Google Scholar

21. Kim, D., Park, Y., Yoon, M., & Jo, I. H. (2016). Toward evidence-based learning analytics: Using proxy variables to improve asynchronous online discussion environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 30-43.10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.03.002Search in Google Scholar

22. Kim, D., Yoon, M., Jo, I.H., & Branch, R. M. (2018). Learning analytics to support self-regulated learning in asynchronous online courses: A case study at a women’s university in South Korea. Computers & Education, 127, 233-251.10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.023Search in Google Scholar

23. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 16–39.10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338Search in Google Scholar

24. Lim, J., Jeong, A. C., Hall, B. M., & Freed, S. (2017). Intersubjective and discussion characteristics in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(1), 29-44.Search in Google Scholar

25. Lustria, M. L. A. (2007). Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(6), 766-776.Search in Google Scholar

26. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.10.1080/08923648909526659Search in Google Scholar

27. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

28. Park, C. L. (2009). Replicating the use of a cognitive presence measurement tool. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8, 140–155.Search in Google Scholar

29. Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 52-59.10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009Search in Google Scholar

30. Richardson, J., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, P. (2012). Relationship between question prompts and critical thinking in online discussions. In Z. Akyol & R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research and Practice (pp.197-222). IGI Global. doi. 10.4018/978-1-4666-2110-7.ch011.Search in Google Scholar

31. Romero, C., Lopez, M. I., Luna, J. M., & Ventura, S. (2013). Predicting students’ final performance from participation in on-line discussion forums. Computers & Education, 68, 458–472.10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.009Search in Google Scholar

32. Sadaf, A., & Olesova, L. (2017). Enhancing cognitive presence in online case discussions with questions based on the practical inquiry model. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(1), 56-69.10.1080/08923647.2017.1267525Search in Google Scholar

33. Salter, N. P., & Conneely, M. R. (2015). Structured and unstructured discussion forum as tools for student engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 18-25.10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.037Search in Google Scholar

34. Sergis, S., & Sampson, D.G. (2017). Teaching and learning analytics to support teacher inquiry: A systematic literature review. In A. Peña-Ayala (Ed.), Learning analytics: Fundaments, applications, and trends: A view of the current state of the art to enhance e-learning (pp. 25-63). Springer.Search in Google Scholar

35. Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in Web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2).Search in Google Scholar

36. Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Van der Meijden, H., & Harun, J. (2014). Exploring students’ knowledge construction strategies in computer-supported collaborative learning discussions using sequential analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 216–228.Search in Google Scholar

37. Tempelaar, D., Rienties, B., Mittelmeier, J., & Nguyen, Q. (2018). Student profiling in a dispositional learning analytics application using formative assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.01010.1016/j.chb.2017.08.010Search in Google Scholar

38. Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10-19.10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003Search in Google Scholar

39. Xing, W., Guo, R., Petakovic, E., & Goggins, S. (2015). Participation-based student final performance prediction model through interpretable Genetic Programming: Integrating learning analytics, educational data mining and theory. Computer in Human Behavior, 47, 168-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.03410.1016/j.chb.2014.09.034Search in Google Scholar

40. Zhang, J.-H., Zhang, Y.-X., Zou, Q., & Huang, S. (2018). What learning analytics tells us: group behavior analysis and individual learning diagnosis based on long-term and large-scale data. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 245-258.Search in Google Scholar

Artículos recomendados de Trend MD

Planifique su conferencia remota con Sciendo