You are here:

Asynchronous Online Discussions as a Tool for Learning: Students' Attitudes, Expectations, and Perceptions
Article

, Ithaca College, United States ; , Broome Community College, United States ; , Ithaca College, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 16, Number 4, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

Based on expectations from previous studies, data from field notes, pre- and post-questionnaires, class documentation, student papers from 35 undergraduate and graduate students, and the content of a focus group session were analyzed to relate students' pre-course attitudes and expectations, and several cognitive factors to participation levels and perceptions about learning via asynchronous online discussions to supplement class meetings. Results showed that while students' attitudes and expectations about computers and online learning were not significantly correlated to their participation levels and perceptions of learning, several significant intercorrelations between pre-course attitudes, expectations about bulletin board systems (BBS) used for class discussions, and expected learning were found. In addition, greater levels of participation were found to engender greater satisfaction. Findings suggest several methods which may be used to change students' perceptions and raise their levels of participation.

Citation

Pena-Shaff, J., Altman, W. & Stephenson, H. (2005). Asynchronous Online Discussions as a Tool for Learning: Students' Attitudes, Expectations, and Perceptions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(4), 409-430. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 2, 2023 from .

© 2005 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with online discussions. Communication Education, 46(3), 158-174.
  2. Baxter Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Boeglin, J. A., & Campbell, K. (2002). Effects of learners’ readiness on their perceived learning outcomes [Electronic version]. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(2).
  4. Butler, W. (1992). The social construction of knowledge in an electronic discourse community. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin.
  5. Davidson-Shivers, G., Tanner, E., & Muilenburg, L. (2000, April 26). Online discussions: How do students participate? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  6. Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A., & Sanchez, C. A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent critical judgment: The development of the California critical thinking dispositions inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(8), 345-350.
  7. Fang, K. (1998). An analysis of electronic-mail usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(2), 349-374.
  8. Fishman, B. J. (1999). Characteristics of students related to computer-mediated communications activity. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 32(1), 73-97.
  9. Fowell, S. P. & Levy, P. (1995). Computer-mediated communication in the information curriculum: An initiative in computer supported collaborative learning. Education for Information, 13, 193-210. Furnham, A. (1995). The relationship of personality and intelligence to cognitive learning style and achievement. In D.H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds). International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence, NY: Plenum Press.
  10. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152. Hastings, R.
  11. Hawisher, G. & Pemberton, M.A. (1997, March). Writing across the curriculum encounters asynchronous learning networks or WAC meets up with ALN. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks [online] 1(1). Retrieved January 23, 2004, from http://www.sloan-C.org/publications/jaln/index.asp.
  12. Heller, R., & Kearsley, G. (1995). Using a computer BBS for graduate education: Issues and outcomes. In Z. Berge & M. Collins (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom (Vol. III, pp. 129-137). NJ: Hamptom Press, Inc.
  13. Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction. Making learning personal, empowering, and successful. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
  14. Hiltz, S. (1986). The "Virtual Classroom": Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104.
  15. Hiltz, S. (1990). Evaluating the virtual classroom. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (133-169). NY: Praeger.
  16. Irvine, S. (2000, Feb). What are we talking about? The impact of computer-mediated communication on student learning. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference: Proceedings of SITE. San Diego, CA.
  17. Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (1998, April). Course design, instruction, and students’ online behaviors: A study of instructional variables and students’ perceptions of online learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421970).
  18. Johnson, H.L., Court, K.L., Roersma, M.H. & Kinnaman, D.T. (1995). Integration as integration: Tolerance of ambiguity and the integrative process at the undergraduate level. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23(4), 271-276.
  19. King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  20. Koschmann T. (Ed.) (1996). CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm (pp. 83-119). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  21. Latting, J. K. (1994). Diffusion of computer-mediated communication in a graduate social work class: Lessons from "The class from Hell". Computers in Human Services, 10(3), 21-45.
  22. Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies for computer conferencing applications. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. The Najaden papers. (pp. 105-116.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  23. Murphy, K. L. & Mahoney, S.E. (2001). Buy-in to online courses: Reflections from e-learners’ journal papers. In WebNet 2001: World Conference on the WWW and Internet Proceedings, Orlando, FL, October 23-27, 2001.
  24. Newman, D., Johnson, C., Cochrane, C., & Webb, B. (1996). An experiment in group learning technology: Evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-supported seminars. Retrieved August 28, 1998 from http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1996/nl/newman.htm/contents.html.
  25. Newman, D., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 3(2), 56-77.
  26. O’Reilly, M. & Newton, D. (2001). Interaction online: Above and beyond requirements of assessment. In Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Melbourne, Australia.
  27. Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer-mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 41-68.
  28. Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in Computer Bulletin Board (BBS) discussions. Computers and Education, 42, 243-265.
  29. Resta, P. (1995). Project CIRCLE: Student mentors as a strategy for training and supporting teachers in the use of computer- based tools for collaborative learning. Learning Technology Center, College of Education, the University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved November 20, 1999 from http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/resta.html.
  30. Ross, J. A. (1996). The influence of computer communication skills on participation in a computer conference course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(1), 37-52.
  31. Ruberg, L. F., Moore, D. M., & Taylor, C. C. (1996). Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 243-268.
  32. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm (pp. 249-267). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  33. Smith, W. E. (1994). Computer-mediated communication: An experiment. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 48(4), 27+.
  34. Sturgill, A., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (1999). Surviving technology: A study of student use of computer-mediated communication to support technology education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 5(3), 239-259.
  35. Tergan, S. O. (1997). Misleading theoretical assumptions in hypertext/hypermedia research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6, 257-283.
  36. Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers and Education, 34(2), 119-140.
  37. Wilson, T., & Whitelock, D. (1998). What are the perceived benefits of participating in a Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) environment for distance learning computer science students? Computers & Education, 30(3-4), 259-69.
  38. Wolfradt, U., & Doll, J. (2001). Motives of adolescents to use the Internet as a function of personality traits, personal and social factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 13-27.
  39. Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.