The Effects of Facilitating Feedback on Online Learners’ Cognitive Engagement: Evidence from the Asynchronous Online Discussion
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Section
2.1. Research Setting
2.2. Participants
2.3. Study Design
Grade Level | Rubric Explanation |
---|---|
Excellent (35–40 points) | Express opinions in a clear and concise manner with strong connection with the given topics or readings |
Have made a logical argument with premises, reasons, and conclusion | |
Analyze learning goals and learning activities with principles or theories | |
Use personal teaching experience or external resources to support the important points | |
Good (25–34 points) | Express opinions in a clear manner with being related with the given topics or readings |
Have made a logical argument with premises, reasons, and conclusion | |
Analyze learning goals and learning activities with principles or theories | |
Acceptable (1–24 points) | Express opinions but without explanation |
Incomplete (0 point) | Not his/her own opinion but plagiarizes others’ idea or work |
Feedback Intervention in Two Groups | Treatment Group | Control Group |
---|---|---|
Grading criteria | Postings were graded by the tutor based on the content of the posting. | Postings were graded automatically by the online learning system based on the length of posting. |
Comments | Comments were given by the tutor within 24 h. The tutor respond by providing hints, probing questions or encouragement, reminding of overlooked steps, and directing learners’ attentions. | No comments were given, no discourse development strategies are employed. |
Nature of feedback | Formative. Within the three-day-length module, students were allowed/encouraged to revise/improve/reflect on their postings according to tutor’s comments. | Summative. No suggestion was given to learners, and they do not have to improve or reflect on their postings. |
2.4. Measurement: Cognitive Engagement Level
Cognitive Level | Detailed description | Examples |
---|---|---|
Level 1 | Simple, layperson description. | I used to train teachers in our school, and I like using Powerpoint best. |
Level 2 | Events labeled with appropriate terms. | We put too much emphasis on knowledge acquisition but ignored their critical thinking and their individual learning/thinking experience. |
Level 3 | Explanation with tradition or personal preference given as the rationale. | We should not simply teach our teachers to use technology, but rather we need to teach them how to integrate technology into their classrooms. Just like we always did in our own teaching, we want our students to not only acquire the knowledge, but also to apply the knowledge. |
Level 4 | Explanation with principle/theory given as the rationale. | This is an effective way, because the performance assessment method is used. This method use “task” to motivate students, and measures what the students can do during the process. |
Level 5 | Explanation with principle/theory and consideration of context factors. | Instructional media is rich in our life, but we do not have to be limited to using high-tech. All the tools, no matter multi-media or not, if appropriately used, could also improve our teaching. Recently when I taught the concepts of Angle and Edge in a 2nd grade math class in a rural area. I was told that no computers would be provided. Then I redesigned my instruction, and made an Angle model using stiff paper and nails…. |
Cognitive Level | Standard | Examples |
---|---|---|
Level 1 | Simple agreement or disagreement to the original postings. | Strongly agree with you! |
Level 2 | Explanation with tradition, personal preference, or principle/theory given as the rationale. | I agree with all you guys. New media is a “truck to deliver the cargo”. However, we also need to have the ability to control the “truck”, and make this truck’s features fit into our teaching styles. Then we can have an effective instructional design. |
Level 3 | Explanation with tradition, personal preference, or principle/theory given as the rationale, and consideration of context factors. | I agree with you. Technology based teaching is a good way to improve students’ learning. But, we need to make sure that the technology is integrated appropriately. There was a lesson competition in my school, and we were required to use technology to teach. Some teachers just simply changed their materials to electronic version but did not pay attention to the pedagogical things, the results turned out to be not good. I know a very good philosophy teacher that he did not use any technology. He just used role play games to teach students abstract philosophical concepts. His teaching was very successful. |
2.5. Data Collection and Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Comparison of the Quantity of Postings
Subjects | Total Number of Learners | Total Number of Postings | Total Number of Original Postings | Total Number of Replying Postings | Average Number of Postings per Learner |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control group | 65 | 904 | 333 | 571 | 13.9 |
Experimental group | 45 | 636 | 238 | 398 | 14.1 |
3.2. Comparison of the Level of Cognitive Engagement
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Essel, R.; Owusu-Boateng, W. Access and Success in Learning: Technologies for scaling up open and distance learning programme in the Institute of Distance Learning, KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana. U.S.-China Educ. Rev. 2011, 3, 423–429. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J. Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 2011, 42, 763–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hiemstra, R. Computerized distance education: The role for facilitators. J. Adult Educ. 1994, 22, 11–23. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, M.G. University distance education of adults. Technol. Trends. 1987, 32, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonassen, D.; Davidson, M.; Collins, M.; Campbell, J.; Haag, B.B. Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. AJDE 1995, 9, 7–26. [Google Scholar]
- Harasim, L. Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Can. J. Educ. Comm. 1987, 16, 117–135. [Google Scholar]
- Scardamalia, M.; Bereiter, C. Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Comm. ACM 1993, 36, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aksal, A.F. Action plan on communication practices: Roles of tutors at EMU distance education institute to overcome social barriers in constructing knowledge. TOJET 2009, 8, 33–45. [Google Scholar]
- Levy, Y. E-learning: An Overview of Next-generation Internet Based Distance Learning Systems. In Proceedings of the World Conference on the WWW and Internet, Orlando, FL, USA, 23–27 October 2001.
- Moore, M.; Thompson, M. Effects of Distance Learning: A Summary of Literature; the American Center for the Study of Distance Education: University Park, PA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Beldarrain, Y. Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Dist. Educ. 2006, 27, 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, M.; Kearsly, G. Distance Education: A System View; Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Carr, S. As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chron. High. Educ. 2000, 46, 39–41. [Google Scholar]
- Dickey, M. The impact of web-logs (blogs) on student perceptions of isolation and alienation in a web-based distance-learning environment. Open Learn. 2004, 19, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, R.; Lockwood, F. Using Communications Media in Open and Flexible Learning; Kogan Page: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Rovai, A.P.; Wighting, M.J. Feeling of alienation and community among higher education students in a virtual classroom. Internet High. Educ. 2005, 8, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, T.; Benson, S. Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educ. Tech. Soc. 2005, 8, 54–62. [Google Scholar]
- Bates, A.W. Interactivity As a Criterion for Media Selection in Distance Education. In Proceedings of the Asian Association of Open Universities 1990 Annual Conference, Universitats Terbuka, Jakarta, Indonesia, 25–26 September 1990.
- Bandura, A. Social-learning Theory of Identificatory Processes; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1969; pp. 213–262. [Google Scholar]
- Garrison, D.R.; Anderson, T.; Archer, W. Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. Amer. J. Dist. Educ. 2001, 15, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J. Patterns of interaction and participation in a Large Online Course: Strategies for fostering sustainable discussion. Educ. Tech. Soc. 2012, 15, 260–272. [Google Scholar]
- Marra, R.; Moore, J.L.; Klimczak, A.K. Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 2004, 52, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurillard, D. Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies; RoutledgeFalmer: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Scardamalia, M.; Reeve, R.; Messina, R. Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. J. Learn. Sci. 2009, 18, 7–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scardamalia, M.; Bereiter, C. Adaptation and Understanding: A Case for New Cultures of Schooling. In International Perspectives on the Design of Technology-supported Learning Environments; Vosniadou, S., DeCorte, E., Glaser, R., Mandl, H., Eds.; Routledge: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1996; pp. 149–163. [Google Scholar]
- Guilar, J.; Loring, A. Dialogue and community in online learning: Lessons from Royal Roads University. J. Dis. Educ. 2008, 22, 19–40. [Google Scholar]
- Garrison, D.R.; Anderson, T.; Archer, W. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 2000, 2, 87–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J. Patterns of interaction and participation in a large online course: Strategies for fostering sustainable discussion. Educ. Tech. Soc. 2012, 15, 260–272. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, K. Quality in Distance Education; Wiley Periodicals: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, K. Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. J. Async. Learn. Network. 2003, 7, 55–65. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, G.G.; Ferguson, D.L.; Caris, M. Teaching college courses online versus face-to-face. J. Transform. Educ. Tech. 2001, 28, 18–24. [Google Scholar]
- Fahy, P.J.; Crawford, G.; Ally, M. Patterns of Interaction in a Computer Conference Transcript. Available online: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/36/74.Garrison (accessed on 10 March 2012).
- McKlin, T.; Harmon, S.W.; Evans, W.; Jones, M.G. Cognitive presence in web-based learning: A content analysis of students’ online discussions. Amer. J. Dis. Educ. 2002, 15, 7–23. [Google Scholar]
- Bodzin, A.M.; Park, J.C. Dialogue patterns of preservice science teachers using asynchronous computermediated communications on the world wide web. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach. 2000, 19, 161–194. [Google Scholar]
- Chai, C.S.; Khine, M.S. Understanding ICT Integration in Schools. In Teaching with Technology: Strategies for Engaging Learners; Khine, M.S., Ed.; Pearson/Prentice Hall: Singapore, 2006; pp. 49–62. [Google Scholar]
- Vandehaar, D. Learning between Here and There: Quality Teleconference Classrooms. In Teleconferencing and Electronic Communications V: Applications, Technologies, and Human Factors; Parker, L.A., Olgren, C.H., Eds.; University of Wisconsin-Extension: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 338–346. [Google Scholar]
- Winne, P.H.; Nesbit, J.C. The Psychology of Academic Achievement. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2010, 61, 653–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bangert-Drowns, R.L.; Kulik, C.C.; Kulik, J.A.; Morgan, M.T. The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev. Educ. Res. 1991, 61, 213–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, D.L.; Winne, P.H. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 1995, 65, 245–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, L. Strategies for correcting students’ wrong responses. Elem. Sch. J. 1986, 87, 227–241. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, R.C.; Kulhavy, R.W.; Andre, T. Feedback procedures in programmed instruction. J. Educ. Psychol. 1971, 62, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabro, K.R.; Garrison, D.R. Computer conferencing and higher-order learning. Indian J. Open Learn. 1998, 7, 41–54. [Google Scholar]
- Reppa, I.; Leek, E.C. The modulation of inhibition-of-return by object-internal structure: Implications for theories of object-based attentional selection. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 2003, 10, 493–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrison, D.R.; Cleveland-Innes, M. Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. Amer. J. Dist. Educ. 2005, 19, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tait, A. Reflections on Student Support in Open and Distance Learning. 2003. Available online: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/134/214 (accessed on 8 March 2012).
- Nicol, D.J.; Macfarlane-Dick, D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. High. Educ. 2006, 31, 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chai, L. To Have or Have Not: An Examination of Feedback, Learner Control and Knowledge Type in Online Learning. In Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA, 6–9 January 2003.
- Zumbach, J.; Hillers, A.; Reimann, P. Distributed Problem-based Learning: The Use of Feedback Mechanisms in Online Learning. In Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice; Roberts, T.S., Ed.; Idea Group Inc.: Hershey, PA, USA, 2004; pp. 86–102. [Google Scholar]
- Kulhavy, R.W.; Stock, W.A. Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1989, 1, 279–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balzer, W.K.; Doherty, M.E.; O’Connor, R. Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychol. Bull. 1989, 106, 410–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, P. Reading comprehension exercises online: The effects of feedback, proficiency and interaction. Lang. Learn. Tech. 2007, 11, 107–129. [Google Scholar]
- Gunawardena, C.N.; Zittle, F. Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. Amer. J. Dist. Educ. 1997, 11, 8–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hackman, M.Z.; Walker, K.B. Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Comm. Educ. 1990, 39, 196–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akyol, Z.; Garrison, D.R. Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 2011, 42, 233–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewey, J. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process; D.C. Heath and Company: Lexington, MA, USA, 1933. [Google Scholar]
- Stoney, S.; Oliver, R. Can Higher Order Thinking & Cognitive Engagement be Enhanced with Multimedia? 1999. Available online: http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/2/07/printver.asp (accessed on 10 March 2012).
- Zhu, E. Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instr. Sci. 2006, 34, 451–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National K-12 Schoolteacher Online Training Project. Peking University. Available online: http://train.pkudl.cn/ (accessed on 10 March 2012).
- Moodle. Available online: https://moodle.org/ (accessed on 10 March 2012).
- Guo, W. From an online training course to a “virtual” teacher training academy: Design and implementation of Peking university asynchronous online teacher training program. LNCS 2009, 5685, 365–377. [Google Scholar]
- Sparks-Langer, G.M.; Simmons, J.M.; Pasch, M.; Colton, A.; Starko, A. Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and measure it? J. Teach. Educ. 1990, 41, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gagne, R.M. Learning Hierarchies. In Instructional Design: Readings; Merrill, M.D., Ed.; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1968; pp. 118–131. [Google Scholar]
- Van Manen, M. Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inq. 1977, 6, 205–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simmons, J.M.; Sparks, G.M.; Starko, A.; Pasch, M.; Colton, A.; Grinberg, J. Exploring the Structure of Reflective Pedagogical Thinking in Novice and Expert Teachers: The Birth of a Developmental Taxonomy. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, USA, 27–31 March 1989.
- Garrison, D.R.; Cleveland-Innes, M.; Koole, M.; Kappelman, J. Revisiting methodological issues in the analysis of transcripts: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet High. Educ. 2006, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanuka, H.; Anderson, T. Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. J. Dist. Educ. 1998, 13, 57–74. [Google Scholar]
- Schrire, S. Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Comput. Educ. 2006, 46, 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaughan, N.; Garrison, D.R. Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet High. Educ. 2005, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shea, P.; Bidjerano, T. Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2009, 21, 199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrison, D.R.; Anderson, T. E-learning in the 21st Century; Routledge Falmer: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Guo, W.; Chen, Y.; Lei, J.; Wen, Y. The Effects of Facilitating Feedback on Online Learners’ Cognitive Engagement: Evidence from the Asynchronous Online Discussion. Educ. Sci. 2014, 4, 193-208. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4020193
Guo W, Chen Y, Lei J, Wen Y. The Effects of Facilitating Feedback on Online Learners’ Cognitive Engagement: Evidence from the Asynchronous Online Discussion. Education Sciences. 2014; 4(2):193-208. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4020193
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Wenge, Ye Chen, Jing Lei, and Yan Wen. 2014. "The Effects of Facilitating Feedback on Online Learners’ Cognitive Engagement: Evidence from the Asynchronous Online Discussion" Education Sciences 4, no. 2: 193-208. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4020193