Communication and Instruction in an Online Graduate Education Course

Abstract

Computer-mediated distance education holds potential for providing professional development opportunities for teachers. This study investigated teaching and learning through written asynchronous and synchronous communications in an online graduate education course. Types of student participation during four weeks of discussions in the course, two weeks involving discussion boards (asynchronous) and two involving chat sessions (synchronous), were analyzed to better understand the instruction and learning taking place through each mode. Surveys of students' perceptions of various aspects of the online course including their learning through discussion boards and chat sessions were gathered. Findings suggest instructional practices for online education that draw on the strengths of each written communication mode while diminishing their weaknesses.

A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies on Participants’ Interactions in Internet-Mediated Discussion Boards as a Course Component in Formal Higher Education Settings

“…In many studies, the qualitative data were quantified for analysis and presentation of the findings (Ahern & El-Hindi, 2000;Brooks & Bippus, 2012;Fernandez, 2007;Huang & Nakazawa, 2010;Lapadat, 2007;Maushak & Ou, 2007;Pilkington & Walker, 2003;Thomas, 2002;Xie & Ke, 2011); however, only one mixed-methods study (Exter et al, 2009) was found during the search, indicating a potential direction for future research. In many recent studies, social network analysis was applied to generate findings from a new perspective.…”

“…Similar and complementary findings from multiple studies conducted in various contexts were compared and connected. For example, 12 studies reported to varying degrees that the online discussion being examined began with low-to medium-level interactions while higher level interactions were observed in the later stage of the discussions (Akarasriworn & Ku, 2013;Davidson-Shivers et al, 2000;Fernandez, 2007;Gerbic, 2006;Im, 2004;Jeong, 2003;Larson & Keiper, 2002;Mäkitalo et al, 2002;Poole, 2000;Sorensen & Baylen, 2004;Thomas, 2002;Xie & Ke, 2011). A closer examination of the contexts of these studies revealed that these 12 studies spanned a 14-year range, from 2000 to 2013, in four different countries with undergraduate and graduate students in five different academic disciplines.…”

“…Several similar findings from multiple studies showed the contributing factors for students' positive perception toward online discussion and/or online course. Some examples include the sense of community (Exter et al, 2009;Fernandez, 2007;Lee et al, 2006), constructivist environment (Exter et al, 2009;Lapadat, 2007), supportiveness (Çelik, 2013;Lapadat, 2007), evaluation (Lee et al, 2006;Morris, 2010), and instructor involvement and support (Lee et al, 2006;Morris, 2010). Students' course performances during and after the online discussion experience were reported in five studies.…”

“…• The interactions were generally collaborative and constructive (Giannini-Gachago & Seleka, 2005;Maushak & Ou, 2007) with some off-topic messages (Cifuentes, 2003;Light et al, 2000); • Low to medium level interactions dominated the discussion with some high level evolving later (Akarasriworn & Ku, 2013;Davidson-Shivers et al, 2000;Fernandez, 2007;Gerbic, 2006;Im, 2004;Jeong, 2003;Larson & Keiper, 2002;Mäkitalo et al, 2002;Poole, 2000;Sorensen & Baylen, 2004;Thomas, 2002;Xie & Ke, 2011); • More interaction in the form of response than initiation, but some initiations received no response (Jeong, 2003;Larson & Keiper, 2002;Lee et al, 2006;Poole, 2000;Thomas, 2002); • The interactions rarely indicated challenging, disagreeing, or evaluating arguments (Jeong, 2003;Maushak & Ou, 2007;Sorensen & Baylen, 2004); • Some degree of social bond dominated synchronous chat but was rarely observed in asynchronous discussion (Im, 2004); • Some participants dominated higher level interactions, while other participants remained at lower level interactions (Christopher et al, 2004); • Interactions with supportive messages dominated the discussions (Jeong, 2003;Sorensen & Baylen, 2004); • The participants tended to give direct answers (Lee et al, 2006); • It was difficult to detect emotion during the discussion (Larson & Keiper, 2002;Poole, 2000).…”

“…• Asynchronous discussions were more structured and cohesive than synchronous discussions (Bryce, 2007;Fernandez, 2007;Im, 2004); • The instructor's involvement was related to higher levels of interaction (Light et al, 2000; Xie & Ke, 2011); • Intrinsic motivation influenced the individual's level of interaction (Xie & Ke, 2011); • There was a relationship between the degree of learner-learner interactions and students' perceived sense of community (Dawson, 2006); • Arguments were likely to generate additional arguments and disagreement and then lead to higher levels of interaction (Jeong, 2003); • Understanding the purpose of the discussion and posting questions promoted higher level interactions (Ellis et al, 2006;Lapadat, 2007); • There was a positive relationship between level of interaction and time spent on discussion (Sorensen & Baylen, 2004).…”