Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore and compare learners’ critical thinking and interaction during an asynchronous online discussion when peer- or instructor-facilitation was provided. Current literature on online discussion reveals a controversy between peer facilitation and instructor facilitation regarding their strengths and weaknesses. However, the effect of peer-facilitation on critical thinking learning outcome has not been clearly discussed. Situated in a graduate-level program evaluation course, the learners engaged in a debate using a scenario-based case on ethical decision-making. A content analysis of discussion using the Cognitive Presence framework and a social network analysis revealed a significant difference between peer-redirected group and instructor-redirected group in their cognitive presence as well as in interaction dynamic upon receiving the redirection message. Based on findings regarding cognitive presence level, interaction dynamic and perspective change on the debate topic in each group, a peer-facilitation approach is more effective for fostering critical thinking and collaborative discourse.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x.
Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765.
An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53, 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Baran, E., & Correria, A. P. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30, 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910903236510.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Celestin, P. (2007). Online education: Analysis of interaction and knowledge building patterns among foreign language teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 39–58.
Clarke, L., & Bartholomew, A. (2014). Digging beneath the surface: Analyzing the complexity of instructors’ participation in asynchronous discussion. Online Learning, 18(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i3.414.
Correia, A. P., & Baran, E. (2010). Lessons learned on facilitating asynchronous discussion for online learning. Educacao, Formacao & Technologias, 3(1), 59–67.
Darabi, A., Arrastia, D. W., 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, 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x.
Darabi, A., & Jin, L. (2013). Improving the quality of online discussion: The effects of strategies designed based on cognitive load theory principles. Distance Education, 34(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.770429.
Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of online discussion strategies: A meta analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.837651.
Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28, 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910701611328.
Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v20i1.2254.
Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and direction (Vol. 4, pp. 47–58). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002.
Ghadirian, H., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2017). Peer moderation of asynchronous online discussions: An exploratory study of peer e-moderating behaviour. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2882.
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003764722829.
Hew, K. F. (2015). Student perceptions of peer versus instructor facilitation of asynchronous online discussion: Further findings from three case studies. Instructional Science, 43, 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9329-2.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51, 1111–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.002.
Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38, 571–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0.
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4.
Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012). The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation: Student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Educational Media International, 49, 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738014.
Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.
Liu, C., & Yang, S. C. (2012). Applying the practical inquiry model to investigate the quality of students’ online discourse in an information ethics course based on Bloom’s teaching goal and Bird’s 3C model. Computers & Education, 59, 466–480.
Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40, 237–253.
Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49(2), 193–213.
Phirangee, K., Epp, C. D., & Hewitt, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between facilitation methods, students’ sense of community, and their online behaviors. Online Learning, 20(2), 134–154. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i2.775.
Poole, D. M. (2000). student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: a case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.018.
Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009.
Richardson, J. C., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Relationship between types of question prompts and critical thinking in online discussions. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice (pp. 197–222). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5334/2002-1.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70.
Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 54–62.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701298688.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007.
Thormann, J., Gable, S., Fidalgo, P. S., & Blakeslee, G. (2013). Interaction, critical thinking, and social network analysis (SNA) in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 294–317. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1306.
Tirado, R., Hernando, Á., & Aguaded, J. I. (2015). The effect of centralization and cohesion on the social construction of knowledge in discussion forums. Interactive Learning Environments, 23, 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745437.
Van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 25–47). London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_2.
Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students’ motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 916–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01140.x.
Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003.
Yang, D., Richardson, J. C., French, B. F., & Lehman, J. D. (2011). The development of a content analysis model for assessing students’ cognitive learning in asynchronous online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 43–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9166-1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oh, E.G., Huang, WH.D., Hedayati Mehdiabadi, A. et al. Facilitating critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: comparison between peer- and instructor-redirection. J Comput High Educ 30, 489–509 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9180-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9180-6