Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Possible Strategies to Overcome Limited Student Contribution: Empirical Findings From Previous Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Student Participation in Online Discussions

  • 1389 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents various empirically based strategies or solutions from previous research to address the problem of limited student contribution in asynchronous online discussion. Limited student contribution is defined as students making few or no postings, students exhibiting surface-level thinking, or students displaying low-level knowledge construction in online discussions. The empirically based strategies include the use of certain ground rules, discussion deadlines, discussion incentives, open-ended questions or topics, sentence openers and message labels, Socratic questions, and asynchronous voice or audio discussion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1). Retrieved February 15, 2012 from http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume6Number1/Arendpaper.pdf.

  • Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertera, E. M., & Littlefield, M. B. (2003). Evaluation of electronic discussion forums in social work diversity education: A comparison of anonymous and identified participation. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 21(4), 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C-K. (2010). Acceptability of an asynchronous learning forum on mobile devices. Behavior and Information Technology, 29(1), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chanlin, L.-J., Chen, Y.-T., & Chan, K.-C. (2009). Labeled postings for asynchronous interaction. AACE Journal, 17(4), 317–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S.-J., & Caropreso, E. J. (2004). Influence of personality on online discussion. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(2). Retrieved July 9, 2007 from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/index.cfm.

  • Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2005). Factors affecting learners’ satisfaction on the use of asynchronous online discussion in a hypermedia design environment. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 5(1&2), 56–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2006). Examining students’ creative and critical thinking and student to student interactions in an asynchronous online discussion environment: A singapore case study. Asia-Pacific Cybereducation Journal, 2(2). Retrieved June 11, 2010 from http://www.acecjournal.org/current_issue_current_issue.php.

  • Cheung, W., & Hew, K. (2007). Use of Ground Rules and Guidelines in Online Discussion: A Case Study. In C. Montgomerie and J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 2753–2758). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, W. S., Hew, K. F., & Foo, A. (2009). Examining the impact of object owners’ anonymity on learners’ participation rate and critical thinking in an asynchronous online discussion environment. In L. Cameron and J. Dalziel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International LAMS and Learning Design Conference (pp. 48-53). Sydney, Australia: LAMS Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33, 483–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K. L., Segur, R., & Kodali, S. (1997). Design considerations for computer conferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 177–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 216–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bono, E. (1991). Six thinking hats for schools: resource book for adult educators. Logan: USA Perfection Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P. (2001). The design and facilitation of asynchronous discussion activities in web-based courses: Implications for instructional design theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dysthe, O. (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, F. (2011). Designing a discussion environment to promote connected and sustained online discussion. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(1), 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girasoli, A. J., & Hannafin, R. D. (2008). Using asynchronous AV communication tools to increase academic self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 51, 1676–1682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Jumain, S. N. (2010a). Critical thinking in asynchronous online discussions: Examining the role of the student facilitator. In Z. Abas et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010 (pp. 4210–4215). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J., & Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference, Dec. 12–15. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, H. G. K., Burgos, D., Tattersall, C., Brouns, F., Kurvers, H., & Koper, R. (2005). Encouraging contributions in learning networks using incentive mechanisms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A., & Frazier, S. (2008). How day of posting affects growth patterns of asynchronous discussion threads and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 875–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kear, K. (2001). Following the thread in computer conferences. Computers & Education, 37, 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kear, K., & Heap, N. W. (2007). ‘Sorting the wheat from the chaff’: Investigating overload in educational discussion systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. (2005). Listservs in the college science classroom: Evaluating participation and ‘‘richness’’ in computer-mediated discourse. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 325–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienle, A., & Ritterskamp, C. (2007). Facilitating asynchronous discussions in learning communities: The impact of moderation strategies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(1), 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, J. H. L., Herring, S. C., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Project-based learning and student knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 284–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, A. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41, 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, L. L., & Jeng, I. (2006). Knowledge construction in inservice teacher online discourse: Impacts of instructor roles and facilitative strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marriott, P. & Hiscock, J. (2002). Voice vs Text-based Discussion Forums: an implementation of Wimba Voice Boards. In M. Driscoll & T. Reeves (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2002 (pp. 640–646). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, K., & Oberprieler, G. (2004). Encouraging equitable online participation through curriculum articulation. Computers and Education, 42, 319–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, S., Braul, B., & Chao, T. (2003). A case study in asynchronous voice conferencing for language instruction. Educational Media International, 40(1), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., Harland, J., & Warburton, G. (2011). How active are students in online discussion forums. In J. Hamer & M. de Raadt. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Computing Education Conference 2011 (Vol. 114, pp. 125–134). Perth, Australia: Australia Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. R., 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, 3(2), 56–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, C. S. L., Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Solving ill-structured problems in asynchronous online discussions: Built-in scaffolds vs no scaffolds. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(2), 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002). Enhancing the quality of online discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Painter, C., Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2003). Impacts of directed tutorial activities in computer conferencing: A case study. Distance Education, 24(2), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poscente, K. R., & Fahy, P. J. (2003). Investigating triggers in CMC text transcripts. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved on June 26, 2007 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/141/221.

  • Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1997). Getting started in instructional technology research (3rd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salam, S., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Enhancing social studies students’ critical thinking through blogcast and socratic questioning: A Singapore case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(4), 391–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Keer, H. V., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2009). Tagging thinking types in asynchronous discussion groups: effects on critical thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Keer, H. V., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups. Small Group Research, 36(6), 704–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E. (2009). Using community development theory to improve student engagement in online discussion: a case study. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, K. D. (2011). How can discussion forum questions be effective in online MBA courses? Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(2), 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagg, A. C., & Dickinson, J. A. (1995). Tutor messaging and its effectiveness in encouraging student participation on computer conferences. Journal of Distance Education, 10(2). Retrieved on November 29, 2006 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol10.2/taggdickinson.html.

  • Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does:” Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, K., DeBacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaneske, E., & Oates, B. (2010). Using Voice Boards: pedagogical design, technological implementation, evaluation and reflections. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y.-T. C. (2008). A catalyst for teaching critical thinking in a large university class in Taiwan: Asynchronous online discussions with the facilitation of teaching assistants. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 241–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y.-T. C., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y.-T. C., Newby, T., & Bill, R. (2008). Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: A quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1572–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, H. T., & Buskirk, E. V. (2005). An instructor’s methods of facilitating students’ participation in asynchronous online discussion. In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, and R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 682-688). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, H.-T., & Lahman, M. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of asynchronous online discussion on Blackboard. The Qualitative Report, 12(4), 680–704.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Education, Learning Sciences, and Technologies, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Khe Foon Hew & Wing Sum Cheung

Authors
  1. Khe Foon Hew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wing Sum Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khe Foon Hew .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S. (2012). Possible Strategies to Overcome Limited Student Contribution: Empirical Findings From Previous Research. In: Student Participation in Online Discussions. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2370-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation