Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Role-Play for Problem-Solving Skills and Engagement in Online Forums

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Educational Technology to Improve Quality and Access on a Global Scale

Abstract

The body of research found that it is difficult to improve the quality of an online discussion experience because of the affordances and the limitations of asynchronous online communication technologies (An et al., Comput Educ 53: 749–760, 2009; Bachner, Cases on critical and qualitative perspectives in online higher education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2014; Dennen and Wieland, Dis Educ 28(3): 281–297, 2007; Rourke and Kanuka, J Dis Educ 23(1): 19–48, 2009; Thomas, J Comput Assist Learn 18: 351–366, 2002). To address this issue, this study investigated an instructional strategy to increase engagement using a collaborative role-play online discussion where students assumed different roles. This study aimed to assess the quality of interaction by means of the Interaction Analysis Model (IAM) for examining social construction of knowledge and of learning experiences of teachers during computer conferencing designed to learn problem-solving skills. Two major models guided the study: Problem Solving Approach Model (Branford and Stein, The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York, NY: Freeman, 1993) and Interaction Analysis Model (IAM) for Computer-Mediated Communication rooted in social constructivist theory (Gunawardena et al., J Educ Comput Res 17(4): 397–431, 1997). After analyzing the progress of the discussion transcripts, this study found that the role-play discussion constructed better knowledge socially and improved higher mental operation. The threaded discussion postings from four structured online debates showed that the algorithmic format of problem-solving steps promoted and were closely interrelated to five phases of IAM. The study also found that this problem-solving exercise through computer-mediated communication helped teachers be equipped with a frame of reference to the problems, which resulted in helping teachers to establish boundaries, name problems, form opinions, and uncover solutions (Entman, J Commun 43(4): 51–58, 1993; Goffman, Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row, 1974). This study will benefit online instructors as well as instructional designers who strive to find ways to make online discussion engaging.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
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

  • Achinstein, B., & Barrett, A. (2004). (Re)framing classroom contexts: How new teachers and mentors view diverse learners and challenges of practice. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 716–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(2), 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachner, J. (2014). Challenges and solutions when designing and teaching online courses. In M. Orleans (Ed.), Cases on critical and qualitative perspectives in online higher education (pp. 24–43). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Branford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, D., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication-Education, 48(2), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camin, C., Glicken, A., Hall, M., Quarantillo, B., & Merenstein, G. (2001). Evaluation of electronic discussion groups as a teaching/learning strategy in an evidence-based medicine course: A pilot study. Education for Health: Change in Learning and Practice, 14(1), 21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J. (1999). Exploration on educational strategies for enhancing interaction in Web-based learning. Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 129–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cranston-Gingras, A., Raines, S., Paul, J., Epanchin, B., & Roselli, H. (1996). Developing and using cases in partnership environments. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 158–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Luyegu, E., & Kimble, B. E. (2012). An analysis of asynchronous discussions: A case study of graduate student participation in online debates. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(1), 29–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910701611328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, J. (2000). Practising clinical supervision. London: Balliere Tindall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entman, R. (1993). Framing toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, A., & Klein, J. (2001). The influence of discussion groups in a case-based learning environment. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(3), 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1980). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Holt Rinehard and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2004). Critical factors in student satisfaction and success: Facilitating student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream, Sloan C Series (Vol. 5, pp. 29–38). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N. M., Bonk, C. J. M., & Angeli, C. M. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harasim, L. (1993). Global networks: Computers and communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heo, H., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, Y. (2010). Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1383–1392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, D. C. A. (1999). A new method for analyzing patterns of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. M., & Saxon, T. F. (2009). Negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge: An experimental analysis of asynchronous online instruction. Computers & Education, 52(3), 624–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joeng, A. (2003). Sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in threaded discussions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(4), 397–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., & Chung, S. P. (1999). The effect of thinking aloud pair problem solving on the troubleshooting ability of aviation technician students. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 37(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Report on Higher Education. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational Technology, 28(11), 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Compbell, J., & Hagg, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9, 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. H. & Lee, Y. (2013, April). Effects of use of online forum for problem-solving skills and collaborative construction of knowledge in student teaching. Paper presented at American Education Research Association in San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. Carter, J. & Cho, M. (2015). Effects of role-play for problem-solving skills and engagement in online forum, presented at Association for Educational Communication and Technology Annual International Convention, Indianapolis, IN, 2014. North Miami Beach, Florida: Nova Southeastern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowlton, D. S. (2001). Promoting durable knowledge construction through online discussion. Paper presented at the Mid–South Instructional Technology Conference. Retrieved from http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/11.html.

  • Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, L. J., & Cohen, S. (1996). Using the Internet to extend training in team problem solving. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 28(2), 248–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffey, J., Tupper, T., Musser, D., & Wedman, J. (1998). A computer-mediated support system for project-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, Q. C. (2010). Analysing high school students’ participation and interaction in an asynchronous online project-based learning environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 327–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, B. E., & Keiper, T. A. (2002). Classroom discussion and threaded electronic discussion: Learning in two arenas. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(1), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markel, S. L. (2001). Technology and education online discussion forums: It’s in the response. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/markel42.html.

  • Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2000). Comparing problem-based learning and traditional instruction in high school economics. Journal of Educational Research, 93(6), 374–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. M., & Miller, K. L. (2000). Theoretical and practical consideration in the design of web-based instruction. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 156–177). London: Idea Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. L., & Marra, R. M. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, G., & Herring, S. C. (2007). Interaction, facilitation, and deep learning in cross-cultural chat: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2013). Exploring asynchronous and synchronous tool use in online courses. Computers & Education, 60(1), 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, I., & Kim, M. (2000). Impact of anonymity on demonstration and negative statement in synchronous virtual discussion. Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 16(4), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, P., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valtcheva, A. V., Hayes, S., & Vickers, J. (2011). The community of inquiry framework meets the SOLO taxonomy: A process-product model of online learning. Educational Media International, 48(2), 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. B. (1994). Collective intelligence in computer-based collaboration. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, M. J., & Davidsen, P. I. (2000). Designing technology-enhanced learning environments. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 156–177). London: Idea Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Thomas, J. (2013). Exploring the use of asynchronous online discussion in health care education: A literature review. Computers & Education, 69, 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Zhu, C., & Deed, C. (2009). Supporting active cognitive processing in collaborative groups: The potential of Bloom’s taxonomy as a labeling tool. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3), 165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegmann, S., & McCauley, J. (2008). Shouting through the fingertips: Computer-mediated discourse in an asynchronous environment. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 805–808). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Greg Dzuiban for providing solid proofreading tirelessly in the process of editing the manuscript. I also would like to thank my students who participated in my study for providing me with the honest and detailed reflection on their experiences of taking my course. Without their help, this chapter will be not in print.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Armstrong State University, 11935 Abercorn St., Savannah, GA, 31419, USA

    Jackie Hee Young Kim

Authors
  1. Jackie Hee Young Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jackie Hee Young Kim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA

    Kay A. Persichitte

  2. The Indonesian Professional Association for Educational Technology, Jakarta, Indonesia

    Atwi Suparman

  3. Department of Learning Technologies, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    Michael Spector

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kim, J.H.Y. (2018). Effects of Role-Play for Problem-Solving Skills and Engagement in Online Forums. In: Persichitte, K., Suparman, A., Spector, M. (eds) Educational Technology to Improve Quality and Access on a Global Scale. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66227-5_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66227-5_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66226-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66227-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation