본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Learning Outcomes of Online Discussions: Looking into the Relationship Between Vicarious Interactions and Higher Order Thinking

0

조회

0

다운로드

8

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류교육학

초록

This study examined the effects of different levels of vicarious interactions on critical thinking. A posttest only experimental design with three groups was used for this study. The control group read a fact sheet (expository text) only. The two experimental groups read either a high or low level discussion transcript with the fact sheet. The dependent variable was critical thinking measured by the Washington State University Critical Thinking Rubric. Letters (posttests) from 58 participants were scored using this rubric. ANOVA results indicated that the higher interaction group scored significantly higher than the other two groups. Fisher’s exact test revealed that when each component of the rubric was analyzed, there were no significant differences on any single component. Qualitative analysis of post treatment surveys and interviews showed that discussions mostly helped the participants reinforce their ideas and strengthen their arguments. Findings of this study imply the need for instructor intervention to increase the quality of online discussions and stimulate critical thinking. The use of vicarious experiences is also recommended to model exemplary discussions for learners.

Abstract

This study examined the effects of different levels of vicarious interactions on critical thinking. A posttest only experimental design with three groups was used for this study. The control group read a fact sheet (expository text) only. The two experimental groups read either a high or low level discussion transcript with the fact sheet. The dependent variable was critical thinking measured by the Washington State University Critical Thinking Rubric. Letters (posttests) from 58 participants were scored using this rubric. ANOVA results indicated that the higher interaction group scored significantly higher than the other two groups. Fisher’s exact test revealed that when each component of the rubric was analyzed, there were no significant differences on any single component. Qualitative analysis of post treatment surveys and interviews showed that discussions mostly helped the participants reinforce their ideas and strengthen their arguments. Findings of this study imply the need for instructor intervention to increase the quality of online discussions and stimulate critical thinking. The use of vicarious experiences is also recommended to model exemplary discussions for learners.

참고문헌 (48)

  1. Angeli, C., "Communication in a web-based conferencing system:The quality of computer-mediated interactions", British Journal of Educational Technology, 3, pp.31~43 (2003)
  2. Aviv, R., "Educational performance of ALN via content analysis", Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2) (2000)
  3. Aviv, R., "Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks", Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3) (2003)
  4. "Journal of Distance Education", 1998, 1~32
  5. "Journal of Distance Education", 1994, 19~43
  6. Chen, D., "Personalised knowledge representations: The missing half of online discussions", British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), pp.279~290 (2002)
  7. Choi, I., "Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion", Instructional Science, 33(5), pp.483~511 (2005)
  8. Cody, R. P., "Applied statistics and the SAS programming language" (2006), Prentice Hall
  9. Cox, R., "Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse: A controlled comparison", Instructional Science, 27, pp.431~458 (1999)
  10. Driscoll, M. P., "Vicarious learning: Effects of overhearing dialog and monologue-like discourse in a virtual tutoring session", Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, pp.431~450 (2003)
  11. Ennis, R. H., "Critical thinking assessment", Theory into Practice, 32, pp.179~186 (1993)
  12. "Holistic critical thinking scoring rubric"[URL]
  13. Fredericksen, E., "Student satisfaction and perceived learning with online courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network", Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2) (2000)
  14. Gall, M. D., "Educational research: An introduction" (2003), Allyn and Bacon
  15. Garrison, D. R., "Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education", The American Journal of Distance Educatio, 15(1), pp.7~23 (2001)
  16. Gleason, M. M., "The role of evidence in argumentative writing", Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 15(1), pp.81~106 (1999)
  17. Gholson, B., "Promoting constructive activities that support vicarious learning during computer-based instruction", Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), pp.119~139 (2006)
  18. Gunawardena, C. N., "Interaction analysis of a global online debate and the development of a constructivist interaction analysis model for computer conferencing", Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, pp.395~429 (1997)
  19. Häkkinen, P., "Sharing perspectives in virtual interaction: Review of methods of analysis. in: Designing for change in networked learning environments", Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Support for Collaborative Learning 2003, pp.395~404 (2003), Dortrecht
  20. Hara, N., "Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course", Instructional Science, 28(2), pp.115~152 (2000)
  21. Hatano, G., "Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. in: Perspectives on socially shared cognition", pp.331~348 (1991), American Psychological Association
  22. Hung, D., "Constructivism and e-learning: Balancing between the individual and social levels of cognition", Educational Technology, 41(2), pp.40~44 (2001)
  23. Jonassen, D., "Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education", The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), pp.7~26 (1995)
  24. Jung, I., "Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction, and participation in Web-based instruction", Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), pp.153~162 (2002)
  25. Kanuka, H., "Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction", Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), pp.57~74 (1998)
  26. Kawachi, P., "Vicarious interaction and the achieved quality of learning", International Journal on E-Learning, 2(4), pp.39~45 (2003)
  27. "Washington state university critical thinking project"[URL]
  28. Khine, M. S., "The quality of messages ideas, thinking and interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment", Educational Media International, 40(1), pp.115~125 (2003)
  29. King, A., "Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing", Theory into Practice, 41(1), pp.33~39 (2002)
  30. "Applied Measurement in Educatio", 1998, 121~137
  31. Knowlton, D. S., "Promoting durable knowledge construction through online discussion", Proceedings of the 6th Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference (2001)
  32. Lalli, C. B., "Gauging and improving interactions in online seminars for mathematics coaches" (2005), Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory
  33. Lee, J., "Vicarious learning: Cognitive and linguistic effects of observing peer discussion", the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (1999)
  34. Marra, M. R., "The ideal online learning environment for supporting epistemic development: Putting the puzzle together", The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(1), pp.15~31 (2002)
  35. McGarrell, H., "Motivating revisions of drafts through formative feedback", ELT Journal, 61(3), pp.228~236 (2007)
  36. McMillan, J. H., "Research in education: A conceptual introduction", pp.2001~ (2001), Longman
  37. Meyer, K. A., "Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking", Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3) (2003)
  38. Montgomery, K., "Authentic tasks and rubrics: Going beyond traditional assessments in college teaching", College Teaching, 50(1), pp.34~39 (2002)
  39. Moskal, B. M., "Scoring rubrics: What, when and how? Practical Assessment", Research & Evaluation, 7(3) (2000)
  40. Newman, G., "A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning", Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), pp.56~77 (1995)
  41. Nussbaum, E. M., "The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing", Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), pp.157~169 (2005)
  42. The nation’s report card: Writing 2003, "Persky, H. R.", National Center for Education Statistics, ~, pp.NCES No. 2003-529 (2003)
  43. Picciano, A., "Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course", Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), pp.21~40 (2002)
  44. Remedios, L., "Framing collaborative behaviors: Listening and speaking in problem-based learning", The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 2(1), pp.1~19 (2007)
  45. "Defining critical thinking"[URL]
  46. Sutton, L. A., "The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications", International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), pp.223~242 (2001)
  47. Wang, M., "The construction of shared knowledge in an Internet-based shared environment for Expeditions (iExpeditions)", International Journal of Educational Technology, 2(2) (2001)
  48. "Washington State University Critical Thinking Rubric"[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)