Looking for Critical Thinking in Online Threaded Discussions

Looking for Critical Thinking in Online Threaded Discussions


Paula San Millan MaurinoFarmingdale State Universitypmaurino@optonline.net

Abstract
Threaded discussion forums have been a popular topic for the past few years in distance education research and studied as a factor in student participation, satisfaction, learning outcomes, social presence and interaction. Only recently has it been considered as a potential vehicle for the development of critical thinking skills and deep learning. Thirty-seven current studies on critical inquiry, deep learning, presence and interaction in distance education were synthesized. The studies were compared for findings about participation quality, participation quantity, critical thinking skills and deep learning, and recommendations. The synthesis revealed that current literature touts the potential for development of deep learning and critical thinking skills through online threaded discussions. For the most part, however, research does not show this happening at a high level or to any great extent. Confounding the issue is the fact that current research is predominated by examination of education and graduate level online classes and is mainly focused on student perceptions and outcomes. This is at odds with the profile of today’s “typical” distance education student. The need for more instructor involvement and effort is indicated in much of the research, but bulk of the research has focused on students and not teachers.
Introduction
Learning through discussions or conversations is a fundamental part of teaching and learning, particularly in higher education. New communication technologies enable discussions to be held online as well as in the classroom. These discussions may form a component of a totally online distance education class or be used as a supplement to a traditional face-to-face class. The discussions can be synchronous, with participants “talking” at the same time, or asynchronous, where communication turnaround can be delayed by hours or days.
Online threaded discussions provide students with access to the forum twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Students can thus participate whenever they have the time and desire and at their own pace. This online “talk” can be more thoughtful since it offers the chance for reflection. Students have time to read each other's contributions and to think carefully about their own contributions. Messages can be composed and revised as needed and this writing may encourage discipline and rigor in thinking and communicating.
The characteristics of anonymity may also serve to promote enhanced and more intensive discussion. Students can concentrate on the content of the message instead of the presenter and may be more open and honest about themselves. They may divulge information that is more personal and revealing which will, in turn, encourage others to do the same.
On the other hand, threaded discussions are written discussions and lack the affordances of oral conversation. Some students feel that these discussions are just a series of messages and there is no sense of community. The lack of facial expressions and voice make the process less human. The fact that there are no nonverbal clues to guide them can also lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Asynchronous discussions may lack the speed, the spark and energy of a face-to-face conversation and hinder the development of dynamic and interactive discussion [1]. Fewer teacher prompts online and the “out of sight, out of mind” adage may serve to increase student procrastination. Further, multiple simultaneous threads can be confusing to follow and to respond to. Some students may overpost and others suffer from “communication anxiety”. They feel detached and are not sure who is really out there, when to expect a response and what kind of a response it will be [2].
Discussion
Threaded discussion forums have been a popular topic for the past few years in distance education research and studied as a factor in student participation, satisfaction, learning outcomes, social presence and interaction. Only recently has it been considered as a potential vehicle for the development of critical thinking skills and deep learning. In an effort to determine the efficacy of threaded online discussions in this regard, thirty-seven current research studies were analyzed and synthesized. The volume of research within these areas in recent years is substantial. In an effort to condense and summarize the research, a chart was constructed. The chart is shown at the end of this section of the paper. The research studies are listed alphabetically by author followed by date of the study. The next column indicates whether the study was conducted with a graduate, undergraduate, professional or high school level group. The purpose of the study as stated in the journal article is shown next, followed by the methodology used. The next column indicates whether the class was totally online or if just the discussions were online as a part of a face-to-face class. The last column contains the major findings of the study.
Of the thirty-seven studies reviewed, nineteen studies evaluated classes at the graduate level and eleven at the undergraduate level. Although this paper deals with college level distance education courses, several other studies were included because they were cited frequently within other studies and considered valuable literature. Of these seven, two were on a high school level and five were on a professional level.
The majority of studies were performed with education classes. Of the thirty studies involving college classes, thirteen were education classes. Five were business related classes and four were computer related classes. The other classes varied across discipline.
The majority of the education classes were at the graduate level. Only one undergraduate education class was researched. It is assumed that this is because education professionals are more interested in distance education research than researchers in other disciplines and they have access to education classes and students as subjects. Why so many researchers have chosen graduate level instead of undergraduate level education classes is not known. The predominance of graduate level classes for research, however, is at variance with the current statistical profile and demographics of current distance education students. The changing nature and demographics of the distance education student are discussed later in this paper.
As stated previously, studies were selected for review if the article indicated that the purpose of the research was to investigate critical inquiry, deep learning, presence, and interaction. The methodology varied and a number of studies used triangulation. Content analysis of class transcripts, discussion threads, or listservs was a popular method. These archived records have only been available for research the last five or ten years and as a result, are a popular newer method of data collection and analysis. It was used to some extent in 22 of the 37 studies. This content analysis was generally performed in an effort to analyze student responses. These student responses were then often categorized for quantity or quality. Some studies ranked student responses using a scale or taxonomy such as Bloom’s Taxonomy, Biggs’ SOLO Taxonomy, or Garrison’s Four Cognitive Processing Categories.
Another common research design was to compare student conversations online with face-to-face classes. Seven studies followed this methodology. Student interviews and questionnaires were also popular, frequently in addition to other methods. Of the 37 studies, fifteen interviewed or questioned students.
2.1 Research Findings
Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems in a 2002 study stated that there is a concomitant body of research that reports low participation rates, varying degrees of disappointing collaboration, low learning performance and quality of learning in distance education [3]. The analysis of these 37 studies supports some of these findings.
2.2 Participation Quantity
Some studies did report low participation rates [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Other studies specifically studied “lurkers” or low participants [4] [11] [12], but found that these “lurkers” do learn by observing others. Hung and Nichoni in a 2002 study further stated that lurking is a necessary step in getting familiar with a particular culture [12]. A 2002 study by Picciano found that there was no difference in learning outcomes for low, moderate and high participants [10].
Chen and Zimitat in a 2004 study found that online classes had more participation than in-class discussions [13], but the more common finding was widely varying degrees of participation by students in the same class [14] [10]. Hara, Bonk, and Angeli in a 1998 study reported that online participation by students was limited to the mandatory number required by the instructor [15].
2.3 Participation Quality
Online discussions were described as less personal than face-to-face discussions [16], perfunctory [5], less interactive and lacking in speed, spontaneity and energy [5] [17] [1]. However, some studies reported more honest reflective discussion online [18] [14] [15] [17] [19]. Online participation was described as good for information exchange [20] [21], but not for creative problem exploration and idea generation [22].
Other studies reported that threaded discussions do not encourage team building or group processes [8] [23]. Some online environments culturally condition students to agree with each other and challenging each others ideas in discussion is considered a personal affront. There is little social discord [24] [25] [26]. Vonderwell in a 2002 study found that students claimed to all have similar ideas and thus there was nothing to really talk about [16].
2.4 Critical Thinking Skills and Deep Learning
Chen and Zimitat in a 2004 study reported that deeper understanding was shown in face-to-face classes than online classes [27]. On the other hand, similar amounts of critical thinking were found in face-to-face and online classes by Newman et al. in 1997 [22]. Hara, Bonk and Angeli in 1998 did find cognitively deep, lengthy postings with peer references, but still noted that students posted only the required number of postings and that comments were highly dependent on the directions of the discussion starter [15]. Heckman and Annabi in 2002 stated that based on their work, online discussions can generate cognitive levels equal to a face-to-face discussion [28].
When critical inquiry or deep learning was categorized in hierarchical levels, most messages or responses were ranked at the lower cognitive levels [1] [20] [21].
2.5 Literature Recommendations
Despite the difficulties cited above, most of the studies stated that online discussions have the potential for the development and fostering of critical thinking skills and deep learning. However, overwhelming it was stated that this was not yet happening at a high level or to a great extent.
Recommendations and suggestions to improve critical thinking skills development and deep learning included combining online discussions with other activities such as collaborative group work [26], case studies [26], production of tangible products [8], and problem and project based learning activities [19]. Other recommendations included developing more appropriate teaching and social presence [29] [24].
Mentioned most often as needed for improving deep learning in online discussions was better instructor efforts [30] [5] [6] [26] [18] [31] [1] [32]. Along these same lines, setting of clearer goals for discussion topics was frequently mentioned [14] [33]. Problems relating to a lack of clear goals or shared purpose for discussion was discussed in a number of studies [34] [35] [20] [14].
Most researchers placed responsibility for social interaction squarely on the back of instructors. It is up to the instructor to create a sense of online community and make a space for social interaction to take place [36]. This space must foster intimacy, openness and connectedness. The teacher then must direct online discussions, influence the discussion by entering new topics, share new material and redirect conversational patterns as necessary [3].
It was stated that an interactive teaching style is the best pedagogical approach to Internet-based learning [37] [30] and the type of questions the instructor asks are extremely important. The questions must be interesting as well as probing and prodding. They must elicit self explanations from the learner, critical clarification and refinement [38].
Instructors are also responsible, according to the literature, for providing the scaffolding that allows students to advance from passive to deep learning. Teachers are the content experts and must guide and assist students in their quest for knowledge. They must diagnose misconceptions, inject knowledge from diverse sources, and respond to technical concerns [39]. On the other hand, there are researchers that recommend a “guide on the side” approach with a laissez faire approach to moderating student discussions. There is some conflict between these two approaches and disagreement about whether the teacher in an online class should be a facilitator or a content provider. Further disagreement exists about which of the two approaches is more student centered.
It is interesting to note that although better instructor efforts were mentioned frequently, there were not many studies that actually interviewed or focused on instructors. Mortera-Gutierrez in a 2002 study conducted three unstructured interviews with three instructors and found that the pragmatic approach of the instructor affects class interaction, skills, and strategies [40]. In 2003, Trollip and Blignaut categorized instructor postings and classified them as affective, administrative, other, corrective, informative and Socratic [32]. Li, in a 2003 study, interviewed one teacher to learn of problems of first time online students [9].
2.6 Other Factors
Some of the studies did not take place in entirely online classes. Students taking a blended class where they have some face-to-face meetings with the instructor and other students may not require the same level of social and teacher presence online. Students in these blended classes may have more time to devote to developing in-depth conversations since less time is needed for developing social connections. Also, the face-to-face discussions may stimulate idea generation for later online discussions. These opportunities are not available for students taking classes that are totally online.
Three of the studies also used synchronous discussions. Synchronous and asynchronous conversations have their own advantages and disadvantages and are not comparable in many ways. As mentioned with the blended classes above, students in classes with synchronous discussions may not have the same needs for development of teacher and student presence.
Lastly, some of the studies did mention that other factors affect critical thinking. Bullen in a 1998 study and LaPointe in a 2003 study mentioned the importance of learner characteristics [25] [41]. Guzdial et al. in 2002 and and Rourke et al. in 1999 discussed the influence of discipline and culture [6] [24]. Students enrolled in technical disciplines are accustomed to a more didactic lecture approach and are not accustomed to discussing controversial or ethical issues. These students have been taught correct procedures and how apply them, not how to discuss these procedures.
In summary, perhaps the most consistent finding was that deep learning does NOT happen spontaneously [41] and that when it does happen; it is difficult to measure [43].
2.7 The Changing Distance Education Student
The original target group of distance education was adults with occupational, social and family commitments wanting to improve and update professional knowledge. Distance education has traditionally been interwoven with adult learning theory and lifelong learning. In 1991, Verduin and Clark described distance education as a form of adult education traditionally offered through extension units of colleges and universities, offering a choice of time and location, and designed for adults with the adult learning traits of self direction and internal motivation [44]. The typical online student has been generally described as over 25, employed, a caretaker, who has already completed some higher education. These learner demographics may have been true in the past, but are no longer valid.
The National Center for Education states that online enrollment now spans all age groups. As of December 31, 1999, 65% of l8 year olds had enrolled in an online course. It was also reported that 57% of traditional undergraduates aged 19 to 23 have been enrolled in an online course. These students are taking online classes at the same time as face-to-face classes. Online classes are not replacing face-to-face classes, they are being offered as supplements or alternatives within traditional college certificate and degree programs. Combining distance education with traditional degree programs is becoming a dominant theme [44].
The National Center for Education also reported that over one-half of the increase in distance education classes from 1997-8 to 2000-01 was attributable to public two year colleges. This is particularly impressive, since general enrollment in four year colleges has been outpacing enrollment in two year colleges [45].
Schools granting associate degrees had the largest number of students taking at least one online course, representing about half of all the students studying online. Strong increases were predicted by all classes of schools offering associate degrees [45].
Fourteen years ago, Verduin and Clark described three major types of programs for adult learning and distance education: adult basic education for acquiring basic skills needed to function in a changing, increasingly technology based society; career education; and leisure and enrichment education [46]. The nature of online education has changed as well as the typical (if there is a typical) online student. A more common online student today may well be a young, full time associate degree student taking college courses online as well as in the classroom.