Design and Effects of a Concept Focused Discussion Environment in E-Learning

Abstract

Problem Statement: Within the frame of learning management systems, this
study develops a concept focused discussion environment and validates
the effectiveness of this environment’s use through an experimental study.
Purpose of the Study: Online discussion forums, which are commonly used
in learning management systems (LMS), can negatively influence the
integration and motivation of learning in terms of learner-content and
learner-learner interactions, as online discussions take place in a physical
situation apart from the content environment. The development of the
concept focused discussion environment (CFDE) and its integration into
into LMS as well as another environment, LMS TDE (traditional
discussion environment), which possess a hierarchical threaded discussion
structure, are assessed in terms of learning perceptions, usefulness
perceptions, qualities of the messages sent to discussion environments,
and student learning styles.
Method: The experimental design of the research is structured in the
“application and final test” form (Karasar, 2007). Experiment group
students (44) joined online learning environments in which the concept
focused discussion environment (CFDE) was embedded, and on the other
hand, control group students (46) joined online learning environments
that possessed a traditional discussion environment (TDE). After the
experimental work, scales measuring learning perception in discussion
environments, usefulness perception in discussion environments, and
contribution quality analysis (degree assessment type) were applied.
Findings: At the end of the research, the study found that CFDE that draws
on students’ perceptions of learning and usability is more effective than 

TDE that uses students’ perceptions. In addition, the messages sent in the discussion environments were analyzed in terms of contribution quality. The relation between students’ learning styles and their perception of learning was investigated. Messages sent in CFDE were compared to messages sent in TDE in terms of knowledge validity, cognitive attempt effort, showing understanding of the subject, showing sample reference, being understandable, involving cooperation, and orientation skills; the comparison revealed significant differences. Finally, the research also examined learning styles and learning perception relationships. Developed CFDE demonstrates no differences between students with tendencies toward ordered or integrated learning; in contrast, TDE creates negative effects and inequality for students that have sequential learning style (according to cognitive and affective learning perceptions) in particular. The case can be made that CFDE removes this inequality.
Conclusion and Recommendations: This study, in contrast with current LMSs, designed a new product to integrate content and discussion boards. Integrating content and discussion boards with each other as we did in this study will increase students’ learning perception and decrease the individual differences between students.
Keywords: Discussion forum, online learning environment, learning styles, learning management system.

References

1. Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu M. Y. (2008). A study of student’s perceptions in a blended learning environment based on different learning styles. Educational Technology and Society, 11(1), 183-193.
2. Bleiler, S.K. (2014). Increasing awareness of practice through interaction across communities: the lived experiences of a mathematician and mathematics teacher educator. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1-22.
3. Bradley, M.E., Thom, L.R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: how question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 888-900.
4. Brower, H. H. (2003). On emulating classroom discussion in a distance-delivered OBHR course: Creating an on-line learning community. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(1), 22-36.
5. Brown, R.E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18-35.
6. Chen, P., Xiang, J., Sun, Y., Ban, Y., Chen, G., & Huang, R. (2015). Exploring students’ discussion in face to face and online synchronous learning. In Emerging issues in smart learning (pp. 183-191). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
7. Choi, H.J., & Johnson, S.D. (2005). The effect of context-based video instruction on learning and motivation in online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 215-227.
8. Curtis, D.D., & Lawson, M.J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34.

9. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Using learning management systems as metacognitive tools to support self-regulation in higher education contexts. In International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 197-211). New York: Springer.
10. Echeverria, L., Cobos, R., & Morales, M. (2013). Designing and evaluating collaborative learning scenarios in Moodle LMS courses. In Cooperative design, visualization, and engineering (pp. 61-66). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
11. Gao, F., Zhang, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 469-483.
12. George, S., & Labas, H. (2008). E-learning standards as a basis for contextual forums design. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 138-152.
13. Gerosa, M.A., Filippo, D., Pimentel, M., Fuks, H., & Lucena, C.J. (2010). Is the unfolding of the group discussion off-pattern? Improving coordination support in educational forums using mobile devices. Computers and Education, 54(2), 528-544.
14. Gunawardena, C.N., & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.
15. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437-469.
16. Haslaman, T., Demiraslan, Y., Mumcu, F., Donmez, O., & Askar, P. (2008). Cevrimici ortamda yapilan grup tartismasindaki iletisim oruntulerinin soylem cozumlemesi yoluyla incelenmesi [Examining communication patterns of group discussions in an online environment by discourse analysis]. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi [H. U. Journal of Education], 35, 162-174.
17. Jeong, A., & Frazier, S., (2008). How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and computer‐supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 875-887.
18. Karasar, N. (2007). Bilimsel arastirma yontemi [Research metods]. Ankara: Nobel Yayin [Nobel Publishing].
19. Kayler, M., & Weller, K. (2007). Pedagogy, self-assessment, and online discussion groups. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 10(1), 136-147.
20. Lambiase, J. J. (2010). Hanging by a thread: topic development and death in an online discussion of breaking news. Language at Internet, 7(9), 1-22.
21. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Lin, S. Y., & Overbaugh, R. C. (2007). The effect of student choice of online discussion format on tiered achievement and student satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 399-415.
23. Link, Georg, J. P., Siemon, D., Vreede, G. J., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2015). Evaluating anchored discussion to foster creativity in online collaboration. In Collaboration and technology (pp 28-44), Volume 9334.
24. Loncar, M., Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G. Z. (2014). Towards the refinement of forum and asynchronous online discussion in educational contexts worldwide: Trends and investigative approaches within a dominant research paradigm. Computers and Education, 73, 93-110.
25. Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L., & Klimczak, A. K. (2004). Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 23-40.
26. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
27. Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3), 286-313.
28. Pilli, O., & Sozudogru, O. (2012). Students’ perceptions of using Google Plus as a learning management system. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 12(49/A), 13-28.
29. Roberts, T. S. (2006). Self, peer, and group assessment in e-learning. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
30. Rovai, A.P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88.
31. Rovai, A.P. (2002). A preliminary look at structural differences in sense of classroom community between higher education traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 2002. 48.
32. Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. The Sloan Consortium, 1 - 6.
33. Thomas, M. J. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351-366.
34. Topcu, A. (2007). Relationship between the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and the cognitive level in the text based online forum discussions. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 7(27), 191-204.
35. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. West, R.E., Waddoups, G., & Graham, C.R. (2007). Understanding the experiences of instructors as they adopt a course management system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 1–26.
37. Wu, D., Hiltz, S.R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139-152.
38. 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. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163-181.