Teacher candidate perceptions on alternative asynchronous online discussion boards

Abstract

Asynchronous online discussion boards are frequently utilized as a pedagogical tool within traditional, hybrid, and online higher education courses. Research has found teacher candidates can be disenchanted with the monotonous structure of traditional asynchronous online discussion boards. In educator preparation, we claim to understand teacher candidates learn differently. Yet, the majority of assignments have a linguistic focus. This demonstration of knowledge is not effective for all teacher candidates. To support all teacher candidates, faculty can find ways to differentiate by incorporating alternative asynchronous discussion board platforms. Four platforms were compared in this study: traditional written response, video response, Flipgrid, and BookSnaps. A mixed-methods approach was used with elementary teacher candidates (n=77) to answer the following research question: 1) What asynchronous online discussion board platform enhanced teacher candidates perceptions of creativity, ability to demonstrate content understanding, student voice, and usefulness toward learning? It is important to understand the factors, which create a high-quality asynchronous discussion board experience. This research can help faculty to determine how to strengthen the asynchronous online discussion board learning experience.

Keywords

• asynchronous discussion boards
• instructional technology
• online learning

References

1. Ajayi, L. (2009). An exploration of pre-service teachers' perceptions of learning to teach while using asynchronous discussion board. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 86+. Retrieved from https://link-gale com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A198291285/AONE?u=vic_liberty&sid=AONE&xid= 85993632
2. Akyol, Z. (2014). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course; Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive, and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 12(3-4), 3-22.
3. Author. (2019). BookSnaps for enhancing student teaching. The teaching professor. https://www.teachingprofessor.com/topics/online-learning/booksnaps-for-enhancing- student-learning/
4. Bailey, R. & Garner, M. (2010) Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers' reflections on their practices, Teaching in Higher Education, 15:2,187-198, DOI: 10.1080/13562511003620019
5. Barnes, N. G., & Mattson, E. (2009). Social media in the 2009. Inc. 500: New tools & new trends. Retrieved from: http://davidanthonyporter.typepad.com/files/socialmedia2009.pdf
6. Bartlett, M. (2018). Using Flipgrid to increase students' connectedness in an online class. Elearn, 2018(12) doi:10.1145/3302261.3236703
7. Beghetto, R., & Kaufman, J. (2013). Fundamentals of creativity. Educational leadership, 70(5), 10–15 Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1006686
8. Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2003). Asynchronous discussion groups in teacher training classes: perceptions of native and non-native students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 24+. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A284325565/AONE?u=vic_libert y&sid=AONE&xid=e84c12b7

9. Birch, D., &Volkov, M. (2007). Assessment of online reflections: Engaging English Second Language (ESL) students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.23, No.3, pp.291-306.
10. Borup, J., West, R. E., Thomas, R. A., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Examining the impact of video feedback on instructor social presence in blended courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 232-256. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1821
11. Boucher, J. (2017, Oct 11). Do your BookSnaps seem flat or disorganized? Spice up and organize BookSnaps using Google Drawings will adding gifs, bitmojis, and word art to code text. Flipped Tech Coaching with Joli. Retrieved from https://flippedtechcoaching.com/2017/10/11/google-drawings-BookSnaps-promote- thinking-and-creativity-using-bitmojis-student-created-stickers-and-images-to-code-the- text/
12. Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Ala‐Mutka K. & Punie, Y. (2010) Creative Learning and Innovative Teaching: final report on the study on creativity and innovation in education in the EU member states (Seville, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, EUR 24675 EN).
13. Cambell, M., Gibson, W., Hall, A., Richards, D., Callery, P. (2008). Online vs. face-to-face discussion in a web-based research methods course for postgraduate nursing students: a quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45. pp. 750-759
14. Carter, R. (2002). A response to Neal R. Norrick, Connotations 11/2–3: 291–297.
15. Cho, M., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on Community of Inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl v l7i2.2342.
16. Clark, C., Strudler, N., & Grove, K. (2015). Comparing asynchronous and synchronous video vs. text based discussions in an online teacher education course. Online Learning Journal [OLJ], 19(3), 48+. Retrieved from https://link-gale- com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A443459150/AONE?u=vic_liberty&sid=AONE&xid= eb8c5f65
17. Cummins, M., Rajan, N. S., Hodge, C., & Gouripeddi, R. (2016). Patterns and perceptions of asynchronous video discussion in a graduate health sciences course. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(12), 706-710. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.3928/01484834- 20161114-08
18. Dean, C. B., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. 2nd ed. Alexandria: ASCD.
19. Dunbar, L. (2019). When Responses Cannot Be Written Down: Video Submission Possibilities in the Music Classroom. General Music Today, 32(3), 29–30. https://doi- org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177/1048371319832880
20. J. Epstein, F. Van Voorhis (2012). The changing debate: From assigning homework to designing homework. S. Suggate, E. Reese (Eds.), Contemporary debates in child development and education, Routledge, London. pp. 263-273.
21. Fernandez, V., Simo, P., Castillo, D., & Sallan, J.M. (2014). Online discussion forums with embedded streaming videos on distance courses. Journal of Technology and Science Education. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.91
22. Fielding, M. (2009, April 22). Student voice, democracy and the necessity of radical education. Keynote presentation at Listening to learners: Partnerships in action conference, University of East London.
23. Flipgrid Announces Explosive 800 Percent Year-Over-Year Growth in 2017. (2017, January 31). Business Wire (English). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nsm&AN=6 CU92001071420170131005872&site=ehost-live&scope=site
24. Foster, L. (2017). Using Bitmoji in your classroom. http://bisdlearntech.com/using-bitmoji-in- your-classroom/
25. Garner, B. (2013). The power of noticing. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 48–32. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb13/vol70/num05/The- Power-of-Noticing.aspx
26. Gao, F., Zhang, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussions environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 469–483. ERIC Number: EJ1006692.
27. Hall, V., (2017). A tale of two narratives: Student voice-what lies before us? Oxford Review of Education, 43(2), 180-193. doi:10.1080/03054985.2016.1264379
28. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2) Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23371529
29. Harasim, L. (1993). Global networks: Computers and international communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Hattie, J. (2010). How would we know of the effects of teacher education in these times of National Standards? Keynote presentation at the Teacher Education of Aotearoa/New Zealand Biannual Conference, Auckland, October 25, 2010.
31. Hicks, T. (2018). The next decade of digital writing. Voices from the Middle, 25(4), 9-14. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/2039201206?accountid=12085
32. Holbeck, R., & Hartman, J. (2018). Efficient Strategies for Maximizing Online Student Satisfaction: Applying Technologies to Increase Cognitive Presence, Social Presence, and Teaching Presence. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3), 91–95. https://doi- org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.9743/jeo.2018.15.3.6
33. Holquist, S. E. (2019). Student voice in education policy: Understanding student participation in state-level K-12 education policy making.
34. Huang, W., Hurt, A., Richardson, J. C., Swan, K., & Caskurlu, S. (2018). Community of Inquiry Framework. Purdue Repository for Online Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from https://www.purdue.edu/innovativelearning/supporting- instruction/portal/files/4_Community_of_Inquiry_Framework.pdf
35. Iona, J. (2017, Winter). Flipgrid. School Librarian, 65(4), 211. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A521290397/AONE?u=vic_libert y&sid=AONE&xid=e796cafb
36. Jeffrey, B., Craft, A., (2004). Teaching Creatively and Teaching for Creativity: Distinctions and Relationships, Educational Studies. 30(1): 77–87. https://doi.org /10.1080/0305569032000159750
37. Johnson, H. (2007). Dialogue and the construction of knowledge in E-learning: Exploring students' perceptions of their learning while using blackboard asynchronous discussion board, Retrieved January 21, 2009 from http://www.eurodl.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/materials/contrib/2007/Henry_Johnson.htm.
38. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education 22, 1020- 1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022
39. Kompar, F. (2018, 02). "Mile deep" digital tools. Teacher Librarian, 45, 66-69,71. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/2015789464?accountid=12085
40. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., Jochems, W., & Burren, H. (2004). Determining sociability, social space, and social presence in (a)synchronous collaborative groups. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(2), 155172. doi: 10.1089/109493104323024429
41. Kumari, D. S. (2001). Connecting graduate students to virtual guests through asynchronous discussions--analysis of an experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 53+. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A284451536/AONE?u=vic_libert y&sid=AONE&xid=32486e42
42. Lyons, T. Evans, M. (2013). Blended learning to increase student satisfaction: an exploratory study. Internet Reference Services Quarterly. 18. pp. 43-53
43. Marcoux, E. Q. B. Q. (2015). New device advice. Teacher Librarian, 42(3), 70. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A404590055/AONE?u=vic_libert y&sid=AONE&xid=58633bc6
44. Martin, T. (2017). #BookSnaps Snapchat in Education. https://www.viewsonic.com/us/blog/post/view/id/6712
45. McKinney, B.K. (2018). The impact of program-wide discussion board grading rubrics on students and faculty satisfaction. Online Learning, 22(2), 289-299. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i2.1386
46. National Research Council (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47. Panova, T. & Lleras, A. (2016). Avoidance or boredom: Negative mental health outcomes associated with use of information and communication technologies depend on users’ motivations. Computer in Human Behavior. (58) 249-258.
48. Raines, A. (2018, Aug 30). Engaging students with #BookSnaps: Reinventing how your students discuss text within the classroom. Achieve the Core. Retrieved from https://achievethecore.org/aligned/engaging-students-BookSnaps/
49. Ringler, I., Schubert, C., Deem, J., Flores, J., Friestad-Tate, J., & Lockwood, R. (2015). Improving the asynchronous online learning environment using discussion boards. I- Manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 15-27. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1718069932?accountid=12085
50. Rivero, V. (2017). Reaching out to the World. Internet@Schools, 24(2), 5. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=12 1676165&site=ehost-live&scope=site
51. Reonieri, D. C. (2006). “Optimizing the number of students for an effective online discussion board learning experience”. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov /fulltext /ED494890.pdf [23]. Sa
52. Roberts, J. A., Petnji-Yaya, L. H., & Manolis, C. (2014). The invisible addiction: Cell-phone activities and addiction among male and female college students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(4), 254–265. http://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.015
53. Schwartz, K. (2015, Jul 15). Making learning visible: Doodling helps memories stick. Retrieved from https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/39941/making-learning-visible-doodling-helps- memories-stick
54. Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36, 311–322. doi:10.1080/00223980.1953.9712897
55. Remesal, A., & Colomina, R. (2013). Social presence and online collaborative small group work: A socio-constructivist account. Computers & Education, 60(\), 357-367. doi: 10.1016/i.compedu.2012.07.009
56. Richardson, J., Arbaugh, J., Cleveland-Innes, M., Ice, P., Moller, L., Huett, J., Garrison, D. (2012). Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Inform Effective Instructional Design. In The next generation of distance education unconstrained learning / (pp. 42– 125). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9_7
57. Skiba, D. J. (2014). Emerging Technologies Center. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35(5), 346- 347.
58. Šliogerienė, J., & Valūnaitė-Oleškevičienė, G. (2017). Evoking teacher creativity while using social media / dėstytojų kūrybiškumo sužadinimas naudojant socialines medijas. Creativity Studies, 10(1) doi:10.3846/23450479.2017.1306808
59. Sopina, LE & McNeill, R 2015, 'Investigating the relationship between quality, format and delivery of feedback for written assignments in higher education' Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 666-680. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2014.945072
60. Stoszkowski, J. (2018). Using Flipgrid to develop social learning. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 11(2). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21100/compass.v11i2.786
61. Svokos, G. R. (2019). Video vs. text in discussion boards: Exploring asynchronous video communication among second language undergraduates in a blended U.S. english composition course (Order No. 13856767). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2235436246). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/2235436246?accountid=12085
62. Wilks, J. L., Snow, M., Lasczik, L., Bowling, A., Southern Cross University, & University of Notre Dame. (2019). Working towards 'doing it better' : Seeking the student voice in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 44(1), 76-92. doi:10.14221/ajte.2018v44n1.5
63. Xie, K., Durrington, V., & Yen, L. L. (2011). Relationship between students' motivation and their participation in asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 17-29.
64. Yeh, H., & Lahman, M. (2007). Pre-service teachers' perceptions of asynchronous online discussion on blackboard. The Qualitative Report, 12(4), 680.