ONLINE DISCUSSION: EFFECTS OF IDENTITY VERSUS ANONYMITY AND INTERACTION WITH PEDAGOGICAL AGENTS

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 2, 1 - 18, 01.04.2023

Glenn Gordon Smıth Metin Besaltı

https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1077715

Öz

We investigated how: (a) anonymous versus identified online discussions, in elementary school, compared for task relevance of postings, and (b) how game-like conversations with story characters affected task relevance of postings. We conducted three similar studies involving fourth graders reading short web-based eBooks with small group online discussions and game-like conversations with characters. All discussion postings were qualitatively coded for discussion relevance. Students in name-identified discussions were significantly more on task, than those in anonymous discussions. Students who participated in game-like conversations with story characters were also significantly more on task than those who did not. In times of social isolation, when school is increasingly conducted remotely online, the effective design of small group online discussion is vital.

Anahtar Kelimeler

online discussion, elementary school, distance education, pedagogical agents

Kaynakça

• Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
• Baglione, S. L., & Nastanski, M. (2007). The superiority of online discussion: Faculty perceptions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(2), 139.
• Bertera, E. M., & Littlefield, M. B. (2003). Evaluation of electronic discussion forums in social work diversity education: A comparison of anonymous and identified participation. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 21(4), 53-71.
• Bowen, G. M., Farmer, R., & Arsenault, N. (2012). Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 38 (2), 1-27.
• Chen, D. T., Wang, Y. M., & Hung, D. (2009). A journey on refining rules for online discussion: Implications for the design of learning management systems. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(2), 157-173.
• Chester, A., & Gwynne, G. (1998). Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(8) http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue2/chester.html (retrieved April 26, 2020).
• Chin, W. W., Sum, C. W., & Foon, H. K. (2008). Exploring Singapore Primary School Students' Perceptions of Chinese Asynchronous Online Discussions. New Horizons in Education, 56(1), 1-13.
• Creswell, J. (2014). Mixed methods procedures. In J. Creswell (Eds.), Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (pp. 3–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Dooley, K.E., & Wickersham, L.E. (2007). Distraction, domination, and disconnection in whole-class, online discussions, The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 1-8
• Davis, R. O. (2018). The impact of pedagogical agent gesturing in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 24, 193–209.
• Education Week (2020, July 15). School Districts' Reopening Plans: A Snapshot. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/school-districts-reopening-plans-a-snapshot.html
• Dobao, F. A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of distance education, 15(1), 7-23.
• Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective Discussion Through a Computer-Mediated Anchored Forum, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9:4, 437-469, DOI: 10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_3
• Hall, T., C. Connolly, S. Ó. Grádaigh, K. Burden, M. Kearney, S. Schuck, J. Bottema, et al. (2020). Education in Precarious Times: A Comparative Study across Six Countries to Identify Design: Priorities for Mobile Learning in a Pandemic, Information and Learning Sciences, Emerald Publishing Limited, 2020Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 433-442. doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0089
• Horn, M. B., Staker, H. C. (2011). The rise of K–12 blended learning. San Mateo, CA: Innosight Institute, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf
• Jordan, B. E., Smith, G. G. & Austin, D. (2018). Being Chatty is Allowed: Design Implications of an Innovative Online Reading Experience, Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2018: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
• Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need?. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1–19.
• Kanuka, H. & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.
• Landers, R. N., & Callan, R.C. (2014). An experiment on anonymity and multi-user virtual environments: Manipulating identity to increase learning from online collaborative discussion. International Journal of Games and Computer-Mediated Simulation, 6, 53–64.
• Lieberman, M. (2020, September 3). COVID-19 Fuels Big Enrollment Increases in Virtual Schools. Education Week, 40(5), 8. Retrieved from: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/09/03/covid-19-fuels-big-enrollment-increases-in-virtual.html
• Iivari, N., Sharma, S., & Ventä-Olkkonen, L. (2020). Digital transformation of everyday life – How COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? International Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102183
• Jordan, B. E., Smith, G. G. & Austin, D. (2018). Being Chatty is Allowed: Design Implications of an Innovative Online Reading Experience, Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2018: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
• McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22(3), 276-282.
• Miyazoe, T. & Anderson, T. (2011). Anonymity in blended learning: who would you like to be? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 175-187.
• Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890
• Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., Skibbe, L. E., McClelland, M. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2016). The development of self-regulation across early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 52(11), 1744–1762. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.1037/dev0000159
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
• Morgan, M., Allen, N., Moore, T., Atkinson, D., & Snow, C. (1987). Collaborative writing in the classroom. Bulletin of the Association for Business and Communication, 50(3), 20–26.
• Murphy, E. & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students' experiences of challenges related to participation in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2), 29-46.
• Piper, B. J., Li, V., Eiwaz M. A., Kobel Y. V., Benice T. S, et al. (2012) Executive function on the Psychology Experiment Building Language tests. Behavioral Research Methods, 44: 110–123.
• Roberts, L.D., & Rajah-Kanagasabai, C.J. (2013). "I'd be so much more comfortable posting anonymously": Identified versus anonymous participation in student discussion boards. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 612-625.
• Schoech, D. (2000). Teaching over the Internet: Results of one doctoral course. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 467-486.
• Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 427–463.
• Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2014). A Systematic Review of Pedagogical Agents’ Persona, Motivation, and Cognitive Load Implications for Learners, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46:3, 229-251, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2014.888265
• Smith, G. G., Li, M., Drobisz, J., Park, H. R., Kim, D., & Smith, S. D. (2013). Play games or study? Computer games in eBooks to learn English vocabulary. Computers & Education, 69, 274-286.
• Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory (Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems, and Performance Technologies). New York, NY: Springer.
• Twenge, J. M., & Spitzberg, B. H., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Less in-person social interaction with peers among U.S. adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 36(6) 1892–19.
• Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1169–1182.
• Wu, Q., Zhang, J., & Wang, C. (2020) The Effect of English Vocabulary Learning with Digital Games and its Influencing Factors based on the Meta-Analysis of 2,160 Test Samples, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(17), 85-100, https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i17.11758
• Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research, Distance Education, 38:1, 123-135, DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2017.1298982