Ask and you will receive: How question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 888-900

  Bradley, Megan E ^a   Thom, Lindsay R ^c   Hayes, Jennifer ^c   Hay, Cindy ^b  

^a FROSTBURG STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Frostburg State University ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

STUDENTS;

DEPENDENT VARIABLES; HIGHER-ORDER; ONLINE DISCUSSIONS; QUESTION TYPES; UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS;

TEACHING;

EID: 49749135782     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00804.x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Andrews, J. D. W. (1980). The verbal structure of teacher questions: its impact on class discussion. POD Quarterly, 2, 129 163.
2. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: the cognitive domain. New York : David McKay Co Inc.
3. Christopher, M. M., Thomas, J. A. Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2004). Raising the bar: encouraging high-level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review, 26, 3, 166 171.
4. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 1, 7 23.
5. Gilbert, P. K. Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 1, 5 18.
6. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 1, 111 126.
7. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 4, 212 218.
8. Meyer, K. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: the role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 3, 55 65.
9. Notar, C. E., Wilson, J. D. Montgomery, M. K. (2005). A distance learning model for teaching higher order thinking. College Student Journal, 39, 17 25.
10. Paskey, J. (2001). A survey compares two Canadian MBA programs, one online and one traditional. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from http://chronicle.com/free/2001/04/2001042601u.htm
11. Rourke, L. Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, 1 21.
12. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., Valcke, M. De Wever, B. (2007). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: a multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group and task characteristics. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26, 1, 55 71.
13. Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers and Education, 46, 49 70.
14. Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: a survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 371 384.
15. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Press.
16. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communications: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 1, 3 43.
17. Wang, Q. Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 2, 272 286.