Externally-facilitated regulation scaffolding and role assignment to develop cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions

Internet and Higher Education

Volumn 24, Issue , 2015, Pages 53-65

  Gašević, Dragan ^a   Adesope, Olusola ^b   Joksimović, Srećko ^a,c   Kovanović, Vitomir ^a,c  

^a ATHABASCA UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cognitive presence; Community of inquiry model; Computer supported collaborative learning; Instructional scaffolding; Role scripting and assignment; Self regulated learning

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE PRESENCE; COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY MODEL; COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING; INSTRUCTIONAL SCAFFOLDING; ROLE SCRIPTING AND ASSIGNMENT; SELF-REGULATED LEARNING;

EID: 84908432702     PISSN: 10967516     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.006     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D.R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183-190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005.
2. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2) (Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149).
3. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80-97.
4. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.
5. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813.
6. Arbaugh, J.B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 37-44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.006.
7. Arbaugh, J.B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does "teaching presence" exist in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 9-21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.12.001.
8. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A.F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition - Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 367-379, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9.
9. Azevedo, R., Moos, D.C., Greene, J.A., Winters, F.I., & Cromley, J.G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45-72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9067-0.
10. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
11. Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamim, R.M., Surkes, M.A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844.
12. Bjork, R.A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417-444, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823.
13. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202-2.
14. Cho, M.H., & Kim, B.J. (2013). Students' self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 69-75, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.001.
15. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
16. Conaway, R.N., Easton, S.S., & Schmidt, W.V. (2005). Strategies for enhancing student interaction and immediacy in online courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 68(1), 23-35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080569904273300.
17. Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research - An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69-84, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9032-2.
18. Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657-663, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x.
19. Dawson, S. (2008). A study of the relationship between student social networks and sense of community. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 224-238.
20. Dawson, S., Tan, J.P.L., & McWilliam, E. (2011). Measuring creative potential: Using social network analysis to monitor a learners' creative capacity. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(6), 924-942.
21. De Wever, B., Keer, H.V., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010). Roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 516-523, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.008.
22. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: The impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students' levels of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 177-188, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00292.x.
23. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005.
24. Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. Dewey on education (pp. 19-32). New York: Teachers College Press.
25. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner,W. Jochems, & R. Magliozzi (Eds.), Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
26. Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In D. N. Balacheff, D. S. Ludvigsen, D. T. de Jong, D. A. Lazonder, & D. S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3- 19). Netherlands: Springer (Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7-1).
27. Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C. J. Bonk, & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Field, A., & Hole, G. (2003). How to design and report experiments. London: SAGE Publications Ltd (Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/textbooks/Book219351?prodId=Book219351).
29. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., &Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56-66, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748005.
30. Garrison, D.R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century a framework for research and practice. New York: Routledge.
31. Garrison, D.R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 84-89, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.005.
32. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer,W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.
33. 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, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071.
34. Garrison, D.R., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001.
35. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2004). Critical factors in student satisfaction and success: Facilitating student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry. In J. Bourne, J. C. J. Bourne, & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream, Vol. 5. (pp. 29-38). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
36. Garrison, D.R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903-2.
37. Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T.S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002.
38. 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, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x.
39. Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C.A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431, http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG.
40. Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240-264.
41. Hare, A.P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25(3), 433-448, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496494253005.
42. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. Building Virtual Communities. Cambridge University Press (Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606373.011).
43. Hox, J.J., & Kreft, I.G.G. (1994). Multilevel analysis methods. Sociological Methods & Research, 22(3), 283-299, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124194022003001.
44. Hox, J. J., &Maas, C. J. (2002). Sample sizes for multilevel modeling. In J. Blasius, J. J. Hox, E. de Leeuw, & P. Schmidt (Eds.), Social science methodology in the new millennium. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on logic and methodology.
45. Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A.F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25-39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748006.
46. Johnson, D.W. (1981). Student - student interaction: The neglected variable in education. Educational Researcher, 10(1), 5-10, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X010001005.
47. Kanuka, H. (2005). An exploration into facilitating higher levels of learning in a text-based internet learning environment using diverse instructional strategies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00256.x (00-00).
48. Kanuka, H. (2011). Interaction and the online distance classroom: Do instructional methods effect the quality of interaction? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 143-156, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9049-4.
49. Kauffman, D.F., Zhao, R., & Yang, Y.-S. (2011). Effects of online note taking formats and self-monitoring prompts on learning from online text: Using technology to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 313-322, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.04.001.
50. Keene, O.N. (1995). The log transformation is special. Statistics in Medicine, 14(8), 811-819, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780140810.
51. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 211-224, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4.
52. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J.D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708-721, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.021.
53. Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., & Hatala, M. (2014). Automated cognitive presence detection in online discussion transcripts. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge - Workshops. Indianapolis, IN.
54. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55. Lynch, D.J., Kearsley, G., & Thompson, K. (2011). Faculty use of asynchronous discussions in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 8(2), 17-24.
56. McKenzie, W., & Murphy, D. (2000). "I hope this goes somewhere": Evaluation of an online discussion group. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 239-257.
57. Meyer, K.A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.
58. Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659.
59. Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 847-858, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00780.x.
60. Pawan, F., Paulus, T.M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C.-F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119-140.
61. Richardson, J.C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students' level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 52-59, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009.
62. Rosnow, R.L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (2000). Contrasts and correlations in effect-size estimation. Psychological Science, 11(6), 446-453, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00287.
63. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5-18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504769.
64. Rovai, A.P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00130-6.
65. Rovai, A.P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77-88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001.
66. Schellens, T., Keer, H.V., & Valcke,M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36(6), 704-745, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496405281771.
67. Schellens, T., Keer, H.V., Wever, B.D., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 225-246, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9016-2.
68. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957-975, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.025.
69. Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46(1), 49-70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006.
70. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017.
71. Shea, P., Sau Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005.
72. Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing. In J.-W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL (pp. 53-85). Netherlands: Springer (Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-7921-4-3).
73. Strijbos, J.-W., & Weinberger, A. (2010). Emerging and scripted roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 491-494, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.006.
74. Sutton, L.A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223-242.
75. Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2012). Linking online course design and implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 81-88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.002.
76. Tagg, A.C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40-50.
77. Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2959965.
78. Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D.R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1-12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.11.001.
79. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 191-211). US: Springer (Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5-12).
80. Winne, P.H. (2005). A perspective on state-of-the-art research on self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 559-565, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1280-9.
81. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277-304). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
82. Woo, Y., & Reeves, T.C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15-25, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005.
83. Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 65-77, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2002-2.
84. Zweben, S. (2012). Computing degree and enrollment trends (No. 2010-2011 CRA Taulbee Survey). Washington, D.C.: Computing Research Association (Retrieved from http://www.cra.org/uploads/documents/resources/taulbee/CS-Degree-and-Enrollment-Trends-2010-11.pdf).