Reconceptualizing the pedagogical value of student facilitation

Interactive Learning Environments

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 85-95

  Oztok, Murat ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

asynchronous threaded discussions; legitimate peripheral participation; online learning; student facilitation; transactional distance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84955173918     PISSN: 10494820     EISSN: 17445191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2013.817440     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. T.Anderson,, L.Rourke,, D.R.Garrison,, & W.Archer, (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
2. E.Baran,, & A.P.Correia, (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30(3), 339–361. doi: 10.1080/01587910903236510
3. R.Bento,, & C.Schuster, (2003). Participation: The online challenge. In A.Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-based education: Learning from experience (pp. 156–164). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
4. J.S.Brown,, A.Collins,, & P.Duguid, (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018001032
5. M.Bullen, (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 1–32.
6. M.Cohen, (1991). Making class participation a reality. PS: Political Science & Politics, 24(4), 699–703.
7. M.Cole, (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. A.P.Correia,, & N.E.Davis, (2007). The design of collaboration in the virtual classroom. In M. Simonson (Ed.), 30th annual proceedings of selected papers on the practice of educational communications and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 84–87). Bloomington, IN: AECT.
9. J.W.Creswell, (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. J.W.Creswell,, & V.L.P.Clark, (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. J.A.Crone, (1997). Using panel debates to increase student involvement in the introductory sociology class. Teaching Sociology, 25(3), 214–218. doi: 10.2307/1319397
12. L.M.Daggett, (1997). Teaching tools: Quantifying class participation. Nurse Educator, 22(2), 13–14. doi: 10.1097/00006223-199703000-00010
13. V.P.Dennen, (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. doi: 10.1080/01587910500081376
14. J.Dewey, (1963). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
15. C.Dziuban,, & P.Moskal, (2001). Emerging research issues in distributed learning. In Online education: Proceedings of the 2001 Sloan-C international conference on asynchronous learning networks. Needham, MA: Sloan-C Press.
16. S.A.Griffith, (2009). Assessing student participation in an online hraduate course. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(4), 35–45.
17. M.Guzdial, (1997). Information ecology of collaborations in educational settings: Influence of a tool. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 83–90). Toronto: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
18. N.Hara,, C.J.Bonk,, & C.Angeli, (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152. doi: 10.1023/A:1003764722829
19. J.L.Hartman,, & B.Truman-Davis, (2001). Factors related to the satisfaction of faculty teaching online courses at the University of Central Florida. In Online education: Proceedings of the 2000 Sloan summer workshop on asynchronous learning networks. Needham, MA: Sloan-C Press.
20. J.Hewitt, (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4
21. J.Hewitt,, & C.Brett, (2007). The relationship between class size and online activity patterns in asynchronous computer conferencing environments. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1258–1271. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.02.001
22. R.L.Jorczak, (2009). The effects of task characteristics on online discussion. In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (Vol. 1, pp. 586–595). Rhodes: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
23. E.Junn, (1994). Pearls of wisdom: Enhancing student class participation with an innovative exercise. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21(4), 385–387.
24. H.Kang,, & A.S.Gyorke, (2008). Rethinking distance learning activities: A comparison of transactional distance theory and activity theory. Open Learning, 23(3), 203–214. doi: 10.1080/02680510802420050
25. J.Lave,, & E.Wenger, (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. J.Lave,, & E.Wenger, (2002). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. In R.Harrison, F.Reeve, A.Hanson & J.Clarke (Eds.), Supporting lifelong learning: Perspectives on learning (pp. 111–126). London: Routledge Falmer.
27. A.Leh, (2002). Action research on hybrid courses and their online communities. Educational Media International, 39(1), 31–38. doi: 10.1080/09523980210131204
28. M.van Mannen, (1997). Researching lived experience (2nd ed.). London, ON: The Althouse Press.
29. M.G.Moore, (1991). Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1–6. doi: 10.1080/08923649109526758
30. M.G.Moore, (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In G.Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 89–105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. M.G.Moore,, & G.Kearsley, (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
32. M.G.Moore,, & G.Kearsley, (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
33. M.Oztok, (2013). Tacit knowledge in online learning: Community, identity, and social capital. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 21–36. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.720414
34. M.Oztok,, & C.Brett, (2011). Social presence and online learning: A review of research. The Journal of Distance Education, 25(3). Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/758
35. M.Oztok,, D.Zingaro,, C.Brett,, & J.Hewitt, (2013). Exploring asynchronous and synchronous tool use in online courses. Computers & Education, 60(1), 87–94. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.007
36. D.M.Poole, (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162–177. doi: 10.1080/08886504.2000.10782307
37. K.A.Rocca, (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185–213. doi: 10.1080/03634520903505936
38. L.Rourke,, & T.Anderson, (2002). Exploring social presence in computer conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 259–275.
39. K.K.Seo, (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: Addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and nonmoderation. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 21–36. doi: 10.1080/08923640701298688
40. P.Shea,, E.Fredericksen,, A.Pickett,, W.Pelz,, & K.Swan, (2001). Measures of learning effectiveness in the SUNY learning network. In Online education: Proceedings of the 2001 Sloan-C international conference on asynchronous learning networks. Needham, MA: Sloan-C Press.
41. K.Swan, (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J.Bourne & J.C.Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 13–30). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
42. A.C.Tagg, (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40–50. doi: 10.1080/08923649409526865
43. A.Tashakkori,, & C.Teddlie, (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousands Oak, CA: Sage.
44. C.Vrasidas,, & M.S.McIsaac, (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36. doi: 10.1080/08923649909527033
45. L.S.Vygotsky, (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46. Q.Wang, (2008). Student-facilitators’ roles in moderating online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 859–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00781.x
47. D.Zingaro, (2012). Student moderators in asynchronous online discussion: A question of questions. The Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 159–173.
48. D.Zingaro,, & M.Oztok, (2012). Interaction in an asynchronous online course: A synthesis of quantitative predictors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 71–82.