Factors that Influence the Quality of Online Discussions

Introduction

Statistics from a study commissioned by the National Center for Education Statistics (2011) show 20% of all undergraduate students in the country had been enrolled in at least one distance education course in 2007-2008.  This is an increase from 1999-2000 in which only 4% of all undergraduate students were taking a distance education course.  Similarly, in terms of distance education programs, 4% of all undergraduate students in the country were enrolled in a distance program in 2007-2008 which is up from the 2% enrolled in 1999-2000.  Among the disciplines that are predominantly represented in distance courses are; computer-information sciences, general education, health sciences, and business, which account for between 22-27% of course enrollment; and account for 4-8% more distance program enrollment than other majors (NCES, 2011).  
Graduate student participation in distance education courses was reported to be even higher in a 1999-2000 report compared to undergraduate student participation (Sikora, 2002). The delivery mode in K-12 education is rapidly acclimating to distance education trends, in 2009-2010, 53% of public high schools reported having 1.3 million students enrolled in distance educations courses compared to only .3 million in 2004-2005 (NCES, 2012).  Based on younger generations of learner characteristics and the rapid development of technology it seems reasonable and probable that the number of distance education courses and degrees which are delivered through online learning platforms will increase in availability; and continue to increase in attractiveness to students at all levels of education.

Online Discussions
  
Online discussions (i.e., online discourse) are common components in distance education courses.  Online discussions serve to bridge a gap in student interaction that might be compromised due to the isolation of distance education and serve to facilitate peer learning, as well, as foster the association of real world experience from theory to application.  Discussion threads, computer mediated communication, and online collaboration whether synchronous or asynchronous, are seen as a fundamental constituent to enhancing communication and sound understanding of course content (Anderson, 2002; Palloff & Pratt, 2001; Rose, 2004; Rovai, 2001; Spatariu, Hartley, Schraw, Bendixen, & Quinn, 2007; Tu & McIsaac, 2002; Bonk & Dennen, 2007).  All students enrolled in distance courses have access to some discussion medium which are bound within the course or adjacent to the course, such as; social media venues (e.g., facebook, twitter, blogs).  Despite the continuity of opportunity for discourse in distance learning, the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation (i.e., instructional interventions) and participation (i.e., learner characteristics) in the discussion process is not automatic or intuitive; and may be affected by different factors.  
Spatariu, Quinn, and Hartley (2007) describe two types of factors as evidenced in past research; instructional interventions (Jeong,2004; Jeong & Joung, 2003, Rose, 2004; Peterson-Lewinson, 2002; Heflich & Putney, 2001, Nussbaum, et al., 2002; Langille & Pelletier, 2003; Poscente & Fahy, 2003; Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001) and learner characteristics (Bendixen, Hartley, Sas, & Spatariu, 2003; Nussbaum, 2005). This research literature is the foundation for the current review paper.  Searches were conducted in many online library databases related to education and social sciences; as well as, more common search venues such as Google Scholar and Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Digital Library.  Keywords searches were conducted using terminology found in the existing literature (e.g., online discussions, online discourse, and computer-mediated communication).  The current paper reviews the online discourse literature related to instructional interventions and participant characteristics (Spatariu et al., 2007).  The purpose of this review is to consider the direction of future online discourse research in an educational climate where technologies are leading the way and the trajectory of students receiving distance education is on a steady incline.  
 
Instructional Interventions

There are several factors that influence instructional interventions related to online discussions including; group structure (Jeong, 2004; Rose, 2004; Heflich & Putney, 2001), mentoring and scaffolding (Peterson-Lewinson, 2002; Heflich & Putney, 2001), argumentative instructions (Jeong, 2004; Jeong & Joung, 2003; Nussbaum, Hartley, Sinatra, Reynolds, & Bendixen et al., 2003; Poscente & Fahy, 2003), and grading frameworks (Langille & Pelletier, 2003).  Consistent with the research literature and compatible with Spatariu et al. (2007) this sections is comprised of two main areas in the research literature: (1) literature on the use of rubrics and constructivist activities (e.g., scaffolding); and (2) research on group structure and the use of particular discussion functions to facilitate collaboration. 

Grading frameworks.  Rovai (2001) synthesized literature related to the facilitation of asynchronous online discussions and suggested that the main premises for achieving effective communication include; constructivist environments, clear expectations, and establishing social equity and motivation.  A practical suggestion for instructors is the use of a discussion rubric to include descriptions of length and quality of writing; as well as, the expectations for tone and collaboration within the online forums.  
Antonacci (2001) proposed the use of rubrics and direct instruction may lead to higher order thinking in online discussions.  Students taking distance courses may not notice differences in direct instructional techniques or facilitation in terms of teacher social presence but these types of instructional interventions usually work if the teacher consistently implements certain procedures (Garrison, 2007).  

Mentoring and scaffolding.  Hall (2011) investigated the use of scaffolding and constructivist online learning environments.  The evidence showed that teacher prompts and time have a major role in the quality of discourse within threaded discussions.  An initial prompt is the starting piece of scaffolding in a constructivist threaded discussion.  Gilbert and Dabbagh (2004) examined the structure of asynchronous online discussion protocols and evaluation rubrics and the impact on meaningful discourse.  Various degrees of structure ranging from minimal to high were provided to online discussions of graduate students in instructional technology courses.  The results showed that particular guidelines support the facilitation and evaluation of online discussions promoting higher understanding of course concepts and content.  
Land, Choi, and Ge (2007) explored instructional interventions and the impact on quality discourse according to the presence of procedural scaffolding to facilitate articulation; reflection and revision of knowledge; modeling the types of questioning processes required for productive, high-level discourse; and structure discourse around meaningful questioning and responding that promote reflection and revision.  Practical recommendations were made based on the positive learning outcomes of different intervention types.  
Choi, Land and Turgeon (2008) investigated a combination of prompting for peer questioning and instructor modeling in boosting the quality of discourse.  Results showed that both strategies used together led to better learning outcomes than the use of either alone.  Similarly, Bradley, Thom, Hayes and Hay (2008) examined how question types such as direct link, course link, brainstorming, limited and open focal, and applications influenced the quantity and quality of undergraduate students' online submissions.  Although students engaged in low overall thinking across all treatment situations, limited focal questioning, brainstorming, open focal and direct link types did mostly influence word count and degree of answer completion while course link, brainstorm and direct link types boosted higher-order thinking. 

Scaffolding and group structure.  Miyake and Masukawa (2000) described a type of annotation system (ReCoNote) that allows students to create links and relationships among notes while adding new ones.  The students conducted research and used ReCoNote to collaborate and exchange information about research projects.  Qualitative analysis of their research writing showed improved learning.  Another study by Hoadley and Linn (2000) analyzed the use of the SpeakEasy collaborative learning environment where eighth grade students debated the relationship between color and light over a four week period.  This was a quasi-experiment with two conditions; the control group had regular discussions about the topic in SpeakEasy and the treatment group had a dual scientific perspective taking on the topic in SpeakEasy.  Both groups achieved the learning objectives but the treatment group learned more about the theories and scientific reasoning behind color and light in addition to the regular content.  Rick, Guzdial, Carroll, Holloway-Attaway, and Walker (2002) investigated a different instructional intervention in which students who used a collaborative tool (CoWeb) for writing essays outperformed students that did not use it in the areas of organization and vocabulary.  
Jorczak and Bart (2009) implemented discussion tasks in collaborative online groups to promote higher order thinking.  Findings revealed that conceptual conflict did lead to higher order discussions while degree differences in task context and outcome did not have a significant effect on discourse quality.  Rourke and Anderson (2002) conducted a study on groups of students that empowered them to lead the discussion rather than the instructor.  These findings showed that a shift in leadership supported the student’s ability to meet the learning objectives and was conducive to improved learning.  
Chen and Chuang (2011) explored the effects of prior knowledge; as well as, collaborative strategy, and open-ended versus problem solving strategies on the quality of primary school children discussions.  Prior knowledge and the problem-based forums played an important role in the learning process.  Similarly, Du, Yu and Olinzock (2011) looked at a combination of question prompts and the use of collaborative learning.  Their analysis indicated that students who received question prompts from the instructor had enhanced self-efficacy related to problem solving ability and achieved higher learning outcomes.  
Baran and Correia (2009) utilized qualitative research to explore student-led strategies used to overcome the challenges of instructor-dominated facilitation; and enhance the sense of learning community.  Results showed that three facilitation strategies (i.e., inspirational, practice-oriented, and highly structured) were influential in generating new ideas, increasing motivation to participate in discussions, and established a risk-free online environment.  

Learner Characteristics

Based on the Spatariu et al. (2007) study learner characteristics that have been examined in online discussion settings include personal epistemology (Bendixen, Hartley, Sas, & Spatariu, 2003) and personality characteristics (Nussbaum, 2005).  This section discusses additional research on learner characteristics such as cognitive styles, learning communities, learning style and gender.

Cognitive styles and gender.  Jablokow and Vercellone-Smith (2011) have examined the impact of students’ cognitive styles of social networks in online discussions.  Results revealed that students formed cliques; and the highly heterogeneous composition of the cliques might suggest that e-learning environments mask the cognitive differences that create conflict in face-to-face student interactions.  Further, the study examined and discussed connections between cognitive style, expansiveness, influence, leadership, and students’ choices of online settings.  

Learning communities.  Correia and Davis (2008) explored two complementary communities within graduate course practices.  One group was formed by instructors and program instructional developers and the second group was created by students and instructors.  This qualitative analysis of the group dynamics were based on interactions and participant characteristics; and led to the following recommendations: explicit sharing or common practices; facilitate inclusion of new members, provide enough time for peripheral participation to occur; build awareness of the different cultures of the students and the institution, build awareness of role shifting in online environments, and develop conflict resolutions rather than avoidance behavior. 

Learning styles and gender.  Jeong (2007) examined the effect of intellectual openness and gender and the extent to which students engage in dialectic critical discourse in online argumentation.  Among the results were indications of differences in the number of personal rebuttals posted in response to direct challenges between more versus less open students.  Further, there was a significant difference in the number of rebuttals posted between males and females.  These results support the inclusion of such personal characteristics in course design as they play a role in argumentative discourse structure and development.  
Jeong and Lee (2008) examined how message-response exchanges produced during interactions between active and reflective learners affected the frequency of rebuttals to arguments and challenges in argumentative on-line discourse.  This study found that the exchanges between reflective learners produced more responses than in the exchanges between active learners.  This might imply that reflective students tend to generate more critical discourse; suggesting practical implications.  For instance, implementing particular ways of structuring the discussions, for different types of students so that discourse achieves optimal learning levels.	
		
Discussion

This review of the literature is pivotal in maintaining best practices in distance education but specifically online discourse given the rapid changes in technology and the increased student participation at all levels of online learning.  This brief paper summarizes recent research geared toward factors that influence the quality of online discussions to enhance learning; specifically, instructional implementation and learner characteristics.  Additionally, this review contributes to understanding future research directions in online discourse.  
 The model that is proposed here consists of instructional interventions; such as, group structure and discussion functions (Baran & Correia, 2009; Chen & Chuang, 2011; Du et al., 2011; Hoadley & Linn, 2000; Jeong, 2004; Rose, 2004; Miyake & Masukawa, 2000; Heflich & Putney, 2001; Rick et al., 2002; Rourke & Anderson, 2002), mentoring and scaffolding (Bradley, et al., 2008; Choi et al., 2008; Land et al., 2007; Hall, 2011; Garrison, 2007; Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2004; Heflich & Putney, 2001; Peterson-Lewinson, 2002; Rovai 2001), argumentative instructions (Jeong, 2004; Jeong & Joung, 2003; Jorczak & Bart, 2009; Nussbaum, et al., 2002; Poscente & Fahy, 2003; Spatariu et al), and grading frameworks (Antonci, 2001; Gilbert & Dabbagh 2004; Langille & Pelletier, 2003). 
The second component of the model consists of learner characteristics; such as, personal epistemology and learning style (Bendixen, et al., 2003); personality characteristics (Jablokow et al., 2007; Jeong & Lee, 2008; Nussbaum, 2005); learning communities with common interests (Correia and Davis, 2008); and gender (Jeong, 2007). 
The complexity and multitude of these factors can be challenging for instructors and researchers.  Research issues may arise from confusion in terminology, for example, some personality characteristic research overlaps with learning styles.  This literature review can be used as a foundation to underpin future research aimed toward gaining a more in-depth understanding toward a variety of aspects in online discussions.  It may also promote discussion among research about how to unpack similar or overlapping variable and clarify operational definitions of variables within the field.  
Regarding the implementation in course design and teaching of any of this reviewed research literature, one needs to consider their own knowledge and preferences, the audience they teach, the leverage provided by their institutions (i.e., prescribed curriculum versus a blank learning management system).  Based on this review, there are several other considerations that fall within the scope of discussion here.  First, instruction tailored to the desired learning outcomes for different types of discussions.  For example, argumentation, problem solving, and understanding course concepts.  Second, the use of strategies to achieve the proposed goals; for example, prompts, group work, grading rubrics, a combination of different interventions, addressing particular students’ characteristics.  Third, time management and the types of data that can or need to be collected from students.  For example it may be difficult to adjust instruction to particular learner characteristics if there is not enough time to determine what those characteristics are or if there is a need to develop or refine an existing instrument to measure the characteristics.			
		
References

Anderson, T. (2002). An updated theoretical rationale for instruction. ITFORUM. Retrieved from: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer., W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in computer conferencing context. Journal of asynchronous learning networks. 5(2). 

Antonacci (2011). The influence of direct instruction on asynchronous educational issues. Doctoral dissertation retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10355/14389

Baran, E., & Correia, A. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30(3), 339-361.

Bendixen, L. D., Hartley, K., Sas, I. C., & Spatariu, A. (2003, April). The impact of epistemic
beliefs and metacognition on online discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Bonk, C.J., & Dennen, V. (2007). Frameworks for design and instruction. Handbook of distance education, 2, 233-246.

Bradley, M.E., Thom, L.R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: how question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5). 888-900. doi:10.1 1 11/j.1467-8535.2007.00804.x

Chen, W., & Chuang, C. (2011). Effect of varied types of collaborative learning strategies on young children: An experimental study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(4).

Choi, I., Land, S.M., & Turgeon, A. (2008). Instructional modeling and online question prompts for supporting peer-questioning during online discussions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(3), 255-275.

Correia, A., & Davis, N. (2008). Intersecting communities of practice in distance education: the program team and the online course community. Distance Education, 29(3). 289-306.

Du, J., Yu, C., & Olinzock, A.A. (2011). Enhancing collaborative learning: Impact of question prompts design for online discussion. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 53(1), 28-41.

Garrison, D.R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. The Sloan Consortium, 11(1).

Gilbert, P.K., & Dabbagh, N. (2004). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x

Hall, B. (2011). How cognitive requirement of prompt and time in course are correlated with intersubjectivity within threaded discussions. Doctoral dissertation retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED541076.pdf

Heflich, D., & Putney, L. (2001). Reflections of reality: Online conversation in a teacher
education seminar. Intimacy and reflection, online conversation in a practicum seminar.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 17(3), 10-17.

Hoadley, CM, & Linn, MC (2000). Teaching science through on-line, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 839-858.

Jablokow, K., & Vercellone_Smith, P. (2011). The Impact of cognitive style on social networks in on-line  discussions. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(3).

Jeong, A. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth
patterns of discussion threads in computer-supported collaborative argumentation.
Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 36-53.

Jeong, A. (2007). The effects of intellectual openness and gender on critical thinking processes in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 1-18.

Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2003). The effects of response constraints and message labels on
interaction patterns and argumentation in online discussions. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Retrieved from: http://dev22448-01.sp01.fsu.edu/Research/Labeling/Fall2002/AERAProposalScaffolding.pdf

Jeong, A., & Lee, (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 651-665. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00762.x

Jorczak, R.L., & Bart, W. (2009). The effect of task characteristics on conceptual conflict and information processing in online discussion. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 1165–1171.

Land, S.M., Choi, I., & Ge, X. (2007), Scaffolding online discussions to promote reflection and revision of understanding. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(4).

Langille, L., & Pelletier, J. (2003). Collaborative electronic discussion groups: Using cognotes to
create accountability. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference 2003(1), 2463-2466. Available online: http://dl.aace.org/12250

Miyake, N., & Masukawa, H. (2000). Relation-making to sense making: Supporting college students’ constructive understanding with an enriched collaborative note-sharing system. In Fourth international conference of the learning sciences.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Learning at a distance undergraduate enrollment in distance education courses and degree programs. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012154.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Distance education fast facts. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=79 

Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive
argumentation. Educational Contemporary Psychology, 30(3), 286-313.

Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. (2002).
Enhancing the quality of online discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities
of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Peterson-Lewinson, J. (2002). Facilitating the process of knowledge construction among
preservice teachers through computer mediated communications. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Computers in Education, Auckland, New Zealand.

Poscente, R., & Fahy, J. (2003). Investigating triggers in CMC text transcripts. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved February 11, 2007
from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/141/221

Rick, J., Guzdial, M., Caroll, K., Holloway-Attaway, L., & Walker, B. (2002), Collaborative learning at low cost: CoWeb use in English composition. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.

Rose, M. A. (2004). Comparing productive online dialogue in two group styles: Cooperative and
collaborative. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 73-88.

Rourke, L. & Anderson, T. (2002). Using Peer Teams to Lead Online Discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1. 
	
Rovai, A.P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 77–88.

Sikora, A (2002). Distance education a profile of participation in distance education: 1999–2000. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003605.pdf#page=48

Spatariu, A., Quinn, L. F., & Hartley, K. (2007). A Review of Research on Factors That Impact Various Aspects of Online Discussions Quality. TechTrends, 51(3), 44-50.

Spatariu, A., Hartley, K., Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Quinn, L.F. (2007). The Influence of the discussion leader procedure on the quality of arguments in online discussions. The Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37 (1), 85-105.
Spatariu, A., Quinn, L.F., & Hartley, K. (2007). A review of research on factors that impact various aspects of online discussions quality. Tech Trends, 51(3). 

Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. S. (2002). An examination of social presence to increase interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3).