Turning up critical thinking in discussion boards

Turning up critical thinking in discussion boards
Dr Susan Wilkinson
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

Amy Barlow
University of Portsmouth

Summary
This paper adopts a constructivist view of learning. It seeks to explore the mechanisms behind
knowledge construction and higher-order thinking in discussion board usage amongst a less
traditional, increasingly growing student population of work-based, distance learners. Recent
studies (JISC, 2008; 2009) have highlighted a need to endorse and value studies which focus
on the learner experience and have illustrated the need for students to have control and
ownership of their online environments in order for them to be successful. However, these
studies only included full-time students, in the 17-19 age bracket. As a consequence, this
research aims to fill the gap by exploring the development of an online community within a
more diverse and mature group of learners.

This paper details an empirical study which explores an online environment and identifies the
factors needed to enable work-based, distance students to learn from sharing their professional
experience. The authors believe that there is a need for insight into the ways in which this sub-
group of students communicates, and the individual learners‟ experience within this. This paper
will therefore discuss how the project explores the processes that lie behind the foundations of
a successful online community, in the hope that this will help us to better manage the
development of this technology within work-based online courses. It considers the views of this
group of students and attempts to provide solutions to the issues raised concerning the under-
use of this interactive tool. The research may therefore be of value and interest to those
involved in designing work-based eLearning modules.

Keywords: virtual learning environments, discussion boards, work-based learning, distance
learning, critical thinking

Introduction

Online learning environments (also referred to as virtual learning environments) are
increasingly becoming a staple component in teaching and learning in higher education. The
influence these environments have on the nature of the communication that takes place within
courses carries with it huge pedagogical implications. Within this, the discussion board is the
universal and pervasive communication tool; it has a significant, not to mention influential,
effect on the kind of interaction that takes place. It is not surprising, therefore, that the design

eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 1
Nº 21 • September 2010 • ISSN 1887-1542

and operational components of these discussion boards can greatly influence the learning
processes within these collaboration tools.

Online discussions give students the opportunity to learn, not only from the course content, but
also from each other. If the use of discussion boards in higher education aims to achieve higher
order learning in these VLE‟s, then a community of learners is a vital element of this
educational experience (Garrison and Anderson, 2003). Furthermore, Garrison and Anderson
claim that higher education being viewed as a critical community of learners is not an ideal, but
has “become a practical necessity in the realisation of relevant, meaningful, and continuous
learning” (2003, p 23).

This shift in higher education that moves towards the concept of a community of learners is
supported by the social constructivist view of learning. Social constructivists maintain that
knowledge creation is not an individual experience, but a shared one, and that knowledge
comes about through negotiating within these collaborative discourse communities (Prawat and
Floden, 1994). This paper adopts a constructivist view of learning. It seeks to explore the
mechanisms behind knowledge construction and higher order thinking in discussion board
usage amongst a less traditional, increasingly growing student population of work based,
distance learners.

Within this, lies the issue of cognitive processing and whether working in a discussion board
environment impacts upon the quality of work-based learning achieved. A study by Schellens
and Valcke (2005) found that task-oriented communication was higher than non-task-oriented
communication, which suggests that the design and delivery of discussion board activities may
play a significant role in whether or not the students engage. If they know that they are being
monitored and evaluated on their contributions, then they may be more likely to engage.
Schellens and Valcke (2005) also found that the online collaborative learning environment
encouraged higher phases of knowledge construction. This raises issues regarding the
relationship between the structure of the task and the phases of knowledge construction, and
they concluded that a careful balance was necessary to ensure optimum levels of cognitive
processing. This highlights the need for careful consideration and planning in the design of the
discussion board activities.

There have been many studies investigating the ways in which higher order thinking and
increased cognitive processing can be encouraged in collaborative learning environments such
as discussion boards (e.g. Schellens & Valcke, 2005; Kanuka & Garrison, 2004. Mcloughlin &
Mynard, 2009) but few, if any, have tested this in non-traditional, distance learners. It is this gap
in the research that this paper aims to address.

Our student cohort are mature, distance learners enrolled on undergraduate and postgraduate
work based learning courses with the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies at Portsmouth
University. They are all in full time employment, many are high ranking professionals, many
are international students, and most are returning to higher education after a long break. A
work-based learning programme can be defined as “a process for recognising, creating and
applying knowledge through, for and at work which forms part or all of a higher education
qualification” (HEA, 2009). Established aims of these courses are for students to explore the
links between theory and practice, take part in critical debates about their subject area and
reflect on their own professional development.

For work-based learners, applying the taught theory to their working experiences is a vital
component of the course. For campus-based students, this creation of knowledge is partly


fostered through critical discussions between students in seminar settings. For distance
learners however, this collaborative learning process is directed solely through online
discussions. Therefore, the need to create a supportive online environment which encourages
interaction between students is crucial.
Recent research urges that attention be paid to the influence of technology on the delivery of
the curriculum. For example, JISC, Managing Curriculum Change (2009), urges for increased
awareness into how the curriculum can continue to support the professional development of the
work-based learning cohort. We have identified the successful managing of online discussion
boards as a key factor to be examined within this. A further JISC report „Great Expectations of
ICT‟ (2008), illustrated the need for students to have control and ownership of their online
environments in order for them to be successful.

However, this study only included full time, traditional students, in the 17-19 age bracket
commenting that an influential factor governing online learning is that these young people have
grown up with technology as an intrinsic part of their lives. They are familiar with talking to each
other in online environments and through blogs. The majority frequently use sites such as
myspace and facebook as communication tools. This highlights the influence that age has on
engagement with virtual learning environments; individuals who unlike this group, have not
matured in the age of technology (referred to as “digital immigrants” as opposed to “digital
natives”, Prensky, 2001), will approach learning online differently. What then are the other
influences on the student experience of this mature, highly professional, work-based learning
cohort? 40% of which, according to the Leitch Review (2004) should be qualified to level 4 or
above by 2020.

For these mature, work based students the impact of being new to online learning and returning
to education significantly contributes to the amount of new skills and information they are
expected to discover in the discussion boards. These learners often report experiencing higher
levels of information overload (Kushnir,2009). Unlike campus based students who have
different centres of support for areas such as course teaching and admin, for distance learners
online discussions provide answers on a variety of topics. For example, students use
discussion boards not only to learn but also to manage their units, deadlines and to contact
core admin and teaching staff regarding queries.

The implication of the multiple functionality of the VLE is that students entering the online
environment to learn, are simultaneously faced with practical course issues. They are therefore
required to maintain higher levels of concentration in order to stay focused in their line of
thinking, which could distract from their engagement with discussion board content. Kushnir
(2009) considered the relationship between user characteristics and the experience of
information overload commenting that “if students lack the technical skills required to participate
then they may be more susceptible to experiencing overload” (p.290).

As many mature, work based, distance learners are new to online learning, their experience
could be hindered in the early stages of their course, which will, in turn, impact their connection
with critical, subject based discussion. In these early stages “it is important for students to learn
how to learn, how to be an independent learner and how to communicate with others to find
relevant information” (Sabry and Barker,2009,p.185). This highlights a need for facilitators to
recognise the unique standpoint of this cohort and sensitively manage their early experiences
of online discussions. How this can be achieved will be discussed in the later findings of this
paper.


An important factor to consider when managing the success of discussion boards is how to
make the transition from a set of tentatively linked posts to worthwhile, knowledge building
interactions (Dennen,2005, Salmon, 2004). In order for work-based learners to share their
professional experiences and learn from each other, they must feel comfortable with the online
environment they are working in. For example, non-participation in the instigation of
discussions may mean that students become anxious and isolated, causing them to refrain
from joining discussions at a later date (Zembylas and Vrasidas, 2007). In order for higher
order thinking to occur in discussion boards, an integrated group is essential (McLoughlin and
Mynard, 2009).

This integration needs to occur early on in course (Salmon,2004) and consideration made to
how to overcome the time barriers experienced by the learners. This presents challenges when
working within this non-traditional cohort due to their demanding professional role and living in
different time zones. This nature of their study patterns hinders a succinct flow of dialogue in
discussions boards, which in inhibits students from partaking in critical discussion.

As detailed above, the characteristics of our participant group create certain barriers to critical
reflection and knowledge construction in a collaborative learning environment. Many of the
students in this group are new to online environments, especially as tools for learning, and
some of the more mature students are not comfortable with online activities other than the
basic email and word processing tools. Even for those students who are familiar with online
environments, many are new to learning within these environments, and therefore may not be
aware of the benefits of engaging in these activities, or the way in which they should behave
within these environments.

In addition, many students are international, and therefore language may be a barrier that is
preventing them from fully engaging with others. Some have commented that they are not
confident enough to expose their weaknesses of the English language with a community of
learners, most of whom they do not know. Many work-based mature learners may also be
lacking in academic skills at higher education level, and may not have studied for many years.
These potential barriers are likely to lead to resistance to engage, and therefore must be
considered when designing the curriculum and activities in the discussion boards. Other
barriers include busy work schedules with unpredictable shift patterns, family commitments,
and demanding professional roles.

These factors will inevitably impact on the students‟ ability to engage critically and reflectively in
online discussions, and will hinder the development of higher order thinking. Our study
revealed that, with these students there is a serious lack of a sense of community, and students
do not feel part of a community of learners within the online environment. This also links with
the failure on the part of the institutions and instructors to address the preconceptions students
have about discussion boards.

The students on our groups were not aware of the educational benefits of collaborative
learning, and saw no need to engage with discussion boards. This may also have been partly
due to the lack of structure and purpose to the discussion board activities, and perhaps an
increase in task-oriented activities would foster more communication. These barriers often lead
to a lack of understanding of the purposes of discussion board activities, and in turn to an
under-use of this type of collaboration tool.


Methodology

Seventy-four undergraduate and postgraduate students took part in the survey, with the ratio of
approximately two thirds undergraduate (including foundation degree) and one third
postgraduate. 58% were male, and 42% female. Over half of the participants were in their first
year of study, 52.5% were in the age bracket 26-35, and 44% were over 36. Just under a fifth
of the participants were living abroad at the time of the survey.

All current students enrolled on courses at the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies at
Portsmouth University were emailed with an invitation to take part in the survey. In order to
encourage participation, they were all advised that if they took part, they would be entered into
a draw to win £100 worth of vouchers.

The survey was created in SurveyMonkey, and was comprised of 15 questions. The questions
were a combination of closed answer tick box options, and open ended opinion questions, with
the aim of collecting basic quantitative data about discussion board usage for these students,
and also more qualitative data regarding the students opinions about discussion boards and
their motivations to engage/not engage with them. The survey also collected basic
demographic data.

Analysis

The qualitative data from the survey was analysed using a combination of thematic and
comparative analysis. The data was analysed sequentially on three levels. The data was first
read through for meaning and sense, then re-read to ensure understanding; meaning units
were then identified (i.e., a string of text that expressed a coherent thought) and coded; and
finally the recurring meaning units were grouped together. These meaning units formed the
basis of the themes identified below. This was carried out independently by two researchers,
and then compared to produce the final themes.

Findings and Discussion

Due to the investigative nature of this paper, the findings and discussion will be combined, in
order to more effectively analyse the data and contemplate the implications of the results. We
will split this section into two further subsections, the first dealing with the dominant themes that
arose from our analyses, and the second addressing these issues in terms of what practical
measures could be taken in order to overcome some of the difficulties highlighted by
participants.

Themes
Lack of time

The study found that the high workload and pressure experienced by these criminal justice
professionals created a barrier to the potential use of the discussion boards. This is also
heightened by the differences in some of the time zones where the students were based.
Participants commented that this was the factor which stopped them from participating in
discussion boards as much as they would have like to. However, there was an awareness of
this, with 63% of participants stating that they spend too little time in the discussion boards.
Although asynchronous discussions were a component of the courses, the flow and
development of these was hindered by staggered posts from students who were struggling to


balance a high workload. Thomas (2002) commented that the nature of asynchronous
discussions is a barrier to creating conversational learning (Laurillard,1993;1999), which in turn
hinders critical thinking.

This sporadic engagement with the discussion boards suggests that new ideas and criticality
are developed over a substantial period of time. As the majority of participants accessed the
discussion boards once a week, thought and argument became disjointed, sometimes
staggered over several weeks. This prevented the students from joining as a coherent group to
learn, meaning that they became isolated due to the short, fragmented time spent engaging
with the subject matter (Thomas, 2002).

A further consequence for this was that students appear to be logging into discussions boards
to find quick answers to questions, rather than any prolonged engagement. They used reading
posts as a way to quickly access information; 43% stated that they rarely started a new topic
themselves or added to an existing thread. Beaudoin (2002) asked whether students who only
read discussion threads are still actively involved in learning. He talked about „witness learning‟
(p.154), stating that it occurred in both the physical and virtual classroom.

Our results suggest that students do not feel fulfilled or challenged by this purely observational
activity. It has, in fact, dominated the majority of their online behaviour which has presented a
large barrier to collaborative learning and the development of critical thinking.

Confusion about the purpose of discussion boards

Participants appeared to be confused as to the purpose of discussion boards. When asked
about the main benefits of using the discussion boards students did not identify learning from
the group, or discussing their units as a perceived advantage. They commented that they
gained an increased understanding of their course but did not feel challenged by the
interaction. The number of students on the courses may have been another contributing factor
here. Many discussion board areas are shared by over two hundred students.

The impact of seeing many different names appeared to increase the autonomy of the students
and cause them to withdraw early on. Following this trend, the students appeared to look to the
discussion boards for re-assurance, to clarify that they were on the right track with their studies
rather than challenge their views or lines of thought. The perception that the students have, as
to what constituted collaborative learning, caused a barrier to higher order thinking and
increased cognitive processing.

Student Identity and Confidence

Many of the students were not confident enough to properly engage in debates within
discussion boards; 42% admitted that they definitely did not challenge the views of fellow
students and only 21% saying that they sometimes do. One student wrote “I usually do not find
I have confidence to challenge views and prefer to read and learn from others, rather than
exposing my limited knowledge.

From this point of view, discussion boards do not help confidence.” Being in a learning
environment is often a strange concept for some of these students, due to the fact that many
are high ranking professionals, often with a lot of responsibility and authority within their
organisation. It is difficult for them to adjust and make the transition from being a “professional
expert” in their field to being a “learner novice” on their course.


This failure to adjust their own expectations of what they can. or should be able to achieve
leaves students feeling disappointed and frustrated, which in turn damages confidence. Almost
three quarters of respondents agreed that they needed to understand the content of the
discussion thread before they would contribute, which again flags up issues of lack of
confidence impacting on engagement.

Main reasons for using the discussion board

Although 78% of respondents claimed that they use the discussion boards, the data suggests
that many students only use the discussion boards to check for administrative changes in the
course, and 60% admitted that they use it to gain clarification on something by quickly entering
the discussion board for relevant information.

This indicates that there is little critical thinking and analysis occurring within the discussion
threads, and that they are not being used to help develop analytical or reflective skills. Their
purpose to enhance higher order thinking is therefore not being achieved. However, they do
help almost 60% of students feel supported, and as one student wrote, “it helps to know I am
not alone with my problems as discussions show others are having similar issues”.

The students themselves also recognise that they should contribute to the discussion boards
more often (even if they are not entirely sure why), as 63% admit they do not contribute
enough.

Despite the fact that 37% claim they check the discussion boards daily or every other day, and
26% check them weekly, two thirds of these visits last for less than 10 minutes, which
reinforces the indication that students are using the discussion boards for quick clarification
matters rather than prolonged critical or analytical discussions with their peers. The fact that
43% rarely start a new topic also confirms this „quick check‟ behaviour.

It was also suggested that perhaps if tutors could be involved a little more in the discussion
boards, and instigate some group discussions, then the students would engage more with the
activity. This supports the Schellens and Valcke „s (2005) argument mentioned previously, that
communication among students is likely to be higher if the online environment contains task
oriented activities, rather than unstructured discussion threads. It was also suggested by some
respondents to the survey that they think the discussion boards would be used more if they
were build more into the course, in terms of having structured activities that are a required
element of their studies. This could be seen as a reflection of the students‟ negative
experiences of using the discussion boards but also of their confusion around the purpose of
them.

Practical steps for overcoming these barriers
Based on our observations and the results of our student survey, there are a number of initial
practical steps that we propose in order to overcome some of these identified barriers. These
are based on the belief that early interventions which shape the students relationship with
subject based discussions are vital in order to foster an environment of critical reflection.

By introducing a programme of guided support that recognises these barriers, course teams
can ensure that learners begin to develop skilful working practices in discussion boards.
Beginning this in the first semester, as part of their introduction to “learning online” means that


learners may be less likely to develop bad habits, for example only engaging in witness
learning (Beaudoin,2002).

The main aim of this intervention will be to explore ways in which these barriers to critical
reflection can be overcome. This study has highlighted these barriers as:
 Time management issues which impact on the length and depth of asynchronous
discussions
 Confusion around the purpose of discussion boards due to their multiple uses in other
areas such as course administration
 A lack of confidence to participate in discussion for some learners who are returning to
education after a long break and are unfamiliar with the online environment
 Overcoming the varying student priorities when entering the VLE

Our findings indicate that it is important to de-mystify the purpose of discussion boards early
on. This could be intensive and comprehensive training regarding the purpose and benefits of
discussion boards. This would educate the learners as to why they should be using discussion
boards, and what educational and professional benefits they may reap as a result of online
collaborative activities.

The aim of this induction to the discussion boards should be to give clarity around what is
expected in each discussion, providing clarity around time spans, purpose and who should
participate in each discussion. This could include providing students with examples of
successful online discussions to analyse along with instigating introductory activities. For those
who are not familiar with talking to each other in online environments and blogs this would help
learners grasp what is expected of them early on. Within this it is also key to instigate activities
which include international students.

One of the main barriers to engagement with discussion boards for our participant group was
time. Due to their high work commitments, many were frustrated that they lacked the time to
properly engage with these activities. Perhaps some structured time management training very
early on in their courses would help them to recognise spare time they could devote to online
learning activities.

In order to address the needs of individuals, this could also be done in the form of
individualised study plans that are negotiated with their tutor. This would increase awareness
about what is a realistic study pattern, and perhaps highlight that, at times, the amount of time
spent reading and considering the discussion board content is more important than frequency
of visits to the VLE. This would distill the belief that quick checks to keep up to date with what is
occurring is sufficient.

Facilitators should aim to give clear and realistic participation targets for Semester 1. At the
same time encouraging an attitude towards more prolonged engagement with the discussions
and acknowledging the inexperience within the group course facilitators can also build
confidence in the learners.

In addition to tutor support, peer support is also key, and perhaps facilitation of peer to peer
support early on would help to foster good learning relationships between the students. This
also helps to create a community of learners, who can support and encourage each other


throughout their studies. Mentoring programmes are also an option, having final year students
mentor first year students, to help them get used to the difficulties of being a distance learner.

Finally, it may be beneficial to operate a kind of buddy system, which would pair up similar
students in terms of profession or location, so they can draw on each other for support and
guidance.

It has been established that through using constructivist tenets and a self directed enquiry
based approach, virtual learning environments can lead to higher order cognitive skills,
including critical thinking and reflection, and transferable learning. A key ingredient for the
development of critical thinking and reflection is confidence, and this can be developed through
building on and enhancing group identity among the students.

Dirkx and Smith (2004) argue that students‟ reservations about online collaborative learning
may stem from the fact that students cling to highly subjective and individualistic
understandings of teaching and learning and that evidence of these perspectives can be seen
in the students‟ approach to decision making and group inquiry. Dirkx and Smith (2004)
explored the experiences of mature students in online collaborative learning environments and
the difficulties they had in “learning to learn” in these groups.

Students are expected, in an online environment, to integrate their knowledge of theory and
practice with their own experiences, all within a group situation, often having never met the
other students in person. What is it that fuels this ambivalence towards working in this way?
Boyd (1991) argues that the answer lies in the concept of individuation, and Smith and Berg
(1997) propose that it is due to the forces of group development.
The Jungian concept of individuation is a process that involves an individual recognising
differences and becoming aware of the existence of the separate selves that operate within
one‟s psyche. The purpose is ultimately the development of the individual personality, which is
arrived at via the formation and differentiation of individuals. It is essential that students go
through the process of individuation within their group, so that they may begin to see
themselves and other members of the group as separate but also interrelated beings.

However, this level of individuation fails to ripen in many group environments (Dirtx and Smith,
2004). The fostering of interdependence and intersubjectivity necessitates intimacy within a
group, which entails group members opening up to others and being receptive to the
differences between the group members.

Dirkz and Smith (2004) suggest that students get caught between conflicting fears of their loss
of individual identity and voice, which is associated with the feeling of belonging, and fears of
isolation and alienation from the group, associated with the assertion of individuality. As the
online group attempt to move forward, these fears feed the group ambivalence, thus making it
difficult for the students in the group to adapt to an online collaborative learning environment.

If our wish is that mature distance learners create effective communities of practice in an online
environment, where they are able to develop skills such as critical thinking and reflection whilst
sharing and constructing new knowledge, then we must address these issues and put in place
structures and support that will allow these students to overcome such barriers to learning.


Conclusions

The findings in this study suggest that this unique student group may be prevented from
achieving their full potential within existing discussion board design. This highlights an
increased need for more research into adapting practice to suit the needs of this diverse
student population. With an increase in students fitting the profile outlined in this paper, the
need for more structured, customised collaborative learning environments seems imperative.

Further research involving a detailed thematic analysis of the kinds of interaction that occur in
these environments for these students would be a sensible and constructive point from which to
start understanding the true nature of these interactions and how they can be encouraged to
develop more fully.

The philosopher and educator John Dewey famously believed that the key ingredients for an
effective learner experience were interaction and continuity of interaction. In order to facilitate
the continued interaction of these mature, work based, distance learning students, more
thought and preparation must be invested at the design stage of interactive online collaboration
tools, to ensure the highest possible level of engagement. We believe that this initial research
gives an insight into the ways in critical and analytical thinking and increased cognitive
processing may be fostered through the use of discussion boards for work based distance
students.
This study acknowledges that guided discussion board activities, focus sets and carefully
moderated discussion are crucial in order to encourage critical thinking. By devoting the time
early on to overcoming these barriers which are linked to this cohort, students are much more
likely to engage with these discussions on a deeper level.

Putting the groundwork in during the first semester, will provide learners with a strong footing
and remove any anxiety or pre-conceptions that they have about studying at a distance. It is
possible that through giving them the knowledge and skills to become independent learners in
the discussions that student-to-student interaction and knowledge sharing will occur.

References

Beaudoin. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the „„invisible‟‟ online student. Internet and Higher
Education Vol 5, pp 147–155

Boyd, R. D., (1991) Personal Transformations in Small Groups: A Jungian
Perspective. London : Routledge

Dennen,V. (2005). Message posting to learning dialogues: factors affecting learner participation in online
discussion, Distance Education, 26 (1),125–146

Dewey, J. (1933) Experience and education. New York : Macmillan

Dirkx, J., and Smith, R. (2004) Thinking out of a bowl of spaghetti: Learning to learn in online
collaborative groups, In T. Robert (Ed) Online Collaborative Learning: theory and practice, London :
Information Science Publishing

st
Garrison, R. & Anderson, T. (2003) E-Learning in the 21 Century: A framework for research and
practice, London : Routledge


Higher Education Academy. (2008). Work-based Learning. Retrieved October, 13, 2009 from
http://www.engsc.ac.uk/er/wbl/index.asp

Kanuka, H. & Garrison, D. R. (2004) Cognitive Presence in Online Learning, Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 15(2), 21-39

Kushnir, L., P. (2009). When Knowing More Means Knowing Less: Understanding the Impact of
Computer Experience on e- Learning and e-Learning Outcomes, Electronic Journal of e-Learning 7(3),
289 - 300

JISC.(2007). Managing Curriculum Change. Retrieved October, 15,2009 from JISC,
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/programmerelated/2009/managingcurriculumchange.aspx

JISC. (2008). Great Expectations of ICT. Retrieved Oct 15,2009 from JISC,
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/research/2008/greatexpectations.aspx

Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of
Educational Technology. London : Routledge

Laurillard, D. (1999) A Conversational Framework for Individual Learning Applied to the
'Learning Organisation' and the 'Learning Society'. Systems Research and Behavioural
Science 16, 113-122.

th
Leitch,S. (2006). Leitch Review of Skills. Retrieved September,10 ,2009 from
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/furthereducation

McLoughlin, D. Mynard, J. (2009). An Analysis of Higher Order Thinking in Online Discussions.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46 (2) 147 - 160

Prawat, R. S. & Floden, R. E. (1994) Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning
Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37-48

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, On the Horizon, NCB University Press, Vol. 9 No.
5, (October) Accessed online, 16/02/10
http://www.hfmboces.org/HFMDistrictServices/TechYES/PrenskyDigitalNatives.pdf

Sabry, K. & Barker, J. (2009). Dynamic Interactive Learning Systems. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, Vol 46 (2), 185 - 197

Salmon,G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to Teaching and Learning Online. Oxon : Routledge

Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2005) Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about
the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 957-975

Smith, K., and Berg, D. (1997) Cross-Cultural groups at work, European Management Journal, Vol 15 (1)
pp 8-15

Thomas,M. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning,18, pp 351-366

Zembylas, M.,and Vrasidas,C. (2007). Listening for silence in text based online encounters. Distance
Education, 28 (1), pp 5 - 24


Authors

Dr Susan Wilkinson
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff
swilkinson@uwic.ac.uk

Amy Barlow
University of Portsmouth

Copyrights

The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject to a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 3.0
Unported licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast provided that the author and
the e-journal that publishes them, eLearning Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative
works are not permitted.
The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Edition and production

Name of the publication: eLearning Papers
ISSN: 1887-1542
Publisher: elearningeuropa.info
Edited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L.
Postal address: C/ Muntaner 262, 3º, 08021 Barcelona, Spain
Telephone: +34 933 670 400
Email: editorial@elearningeuropa.info
Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu


Turning up critical thinking in discussion boards

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Similar a Turning up critical thinking in discussion boards

Similar a Turning up critical thinking in discussion boards (20)

Más de eLearning Papers

Más de eLearning Papers (20)

Último

Último (20)

Turning up critical thinking in discussion boards