Instructor versus Peer Attention Guidance in Online Learning Conversations

Abstract

Abstract:This paper reports a theory-driven experimental study for designing and evaluating two different forms of attention-guidance functionalities integrated into an anchored-discussion system. Using social constructivism as a motivating theory, we constructed a theoretical framework that emphasizes the importance of students' attention allocation in online learning conversations and its influence on message quality and interaction patterns. The development of the functionalities, named faded instructor-led and peer-oriented attention guidance, aimed to direct students' attention toward instructional materials' central domain principles while offering them an open learning environment in which they could choose their own topics and express their own ideas. We evaluated the functionalities with heat map analysis, repeated measures general linear model analysis, and sequence analysis to assess the utility of the developed functionalities. Results show that attention guidance helped students more properly allocate their attention in online learning conversations. Furthermore, we found that the improved attention allocation led to better quality of students' online learning conversations. We discuss implications for researchers and practitioners who wish to promote more fruitful online discussions.

How Design Science Research Helps Improve Learning Efficiency in Online Conversations

“…Prior research shows that scaffolding can encourage students to openly acknowledge their common confusions and ask topic-related questions in online discussions (Eryilmaz et al, 2015). However, on the flip side, students do not always understand the reasons behind the importance of the central principles that their instructors suggest and tend to end their discussion threads prematurely when the first plausible explanation surfaces instead of collaboratively diagnosing and resolving potential misconceptions.…”

“…However, on the flip side, students do not always understand the reasons behind the importance of the central principles that their instructors suggest and tend to end their discussion threads prematurely when the first plausible explanation surfaces instead of collaboratively diagnosing and resolving potential misconceptions. (Eryilmaz et al, 2015). This problem purports that students can jump to conclusions that are often inconsistent with the instructional materials' central principles (Kim & Hannafin, 2011).…”

“…Hence, research considers the second mechanism to highly influence students' learning outcomes (Baker, 1999). Eryilmaz et al (2015) found that peer-to-peer guidance helps students to compare and contrast their own different explanations in order to improve tentative ideas. However, interactivity graphs with this guidance technique show that such comparisons take time to cultivate because students can be reluctant to critique or to be critiqued for the fear of making mistakes (Eryilmaz et al, 2015).…”

“…Eryilmaz et al (2015) found that peer-to-peer guidance helps students to compare and contrast their own different explanations in order to improve tentative ideas. However, interactivity graphs with this guidance technique show that such comparisons take time to cultivate because students can be reluctant to critique or to be critiqued for the fear of making mistakes (Eryilmaz et al, 2015). In this vein, Tsai, Lin, and Yuan (2002) found that students may regard the second mechanism above as too time-consuming and demanding.…”

“…Specifically, from quantitatively analyzing AOD threads, researchers have found that, as the subject matter increases in difficulty, students become less comfortable asking questions that expose their lack of understanding and revising incomplete or incorrect ideas (Eryilmaz, Chiu, Thoms, Mary, & Kim, 2014;Paus, Werner, & Jucks, 2012). Moreover, in the same line of research, Eryilmaz, Thoms, Mary, Kim, and van der Pol (2015) found that discussion threads that focus on challenging concepts have a tendency to quickly fade, which leaves little opportunity for learners to diagnose and revise their misconceptions. As Kim and Hannafin (2011) remark, under such conditions, students can develop robust and oversimplified misconceptions that prove highly resilient to change.…”