The use of online learning is growing very fast in universities. Consequently, understanding how to promote student contribution in asynchronous online discussions, which is considered an integral part of online learning, has become increasingly crucial. Previous research has examined how factors, such as instructor facilitation techniques may influence student contribution. However, issues such as when the online discussion is student facilitated, and students are given a freedom of choice to choose, why students choose to contribute in some forums but not in others are not fully understood. In this article, we report a case study involving pre-service teachers in Singapore that examined this issue. Data were collected from the pre-service teachers' online postings, reflection logs, questionnaires, and interview data. Results suggested six themes that influenced students' decision to contribute or not to contribute: a) relational capital; b) knowledge about the subject or topic; c) discussion activity or topic; d) availability of time; e) reward; and f) random choice. Practical recommendations to motivate students to contribute and future research directions pertaining to asynchronous online discussions are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbdullahM. H. (1999). An examination of social presence cues in online conferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.
2.
BatsonC. D.AhmadN., & TsangJ. A. (2002). Four motives for community involvement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 429–445.
3.
BonkC. J. (2004). The perfect e-storm: Emerging technologies, enormous learner demand, enhanced pedagogy, and erased budgets. Part 2: Storms 3 and 4.London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved December 14, 2006 from http://php.indiana.edu/∼cjbonk/part2.pdf
4.
CheungC. M. Y.ShekS. P. W., & SiaC. L. (2004). Online community of consumers: Why people are willing to contribute? Paper presented at the Eighth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai, China.
5.
CheungW. S., & HewK. F. (2004). Evaluating the extent of ill-structured problem solving process among pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion and reflection log learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(3), 197–227.
6.
CheungW. S., & HewK. F. (2005). How can we facilitate students' in-depth thinking and interaction in an asynchronous online discussion environment? A case study. Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, USA, 28, pp. 114–121.
7.
CifuentesL.MurphyK. L.SegurR., & KodaliS. (1997). Design considerations for computer conferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 177–201.
8.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
DennenV. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148.
10.
DunlapJ. C. (2005). Workload reduction in online courses: Getting some shuteye. Performance and Improvement, 44(5), 18–25.
11.
ErtmerP. A.RichardsonJ. C.BellandB.CaminD.ConnollyP.CoulthardG. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2). Retrieved on March 20, 2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html
12.
FeenbergA. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 16(2), 169–186.
13.
FungY. Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135–149.
14.
GanevaI. (1999). Native and non-native speakers' participation in educational asynchronous computer conferencing: A case study. Unpublished Master thesis. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
15.
GranovetterM. S. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In NohriaN. & EcclesR. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25–56). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
16.
GuzdialM. (1997). Information ecology of collaborations in educational settings: Influence of tool. In HallR.MiyakeN., & EnyedyN. (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 83–90). Toronto, Canada: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
GuzdialM., & TurnsJ. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.
18.
HewittJ. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.
19.
HewittJ., & TeplovsC. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads. In HoadleyC. & RoschelleJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 232–241). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
HewK. F., & CheungW. S. (2003). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part 1. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(3), 247–262.
21.
HewK. F., & HaraN. (2007). Knowledge sharing in online environments: A quantitative case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2310–2324.
22.
JeongA. (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.
23.
JonesQ.RavidG., & RafaeliS. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194–210.
24.
JungI.ChoiS.LimC., & LeemJ. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in Web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162.
25.
KanawattanachaiP., & YooY. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. Sprouts: Working papers on information environments, systems and organizations, 2(2), 42–58. Retrieved on November 30, 2006 from http://sprouts.case.edu/2002/020204.pdf
26.
KearK. (2001). Following the thread in computer conferences. Computers and Education, 37, 81–99.
27.
KhanS. (2005). Listservs in the college science classroom: Evaluating participation and “richness” in computer-mediated discourse. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 325–351.
28.
KobayashiT.IkedaK., & MiyataK. (2006). Social capital online: Collective use of the Internet and reciprocity as lubricants of democracy. Information, Communication & Society, 9(5), 582–611.
29.
LewisJ. D., & WeigertA. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.
30.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
31.
MastersK., & OberprielerG. (2004). Encouraging equitable online participation through curriculum articulation. Computers and Education, 42, 319–332.
32.
MaxwellJ. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Research, 62(3), 279–300.
33.
MazzoliniM., & MaddisonS. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers and Education, 40, 237–253.
34.
McAllisterD. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
35.
MerriamS. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
MurphyE., & ColemanE. (2004). Graduate students' experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2). Retrieved on April 3, 2007 from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol30.2/cjlt30–2_art-2.html
37.
NahapietJ., & GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
38.
NewmanD. R.JohnsonC.WebbB., & CochraneC. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported cooperative learning. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 48, 484–495.
39.
NonakaI., & TakeuchiH. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation.New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.New York: Simon and Schuster.
41.
RomiszowskiA., & MasonR. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In JonassenD. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 397–431). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42.
ShortJ.WilliamsE., & ChristieB. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.New York: Wiley.
43.
TeiglandR., & WaskoM. M. (2004). Extending richness with reach: Participation and knowledge exchange in electronic networks of practice. In HildrethP. & KimbleC. (Eds.), Knowledge networks: Innovation through communities of practice (pp. 230–242). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
44.
ThomsK. J., & JunaidN. (1997). Developing critical thinking skills in a technology-related class. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430526).
45.
TuC-H., & McIsaacM. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.
46.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
WaskoM. M., & FarajS. (2000). “It is what one does:” Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 155–173.
48.
WhittakerS.TerveenL.HillW., & ChernyL. (1998). The dynamics of mass interaction. Proceedings of ACM's Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 257–264), Seattle, Washington.
49.
WiseA.ChangJ.DuffyT., & del ValleR. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247–271.
50.
XieK.DeBackerT. K., & FergusonC. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67–89.
51.
YehH. T., & BuskirkE. V. (2005). An instructor's methods of facilitating students' participation in asynchronous online discussion. In CrawfordC.WillisD. A.CarlsenR.GibsonI.McFerrinK.PriceJ., & WeberR. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 682–688). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
52.
ZhaoN., & McDougallD. (2005). Cultural factors affecting Chinese students' participation in asynchronous online learning. In RichardsG. (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 2723–2729). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
