The current study investigates the effects of preparing students for an online debate through a worked example in terms of student perception, participation, and level of cognitive skills. The study found that students prepared for online debate through a worked example participated more frequently, wrote more words or phrases that encouraged the participation of others, and used higher-order thinking skills. This study provides empirical evidence that worked examples can be used to model behaviors for students to emulate in online debates.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonR.DerryS.RenklA.WorthamD. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214.
2.
BocchiJ.EastmanJ. K.SwiftC. O. (2004). Retaining the online learner: Profile of students in an online MBA program and implications for teaching them. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 245–253.
3.
CarswellL.ThomasP.PetreM.PriceB.RichardsM. (2000). Distance education via the Internet: The student experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 29–46.
4.
ChenC. (2003). Managing perceptions of information overload in computer-mediated communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.
5.
ChoK.JonassenD. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.
6.
ClarkR. (2003). Research on web-based learning: A half-full glass. In BruningR.HornC.PytlikZilligL. (Eds.), Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? (pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
7.
ConradD. (2002). Engagement, excitement, anxiety, and fear: Learners' experiences of starting an online course. The American Journal of Distance of Education, 16(4), 205–226.
8.
de WeverB.SchellensM.ValckeM.Van KeerH. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups. A review. Computers in Education, 46, 6–28.
9.
FahyP. (2002). Use of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers in a computer conference. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 5–22.
10.
FogersonD. (2005). Readiness factors contributing to participant satisfaction in online higher education courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
11.
HaraN.BonkC.AngeliC. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.
12.
HenriF. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In KayeA. (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 115–136). New York: Springer.
13.
HirschL.SaeediM.CornillonJ.LitosselitiL. (2004). A structured dialogue tool for argumentative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(1), 72–80.
14.
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.
15.
JeongA. (2005). The effects of linguistic qualifiers on group interaction patterns in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(3). Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/258/401
16.
JeongA.Davidson-ShiversG. (2003, April). Gender interactions in online debates: Look who's arguing with whom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://dev2244801.sp01.fsu.edu/Research/GenderInteraction/GenderInteraction.pdf
17.
JeongA.JoungS. (2004). 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 September 26, 2005, from http://dev2244801.sp01.fsu.edu/Research/Labeling/Fall2002/AERAProposalScaffolding.pdf
18.
JeongA.JoungS. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427–445.
19.
JonassenD.RemidezH. (2005). Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1(1/2), 113–129.
20.
JoungS.KellerJ. (2004, October). The effects of high-structure cooperative versus low-structure collaborative design of design change, critical thinking, and interaction pattern during online debates. Paper presented at the International Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED485151)
21.
KawachiP. (2003). Initiating intrinsic motivation in online education: Review of the current state of the art. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(1), 59–81.
22.
KreijnsK.KirschnerP. A.JochemsW. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Journal of Education Technology & Society, 5(1), 8–22.
23.
LaPadulaM. (2003). A comprehensive look at online student support services for distance learners. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 119–128.
24.
LiR. (2005). The effects of databases as cognitive tools in a multimedia problem-based learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
25.
MenloveR.LignugarisB. (2004). Preparing rural distance education preservice special educators to succeed. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(2), 18–26.
NeuendorfK. (2002). The content analysis handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
NorthrupP. (2002). Online learners' preferences for interaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 219–226.
29.
OhS.JonassenD. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–110.
30.
PedersenS.LiuM. (2002). The effects of modeling expert cognitive strategies during problem-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 353–380.
31.
PerreaultH.WaldmanL.AlexanderM.ZhaoJ. (2002). Overcoming barriers to successful delivery of distance-learning courses. Journal of Education for Business, 77(6), 313–318.
32.
ReisetterM.BorisG. (2004). What works: Student perceptions of effective elements in online learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(4), 277–291.
33.
RestaP.LaferrièreT. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65–83.
34.
RourkeL.AndersonT.GarrisonD.ArcherW. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.
35.
RummelN.SpadaH.HauserS. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 69–92.
36.
SamC. (2005, June). Purposeful scaffolding: Beyond modeling and thinking aloud. Paper presented at the Redesigning Pedagogy Conference, Singapore. Retrieved September 22, 2007, from http://www.elearnjourney.com/Converted%20Pdf/ab00655.pdf
37.
ScheiterK.GerjetsP. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 285–307.
38.
SorensenC.BaylenD. (2004). Patterns of communicative and interactive behavior online: Case studies in higher education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(2), 117–126.
van GogT.KestnerL.PaasF. (2011). Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and problem-example pairs on novices' learning. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 36(3), 212–218.
41.
van GogT.PaasF.van MerrienboerJ. (2004). Process-oriented worked example: Improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 83–98.
42.
van GogT.RummelN. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 155–174.
43.
Wong-BushbyI.PasseriniK.HiltzS.BieberM.PattenK. (2005, August). Scaffolding discourse in asynchronous learning networks. Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Omaha, NE. Retrieved September 22, 2007, from http://afs1.njit.edu/∼bieber/pub/wb-ais2005.pdf
44.
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.
45.
XieK.KeF. (2011). The role of students' motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916–930.
