This study investigates how the combination of instructor modeling and question prompts for peer-questioning influences students' online questioning and answering activities. Fourteen students in a turfgrass management online class at a large land-grant university participated in two three-week sessions of online discussion. Two randomly selected small groups (n = 6) received question prompts and instructor modeling while the other two discussion groups (n = 8) did not. Their online interactions (frequency, length, and type of questions) and selected follow-up telephone interviews were analyzed. The results of the descriptive statistics of students' online activities and the interview reveal that the instructor's participation in online discussion played a critical role in modeling students' questioning activities and in facilitating students' continuous use of the given online peer questioning guidance. Thus, the combination of instructor modeling and question prompts is more effective than providing either strategy alone. The results are discussed from the viewpoint of distributed scaffolding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G.WintersF. I.MoosD. C.GreeneJ. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents' self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 381–412
2.
BergeZ. L. (2000). Designing discussion questions for online, adult learning. Educational Technology, 40(5), 53–56
ChoiI. (2002). Effects of peer-challenge support on learning during on-line small group discussion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
5.
ChoiI.LandS.TurgeonA. (2005a). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 483–511
6.
ChoiI.LandS.TurgeonA. (2005b). Scaffolding peer questioning and metacognitive strategies during online discussion. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association (AERA), Montreal, Canada
7.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
8.
DavisE.LinnM. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837
9.
DillonJ. T. (1986). Student questions and individual learning. Educational Theory, 36, 333–341
10.
GallM. D.BorgW. R.GallJ. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction(6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman
11.
GarnerR.AlexanderP. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–158
12.
GeX.LandS. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38
13.
GerberS.ScottL.ClementsD.SaramaJ. (2005). Instructor influence on reasoned argument in discussion boards. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(2), 25–39
14.
HanS. Y.HillJ. R. (2007). Collaborate to learn, learn to collaborate: Examining the roles of context, community, and cognition in asynchronous discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(1), 89–123
15.
HaraN.BonkC. J.AngeliC. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152
16.
HenriF. (1992). The process of distance learning and teleconferencing assisted by computer: An analytic essay. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 21(1), 3–18
17.
HewK. F.KnapczykD. (2007). Analysis of ill-structured problem solving, mentoring functions, and perceptions of practicum teachers and mentors toward online mentoring in a field-based practicum. Instructional Science, 35(1), 1–40
18.
Hmelo-SilverC. (2002). Collaborative ways of knowing: Issues in facilitation. In StahlG. (Ed.), Proceedings of the CSCL 2002 (pp. 199–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
19.
Hmelo-SilverC. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266
20.
HmeloC. E.GuzdialM.TurnsJ. (1998). Computer-support for collaborative learning: Learning to support student engagement. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 9(2), 107–129
21.
KoschmannT.KelsonA. C.FeltovichP. J.BarrowsH. S. (1996). ***Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In KoschmannT. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
22.
LaiT-L. (2006). The effect of using peer discussion, learning journals, and question prompts to support reflection in a distance learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
23.
LandS. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78
24.
MiyakeN.NormanS. A. (1979). To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not known. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 357–364
25.
MurphyE. (2004). Recognizing and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421–431
26.
O'DonnellA. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In O'DonnellA.M.KingA. (Eds.), Cognitive perspective on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
27.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175
28.
PuntambekarS.HübscherR. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12
SchankR. C.ClearyC. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
31.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1985). Mathematical problem-solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press
32.
SpiroR. J.FeltovichP. J.JacobsonM. J.CoulsonR. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In DuffyT. M.JonassenD. H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
33.
SpiroR. J.VispoelW. P.SchmitzJ. G.SamarapungavanA.BoergerA. E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In BrittonB. K.GlynnS. M. (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 177–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
34.
TabakI. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Science, 13(3), 305–335
35.
TaoP. K.GunstoneR. F. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39–57
TuttyJ.KleinJ. (in press). A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research & Development.
38.
van der MeijH. (1990). Question asking: To know that you do not know is not enough. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 505–512
39.
VonderwellS.LiangX.AldermanK. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessments in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309–328
40.
WongB. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55, 227–268
