You are here:

The Effects of Epistemic Belief and Discussion-Facilitating Strategy on Interaction and Satisfaction in Online Discussion
Article

, Teachers College, Columbia University, United States ; , Korea University, Korea (South)

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 19, Number 4, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of students' epistemic belief and the instructor's discussion-facilitating strategies on interaction and satisfaction in online discussion. It was predicted that the effects might vary depending on whether epistemic belief, one of the personal characteristics of learners, corresponds to epistemic assumption of online discussion, and whether it was matched to discussion-facilitating strategies. After we conducted an experiment with 43 college students, the results showed that there were group differences in interaction and satisfaction, depending on epistemic belief. Regarding discussion-facilitating strategies, there were meaningful differences in interaction but not in the satisfaction level. In addition, researchers found interactional effects between epistemic belief and discussion-facilitating strategies in social and interactive types of messages.

Citation

Han, I. & Park, I. (2008). The Effects of Epistemic Belief and Discussion-Facilitating Strategy on Interaction and Satisfaction in Online Discussion. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(4), 649-662. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 28, 2023 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1986)
  2. Freitag, E.T., & Sullivan, H.J. (1995). Matching learner preference to amount of instruction: An alternative form of learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 5-14.
  3. Galotti, K. M., Clinchy, B. M., Ainsworth, K. H., Lavin, B., & Mansfield, A. F. (1999). A new way of assessing ways of knowing: The attitudes toward thinking and learning survey (ATTLS). Sex Roles, 40, 745-766.
  4. Chang, C. (2006). Effect of the interaction of instructional delivery model and preference of learning environment on students' attitudes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 799-802.
  5. Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2002). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Ed.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 70-82). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  6. Harasim, L. (1989). On-line education: A new domain. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Ed.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education (pp. 50-62). New York: Pergamon. Harasim, L. (1990). On-line education: Perspectives on a new environment. New York: Praeger. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 115-136). New York: Springer. Hiltz, S. R. (1990). Evaluating the virtual classroom. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education (pp.133-183). New York: Praeger.
  7. Jonassen, D., Davison, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Bannan Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
  8. Jones, E. K., Sullivan, H. J., & Klein, J. D. (1996, February). The effects of matching learner preference for instructional method on achievement and attitude. Paper presented at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN.
  9. Leem, J. H. (1999). Effects of small-group cooperative learning strategies on learner participation in online discussion and problem solving in web-based learning environment. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University, Korea).
  10. Lim, K. (1999). Factors related to the learner participation, achievement, satisfaction in the web-based online discussion. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ewha Woman’s University, Korea).
  11. Levin, J. A., Kim, H., & Riel, M. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions in electronic
  12. Mason, R. (1990, May). Conferencing for mass distance education. Paper presented at the Third Guelph Symposium on Computer Conferencing. Guelph, Ontario, University of Guelph. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002, January). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. Paper presented at the CSCL2002 Annual Conference, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
  13. Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp.438-456). New York: Prentice Hall.
  14. Sadler-Smith, E., & Riding, R. (1999). Cognitive style and instructional preferences. Instructional Science, 27, 355-371. Vanderstraeten, R.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References