Group micro-creativity in online discussions: effects of new ideas and social metacognition

This study examines how group members' new ideas and social metacognition in recent messages (micro-time context) affected a current message's micro-creativity (correct, new idea) during online discussions. Dynamic multi-level analysis was used to model statistically 894 messages by 183 participants on 60 high school mathematics topics from one of the world's largest mathematics problem solving website (www.artofproblemsolving.com). Results showed that new ideas (correct, new ideas and justifications) and social metacognition (correct evaluations and questions) in recent messages increased the likelihood of a current message's micro-creativity. Applied to practice, these results suggest that teachers might increase students' micro-creativity by encouraging them to post more correct, new ideas, justify their own ideas, evaluate others' ideas carefully, and ask more questions during online discussions.

[1]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  M. Chiu.  Flowing Toward Correct Contributions During Group Problem Solving: A Statistical Discourse Analysis , 2008 .

[3]  M. Chiu,et al.  A New Method for Analyzing Sequential Processes , 2005 .

[4]  Linda M. Harasim,et al.  Book Reviews : Global Networks: Computers and International Communication Linda M. Harasim (Ed.) Publisher: MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 92142 Year of Publication: 1993 Length: 410 pages Price: $29.95 , 1994 .

[5]  S. Schrire.  Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing , 2004 .

[6]  Peter E. Kennedy.  A Guide to Econometrics , 1979 .

[7]  Charlotte N. Gunawardena,et al.  Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing , 1997 .

[8]  J. Roschelle.  Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change , 1992 .

[9]  Judith B. Pena-Shaff,et al.  Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[10]  Penelope L. Peterson,et al.  Antecedents and Consequences of Verbal Disagreements during Small-Group Learning. , 1985 .

[11]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate , 2006 .

[12]  B. Nijstad,et al.  Cognitive stimulation and interference in idea generating groups , 2003 .

[13]  Richard De Lisi,et al.  Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. , 1999 .

[14]  Alan Durndell,et al.  Peer interaction and critical thinking: Face-to-face or online discussion? , 2008 .

[15]  Ming Ming Chiu,et al.  Social metacognition in groups: Benefits, difficulties, learning and teaching , 2009 .

[16]  Susan L. Golbeck,et al.  Peer collaboration and children's representation of the horizontal surface of liquid. , 1998 .

[17]  G. Judge,et al.  The Theory and Practice of Econometrics (2nd ed.). , 1986 .

[18]  Mary K. Tallent-Runnels,et al.  Teaching Courses Online: A Review of the Research , 2006 .

[19]  Robert Heckman,et al.  A Content Analytic Comparison of Learning Processes in Online and Face-to-Face Case Study Discussions , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[20]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course , 2000 .