Validating an Approach to Examining Cognitive Engagement Within Online Groups

Tools for measuring cognitive engagement within online groups have been concerned only with measuring an individual participant's cognitive engagement, without any concern for measuring cognitive engagement within groups. There remains a serious need for a scheme that measures cognitive engagement of groups and the validation of such a scheme against existing methods. The SQUAD (coding categories that are being measured, a semistructured approach for scaffolding online groups' engagement) approach to computer-mediated communication (CMC) discourse invites students within their respective groups to post messages based on five given categories: (a) suggestion, (b) question, (c) unclassified, (d) answer, and (e) delivery. In this article, the authors validated the SQUAD approach at the message level with an established framework called the practical inquiry model for assessing cognitive presence of CMC discourse. They adopted the alignments suggested by one of the developers of the Transcript Analysis Tool at sentence level to assess students' cognitive engagement within online groups in three case studies presented in this article. The authors argue that the cognitive presence attributed to the SQUAD approach has been empirically validated with respect to cognitive engagement within groups online.

[1]  Fiona French,et al.  Using the enhanced problem-based learning grid: three multimedia case studies , 2002, ASCILITE.

[2]  John Cook,et al.  Transcript Reliability Cleaning Percentage: An Alternative Interrater Reliability Measure of Message Transcripts in Online Learning , 2003 .

[3]  Patrick J. Fahy.  Two methods for assessing critical thinking in computer-mediated communications (CMC) transcripts. , 2005 .

[4]  D. Randy Garrison,et al.  Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education , 1999, Internet High. Educ..

[5]  Patrick J. Fahy.  Assessing Critical Thinking Processes in a Computer Conference. , 2007 .

[6]  D. Garrison,et al.  Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education , 2001 .

[7]  Wim H. Gijselaers,et al.  Bringing Problem-Based Learning To Higher Education: Theory And Practice , 1996 .

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

[9]  E. Zhu.  Meaning Negotiation, Knowledge Construction, and Mentoring in a Distance Learning Course , 1996 .

[10]  Patrick J. Fahy,et al.  The Development and Testing of a Tool for Analysis of Computer-Mediated Conferencing Transcripts , 2000 .

[11]  Peter K. Oriogun.  Content Analysis of Online Interrater Reliability Using the Transcript Reliability Cleaning Percentage (Trcp): A Software Engineering Case Study , 2003, ICEIS.

[12]  E. Bridges.  Problem-based learning for administrators , 1992 .

[13]  P. Oriogun.  Towards understanding online learning levels of engagement using the SQUAD approach to CMC discourse , 2003 .

[14]  Peter K. Oriogun.  Introducing a dedicated tool for facilitating a semi-structured approach to CMC messaging , 2005, The 3rd ACS/IEEE International Conference onComputer Systems and Applications, 2005..

[15]  H. Barrows.  Problem‐based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview , 1996 .

[16]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperation and the Use of Technology , 2007 .