Enhancing Understanding Through On-line Discussions

The use of the computer and other technologies (i.e. the internet, world-wide web, etc.) are currently being aggressively used by many educators as tools in the learning process. This paper will report on an on-going research study at American University designed to address the role of student understanding in physics using an on-line discussion group format. In terms of gauging student understanding in physics, some critical questions are raised. (1) What factors serve to motivate students to participate in on-line discussions outside of class? (2) Can student motivation and performance be linked to students' individual learning styles? (3) Can student participation in on-line discussions be linked to enhanced understanding? To address these questions, formal learning style assessment data along with results from a survey conducted in an introductory course for non-majors during the 2000 academic year will be shared. I. Introduction A growing number of technology-based educational tools currently exist within the domains of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) education. In addition, the use of educational technologies is growing both in and out of the classroom and laboratory. Certainly technology has the potential to serve as a powerful tool to improve the educational process for students as well as teachers 1 . However, educational technology is only as good as the content it supports 2 . Many traditional teaching methodologies have clearly been shown to put students in the role of passive rather than active learning 3 . Traditional instructional methods have also been shown to be inadequate in terms of promoting deep learning and long-term retention of important physics concepts. The explosion in the availability of technological tools is literally forcing physics as well as other SMET educators to change the way they teach. These changes, however, must involve much more than simply implementing technology for technology’s sake. The recent advances in computer-based technologies and their use in SMET education provides an opportunity for educators to take a critical look at how these tools are being integrated into the classroom and laboratory. Research has shown that these technological tools can only be effective in promoting student understanding if used in a pedagogically sound way 4 . Essential to note is the fact that the integration of computer-based technologies into the classroom and laboratory is not enough. Strategies must be employed which are designed to assess student understanding following the use of any new type of learning tool, computer-based or otherwise. Furthermore, effective strategies must be developed and implemented to assess overall student learning gains.

[1]  Kenneth Dunn,et al.  Productivity Environmental Preference Survey , 1987 .

[2]  Chet Meyers,et al.  Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom , 1993 .

[3]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[4]  Zane L. Berge.  Electronic discussion groups , 1994 .

[5]  T. L. Hein,et al.  Digital video, learning styles, and student understanding of kinematics graphs , 1997 .

[6]  John N. Harb,et al.  Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle and the 4MAT System in Engineering Education , 1993 .

[7]  Scott L. Althaus.  Please Scroll down for Article Communication Education Computer-mediated Communication in the University Classroom: an Experiment with On-line Discussions , 2022 .

[8]  Harold F. O'Neil,et al.  Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. , 1994 .

[9]  Mary C. McComb.  Benefits of computer‐mediated communication in college courses , 1994 .

[10]  Miika Marttunen.  Commenting on Written Arguments as a Part of Argumentation Skills — comparison between students engaged in traditional vs on‐line study , 1992 .

[11]  Jeffery E. Olson,et al.  A Meta-Analytic Validation of the Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style Preferences , 1995 .

[12]  Vicki L. Cohen.  Learning Styles in a Technology-Rich Environment , 1997 .

[13]  Dan Budny,et al.  Teaching With Style: Strategies That Work , 1999 .

[14]  T.L. Hein,et al.  Teaching to students' learning styles: approaches that work , 1999, FIE'99 Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.99CH37011.

[15]  Van Gorp,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication in Preservice Teacher Education: Surveying Research, Identifying Problems, and Considering Needs. , 1998 .

[16]  J. E. Sharp,et al.  Combining Kolb Learning Styles and Writing to Learn in Engineering Classes , 1997 .

[17]  D Weber,et al.  Strategies that work. , 1989, The Healthcare Forum journal.

[18]  R. Dunn.  UNDERSTANDING THE DUNN AND DUNN LEARNING STYLES MODEL AND THE NEED FOR INDIVIDUAL DIAGNOSIS AND PRESCRIPTION , 1990 .

[19]  Dan Budny.  Counselor Tutorial Program: A Cooperative Learning Program for the High-Risk Freshman Engineering Courses. , 1994 .

[20]  Tom Kubala,et al.  Addressing Student Needs: Teaching on the Internet. , 1998 .

[21]  Gerald M. Phillips,et al.  Teaching group discussion via computer‐mediated communication , 1989 .

[22]  Stephanie Harvey,et al.  Strategies That Work , 2000 .

[23]  S.E. Irvine,et al.  Assessment of student understanding using on-line discussion groups , 1998, FIE '98. 28th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Moving from 'Teacher-Centered' to 'Learner-Centered' Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.98CH36214).