View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Discussion Activities in Asynchronous Online Learning: Motivating Adult Learners' Interactions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Discussion Activities in Asynchronous Online Learning: Motivating Adult Learners' Interactions
Language: English
Authors: Xi Lin (ORCID 0000-0003-2387-4117), Qi Sun (ORCID 0000-0001-8175-5090)
Source: Journal of Continuing Higher Education. 2024 72(1):84-103.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Adult Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Adult Students, Online Courses, Discussion (Teaching Technique), Asynchronous Communication, Student Motivation, Interaction, Student Participation, Computer Mediated Communication, Video Technology, Visual Aids, Persuasive Discourse, Peer Relationship, Teacher Student Relationship, Teacher Role, Graduate Students, Student Attitudes
DOI: 10.1080/07377363.2022.2119803
ISSN: 0737-7363
1948-4801
Abstract: This quantitative study investigates the impact of four types of discussion activities on adult learners' asynchronous online interactions. Specifically, this study aims to understand how different discussion activities incorporated into online discussion boards motivate adult learners' online participation. The four discussion activities are video-based text discussion, student-generated problem-based case discussion, self-created meme discussion, and discussion through debate. Results show that all four discussion activities, to a great extent, help motivate adult learners to actively interact with learning content, the instructor, and peers in different ways. Significantly, our study shows that participants identified student-generated problem-based case discussion as the most effective and that the debate was the least effective among the four discussion activities. Results also indicate that the instructor plays a significant role in the design, instruction, and follow-up of discussion activities. This study provides insights into using multiple discussion activities in fully asynchronous online environments for adult learners' active learning.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1417634
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE1sZ8WuwNPpvTvSZXc5T0OAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDO7mV1tEI5FBH0cy8gIBEICBm2j5uxKipa99HSt-1Z1enB0vSgvRzMCtB23pYuucPq7XLaX9E4bB05RNzLP_iRtwPKY-0C00WehgkOPwljlieGKogW8d2OV2jWyz7Bt5_uHWhyXdxm7Hdg6eHnsIqeZ2y5QRkw4skxOsL7-d6bf6xvE5LiSQZhYTaEvn_bYEvTfTXqXlrySObJZDiBhtiboRYSKOW15SIrn0yicE
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176179459;gwp01jan.24;2024Mar26.04:55;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176179459-1">Discussion Activities in Asynchronous Online Learning: Motivating Adult Learners' Interactions </title> <p>This quantitative study investigates the impact of four types of discussion activities on adult learners' asynchronous online interactions. Specifically, this study aims to understand how different discussion activities incorporated into online discussion boards motivate adult learners' online participation. The four discussion activities are video-based text discussion, student-generated problem-based case discussion, self-created meme discussion, and discussion through debate. Results show that all four discussion activities, to a great extent, help motivate adult learners to actively interact with learning content, the instructor, and peers in different ways. Significantly, our study shows that participants identified student-generated problem-based case discussion as the most effective and that the debate was the least effective among the four discussion activities. Results also indicate that the instructor plays a significant role in the design, instruction, and follow-up of discussion activities. This study provides insights into using multiple discussion activities in fully asynchronous online environments for adult learners' active learning.</p> <p>Keywords: Online discussion activities; online interactions; adult learners; asynchronous online learning</p> <p>Online education, with its ubiquity in technology and format, has actively provided opportunities for adults with greater access, flexibility, and convenience along with lower costs (Buelow et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>]). In fall 2019, 33% of postbaccalaureate students in the U.S. took distance courses exclusively (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref2">50</reflink>]). Online learning consists of asynchronous and synchronous forms. Asynchronous online learning refers to course delivery in which content and instruction do not happen in real-time, while synchronous does. Asynchronous instruction uses a variety of delivery platforms, such as Canvas, Blackboard, and Desire2Learn. Synchronous courses use tools, such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Webex, along with some combinations of asynchronous and synchronous systems.</p> <p>Asynchronous online learning is typically considered an optimal modality for adult learners, who are nontraditional students and usually enroll as part-time students due to full-time employment and family obligations (Radford et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref3">53</reflink>]). Most online students enrolled in fully asynchronous online courses are adult learners (Anthony & Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]) because of multiple advantages. First, this format enables 24/7 access anytime, anywhere, with the internet. Second, adult learners have the freedom to manage their learning because they can designate time to work at their own pace (Hrastinski, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref5">26</reflink>]). Lastly, adult learners can explore and share more organized thoughts on asynchronous platforms, such as discussion boards (Hrastinski, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]). Additionally, instructors use online discussion boards, emails, and other teaching strategies to conduct various interactions for content learning and reflective inquiries (Ruiz et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref7">54</reflink>]). Such capacity of asynchronous learning can reduce peer pressure for learners not ready to share responses, facilitating deep learning and better contributions to peers' learning (Brierton et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Discussion activities are essential to learning in online courses because the exchange of ideas and thoughts in discussion is a method of adult learning (Lindeman, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref9">39</reflink>]). Applying different types of discussion provides alternatives for content understanding, information organizing and presenting, and problem-solving while helping to meet diverse learners' styles and preferences (Carwile, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]). For example, watching an instructional video while providing comments and perspectives may deepen reading comprehension and lead to reflective inquiry. Having learners create a problem-based case and analyze its theoretical foundation may bring theory into practice; using problem-based discussion may also motivate adult learners' readiness and help them apply prior learning (Knowles, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref11">33</reflink>]). Debate is another form of discussion that facilitates critical thinking by challenging assumptions of alternative perspectives with new ideas and actions (Brookfield, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, online discussion enhances interactions while challenging and improving learners' cognitive presence (Galikyan & Admiraal, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref13">22</reflink>]). Sharing perspectives and responding to peers' comments enable learners to participate actively and thus increase peer interaction (DeNoyelles et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref14">20</reflink>]). However, an instructor's discussion instructions, topics, and questions are essential to establishing a trusting and supportive online learning community (Covelli, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]). More adult learners take asynchronous online courses, so varied discussion activities may be explored and applied to promote cognitive presence through active interactions with the learning content, instructor, and peers.</p> <p>Although studies have noted the use of videos, debates, and problem-based case analysis for discussion (Covelli, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]; Khan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref17">29</reflink>]), limited studies specifically looked at the impact and adult learners' perspectives of different types of discussion activities for asynchronous online learning environments. However, understanding adult learners' views of various online discussion activities may provide new insights for integrating discussion activities in future adult online learning.</p> <p>Our study explores adult learners' experiences of four types of discussion activities in an asynchronous online learning environment to understand how each online discussion activity motivates their engagement. Research questions were the following: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>) How do adult learners experience the four discussion activities applied to asynchronous online courses? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>) What perspectives do they hold regarding the effectiveness of each type of online discussion activity?</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-2">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176179459-3">Social Interaction and Engagement</hd> <p>Learning occurs in a social context and develops through relationships with other learners. Social interaction is required for cognitive development (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref20">60</reflink>]), and asynchronous online discussions have been used widely in teaching and learning, providing an online social environment. Such activities also promote learners' digital communication skills and collaboration (AlJeraisy et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]). Lynch et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref22">40</reflink>]) indicated that 95% of 358 teaching faculty used asynchronous online discussions at one research institution in the U.S., and 87% required class participation in discussion.</p> <p>Student engagement is crucial to learning (Khan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]), yet engaging students in asynchronous online learning environments remains challenging. Motivating learners' active learning becomes essential for effective online teaching. Active learning refers to "seeking new information, organizing it in a meaningful way, and having the chance to explain it to others" (Allen & Tanner, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>], p. 262). Active learning promotes students' engagement and improves attitudes toward learning (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref25">60</reflink>]). One strategy for active learning in online settings is to use well-conceived discussions (Khan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>]). The social nature of interaction through online discussion boards is likely to engage learners, promote active learning (Alzahrani, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]), encourage critical thinking, and enhance communication skills (Dallimore et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]). Additionally, effective use of multimedia, including audio, visual, and scripting, can facilitate learners' online participation in discussion (Lewis & Abdul-Hamid, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]). Thus, using multimedia may help increase online learners' learning ownership (Khan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref30">29</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-4">Motivating Interactions for Effective Online Discussion</hd> <p>Creating an effective asynchronous online discussion board is essential for developing learners' interaction. Generally, there are three types of interactions identified for effective online education. They are learner-content interaction, learner-learner interaction, and learner-instructor interaction (Moore, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref31">46</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref32">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-5">Learner-Content Interaction</hd> <p>Learner-content interaction refers to how learners engage with the subject matter or learning resources, including interactions with the course materials in text, audio, video, or online communication formats (Sher, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref33">57</reflink>]). This interaction could facilitate learners' understanding or cognitive thinking, thus preparing them to engage in online courses while also serving as a critical segment for online learning (Abou-Khalil et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>]; Moore, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref35">46</reflink>]; Sher, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref36">57</reflink>]). Specifically, providing multimedia resources (e.g., videos, infographics) for learning-content interaction can lead to high-level engagement and learner satisfaction (Elena et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref37">21</reflink>]). Additionally, the real-world application of projects enhances mastery and critical thinking skills, thus encouraging learner-content interactions (Abou-Khalil et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-6">Learner-Learner Interaction</hd> <p>Learner-learner interaction is "the exchange of information and ideas among students about the course in the presence or absence of the instructor" (Sher, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref39">57</reflink>], p. 104). This type of interaction consists of discourse and other interchanges (e.g., project collaboration, knowledge sharing), which help improve their learning experiences, engagement, and motivation (Moore [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>]; Moore & Kearsley, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref41">48</reflink>]). Scholars have noted that learner-learner interaction could significantly influence learners' engagement in online learning environments (Czerkawski & Lyman, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]). This type of interaction helps promote rapport and connection among learners. They usually feel more comfortable in a discussion activity led by their peers rather than the instructor because of a hierarchical relationship felt between the instructor and learners, for example, expert-novice (Hew et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref43">24</reflink>]; Lim et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref44">38</reflink>]; Zhao & McDougall, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref45">65</reflink>]). This relationship may prevent learners from sharing their comments and insights freely because they may worry about how their perspectives are evaluated by the instructor, whom they consider an authoritative figure in the class. Therefore, group chats (D'Errico et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref46">19</reflink>]), collaborative flipped classrooms (Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref47">63</reflink>]), icebreaker discussions, and students moderating the class discussion may be applied to increase learner-learner interaction. Lastly, this type of interaction can also enhance a higher level of knowledge construction when peers share supportive commentaries, provide encouragement, and conclude with the discussion points (To & Carless, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref48">59</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-7">Learner-Instructor Interaction</hd> <p>Lastly, learner-instructor interaction refers to the communication between learners and the instructor in a class setting throughout the teaching and learning transaction (Moore & Kearsley, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref49">48</reflink>]). The instructor delivers instruction, discusses learning activities, presents course information, and provides feedback, while learners interact by asking questions and communicating in other ways with the instructor (Sher, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref50">57</reflink>]). The instructor can facilitate building an interactive and close relationship for engaged learning, contributing to learners' success (Martin & Bolliger, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref51">41</reflink>]). Additionally, providing prompt feedback to learners is crucial in online courses (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref52">13</reflink>]). Timely feedback from the instructor enhances online learners' learning experiences (King, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref53">30</reflink>]). Hence, to make the discussion board effective, the instructor should frequently provide helpful feedback to keep the discussion progressing (Nandi et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref54">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-8">Developing a Teaching Presence for Effective Online Discussion</hd> <p>The teaching presence in online courses is another significant aspect of effective online discussion. Teaching presence indicates the "design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes to realize personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes" (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>], p. 5). It is implemented through the instructor, who is responsible for the following: (a) design and organization of the course and activities, (b) facilitation of the course and activities, and (c) direct instruction and feedback. Teaching presence can set the social climate and facilitate higher-order learning (Garrison & Arbaugh, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref56">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the asynchronous setting, instructors may design activities for online discussion to motivate learners' active participation in discussing course topics and connecting them to the unit's objectives (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref57">61</reflink>]). Instructors can create asynchronous discussion boards using well-defined goals and transparent rules for various interactions through threads. It is also beneficial to adult learners when the instructor diversifies the interactive modalities for engagement through multimedia, such as voice technology, video clips, and digital resources (Stephenson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref58">58</reflink>]), to actively illustrate teaching presence.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-9">Setting Requirements for Effective Online Discussion</hd> <p>Graded discussions may additionally stimulate learners to engage in active conversations. An et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref59">5</reflink>]) stated that if peer interaction is not required in an online environment, voluntary interactions among learners rarely happen. However, setting specific requirements for online discussion may limit strong peer interaction since forced responses may lead to "perfunctory student participation" and "a low level of meaningful interaction" (McKenna et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref60">44</reflink>], p. 96). It is possible that "students were 'playing the game' of assessment, making the posting that earned them marks but rarely contributing otherwise" (Oliver & Shaw, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref61">51</reflink>], p. 64). Nevertheless, to promote active involvement in a discussion activity, it is vital that the instructor provide a clear purpose (e.g., resolving a problem through working in a team) and set expectations (e.g., what and when it needs to be completed). Such general requirements may motivate learners to co-construct a project and share different perspectives on the discussion board (DeNoyelles et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref62">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>More responses and meaningful interactions may be enhanced with "thought-provoking questions for participating in the dialogue as if the learners were in a traditional classroom" (Levine, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref63">35</reflink>], p. 94). Utilizing open-ended questions and requiring learners to respond to one another may enhance student involvement. Similarly, asking learners to self-research and respond to others' comments and questions promotes active participation and interactions (Carwile, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref64">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-10">The Current Study</hd> <p>Asynchronous online discussion boards support knowledge construction and higher-order thinking through interacting and communicating with course content, peers, and instructors (Galikyan & Admiraal, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref65">22</reflink>]). In a virtual space, discussion activities help adult learners actively share perspectives, acquire understandings (Brindley et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref66">9</reflink>]), contribute to meaning-making, and co-construct knowledge (Schrire, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref67">56</reflink>]). Scholars also indicated that online discussion facilitates a sense of online community, collaborative learning, and student-centered interaction (Covelli, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref68">15</reflink>]) by making a space where adult learners can support one another and be empathetic and compassionate about each other's perspectives as well as encourage authentic discussion and collective learning outcomes (McDougall, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref69">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Therefore, it is important to understand adult learners' perspectives regarding what discussion activities would better motivate them to participate in asynchronous online learning actively. However, little empirical research has been conducted regarding how discussion activities applied to adult learners' asynchronous online learning impact class interactions and how adult learners experience these activities' effectiveness for their learning. To fill this gap, the current study applied four types of discussion activities to fully asynchronous online courses to understand how adult learners feel about each of them and which discussion activities they consider most and least effective. The primary contribution of the study showed which types of discussion activities were felt to be the most effective by online adult learners and how each discussion activity motivated these learners' online interactions. This study provided new insights into using multiple discussion activities in fully asynchronous online environments for interactive learning.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-11">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176179459-12">Activity Design</hd> <p>Based on the literature review above, four types of discussion activities were applied to two sections of a five-week, graduate-level, asynchronous online course to explore adult learners' experiences and preferences for discussion activities. Debate and problem-based case discussions are commonly used to enhance online learners' learning processes, engage them in the debate, and promote higher-order cognitive skills (Khan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]). Meanwhile, self-created memes and video-based text discussion activities were applied because innovative multimedia tools can increase learners' engagement and interaction in online learning environments (Stephenson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref71">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>The learning goals of the online course provided an overview of major issues in adult and higher education, along with strategies for teaching adults. The course offered conceptual understanding and experiential skills in planning, implementing, and evaluating instruction. Throughout this course, learners developed critical thinking skills, exercised practical teaching techniques, and reflected on their teaching philosophies. The discussion activities applied to the course included video-based text discussions for Week 1 and Week 5, respectively; self-created meme activity for Week 2; a student-generated problem-based case discussion for Week 3; and a debate discussion for Week 4.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-13">The Video-Based Text Discussion</hd> <p>The video-based text discussion applied to Weeks One and Five required students to discuss topics after watching video-based lectures created by the instructor (see Figure 1). The video timeline-anchored comment function available in Canvas Studio allowed writing text comments while watching the video. Learners' remarks, once made, jumped out as a bubble at the right corner of the video screen. Once the bubble was clicked, learners could read full comments. From there, they could respond to peers and the instructor (see Appendix A for an example). Canvas Studio provides a notification of a new entry. This discussion activity provided learners with diverse perspectives via "real-time" interactions.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Steps of video-based text discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-14">Self-Created Meme Discussion</hd> <p>The self-created meme discussion in Week 2 included multiple steps to complete (see Figure 2). Week 2's topic was learning how to use technology to teach adult learners. Thus, this activity motivated class members to use memes or gif generators to connect their emotions to new learning. Appendix B shows a meme example created by a student.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Steps of self-created meme discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-15">Student-Generated Problem-Based Case Discussion</hd> <p>Student-generated problem-based case discussion employed in Week 3 required two steps (see Figure 3). The instructor provided examples of challenging students, such as attention seekers, discussion dominators, and unprepared learners. While developing the case, students were required to include elements, such as settings (i.e., class size, level of the course, online, distance, hybrid, etc.), characters (i.e., the protagonist of the scenario, other additional characters, etc.), and plot (i.e., the story of the scenarios and the conflict/issues in the scenario). As a guide, the instructor provided an example case. The instructor also prepared questions while monitoring the discussion board to facilitate discussion.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Steps of student-generated problem-based case discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-16">Debate</hd> <p>Finally, Week 4 applied debate as a discussion activity, which required evidence (e.g., statements from the textbook, scholarly articles, and other reliable sources) to support arguments and points of view. Figure 4 shows the specific steps of this activity. In short, this discussion facilitated individual and collaborative learning through a shared goal by exploring, organizing, presenting, and building up teams' statements, arguments, and points of view.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. Steps of debate discussion.</p> <p>Because voluntary interactions among learners rarely happen (An et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref72">5</reflink>]), there were requirements to promote discussion, including posting original threads and responding to at least two peers' postings by a specific deadline. The discussion board was also graded. Further, the instructor frequently checked the discussion, provided feedback, and asked additional questions to keep the conversation interactive and progressing. Here is an example of such a comment: "In response to [student X]'s comments, what do you think...?" Additionally, the instructor posted a weekly topic learning summary after each week's learning.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-17">Participants</hd> <p>Twenty-eight adult learners participated in the study from the two sections of a fully online course in a 5-week summer semester in 2021. These adult learners' responses were collected from weekly anonymous end-of-module surveys. Each week's survey aimed to understand learners' perceptions of a specific discussion activity used in that week. The course enrollments were 15 (section 1) and 13 (section 2).</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-18">Instruments</hd> <p>The instrument used in the end-of-module survey was adopted and modified from Kuo et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref73">34</reflink>]) interaction inventory. The survey consists of 20 items examining three types of interactions: eight items for learner-learner (e.g., <emph>I shared my thoughts or comments with peers about the lectures and their applications during this class</emph>), six items for learner-instructor (e.g., <emph>The instructor regularly posted questions on the discussion boards for us to discuss</emph>), and four items for learner-content (e.g., <emph>Online course materials helped link my prior learning and experience to new concepts and new knowledge</emph>). The final two questions explored students' overall interaction experiences (e.g., <emph>Overall, I highly engaged in this class or unit learning by initiating three or more interactions with the course content, peers, and the instructor</emph>; <emph>Overall, I was/am highly involved in this class or unit learning by responding to 3 or more interactions with the course content, fellow students, and the instructor)</emph>.</p> <p>A 5-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score indicated a more substantial interaction. Two additional questions were added in Week 5's end-of-module survey asking students to select the most and least effective discussion activity for the whole semester. A multiple-answer question was also added to investigate discussion activities students wanted to include in future online courses.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-19">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Data were analyzed via the software program SPSS. Descriptive statistics were generated to examine adult students' interactions with the discussion activities applied each week, their perceptions of the most and the least effective discussion activities, and the activities to keep in future courses. The Likert scale included ordinal data with clear rank order but not an even distribution (Likert, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref74">37</reflink>]). Thus, arithmetic operations could not be conducted (Wu & Leung, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref75">62</reflink>]). Because the current study had a small sample size (<emph>N</emph> = 28), the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to ensure the accuracy of the results. This nonparametric test effectively analyzes outcomes from as few as two independent samples (Ostertagova et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref76">52</reflink>]). This nonparametric alternative for a one-way ANOVA was undertaken to examine the differences between the three forms of interactions presented earlier among all four types of discussion activities. The alpha level was set at.05.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-20">Results</hd> <p>Cronbach's alpha results showed that the survey used in this study is reliable (see Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Cronbach's alpha of weekly discussion activity interactions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Weekly Discussion Activity</td><td>Cronbach's alpha</td></tr><tr><td>Learner-learner</td><td>Learner-instructor</td><td>Learner-content</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>W 1—Video-based text discussion</td><td char=".">0.83</td><td char=".">0.82</td><td char=".">0.73</td></tr><tr><td>W 2—Self-created meme</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">0.95</td></tr><tr><td>W 3—Student-generated problem-based case discussion</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">0.84</td><td char=".">0.71</td></tr><tr><td>W 4—Debate</td><td char=".">0.94</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">0.92</td></tr><tr><td>W 5—Video-based text discussion</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">0.86 </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Research question 1: How do adult learners experience the four types of discussion activities applied to asynchronous online courses?</p> <p>The mean scores of learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-instructor of the discussion activity used each week showed that class members had strong learner-content interactions when using video-based text discussion (<emph>M</emph><subs>week1</subs> = 4.75; <emph>M</emph><subs>week5</subs> = 4.77), the self-created meme (<emph>M</emph> = 4.63), the student-generated problem-based case (<emph>M</emph> = 4.71), and debate (<emph>M</emph> = 4.7). They also actively interacted with their peers when conducting these activities (<emph>M</emph><subs>video-based week1</subs> = 4.34, <emph>M</emph><subs>meme</subs> = 4.48, <emph>M</emph><subs>case</subs> = 4.54, <emph>M</emph><subs>debate</subs> = 4.34, <emph>M</emph><subs>video-based week5</subs> = 4.59). Additionally, students expressed that they had a somewhat strong interaction with their instructor while participating in all the discussion activities (<emph>M</emph><subs>video-based week1</subs> = 4.25, <emph>M</emph><subs>meme</subs> = 4.21, <emph>M</emph><subs>case</subs> = 4.26, <emph>M</emph><subs>debate</subs> = 4.29, <emph>M</emph><subs>video-based week5</subs> = 4.42).</p> <p>Regarding students' perspectives of initiating posts and responding to others, data revealed that students engaged in the class or unit learning by initiating three or more posts to interact with the course, peers, and the instructor (<emph>M</emph><subs>video-based week1</subs> = 4.74, <emph>M</emph><subs>meme</subs> = 4.54, <emph>M</emph><subs>case</subs> = 4.63, <emph>M</emph><subs>debate</subs> = 4.54, <emph>M</emph><subs>video-based week5</subs> = 4.83). Similarly, students reported that they engaged in their learning by responding to three or more threads posted by others, with mean scores of <emph>M</emph><subs>video-based week1</subs> = 4.78, <emph>M</emph><subs>meme</subs> = 4.58, <emph>M</emph><subs>case</subs> = 4.63, <emph>M</emph><subs>debate</subs> = 4.5, <emph>M</emph><subs>video-based week5</subs> = 4.83. These results showed that these adult learners had strong interactions conducting all the activities on the discussion boards (see Figure 5).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 5. Descriptive analysis results of interactions' mean scores for each week.</p> <p>The Kruskal–Wallis test comparing the interactions among the different discussion activities showed no significant differences in the interactions among these discussion activities. The comparison of the three forms of interactions (i.e., learner-instructor, learner-learner, learner-content) in a single week's discussion activity did not show significant differences in the problem-based case discussion applied in Week 3 (Adj. <emph>p</emph> =.051) and video-based text discussion activity in Week 5 (Adj. <emph>p</emph> =.051). However, the three forms of interactions were significantly different for video-based text discussion in Week 1 [<emph>H</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>)</subs> = 12.69, <emph>p</emph> =.002], self-generated meme in Week 2 [<emph>H</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>)</subs> = 8.64, <emph>p</emph> =.013], and debate in Week 4 [<emph>H</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>)</subs> = 7.60, <emph>p</emph> =.022] (see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2. Pairwise comparisons of interactions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Interactions</td><td>Test Statistic</td><td>Adj. Sig.*</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Week 1 Video-based text discussion</td><td>Learner-instructor versus learner-learner</td><td char=".">1.89</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Learner-instructor versus learner-content</td><td char=".">−20.39</td><td char=".">0.004</td></tr><tr><td>Learner-learner versus learner-content</td><td char=".">−18.5</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Week 2 Self-created meme</td><td>Learner-instructor versus learner-learner</td><td char=".">6.69</td><td char=".">0.77</td></tr><tr><td>Learner-instructor versus learner-content</td><td char=".">−17.19</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Learner-learner versus learner-content</td><td char=".">−10.5</td><td char=".">0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Week 4 Debate</td><td>Learner-instructor versus learner-learner</td><td char=".">0.94</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Learner-instructor versus learner-content</td><td char=".">−14.06</td><td char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Learner-learner versus learner-content</td><td char=".">−13.13</td><td char=".">0.06</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 *The Bonferroni correction has adjusted significance values for multiple tests.</p> <p>Specifically, pairwise comparisons using the Dunn-Bonferroni tests on interactions indicated that members had a more active learner-content interaction for video-based text discussion in Week 1 than for learner-instructor interaction (Adj. <emph>p</emph> =.004) and learner-learner interaction (Adj. <emph>p</emph> =.01), respectively. For the self-created meme activity in Week 2, data revealed that learner-content interaction was higher than learner-instructor (Adj. <emph>p</emph> =.01). Regarding the debate discussion activity in Week 4, learner-content interaction increased more than learner-instructor interaction (Adj. <emph>p</emph> =.04).</p> <p>Research question 2: What perspectives do they hold regarding the effectiveness of each type of online discussion activity?</p> <p>Regarding students' perceptions of the effectiveness of the discussion activity among the useable responses (<emph>N</emph> = 24), most class members rated student-generated problem-based case discussion as the most effective activity (62.5%). In comparison, most class members rated the debate as the least effective discussion activity (41.7%). Finally, of the activities that students preferred to include in future courses, student-generated problem-based case discussion was rated as the top discussion activity (<emph>N</emph> = 19), followed by video-based text discussion (<emph>N</emph> = 15), self-created meme (<emph>N</emph> = 13), and debate (<emph>N</emph> = 12).</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-21">Discussion</hd> <p>This study explored how the four types of discussion activities engage adult learners in online interactions and understand their perspectives on the effectiveness of these discussion activities. Overall, the results of this study indicated that all the discussion activities motivated adult learners' online interactions with the learning content, the instructor, and peers. These findings echoed the literature that discussion activities can effectively enhance learners' participation (Carwile, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref80">12</reflink>]) and further promote meaningful interaction in an online learning context (McKenna et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref81">44</reflink>]). Specifically, this study provided a clear indication of adult learners' perspectives on the impact of each discussion activity. Our findings also indicated that adult learners prefer certain types of discussion and that the instructor plays a significant role in the design, instruction, and follow-up of discussion activities.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-22">Student-Generated Problem-Based Case Discussion</hd> <p>Students voted student-generated problem-based case discussion as the most effective and preferred activity to include in future course activities. Overall, the results showed that this activity enhances learners' interactions with the content, peers, and the instructor. Specifically, it leads to a strong learner-content interaction. The current study endorsed the idea that the real-world application of projects encourages learner-content interaction (Abou-Khalil et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>]). Second, it illustrated a robust learner-learner interaction, reflecting that this discussion may require learners to collaborate for solutions (DeNoyelles et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref83">20</reflink>]), exchange information and ideas (Sher, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref84">57</reflink>]), and promote the active integration of new information with learners' prior knowledge (Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref85">55</reflink>]). Third, it reflected that adult learners' rich life experiences are valuable learning resources (Knowles, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref86">31</reflink>]) that facilitate developing and analyzing cases, leading to active peer interactions, which promote knowledge sharing, discourse, and co-construction (Moore & Kearsley, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref87">48</reflink>]). Lastly, the findings demonstrated that this discussion activity encourages learner-instructor interaction. The instructor's frequent checking of the discussion boards and replying to threads may help sustain active discourse for diverse perspectives, supporting DeNoyelles et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref88">20</reflink>]) statement that the instructor's involvement in the discussion board would encourage more frequent and different perspectives.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-23">Video-Based Text Discussion</hd> <p>The video-based text discussion was rated the second top activity which students preferred to include in future courses. By applying this activity in Week 1 and Week 5, the results of this study proved that it enhances adult learners' interactions with the learning content, their instructor, and peers, especially resulting in a more vital learner-content interaction. This activity integrated into text comments allowed students to post at specific time points while watching a recorded video, making viewers feel a sense of pseudo-synchronicity (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref89">27</reflink>], p. 301). Since text comments could be added while students watched the videos and the timeline-anchored comments showed up when viewers played the video (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref90">14</reflink>]), these added comments by viewers looked like concurrent communication with other viewers. Thus, integrating and synchronizing the video content and time-point-specific comments helped develop a sense of real-time interactions among viewers (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref91">27</reflink>]). However, no differences were found in interactions between these two weeks. One possible reason is that the learners likely familiarized themselves with this activity in Week 1 and thus, they knew how to conduct this discussion activity in Week 5. Further research may need to verify this assumption.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-24">Self-Created Meme Discussion</hd> <p>Internet memes are considered a cultural phenomenon representing a transmission unit of ideas, behaviors, or styles (Dawkins, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref92">18</reflink>]). Memes are identified as simplified words and image presentations of complex concepts information in learning, and their entertaining characteristic meanwhile stimulates information interaction between learners (Xie et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref93">64</reflink>]). Research has indicated that interaction with the course materials in digital resources can enhance students' thinking as they connect to and reflect on the learning content (Sher, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref94">57</reflink>]; Stephenson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref95">58</reflink>]). The current study illustrated that using multimedia resources, such as self-created meme discussion activities, significantly strengthens learner-content interaction compared to the other two forms of interaction. This type of discussion activity also helps enhance learners' engagement in content learning, leading to a more satisfying learning experience.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-25">Debate Discussion</hd> <p>Lastly, this study suggested that debate could enhance adult learners' interaction with the learning content. This finding confirms that debate can enforce content mastery, delivery, and communication of knowledge (Kanuka et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref96">28</reflink>]). The debate also motivates adult learners' critical thinking because this activity requires them to carefully review content for discourse to a high level of resolution, exploration, and integration of the learning content (DeNoyelles et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref97">20</reflink>]). Interestingly, students rated debate the least effective activity, despite the benefits of such learning via this discussion activity. One possible explanation may be that because debate requires students to challenge, argue, and work through conflicts in concepts and assumptions (DeNoyelles, et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref98">20</reflink>]), adult learners may prefer an environment where they do not have to challenge and argue with their peers. Also, because this was a 5-week summer online course, time may be another factor for such results. It may take longer to establish relationships because students may not feel comfortable challenging each other. We hope to conduct future research to explore this area further.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-26">The Instructor's Role</hd> <p>The current study indicated that the instructor plays a crucial role in the discussion board. First, it is central that the instructor has learning goals in mind when applying each form of discussion and establishing clear rules, such as deadlines for posting and grading for discussion. These strategies help motivate interaction and engagement in discussions (An et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref99">5</reflink>]; Martyn, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref100">42</reflink>]). Second, aligning with a previous conclusion (McKenna et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref101">45</reflink>]) that the instructor's facilitation and guidance are essential for discussion board structure, this study suggested that the instructor should clarify the purpose of the activity and provide specific guidelines and possible examples for each discussion activity. Additionally, the instructor should monitor the online discussion board by asking further questions while reviewing students' posts, to encourage continued conversations and inquiries. This supports the literature that asking meaningful and thought-provoking questions helps engage learners in online discussion (Levine, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref102">35</reflink>]). The current study also showed that the instructor should avoid leading the discussion but strengthen peer interactions by intentionally requiring peers' collaboration. Additionally, replying to members' threads for online discourse and interactive discussion could enhance the teaching presence (Nandi et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref103">49</reflink>]). Finally, the results showed that the instructor summarizing the main ideas, the key areas, and points to take away by the end of a learning unit enhanced adult learners' online learning experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-27">Implications and Conclusions</hd> <p>The current study illustrated the implications of applying these discussion activities in fully asynchronous online courses to motivate adult learners' interactions with the content, instructor, and peers and increase their positive educational experiences. The findings showed that the instructor plays a significant role in guiding the discussion boards, including clarifying the purposes of the activities, providing examples, setting the rules and deadlines for posting, responding, encouraging peer interactions, and summarizing key ideas of the discussion posts. Houle ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref104">25</reflink>]) noted that adult learners are goal-oriented and often seek further learning or continue learning with specific purposes, such as gaining new skills or knowledge to improve their competitiveness in the workplace. Knowles ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref105">32</reflink>]) also indicated that adults are ready to learn and learn best when they are clear about learning connections to their needs. Echoing these statements, this study indicated that problem-based case discussion is considered the most effective and popular learning activity among adult learners because these learners are more interested in activities from which they know their learning may apply, why they need to learn such knowledge and skills, and how they can be used in the real world. Similarly, McDougall ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref106">43</reflink>]) stated that the authentic discussion—where students are asked to link the content of the course to real-life examples—should be applied to the discussion board. Thus, the instructor may set up an online discussion board to encourage adult learners to participate with authenticity and provide a space to support one another.</p> <p>Moreover, multimedia (e.g., images, gifs, videos) can be used to engage adult learners and motivate significant learner-content interaction in the online discussion board. Therefore, instructors may consider incorporating multimedia, including videos and infographics, to encourage interactions and engagement in online discussions. The timeline-anchored comment helps develop a sense of real-time interaction in asynchronous online learning environments. Thus, instructors teaching online courses may also deliberately consider using video-based text discussion. Finally, the debate stimulated more in-depth interaction with the learning content for learners to challenge, form, and advance arguments and to work through conflicts in concepts and assumptions (Kanuka et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref107">28</reflink>]). Therefore, instructors may incorporate debate in the online discussion boards to help engage in critical thinking, particularly in learning topics that need to be seen from multiple perspectives.</p> <p>The current study presented promising results and insights for future fully online instructors to apply multiple discussion activities, yet limitations exist. The research sample size was small, which prevents a clear generalized statement about the influence of different discussion activities on adult learners' online interactions. Along this line, qualitative studies should be conducted to support the quantitative results presented in this study. Therefore, future research may use interviews or focus groups to collect more qualitative data to better understand experiences and perceptions. For instance, although quantitative data indicated strong interactions, whether specific requirements of online discussion boards would limit the interactions (Oliver & Shaw, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref108">51</reflink>]) could be further examined through a qualitative study. Also, this study was conducted during a 5-week summer course, which was relatively short. Ideally, it would be conducted in a regular 16-week semester to observe the more detailed aspects that learners may experience and address the multiple discussion activities in their questionnaires. Still, the study's limitations did not negate recognizing the important influences of different discussion activities on adult learners' interactions in fully asynchronous online courses.</p> <p>In conclusion, this study presented adult learners' perspectives of the four types of discussion activities and their impact on class interactions in a fully asynchronous online learning environment. The study results showed that these discussion activities influence the online discussion boards by increasing learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-instructor interactions among adult learners. More importantly, the study illuminated what types of discussion activities adult learners prefer the most or the least, which presents new insights to adult education researchers and practitioners. The discussion activities and practical steps can be easily modified for different subjects, making online learning more engaging and interactive.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-28">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Data are available from the corresponding author on request.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-29">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0176179459-30">Appendix A. Video-Based Text Discussion Example</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176179459-31">Appendix B. An Example Meme Created by a Student Showing Her Feeling About Learning to Use Te...</hd> <p></p> <ref id="AN0176179459-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref18" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abou-Khalil, V., Helou, S., Khalifé, E., Chen, M. A., Majumdar, R., & Ogata, H. (2021). Emergency online learning in low-resource settings: Effective student engagement strategies. Education Sciences, 11 (1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> AlJeraisy, M. N., Mohammad, H., Fayyoumi, A., & Alrashideh, W. (2015). Web 2.0 in education: The impact of the discussion board on student performance and satisfaction. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14 (2), 247 – 259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4 (4), 262 – 268. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alzahrani, M. G. (2017). The effect of using online discussion forums on students' learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16 (1), 164 – 176.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref59" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). Different instructor facilitation approaches affect students' interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53 (3), 749 – 760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref55" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2), 1 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Anthony, D., & Thomas, M. (2020). Asynchronous learning or live lessons? Which one works better for me? EdSurge. https://<ulink href="http://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-10-01-asynchronous-learning-or-live-lessons-which-one-works-better-for-me">www.edsurge.com/news/2020-10-01-asynchronous-learning-or-live-lessons-which-one-works-better-for-me</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brierton, S., Wilson, E., Kistler, M., Flowers, J., & Jones, D. (2016). A comparison of higher order thinking skills demonstrated in synchronous and asynchronous online college discussion posts. Nacta Journal, 60 (1), 14 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref66" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment introduction: The challenge of creating effective study groups. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10 (3), 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.675</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brookfield, S. D. (2006). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buelow, J. R., Barry, T., & Rich, L. E. (2018). Supporting learning engagement with online students. Online Learning, 22 (4), 313 – 340. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1384</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carwile, J. (2007). A constructivist approach to online teaching and learning. Inquiry, 12 (1), 68 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, W.-C. (2014). Actual and preferred teacher feedback on student blog writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (4), 402 – 414. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, Y., Gao, Q., & Gao, G. (2022). Timeline-anchored comments in video-based learning: The impact of visual layout and content depth. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38 (9), 868–883. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1976505</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Covelli, B. J. (2017). Online discussion boards: The practice of building community for adult learners. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65 (2), 139 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2017.1274616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60 (6), 532 – 539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0110-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2008). Using discussion pedagogy to enhance oral and written communication skills. College Teaching, 56 (3), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.56.3.163-172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D'Errico, F., Paciello, M., & Cerniglia, L. (2016). When emotions enhance students' engagement in e-learning processes. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 12 (4), 9 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeNoyelles, A., Mannheimer Zydney, J., & Chen, B. (2014). Strategies for creating a community of inquiry through online asynchronous discussions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 10 (1), 153 – 165.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elena, G., S., O'Dulain, M., O'Mahony, N., Kehoe, C., McCarthy, F., & Morgan, G. (2017). Instructor-provided summary infographics to support online learning. Educational Media International, 54 (2), 129 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2017.1362795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galikyan, I., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Students' engagement in asynchronous online discussion: The relationship between cognitive presence, learner prominence, and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 43, 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10 (3), 157 – 172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38 (6), 571 – 606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. University of Wisconsin Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning: A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered that each supports different purposes. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31 (4), 51 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, D. (2013). Polyphonic/pseudo-synchronic: Animated writing in the comment feed of nicovideo. Japanese Studies, 33 (3), 297 – 313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371397.2013.859982</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (2), 260 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00620.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khan, A., Egbue, O., Palkie, B., & Madden, J. (2017). Active learning: Engaging students to maximize learning in an online course. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 15 (2), 107 – 115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, S. B. (2014). Graduate student perceptions of the use of online course tools to support engagement. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 8 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knowles, M. (1973). The adult student: A neglected species. Gulf Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. Cambridge Book Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Gulf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuo, Y. C., Eastmond, J. N., Schroder, K. E. E., & Bennett, L. J. (2009). Student perceptions of interactions and course satisfaction in a blended learning environment. Paper presented at the Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications World Conference, HI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levine, S. (2007). The online discussion board. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2007 (113), 67 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31 (2), 83 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9010-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22 (5), 5 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, S. C. R., Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2011). Critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: An investigation of student facilitation techniques. New Horizons in Education, 59 (1), 52 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindeman, E. C. (1961). The meaning of adult education. Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lynch, D. J., Kearsley, G., & Thompson, K. (2011). Faculty use of asynchronous discussions in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 8 (2), 17 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22 (1), 205 – 222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martyn, M. A. (2005). Using interaction in online discussion boards. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28 (4), 61 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDougall, J. (2015). The quest for authenticity: A study of an online discussion forum and the needs of adult learners. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 55 (1), 94 – 113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenna, K., Altringer, L., Gebhardt, K., & Long, M. G. (2022). Promoting meaningful interaction and community development through discussion board activities in the online classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 19 (1), 94 – 112. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2022.19.1.15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenna, K., Gebhardt, K., & Altringer, L. (2019). Exploring community in discussion board activities. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 7 (3), 185 – 198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), 1 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education theory (pp. 19 – 24). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33 (1), 5 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667957</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall Enrollment component. Postbaccalaureate Enrollment. "Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred" surveys, 1970–71 through 1985-86; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), "Completions Survey" (IPEDS-C:91 and 96); and IPEDS Fall 2001 through Fall 2019, Completions component (Table prepared June 2020). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_324.10.asp?current=yes</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (1), 56 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ostertagova, E., Ostertag, O., & Kováč, J. (2014). Methodology and application of the Kruskal-Wallis test. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 611, 115 – 120. https://doi.org/10.4028/<ulink href="http://www.scientific.net/AMM.611.115">www.scientific.net/AMM.611.115</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radford, A. W., Cominole, M., & Skomsvold, P. (2015). Demographic and enrollment characteristics of nontraditional undergraduates: 2011–12. Web Tables. NCES 2015-025. National Center for Education Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81 (3), 207 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem‐based learning: some explanatory notes. Medical Education, 27 (5), 422 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00296.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46 (1), 49 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8 (2), 102 – 120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephenson, J. (Ed.). (2018). Teaching & learning online: New pedagogies for new technologies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315042527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> To, J., & Carless, D. (2016). Making productive use of exemplars: Peer discussion and teacher guidance for positive transfer of strategies. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40 (6), 746 – 764. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Y., Stein, D., & Shen, S. (2021). Students' and teachers' perceived teaching presence in online courses. Distance Education, 42 (3), 373 – 390. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1956304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, H., & Leung, S. O. (2017). Can Likert scales be treated as interval scales?—A simulation study. Journal of Social Service Research, 43 (4), 527 – 532. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2017.1329775</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, W. C. V., Hsieh, J. S. C., & Yang, J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning community in a flipped classroom enhances EFL learners' oral proficiency. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20 (2), 142 – 157. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/90002170">www.jstor.org/stable/90002170</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie, D., De Serio, L., Malakhov, A., & Matys, O. (2020). Memes and education: opportunities, approaches, and perspectives. Geopolitical, Social Security and Freedom Journal, 3 (2), 14 – 25. https://doi.org/10.2478/gssfj-2020-0009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao, N., & McDougall, D. (2005). Cultural factors affecting Chinese students' participation in asynchronous online learning. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on e-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 2723 – 2729). AACE.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Xi Lin and Qi Sun</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Xi Lin is an assistant professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Professions at East Carolina University. Her research focuses on student engagement and interaction in online and distance learning and on international students and faculty in U.S. higher education. More information about her can be found at <ulink href="http://whoisxilin.weebly.com/">http://whoisxilin.weebly.com/</ulink></p> <p>Qi Sun is an associate professor and program coordinator of the Adult Learning PhD program at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her research includes adult learning, transformative learning, comparative and international education, Eastern and non-Western perspectives on education, and online learning. She designs and teaches courses for distance education programs.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref105"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1417634
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Discussion Activities in Asynchronous Online Learning: Motivating Adult Learners' Interactions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xi+Lin%22">Xi Lin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2387-4117">0000-0003-2387-4117</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Qi+Sun%22">Qi Sun</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8175-5090">0000-0001-8175-5090</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Continuing+Higher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Continuing Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 72(1):84-103.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adult+Students%22">Adult Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discussion+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Discussion (Teaching Technique)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Asynchronous+Communication%22">Asynchronous Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Participation%22">Student Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Mediated+Communication%22">Computer Mediated Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Aids%22">Visual Aids</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07377363.2022.2119803
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0737-7363<br />1948-4801
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This quantitative study investigates the impact of four types of discussion activities on adult learners' asynchronous online interactions. Specifically, this study aims to understand how different discussion activities incorporated into online discussion boards motivate adult learners' online participation. The four discussion activities are video-based text discussion, student-generated problem-based case discussion, self-created meme discussion, and discussion through debate. Results show that all four discussion activities, to a great extent, help motivate adult learners to actively interact with learning content, the instructor, and peers in different ways. Significantly, our study shows that participants identified student-generated problem-based case discussion as the most effective and that the debate was the least effective among the four discussion activities. Results also indicate that the instructor plays a significant role in the design, instruction, and follow-up of discussion activities. This study provides insights into using multiple discussion activities in fully asynchronous online environments for adult learners' active learning.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1417634
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1417634
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07377363.2022.2119803
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 84
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Adult Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discussion (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Asynchronous Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Mediated Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Aids
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Discussion Activities in Asynchronous Online Learning: Motivating Adult Learners' Interactions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xi Lin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Qi Sun
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0737-7363
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1948-4801
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 72
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Continuing Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1