Keyword

online learning, online discussions, video-based discussions, text-based discussions, community of learners

Abstract

For university administrators creating an engaging online course where students feel part of an online community can be challenging even for the most experienced online educator. Online discussions are a common tool used to connect students in online courses, but it is often limited to text-based posts. This research paper will compare the use of text-based versus video-based discussions in online courses to ascertain students’ perceptions of social presence in the course room. This paper will discuss which method of discussion would be an appropriate exchange for a live classroom discussion, this is not always the case online. Research has demonstrated that text-based discussions often do not promote genuine communication and an alternative to text-based discussion forums is video-based discussion. The strategy of text-based discussion is employable in most popular learning management systems such as Canvas or Blackboard or with a variety of other tools such as YouTube or Voice thread to accommodate the use of video discussion in online courses. Researchers have been keenly exploring the implications of these two formats on engagement, comprehension, and overall effectiveness. This study delved into the key findings from community experiences by online students comparing and contrasting text-based and video-based discussions, examining their impact, and shedding light on their relative advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this research paper was to compare the sense of community experienced by online students taking part in text-based versus video-based discussions. The implications of this study indicated that most of the students reported that they preferred text-based discussions; however, the students in this study felt video-based discussion boards promoted the ability to form connections with their learning community


Full Text : PDF
References
  • Camus, M., Hurt, N. E., Larson, L. R., & Prevost, L. (2016). Facebook as an online teaching tool: Effects on student’s participation, learning, and overall course performance. College Teaching, 64(2), 84-94.
  • Clark, C., Strudler, N., & Grove, K. (2015). Comparing asynchronous and synchronous video vs. text-based discussions in an online teacher course. Online Learning, 19(3), 48–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i3.668
  • Cooke, N. (2016). Information sharing, community development, and deindividuation in the eLearning domain. Online Learning, 20(2), 244–261.
  • Cook, M., Dickerson, D. L., Annetta, L. A., & Minogue, J. (2011). In-service teachers' perceptions of online learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 73-79.
  • Cummins, M., Rajan, N. S., Hodge, C., & Gouripeddi, R. (2016). Patterns and perceptions of asynchronous video discussion in a graduate health sciences course. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(12), 706–710.
  • Denison, L., & Shurts, L. M. (2019). RN to BSN students’ communication satisfaction with asynchronous discussion forums: Audio-video versus text-based responses. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 9(1), 98–104. https://doi.
  • org/10.5430/jnep. v9n1p98
  • Dixon, C. S. (2014). The three e's of online discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-8.
  • Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2009). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(21), 7-23.
  • Henrikson, R. (2020). Using online lectures to promote engagement: Recognising the self-directed learner as critical for practical inquiry. Journal of Open, Flexible & Distance Learning, 24(1), 17-32.
  • Krentler, K. A., & Willis-Flurry, L. A. (2005). Does technology enhance actual student learning? The case of discussion boards. Journal of Education for Business, 80(6), 316-321.
  • Littlefield, M. B., & Bertera, E. M. (2004). A discourse analysis of online dialogs in social work diversity courses, topical themes, depth, and tone. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 24(3/4), 131-146.
  • Martínez-Cerdá, J., Torrent-Sellens, J., & González-González, I. (2018). Promoting collaborative skills in an online university, comparing the effects of games, mixed reality, social media, and other tools for ICT-supported pedagogical practices. Behavior & Information Technology, 37(10/11), 1055–1071.
  • Matsumura, L. C., Zook, H. D., Bickel, D. D., Walsh, M., & Correnti, R. (2019). Harnessing the power of video to increase classroom text discussion quality. Reading Teacher, 73(1), 65-74.
  • Molnar, A. L., & Kearney, R. C. (2017). A comparison of cognitive presence in asynchronous and synchronous discussions in an online dental hygiene course. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 91(3), 14-21.
  • Purarjomandlangrudi, A., Chen, D., & Nguyen, A. (2016). Investigating the drivers of student interaction and engagement in online courses: A study of state-of-the-art. Informatics in Education, 15(2), 269–286. https://doi. org/10.15388/infedu.2016.14
  • Sage, M. (2013). Distance guest speakers in online synchronous classrooms: Practical and legal considerations. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33(4/5), 385-392.
  • Seaman, J. E., Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. https://bayviewanalytics.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf
  • Vess, D. (2005). Asynchronous discussion and communication patterns in online and hybrid history courses. Communication Education, 54(4), 355-364.