Literature Review student’s name

Assignment Two for the

Educational Research Methods Practice Module

Student’s name has been deleted to protect confidentiality

Edinburgh Napier University 2008/ 09 Trimester 3

Tutor: Dr Panos Vlachopoulos

Page 1 of 9
Literature Review student’s name
Contents:

1. Introduction 3
2. What are the factors that influence learner’s participation in asynchronous 3
discussions?
2.1 What are asynchronous discussions? 3
2.2 What are the benefits of asynchronous discussions? 4
2.3 What does the research say about participation in online discussions? 4
2.4 What does the research say about ‘lurking’ or ‘ROLs’ (read only learners)? 5
2.5 What does this mean for secondary education? 6
3. Conclusion 6
4. References 7

Page 2 of 9
Literature Review student’s name Comment [p1]: I found this to be a
very well structured opening section of the
1. Introduction: review. From the beginning, you raise the
main ‘problem’, which is the
transferability of what we know about
Although there has been plenty of research surrounding the use of asynchronous discussions, online discussions to secondary education.
influences on levels and quality of participation, these have all been in the context of higher Great! Only point, as I already showed you
in our private e-mail communication, there
education distance learning courses. Oolbekkink-Marchand, Van Driel and Verloopl (2006) is some limited research in the field. So
identified differences in the perspectives of university teachers and secondary school teachers perhaps consider to soften the second line
in paragraph one, by saying ‘most’ and not
such that there is doubt when applying the concepts, models and implications from ‘all’ have been...and add . There are a few
exceptions, however, which worth
asynchronous discussion research to the secondary school context, which also uses a exploring in more detail (add the
blended learning approach. references). That’s for when you will write
the review for your thesis!

All schools in the UK must have a learning platform in place by 2008. There is pressure on
schools to implement the use of the learning platform and for it to have an effective impact on
learning and achievement such that it justifies its place supporting traditional classroom
teaching. In order for schools to make this transition most schools will have started to train
staff with the basic skills to use the tools available. Asynchronous discussions (known as
forums or discussion boards) is one example of Web 2.0 technology that is available in most
learning platforms and has been compared to face-to-face discussions (Wang and Woo,
2007), making it a good transition tool from a traditional to blended approach. Secondary
schools may not have thought about how these tools can be used effectively. For example,
have schools opened a discussion forum and asked students to contribute or have they
considered how to engage and sustain participation over a longer period of time.

This literature review will introduce asynchronous discussions, summarise the key benefits,
discuss the factors that influence participation and comment on the suitability for secondary
school education. The aim is identify what the research can offer us in exploring the
effectiveness of asynchronous online discussions at secondary school level.
Comment [p2]: Perhaps a line or two
to introduce us to 2.1? ?For example, ‘any
2. What are the factors that influence learner’s participation in asynchronous discussions? discussion around the factors that....would
benefit from an attempt to first define this
mode of communication. This is done in
2.1 What are asynchronous discussions? the following section......or something
similar!

Interestingly the research hasn't given an all-in-one definition for 'asynchronous online Comment [p3]: Very useful section,
and relevant and valid references. My only
discussions' but researchers have explored the individual terms. Hew and Cheung (2003 cited comment here would be to try to separate
in Hew and Cheung, 2007, p249) started with a "text-based human-to-human communication in a more structured way the definitions,
perhaps in different paragraphs. For
via computer networks that provides a platform for the participants to interact with one another example, one paragraph which deals with
to exchange ideas, insights and personal experiences" where the "discourse [that] takes place definitions around the issue of the ‘a-
synchronicity’, and then one with a focus
is not real time" (Hew and Cheung, 2007, p1111). Palmer, Holt and Bray (2008) suggest that on ‘discussion’, and then close with the
fact that all these have been seen as part of
students post new and follow up messages at time that suits them. Here the definition steers the Web 2.0 wave! Just ideas for
towards a 'discussion' by suggesting follow up messages as opposed to potentially just one improvements for future reference\....
exchange. Palmer, Holt and Bray (2008) observed that learners offered only the minimum
postings. Several researchers have emphasised the importance of discussion and made
comparisons with face-to-face discussion. Discussion is said to be an important part of
learning in a range of modes (Wang and Woo, 2007) and particularly online discussion which
is an important part of learning dialogue (Palmer et al, 2008).

Throughout the research there is direct reference to asynchronous discussions and a general
pattern of agreement of its nature but in many the term is packaged under Web 2.0
technologies or social software. BECTA (2008) recognised that young learners were 'prolific'
users of Web 2.0 technologies however further into the document it admits that discussion
boards are rarely used. It does also suggest that there is little evidence of groundbreaking
activities which, in contrast to the readings from higher education, suggests there is scope for

Page 3 of 9
Literature Review student’s name
research and advice at secondary level, particularly with asynchronous online discussions in a
pedagogical context.
Comment [p4]: Another relevant and
well located section! Good.
2.2 What are the benefits of asynchronous discussions?

There is widespread agreement that asynchronous online discussions enhance learning

(Palmer et al, 2008). Benefits include; time for reflection, support for off-campus learners,
convenience of place and time, community feel, new skills, increased student completion rate,
student empowerment.

Wang and Woo (2007) suggest online discussions promote a more critical and reflective
discourse and that it "offered more equal opportunities for group members to voice their
opinions" which contributes a better atmosphere for a discussion to take place. They
also suggest that benefits are realisable if online discussions are given an appropriate amount
of time. However, Wang and Woo (2007) go on to contradict their secondary research by
suggesting that learners did not see this as an advantage. The study makes several
references to time in different scenarios and given the full-time nature of secondary education
this may be an area that Wang and Woo's study could be developed upon. Does the time
allowance for the discussion affect the level of participation in a secondary school? Is it less Comment [p5]: Excellent, that’s
exactly the way we want you to approach
effective for learners in full time education? the review!! With questions! You could
add...something like ‘ all these are
questions open for future research by
BECTA (2008) reported that young learners found online communication easier than face to researchers interested in the role of
face conversation. However the analysis of secondary schools did not find any sophisticated discussions in secondary education.

application of Web 2.0 let alone asynchronous online discussion. Whilst exploring students'
experiences of e-learning, Conole, de Laat, Dillon and Derby (2006) concluded that students
were comfortable using the technologies because it suited the way they work, for example,
pervasive, personalised, social networks, interactive). The research was not specific to Comment [p6]: ? why parenthesis
here>? Also, Did Conole et al research
asynchronous discussions but did refer to other asynchronous and synchronous secondary education or higher education.
communications (e.g. email). The factors identified were still applicable (e.g. social interaction, Try to specify where possible the context
of the research you present....to avoid
personalisation) and fit with the National Strategy for secondary schools. unnecessary confusion.

The literature looked at in this area focused on higher education students, either
undergraduate or post graduate and the BECTA conclusions were not specific to
asynchronous discussions as a tool. Mcloughlin and Lee (2007) although concluding similar
benefits for the technology, do not have any quantitative or qualitative measures from the
learners themselves. Further to this the research was conducted at a tertiary college, which Comment [p7]: Hmmm....too many
complicated issues in three lines, I thought.
although may involve the same maturation stage, still involves a different type of institution. There is an issue about the context, and
about the results. Yes? Perhaps an easier
way to write it would have been ‘ a
To conclude, there is a general agreement on the benefits of asynchronous discussions. number of researchers concluded studies
However further clarification of the benefits of different time periods and a look at learner on technology at tertiary level (see for
example McLoughlin and Lee, 2007).
perspectives on individual tools could be sought in a secondary context. Nevetheless, their results are open for
different interpretations, given that they
offered results of limited transferability to
2.3 What does the research say about participation in online discussions? other contexts and even of questionable
reliability....so something like that!

If online discussions have advantages then the extent to which they are realisable must Comment [p8]: I like the ‘questions’ as
headings for your sections!
depend on the level and quality of participation. All writers seem to agree on the idea that
Comment [p9]: For what? Teaching,
participation involves action, of some sort, although what that might include and therefore what learning, interaction....???
might be effective varies. Hrastinski (2008) sees participation as a complex process of actions Comment [p10]: May ?? must is too
e.g. doing, talking, thinking, feeling and belonging. In the context of Web 2.0 technologies strong! Nevertheless, a very good opening
of the section!
participation appears to be more than just read/ write highlighting a more social dimension.

Page 4 of 9
Literature Review student’s name
Skinner (2009) add another element by suggesting that those learners that do not participate Comment [p11]: Excellent way of
linking arguments!
miss out on personal growth.

The focus for research into what influences participation begins to vary. Hrastinski (2009)
places participation as the most important driver for successful online learning. Furthermore
participation is most effective when it involves; 1. interaction with teachers; 2. levels of
participation compared to the classroom; 3. interaction with class mates. Curtis (2001) adds
interaction with resources to this. Palmer, Holt and Bray (2008) takes the view that the
students motivation affects how a student interacts and engages with discussion. Hrastinski
(2009) suggests participation occurs with support of psychological tools, for example,
exercises which the learners find engaging. Skinner (2009) supports this by suggesting the
engaging activity would need to tap into the learners "personal interest". All of this research
fits in well to Hew and Cheung (2008) model for the sequence of facilitation although they see
the student as the facilitator. Within that model is a series of techniques in order to encourage
participation.

Although there is plenty of research in this area the methodology is limited. For example, Hew Comment [p12]: Is methodology the
word here? Perhaps context or sample?
and Cheung (2008) used adults (teachers), attending higher education and of one subject area Again, however, a very good way to
to facilitate the discussions. Can this be applied to other subject areas and younger learners? making the argument!!

Have adults already developed the diplomacy skills to effectively facilitate discussions?

Palmer, Holt and Bray (2008) looked at the quantitative impact of online discussion. The
research focused on the impact on final student results. However, it seems flawed from the
outset given what we know about the sequence of facilitation. It was reported that messages
posted were of a minimum which would suggests full engagement was not achieved. Would
the impact on results be greater if the design of the activity was more engaging? Would the
student empowered task further improve the effectiveness of online discussions?

BECTA suggests learners are prolific learners of the technology and their participation is
underpinned by their desire to engage with their existing social network. However there is little
evidence in the secondary sector of sophisticated and groundbreaking activities. In the HE
sector, Conole, de Laat, Dillon and Derby (2006) suggest that learners do use the tools in a
sophisticated way. The research conflicts and the contexts are different. The difference could
be underpinned by the experience of the task designer or by the nature of activities at
university level.

Research into participation is well developed and there are good suggestions about how to
facilitate participation. It would be interesting to look at learner facilitated discussions and to Comment [p13]: Yes!!
see whether the extra social dimension makes the process more motivating and effective.

2.4 What does the research say about ‘lurking’ or ‘ROLs’ (read only learners)?

'Read-only-learners', 'Read-only-people' or 'lurkers' are participants who are involved in

passive participation. There is a range of opinion about the impact of asynchronous Comment [p14]: Ref???
discussions on ROL's. All agree that lurking has a positive impact but there is not that it
improves final outcomes.

Palmer et al (2008) suggested passive participation benefits the learner however questioned
whether it had an impact upon performance? Lurking seemed to not influence the final
outcome. Not all researchers are in agreement as Hrastinski (2009) saw the processes of
engagement, thought and reflection as participation which does not have a visible or

Page 5 of 9
Literature Review student’s name
documented action. Skinner (2009) found a mid-point by suggesting that lurking may have
benefits but the individual will miss out on developing skills and confidence.

There is no consensus on the role of ROL's which would suggest that it may depend on the
context. In secondary education, could knowledge and understanding be achieved by passive
interaction which might not have otherwise occurred in the classroom? The application of
ROL is part of the Every Child Matters and personalisation agenda in secondary education. At
secondary level the learners’ maturation and developmental level may influence the number
and importance of ROL's. Furthermore, research into the influence of learner led discussions
on ROL's activity and motivation to become more engaged could be explored.
Comment [p15]: Great! Excellent
question! I enjoyed reading it!
2.5 What does this mean for secondary education?

One of the main drawbacks of most of the research is whether is concepts, models and
implications drawn from the research can be applied to secondary school education. In many Comment [p16]: Yes, in here you can
add what we know about secondary
of the cases the level maturity, experience and depth of knowledge and skills required requires education (some of the ideas of the papers
caution when applying the concepts or models published by the research. I send you), then compare them with what
you found about discussion in general!

Wang and Woo (2007) suggest that asynchronous discussion boards can help develop the
higher order thinking skills but the research is in the context of the higher education. Are these
higher order thinking skills relevant to secondary education? QCA (2008) in their stated aims
for "successful learners" for KS3 and KS4 suggest learners should be able to "understand how
they learn and learn from their mistakes" and "have enquiring minds and think for themselves
to process information, reason, question and evaluate". These clearly show higher order skills
such as "evaluation" and meta-cognition in understanding what happens during the learning
process are relevant to and are therefore transferable to secondary education.
However, Oolbekkink-Marchand, Van Driel & Verloop (2006) looked at the differing
perspectives of university teachers and secondary teachers and found university teachers had
a different perspective on self regulated learning by focusing on "the discipline, the discussions
which are important and developing a critical attitude" whilst secondary teachers were more
interested in the "personal development" by teaching them "norms and values". Even though
both are involved in teaching and learning there are differences in planning activities and the
actual learners themselves (e.g. age, experiences) is enough to cast doubt whether assertions
from the research into ANY aspect of asynchronous online discussions can be transferred to
secondary education. Finally, BECTA (2008) report that there is a "tension" between the
collaborative nature of Web 2.0 activity and the individual nature of most schools activities.
Indeed it reports that there were only a few signs of "criticality, self management and meta-
cognitive reflection". Where research into higher education has produced concepts and
models for practitioners to follow, teachers in the secondary sector clearly need access to
relevant research to help implement ideas in their institutions. McLoughlin and Lee (2007)
suggested that a curriculum would need to be more flexible to incorporate social software (of
which asynchronous discussions were included). Historically, the secondary education system
is more rigid although recent attempts try to increase flexibility in Key Stage 3.
Comment [p17]: I liked it. Short, but
to the point, and it links well to the new
3. Conclusion: revised questions and focus, which I saw in
your blog!

Research into asynchronous discussions is plentiful in higher education which would reflect their
early engagement of these technologies, before secondary schools. Now secondary schools are
required to use these technologies there are questions as to how well the higher education
research applies to secondary schools. This review has highlighted some differences, conflicts
and uncertainties which when considering the age, experiences and fundamental structure of the

Page 6 of 9
Literature Review student’s name
different types of institutions, suggest there is ample room for additional research into the
application of what has been identified in higher education. In addition, each of the following
insights is derived from the research and often refers back to the need to look at the secondary
education context:

• There is tendency for researchers to entitle work Web 2.0 tools, participatory software or
social software. This encompasses asynchronous discussions into the definition.
However, the benefits of asynchronous discussions are there to be seen, separate to the
more generic terms. The influential BECTA publication doesn't particularly look at the role
of discussion boards.
• There is a need to consider the learner perspectives of the individual tools.
• The benefits of asynchronous discussions are documented but there is a need to look at
whether they are realisable in the secondary context and particularly the time allowed for
discussions to take place.
• There is scope for research into the impact of learner led discussion on motivation and
whether learner led discussions would influence the level of engagement of ROL's
particularly in a secondary context.
• Differences in teacher’s perspectives in secondary and higher education have been
identified as well as the obvious structural and strategic differences. Do these influence
the design, implementation and acceptance of online discussions?

Each of these would offer substance to whether asynchronous online discussions were effective
in a secondary school context.
Comment [p18]: Check a bit the use of
parenthesis when adding dates. Check for
4. References: consistency when you use italics.

Anon, 2008. Becta Government & partners – Research – Reports and publications – Web 2.0 Comment [p19]: ()
technologies for learning at KS3 and KS4: Learners’ use of Web 2.0 technologies in and out of
school. BECTA. Available
at:http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&&catcode=_re_rp_02&rid=15879 [Accessed
August 6, 2009].

Conole, G., M. de Laat, T. Dillon, and J. Derby. 2006. An in-depth case study of students’ Comment [p20]: ()
experiences of e-learning – how is learning changing? In Proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite
conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology?
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p127.pdf (accessed Aug 3,
2009).

Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (1), 21-34.

Gray, C. (2008). CHOICE, COLLABORATION AND WEB 2.0: WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE
STUDENT EXPERIENCE OF TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED EDUCATION. Available:
http://www2.napier.ac.uk/transform/LICK_proceedings/Colin_Gray.pdf. Last accessed 09 Aug 2009.

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online Comment [p21]: In italics, as in the ref
below?
discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1111-1124.

Hrastinski, S., 2009. A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, Comment [p22]: ()...???
52(1), 78-82.

Page 7 of 9
Literature Review student’s name
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices
with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning.
Proceedings ascilite Singapore
2007.http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf

Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. W., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2006). A breed apart? A comparison of
secondary and university teachers' perspectives on self regulated learning. Teachers and Teaching:
theory and practice, 12(5), 593-614.

Palmer, S., Holt, D. and Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally
assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology. 39(5),
847–858

QCA Curriculum Division, 8.P., 2008. National Curriculum for England 2008. Available
at:http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/aims/successful_learners.aspx?return=/key-
stages-3-and-4/aims/index.aspx [Accessed August 11, 2009].

Skinner, Elisabeth (2009). Using community development theory to improve student engagement in
online discussion: a case study. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17 (2), 89-100. Accessed
August 09, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/09687760902951599

Wang, Q. Y. & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face
discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 2,272–286.

Page 8 of 9
Literature Review student’s name
Total mark out of 100: 78%

It’s obvious that you put a lot of effort to study and write the review in a rather limited time frame. I think you have done a very good
job. The most important thing is that you clarified things for yourself! I, also, appreciate the constant effort you put to keep your blog
up to date!

I really enjoyed reading the sections and the transitions between the sections. They do make sense...and they do contain important
questions.

Only part that needs some attention is the definitions section. Consider to re-structure it, by adding definitions based on key ‘terms’,
e.g. people who define asynchronous online discussions with an emphasis on the time issue (asynchronicity) or the communication
mode (discussion), etc., and how do they define it.

Also, try to understand a bit more or try to be more careful with references, it’s pity to have marks taken out because of referencing
style or convention!

Panos

Page 9 of 9