Interaction, critical thinking, and social network analysis (SNA) in online courses
Open accessAbstract
This study tried to ascertain a possible relationship between the number of student moderators (1, 2, and 3), online interactions, and critical thinking of K-12 educators enrolled in an online course that was taught from a constructivist approach. The course topic was use of technology in special education. Social network analysis (SNA) and measures of critical thinking (Newman, Webb, & Cochrane, 1995) were used to research and assess if there was a difference in interaction and critical thinking between 1, 2, or 3 student moderators who facilitated a forum discussion of an assignment in an online course. The same course was repeated over three years. Each year either 1, 2, or 3 students moderated. The analysis indicated more discussion per non-moderating student with the three student moderated group. Using SNA we found that there was only one noticeable difference among the three groups which was in the value of network centralization. Using critical thinking measures the three student moderator group scored higher in five of the eight critical thinking categories. Variations in instructor presence in the online courses may have influenced these findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Students who reported being active, holding an inclusive attitude and trusting each other maximised the possibilities of online channels and supported power sharing and student ownership of discussions.
“At the time, the students played a crucial role in the impact of online learning practices: those that reported being active, holding an inclusive attitude and trusting each other maximised the possibilities of online channels (Delfino and Persico 2007;Olofsson 2007) and supported power sharing and student ownership of discussions (Thormann et al. 2013).”
From COVID-19 and teacher education: a literature review of online teaching and learning practices (2020) · cites this paper as Thormann et al. 2013
Cites
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO ONLINE TRAINING FOR ONLINE TEACHERS
Gold, S. (2001) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v5i1.1886 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
COVID-19 and teacher education: a literature review of online teaching and learning practices
Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020) · European Journal of Teacher Education · doi:10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184 · Cited by 1,019 · see citing works
- Authors
- Thormann, J., Gable, S., Fidalgo, P. S., & Blakeslee, G.
- Affiliations
- Lesley University (US)
- Venue
- The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
- Publisher
- Athabasca University Press
- Published
- 2013-07-05
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 294
- ISSN
- 1492-3831 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1515916003
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 19.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Érudit (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Keywords
- online forums, student interaction, critical thinking, social network analysis, network centralization, K-12 teachers, special education technology, teacher presence, online course design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review