The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS THREADED DISCUSSIONS: THE ROLE OF TIME AND HIGHER-ORDER THINKING
Open accessAbstract
This study compares the experiences of students in face-to-face (in class) discussions with threaded discussions and also evaluates the threaded discussions for evidence of higher-order thinking. Students were enrolled in graduate-level classes that used both modes (face-to-face and online) for course-related discussions; their end-of-course evaluations of both experiences were grouped for analysis and themes constructed based on their comments. Themes included the “expansion of time,” “experience of time,” “quality of the discussion,” “needs of the student,” and “faculty expertise.” While there are advantages to holding discussions in either setting, students most frequently noted that using threaded discussions increased the amount of time they spent on class objectives and that they appreciated the extra time for reflection on course issues. The face-to-face format also had value as a result of its immediacy and energy, and some students found one mode a better “fit” with their preferred learning mode. The analysisof higher-order thinking was based on a content analysis of the threaded discussions only. Each posting was coded as one of the four cognitive-processing categories described by Garrison and colleagues: 18% were triggering questions, 51% were exploration, 22% were integration, and 7% resolution. A fifth category – social – was appropriate for 3% of the responses and only 12% of the postings included a writing error. This framework provides some support for the assertion that higher-order thinking can and does occur in online discussions; strategies for increasing the number of responses in the integration and resolution categories are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 · Cited by 20,632
Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001) · American Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.1080/08923640109527071 · Cited by 3,044
Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997) · American Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.1080/08923649709526970 · Cited by 2,005
BEYOND STUDENT PERCEPTIONS: ISSUES OF INTERACTION, PRESENCE, AND PERFORMANCE IN AN ONLINE COURSE
Picciano, A. G. (2002) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v6i1.1870 · Cited by 1,313 · cited 1×
“Picciano [11] looked specifically at levels of online interactions (postings that were grouped into low, moderate, and high interaction categories) and achievement.”
BackgroundBuilding Learning Communities in Cyberspace
Cross, J. A. (2004) · American secondary education · Cited by 693
Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: the realities of online teaching
(2001) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-1083 · Cited by 634
How Instructor Immediacy Behaviors Affect Student Satisfaction and Learning in Web-Based Courses
Arbaugh, J. B. (2001) · Business Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/108056990106400405 · Cited by 425
Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995) · Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) · Cited by 412
EXPLORING COLLABORATIVE ONLINE LEARNING
Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2019) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v5i1.1885 · Cited by 316
HOW DO ONLINE STUDENTS DIFFER FROM LECTURE STUDENTS?
Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2019) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v6i1.1869 · Cited by 291
Cited by
Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 · Cited by 4,849
Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001 · Cited by 1,653
Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005) · American Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2 · Cited by 1,474
(2007) · International journal on e-learning · Cited by 615
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x · Cited by 588
Metadata
- Authors
- Meyer, K. A.
- Venue
- Online Learning
- Publisher
- The Online Learning Consortium
- Published
- 2019-03-19
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 1092-8235 (ISSN-L)
- 2472-5730
- 2472-5749
- OpenAlex
- W19850478
- Cited by
- 630
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 79.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS THREADED DISCUSSIONS: THE ROLE OF TIME AND HIGHER-ORDER THINKING. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.24059/olj.v7i3.1845
- The paper
- Meyer, K. A. (2019). FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS THREADED DISCUSSIONS: THE ROLE OF TIME AND HIGHER-ORDER THINKING. Online Learning. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i3.1845
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.