Deep cognitive thinking refers to a learner's purposeful and conscious manipulation of ideas toward meaningful learning. Strategies such as journaling/blogging and peer feedback have been found to promote deep thinking. This article reports a research study about the effects of two different blog leader styles on students' deep thinking as exhibited on blogs. Thirty-four students in two sections of a class were assigned in three to five member groups and blogged for 10 weeks. In the first section, the “starters” of each week's blog introduced articles with two alternative views about a current topic, posted a few questions, and the rest of the group responded to the questions. In contrast, the “starters” in the second section wrote a post and the rest of the team commented on the post. Data analyses revealed that different starter styles influenced both the quantity and quality of starters' posts as well as peer feedback.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrusyszynM. A., & DavieL. (1997). Facilitating reflection through interactive journal writing in an online graduate course: A qualitative study. Journal of Distance Education, 12(1–2), 103–126.
2.
BaggetunR., & WassonB. (2006). Self-regulated learning and open writing. European Journal of Education, 41(3–4), 453–472.
3.
BeersP. J.BoshuizenH. P. A.KirschnerP. A., & GijselaersW. H. (2007). The analysis of negotiation of common ground in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 17, 427–435.
4.
BoudD. (1999). Situating academic development in professional work: Using peer learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 4(1), 3–10.
5.
BoulosM. N.MarambaI., & WheelerS. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education, 6(41), 41–48.
6.
BradleyM. E.ThomL. R.HayesJ., & HayC. (2008). Ask and you will receive: How question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 888–900.
7.
ChenG., & ChiuM. M. (2008). Online discussion processes: Effects of earlier messages' evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages. Computers & Education, 50(3), 678–692.
8.
DeweyJ. (1933). How we think.Boston, MA: D. C. Heath and Co.
9.
EllisonN., & WuY. (2008). Blogging in the classroom: A preliminary exploration of student attitudes and impact on comprehension. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(1), 99–122.
10.
FiedlerS.ReimanG.MittendorferH.SharmaP.PaquetS.EfimovaL. (2004). Introducing disruptive technologies for learning: Personal web publishing and weblogs. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004. Lugano, Switzerland.
11.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT., & ArcherW. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
12.
GunawardenaC. N.LoweC. A., & AndersonT. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, 397–431.
13.
HanI., & ParkI. (2008). The effects of epistemic belief and discussion-facilitating strategy on interaction and satisfaction in online discussion. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(4), 649–662.
14.
HaraN.BonkC. J., & AngeliC. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.
15.
HarringtonH., & HathawayR. (1994). Computer conferencing, critical reflection, and teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5), 543–554.
16.
Harri-AugsteinE. S., & ThomasL. F. (1991). Learning conversations: The self-organized learning way to personal and organizational growth.London/New York: Routledge.
17.
HenriF. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In KayeA. R. (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 115–136). New York: Springer.
18.
HewK. F., & CheungW. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1111–1124.
19.
KamedaT.StassonM.DavisJ.ParksC., & ZimmermanS. (1992). Social dilemmas, subgroups, and motivation loss in task-oriented groups: In search of an “optimal” team size in division of work. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(1), 47–56.
20.
KeF., & XieK. (2009). Online discussion design on adult students' learning perceptions and patterns of online interactions. Proceedings of 2009 International Conference of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Athens, Greece.
21.
KingP. M., & KitchenerK. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
MoonJ. A. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice.London Sterling, VA: Kogan Page: Stylus Pub.
23.
NovakJ. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24.
PiagetJ. (1970). Genetic epistemology.New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
25.
RourkeL., & AndersonT. (2002) Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2002(1), 1–21
26.
RubergL. F.MooreD. M., & TaylorC. D. (1996). Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computer Research, 14(3), 243–268.
27.
SchellensT., & ValckeM. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing?Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 957–975.
28.
SharmaP., & XieY. (2008). Student experiences of using weblogs: An exploratory study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3), 137–156.
29.
SlavinR. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
30.
StickelS. A., & TrimmerK. J. (1994). Knowing in action: A first-year counselor's process of reflection. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 29, 102–109.
31.
TaggA. C., & DickinsonJ. A. (1995). Tutor messaging and its effectiveness in encouraging student participation on computer conferences. Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 33–55.
32.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
WagnerJ., & GoodingR. (1987). Shared influence and organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. The Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 524–541.
34.
WuD., & HiltzS. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asychronous Learning Networks, 8(2) 139–152.
35.
XieY.KeF., & SharmaP. (2008). The effect of peer feedback for journaling on college students' reflective thinking skills. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 18–25.
