This report evaluates the use of online asynchronous discussions as a main delivery strategy in a third (final) year undergraduate counselling psychology module. These discussions were student-facilitated and the discussion assessment criteria emphasised analysis, critique, application and originality. Students were assessed through the production of a written critique of one of the discussions, again using similar criteria. Students' judgments of their progress and attitudes to the online components were assessed, and both of these measures were significantly positively related to module outcomes. Students were asked for their comments about the module, and the results were analysed using thematic analysis. Overall the results suggest that whilst such a novel delivery strategy has much to commend it, many students perceive it negatively. This seems to be due to the novelty of the strategy, and a belief that traditional lectures and assignments are preferable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArendB. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. Journal of Educators Online, 6, 1–23.
2.
AshbyR.BroughanC. (2002). Factors affecting students' usage of virtual learning environments. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 2, 140–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2002.2.2.140
3.
BaglioneS.NastanskiM. (2007). The superiority of online discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8, 139–150.
4.
BorregoJ. (2010). Roadmap for a successful transition to an online environment. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3, 59–66.
CampbellC. (2004). Student use of information and communication technology: Does it foster a deep approach to learning?Psychology Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 67–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2005.5.1.67
7.
CereijoM. V. P. (2006). Attitude as predictor of success in online training. International Journal on E-Learning, 5, 623–639.
8.
ChenD.WangY.HungD. (2009). A journey on refining rules for online discussion: Implications for the design of learning management systems. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20, 157–173.
9.
De WeverB.van KeerH.SchellensT.ValckeM. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: The impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students' levels of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 177–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00292.x
10.
EntwistleN. J. (1997). The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST). Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh.
11.
GuillerJ.DurndellA.RossA.ThomsonK. (2007). Issues surrounding use of online discussion groups on traditional undergraduate psychology modules. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 6, 130–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2007.6.2.130
12.
JohnsonG.BuckG. (2007, April). Asynchronous and synchronous online discussion: Real and perceived achievement differences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
13.
MeyerK. (2007). Student perceptions of face-to-face and online discussions: The advantage goes to …. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(4), 53–69.
14.
PalmerS.HoltD.BrayS. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 847–858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00780.x
15.
PoirierC. R.FeldmanR. S. (2004). Teaching in cyberspace: Online versus traditional instruction using a waiting-list experimental design. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 59–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3101_11
16.
ReidW.DuvallE.EvansP. (2007). Relationship between assessment results and approaches to learning and studying in Year Two medical students. Medical Education, 41(8), 754–762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02801.x
17.
SchellensT.van KeerH.ValckeM.De WeverB. (2007). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group and task characteristics. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26, 55–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290600811578
18.
StocksJ. T.FreddolinoP. P. (1998). Evaluation of a world wide web-based graduate social work research methods course. Computers in Human Services, 15, 51–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J407v15n02_05
19.
VlachopoulosP.CowanJ. (2010). Reconceptualising moderation in asynchronous online discussions using grounded theory. Distance Education, 31, 23–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587911003724611
20.
WilliamsC. (2002). Learning on-line: A review of recent literature in a rapidly expanding field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(3), 263–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098770220149620
21.
SumC. WingFoonH. Khe (2010). Examining facilitators' habits of mind in an asynchronous online discussion environment: A two cases study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 123–132.
