Online collaborations extending reflective deliberations in the virtual hallway

HETL Note: 

In this academic article, Dr Anita Chadha discusses how students were academically reflective in their deliberations with other students during the semester outside the physical classroom. The authors use a mixed methods approach using content analysis to support their research.

Author Bio:

Author bio:

Dr. Anita Chadha has been teaching at UHD since 2002. Prior to UHD, Dr. Chadha taught both graduate and undergraduate students at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and at Auburn University. Her teaching interests are courses on American Government, Political Participation and Democracy, Public Policy, Public Administration, and Non profit administration. Her research interests are in Electoral reform and civic engagement of students online. She can be contacted on [email protected]

Online collaborations extending reflective deliberations in the virtual hallway

Anita Chadha

University of Houston Downtown, USA

Abstract

Fostering continual deliberative interaction outside a physical classroom and into the virtual hallway extends academically reflective discussions.  Continual deliberations through online collaborations ensure that students reach a greater level of thoughtful and critical understanding of issues. Data to measure deliberations in an online collaboration was used from a specifically designed collaborative web project structured around discussion in politics from two American politics classes taught on the same subject, in the fall 2016 semester, by the same professor.  A mixed methods approach was used for measuring academic reflectivity, first through content analysis and then using anovas to test the content analysis. Findings are significant in that students were academically reflective in their deliberations with each other throughout the semester. They applied academic references in their interactions when they challenged, clarified and disagreed with each other in current and controversial issues asked on a weekly basis by the professor. This project’s outcomes have important implications for the use of a teaching and learning technology that extends active peer deliberations beyond a traditional class. Online collaborations additionally advance the scholarship and practice of teaching and learning in higher education, a concern for students, educators and university administrators.

Keywords: Online Learning, Deliberation, Reflectivity of Discussions, Different course levels, Different instruction types

Introduction

Historically universities have used a lecture-based teaching model in educating students where students sat facing the lecturer with little or no interaction. This has long been replaced with more interactive means of discourse in classrooms. The growth of technology opens up even more interactive means for discussions, giving students a voice to express their feedback openly, without restraint and a largely nonexistent time deadline. With the web having made significant changes to almost all aspects of our lives ranging from a global economy, personal aids, and to sources of information so have academia engaged in these emergent technologies.  When connecting students unknown to them via online collaborations, thoughtful and deliberative educational experiences result furthering scholarly education and citizenship.

Incorporating digital products into our existing classes expands educational opportunities in a variety of ways. Some educators are comfortably moving to an entirely digital mode, while others are hesitant. Still others, as this study espouses, use technologies to complement our existing face-to-face classes with a virtual project, such that they extend discussions beyond physical spaces and into the virtual ‘hallway’ in line with our scholarly subject matters. The best educators are those that most successfully involve students in deeper practical learning one needing to occur with the involvement of the learner. Online technologies provide the educator with a means to actively engage the student in a changing global environment that increasingly need reflection and discourse among opposing viewpoints.

Beside the appeal in offering education to a wider audience that hundreds of academic institutions already provide, reassessing teaching practices that integrate digital devices for preparing our students while promoting a broader discussion of the issues need greater scrutiny of results. The purpose of this study is to examine a specifically created website collaboration project added as a project to a face-to-face class. The collaborative project was designed with the specific and purposeful goal of connecting students such that they deliberate and reflect on current and controversial issues in a required freshman introductory American politics course extending discussions virtually while remaining civil and tolerate of opposing views.  Online collaborations are a pedagogical means to not just extend discussions but to build a more thoughtful community of leaners, learning from interactions among peers and from opposing viewpoints.

Research focused on online projects complementing in class lectures are a concern for educators, policy-makers and students interested in effective online courses that are educationally vigorous, for decision makers offering viable technological innovations, as well as university administrators addressing the changing nature of their student clientele who seek viable educational options or in using physical spaces on campuses. Along with the development and delivery of virtual learning and pedagogical content, a variety of subjects such as the humanities, English, math, engineering and the Social Sciences, can advance their scholarship and practice of teaching and learning in higher education, a vital topic in todays’ educational landscape.

Literature Review

There has been compelling research centered on several variations in online technologies. Research on hybrid courses, where one class is taught face-to-face and the other online (Asarta & Schmidt, 2016) online discussion boards complementing in-class use (Roscoe, 2012; Wolfe, 2012), and discussions in fully online classes (Clawson, Deen & Oxley, 2002; Hamann, Pollock & Wilson, 2009; Wilson, Pollock & Hamann, 2007;Pollock , Hamann & Wilson, 2011). Research has also gained momentum in the field of online deliberations (Delborne, Anderson & Kleinman, 2011; Min, 2007; Stromer-Galley, 2007; Talpin & Wojcik, 2010; Tucey, 2010; Wojcieszak, Baek & Carpini, 2009). While past research points to the growing evidence that online discussions are highly effective means of engagement, there is agreement in the field that online deliberations are genuinely multidisciplinary. Lessons learnt from this study can be used across any comparable subjects. The challenge is in creating an online academic space that is comfortable to the educator yet one that provides the robust educational objectives of a specified curriculum.

It is estimated that half of all higher education enrollees now take at least one course online (Means, Bakia & Murphy, 2014). This is an over fivefold increase since 2002. According to the Sloan Consortium, enrollment in online courses increased by nearly one million students between 2008 and 2009 (Allen & Seaman, 2010).  Nearly 30 percent of U.S. students reported taking at least one course online in 2010, with 75 percent of the 2500 colleges and universities surveyed reporting that the economic downturn increased demand for online courses and online degree programs (Allen & Seaman, 2010).

For students the benefits online spaces provide abound in that they can enroll in online courses, studying when and where they can. For educators, the benefits are immense in that the extension of their discussions deepen peer-engagement, an online community and critical thinking.  Online classes are an attractive option for universities predicted growth in online offerings (Parker, Lenhart & Moore, 2011) in facing space constraints (Parry, 2010) and students increased demands for them (Kaya, 2010).

Collaborations have the potential to transform the landscape of higher education by expanding student interactions with others globally. However, one cannot merely accept online technologies assessment of their educational vigor is critical such that they can be used to complement our educational goals. Assessment of online learning to enhance and improve student learning outcomes, has been researched (Farinella, Hobbs & Weeks, 2000; Kim & Bonk, 2006; Pape, 2010). With the exponential growth of online education and its potential in higher education, it is imperative that researchers and educators examine the effectiveness of incorporating some part of online technologies with their face-to-face classes when educating students. Researchers issue a call for more research with statistically significant results and methods employed as research and teaching of online education expand nationally and globally (Jankowski & Van, 2004; Karlsson, 2010; Kies & Wojcik, 2010; Stanley, Weare & Musso, 2004; Wright, 2007).

In responding to this call, this research addresses a web based interactive project that complemented two traditional face-to-face classes, both on the same topic and level offered by the same professor, during the same semester. If students across these classes deliberated with academic intent without knowing the identity of the person, yet engage in meaningful academic discussions through their interactions with each other, a purposefully created web space aligned to a face-to-face class can provide an experiential and academic robust means for educators and universities. Online collaborations are an innovative means that can be incorporated into any type of class structure.

The Benefits and Uses of Online Learning

There are several purported benefits of online technologies. First, as students do not know the race, ethnicity, religion, or modes of instruction of the others in online spaces, the focus is on the message rather than the identity of the sender.  And the unknown characteristics greatly challenge diverse viewpoints, an awareness of alternative perspectives, a more reflective understanding of collective problems, and a deeper appreciation of minority rights (Guttman, 2000; Van Vechten& Chadha, 2013).  Exposure to and experience with diversity can help students develop skills to handle and resolve disagreements arising from conflicting points of view (Zuniga, Vasques, Sevig & Nagda, 1997; Gurin, Nagda & Lopez, 2004).  Second, online discussions continue providing educational opportunities for students while travelling, deployed, or working full time, and thus reduce interruptions to educational experiences.  Students can log into an online portal when there is time and inclination for class work.  Third, online discussions encourage critical reflection and dialogue concerning current and theoretical issues in a space and time that is comfortable and familiar to the student.  The quality of student-teacher interactions is bolstered along with increased student peer engagements, and improved learning outcomes (Hastie,Hung, Chen & Kinshuk, 2010; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright & Zvacek, 2012).  An asynchronous online learning environment provides students more time to consider all sides of an issue before offering their own input.

In other research, online teaching has been deemed to be on par with face-to-face courses at promoting positive civic knowledge, attitudes, and/or behaviors (Botsch & Botsch, 2012; Pollock & Wilson, 2002; Delli, Michael & Keeter, 1996; Galston, 2007). These positive findings suggest that student learning can be enhanced or, at least, not harmed, by incorporating online modes of course instruction challenging the common claim that online environments poorly facilitate higher order learning outcomes (Van Vechten et al., 2013). When students engage one another in online discussions in a focused way, their capacity for reasoned discourse becomes more evident providing that support for the use of technology can produce better quality preparation and more efficient use of class time.

Mixed findings

Several mixed findings result when comparing online and face-to-face classes.  While some findings suggest an online course has better learning outcomes than face-to-face (Koory, 2003), others suggest that learning outcomes were similar across both the face-to-face and online classes (Cryan, Mentzer & Teclehaimanot, 2007; Johnson, Aragon, Shaik & Palma-Rivas, 2000) although students in the face to face were more motivated (Cryan et al., 2007). Meta-analyses studies controlling for online and face-to-face courses found that they are relatively comparable in terms of learning outcomes (Bernard et al., 2004; Jahng, Krug & Zhang, 2007; Sitzmann,Kraiger, Stewart & Wisher et al., 2006; Horspool & Yang, 2010).

Still other studies suggest that online environment promotes learner isolation without instructor presence (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004), yet other studies minimize these suggesting that learner isolation and presence are addressed when thoughtful online activities are created providing student peer presence (Dixson, 2012; Kehrwald, 2008).

Amid these mixed findings, a balanced approach for our students is not necessarily an all or nothing approach, that of a fully online or fully face-to-face course. In retooling the class experience and in advancing the scholarship and practice of teaching and learning in higher education, shifts from lectures to active student interaction and engagement is needed. A 10 year current study covering 3,200 students across the two teaching formats revealed that Learning outcome differences were insignificant. Neither format having a clear advantage in outcomes (Botsch and Botsch 2012).

The research presented in this study suggests that specific project based online discussions can be useful complements to an existing face-to-face class. There are many benefits of online technologies such as the space and time for a student to visit and revisit a discussion when they are working full time or deployed in a timeframe that is suitable and comfortable for them. Besides the benefit of academic discourse across classes, the development of their own views refined through opposing ones, as well as the rights and responsibilities of individuals, online exchanges provide an environment where exchanges among students mirror that of an adult democratic citizen. (Smith and Bressler, 2013).

This study measures students’ deliberative reflective interactions outside a physical class, in an online collaboration across two different classes. When a student deliberates or reflects with others about common or even opposing views, they build and learn from each other in these interactions, producing an engaged student empowered with critical thinking skills. This means that the student is thinking critically, developing informed perspectives about civic issues, learning from opposing views of others, referencing academic text material, and interacting in a civil manner. This does not occur when they make unsupported generalizations or knee-jerk reactions to questions or posts (Van Vechten et al., 2013). It also means that in their reflection students had reconsidered their own views when they responded to questions.  Comment on other students’ posts, challenged them to think critically and even clarify their stance. And while they discuss these issues across different classes, across different states, nationalities, countries, gender or religion, without knowing whom they interact with, the student benefits from this engagement. They reflect on diverse and likely opposing positions, learn tolerance of opposing viewpoints when they interact or challenge discussions, in fact build their own portfolio of knowledge. These exchanges among students in a thoughtful web project motivates them to interact over and over, creating a sense of an online community that does away with loner isolation yet one cultivating an active and engaged student.

Research Methods

A mixed methods approach is used to measure reflective deliberations in online student posts and responses in a collaboration across two courses. First, content analysis is used when reading each student posts and responses (N=317) that measured critical reflection in discussions from two class collaborations on the identical topic and method of instruction in the fall 2016 term.  Second, anovas were used to test the content analysis.  Anovas were used as they determine whether there are any statistically significant differences between the means of the two classes.

Significant results in exchanges would mean that student learning can be enhanced or, at least, not harmed, by incorporating online projects to course instruction (Van Vechten et al., 2013). This is timely news to those responsible for allocating scarce classroom space or concerned about meeting rising student demand for online course offerings. When students engage one another clarifying, challenging and even when disagreeing with each other in these online discussions with reflectivity, their discussions create knowledge (Williams and Lahman, 2011). With the use of these deliberative communities, and the incorporation of technology, better quality preparation and more efficient use of class time do result. Pre-and post-test surveys about the nature of student online interactions from the semester add the student perspective.

Comparability across courses

Prior to the start of the semester, an identical syllabus was distributed to both face-to-face classes enrolled in the two identical American politics courses with the same set of assignments, tests, and papers requirements along with required participation in an online collaboration. As the same researcher taught both courses it provided reliability and comparability across the analysis.  ‘Human Subjects Review’ was filed prior to semester start and students were required to consent prior to the collaboration. For those under 18 years of age or not consenting, an alternative project would be assigned. The semester-long project virtually linked the eighty students  (forty in each class) who participated in the two courses.

The collaboration was identical across both classes. The common collaboration requirements were added to the syllabus along with common instructions, a course grade, and the same minimum number words and post-response requirements.  Students were required to post (8) and respond (8) to the same minimum number of questions posted on a weekly basis by the instructor, for a minimum total of 16 for the semester. This multi-layered effect of original posts and responses to other posts were considered to build and maintain a discussion- oriented online community. Students were asked the same questions and were required to participate in the weekly discussions using a minimum length of 75 words which is approximately four full typed lines in their posts and responses (Van Vechten et al., 2013). Other than the minimum word guidance and the requirement to respond and reply to the same minimum number of discussion questions, no other guidance was provided to the students with regard to how to interact or construct a post or response.  Typically the students had the week to analyze and respond to the question, considered to be the post.  In order to build dialogue, the students were also required to respond to others’ posts, the response. This exchange between students furthered personal interaction, investment in the site, and a sense of an online community.

The instructor was mindful of various pedagogical goals such as the need to increase student interaction and participation, reinforce lessons, hold students accountable for views, develop better understanding of points of view, improve analytical skills, articulate points, build civility, tolerance, critical thinking, deepen a sense of identity and expand a sense of community (Van Vechten et al., 2013). While the instructor did not provide examples of posts or responses to be written, they did emphasize that students participate consistently. Conversations were monitored for signs that students were abiding by general rules of respect, decency, and civility, but generally refrained from participating in the discussion forums. Such online exchanges provide an environment that mirrors the real-world political exchanges students are likely to participate in as adult democratic citizens.

Dependent variable: Academic reflectivity

The dependent variable measured academic reflectivity in student posts and response interactions online. Academic reflectivity meant that they were thinking critically, developing informed perspectives about civic issues, learning from each other, referencing text material, and interacting in a civilized manner. They were not making broad and unsupported generalizations, and providing knee-jerk or non-committal reactions such as, “I agree”. It also meant that in their reflection students had reconsidered their own views when they responded to questions or when they commented on other students’ posts. They thought through problems or issues, questioned others, challenged others or held them accountable for their views civilly (Van Vechten et al., 2013). Engaged discussions aligned with academic materials are the backbone for reflectivity.  While interactions within a physical class are observed and monitored by the educator, these online discussions were not monitored regularly by the instructor, yet the act of not being observed produced engaged scholars empowered with critical thinking skills among them. Peer interactions provided a sense of physical presence for the student, forming a sense of online community.

The Hypotheses

The hypotheses sought confirmation for significance in academic reflectivity across the collaboration during the entire semester. Hypothesis (H1) followed that student scores were academically reflective across the collaboration without regard to gender differentials. Past research notes that the democratizing effects of online communication occur (Caspi,Cheju & Sparta, 2008; Kiesler et al., 1984; Herring 1993), in part because the medium may subdue or eliminate status cues and may encourage reciprocity (Thomas, 2002). In offering both increased and equal access participants have greater ability to occupy the space at their own pace and discretion (Graddol & Swann, 1989; Kiesler, Seigel & McGuire, 1984).  As Herring (1993) adds, “they also provide for the possibility that individuals can participate on the same terms as others , that is, more or less anonymously, with the emphasis being on the content, rather than on the form of the message or the identity of the sender” (Herring, 1993, pg. 1). While students may not remain entirely anonymous to their peers, either because they use online tools that supplement regular courses where they have interpersonal contact, or because their explicit communications did not mask differences such as photos or grammar usage signaling abilities. These asynchronous formats gives students more control over their participation in discussions and overall interactivity as compared to the classroom.  Interactions in the collaboration were more gender neutral than on campus (Merryfield, 2001).

Hypothesis (H2) followed that student scores were academically reflective across any current or controversial questions asked of them over the semester of collaboration. When students respond with academic reflectivity across any type of question (theoretical or current) asked of them, the robust nature of online collaborations for engaging a 21^st century student are immense. Examples of a theoretical question during the fourteen week semester, included, “What is Presidential Greatness?” “Is it time to say goodbye to the Electoral College?” “What is Government responsibility?”  Examples of practical questions included, “how our democracy has changed since 9/11”, “Domestic and foreign policy as discussed in presidential debates” and the “2016 Ballot measures”.

The next three hypothesis measure different forms of peer interactions in the collaboration. When student challenge each other, clarify their views and disagree with each other in these discussions, these offer an appreciation of their thorough discussions and interactive relationship with others.  Students are more likely to agree with each other in their interactions, yet ‘agreement’ would not be considered interactive nor would they learn as much from an opposing argument. Disagreement, on the other hand, allows for greater interaction rather than the agreement. In doing so they would not just agree or disagree about a civic issues such as First Amendment or voting issues, yet rather than just mentioning the first amendment, they would challenge or push one another to think beyond ones immediate reaction. Agreement with the other would not be considered reflective interaction but rather disagreement where one disagreed and explained their disagreement.  And these disagreements meant that students would clarify their own positions, add new information to each other’s arguments, or expand the discussion by bringing up new dimensions to a problem (Van Vechten et al., 2013) leading to greater reflectivity in interactions. Hypothesis (H3) followed that student scores were reflective when they disagreed with each other in these discussions. Hypothesis (H4) followed that student scores were reflective when they interacted in a way that challenged each other in these discussions.  Hypothesis (H5) student scores were reflective when they interacted in a way that clarified their positions when addressing their opposition to the other in these discussions.

With these various forms of interaction, students visited and re visited the collaboration to read others posts and responses, going beyond course requirements. Revisits occurring due to the largely non-existent deadline of online spaces that is the ability to visit a space at any time of the day or night. This leads to the final hypothesis (H6) that student interactions through reflectivity formed an online community. When students interact across different races, sex or gender they are deliberating on common issues, in a tolerant and civil manner and in a space that is neutral.

Data Collection

Data from student posts and responses (N = 317) in the online collaborative project across the two identical yet separately American politics face-to-face class taught by the same professor during the Fall 2016 semester were used. Given that gender, race, course level distributions were appropriately equal in both collaborations, make for a comparable collaboration study.

Data Analysis

Using the mixed methods approach, content analysis on the 317 posts and responses were conducted, followed by testing the content analysis by anovas. Anovas were used as they reveal statistical significance of reflectivity scores across both classes. The dependent variable reflectivity, measured reflection, deliberation, reconsidering of their own views when they responded to or commented on posts. As can be seen in table 1, mean scores were comparable, one class score at .74 and the other at .65 as provided in table 1.

Table 1: Mean and Standard deviation scores in posts and responses by Academic reflectivity across two collaborations.

Reflectivity was first coded through content analysis and then tested by anovas. An example of reflective student post would be a student using civic references and clarifying their position to another student, “…The first amendment to the Constitution grants freedom of speech to all American citizens.  Therefore, Kaepernick has the right to sit down for the National Anthem if he so chooses. Additionally, American citizens have the right to stand behind him, and they also have the right to disagree with him. That is the beauty of America. Itis a country where the people have the right to have rights. If we try to solve this conflict by choosing a right and a wrong side, we are defiling the US of its foundational beliefs. Everyone involved in this situation and their opinions about the matter should be protected by the Constitution and the first amendment. We balance this values by allowing all views and opinions to be heard no matter who or how many people disagree (as long as no one is physically harmed). It is all of our responsibility, as Americans, to allow freedom of speech for everyone….The framers constructed a Constitution that allows all citizens to have their views and opinions protected…” (sic).

Based on the six hypotheses, the content analysis was tested using anovas. Anovas revealed statistical significance of reflectivity scores across the collaboration.  Students posted and responded with reflectivity across gender (p < .012), with reflectivity when they challenged each other (p < .012), with reflectivity when they clarified their positions to each other (p < .000), with reflectivity when they disagreed with each other (p < .000), they were reflective across each discussion question asked of them (p < .000), and they formed a sense of online community (p<. 008) providing evidence for the six hypotheses as displayed in table 2.

Table 2: Anovas by academic reflectivity scores across both collaborations

With statistical confirmation for these hypotheses, an innovative pedagogical approach via an online collaboration complementing face-to-face classes is viable. Students here do engage in reflective discussions across any type of question, challenging each other, clarifying their positions and disagreeing with each other in these deliberations while building a sense of online community much alike a face-to-face educational experience.  Higher education outcomes can be enhanced when using approaches that are comfortable for the digitally engaged student, coupled with the time and space to consider their thoughts when posting and responding.

LSD Post hocs assure statistical significance in reflectivity in support of these significant anovas over each question (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14) asked during the semester (p < .000-.176) as reported in table 3.

Table 3: LSD post-hoc significance of test differences in mean academic reflectivity scores by each discussion question

Questions eleven and thirteen were not as significance (p<.883; <.698 respectively) as the other twelve questions. These two questions asked them to speculate about the future of political policies in an energized 2016 presidential election season. While question eleven asked them to speculate on a presidents first 100 days in office, question thirteen asked them to speculate about the anxiety over Immigration overhaul while the election outcome was uncertain. The participants in the collaboration were freshman take this course as a university requirement and were not academically equipped to speculate about future policies not having the experiences that a politically knowledgeable sophomore or junior level student may have, these two questions significance was not as high as the other twelve questions.

With significant anova support of these hypotheses and post hoc tests, this study demonstrates that online discussion forums allow for students across classes to directly challenge, clarify and disagree each other across any and each of the questions asked of them. They posted and responded across both classes and did so using reflective and academically sound deliberations. Additionally, the collaboration grades were on par across both classes.

A carefully designed and managed web space can promote engaged and reflective online discussion interactions across the semester with reflectivity of scores.  These spaces provide students with time to consider and reconsider their thoughts, visiting and revisiting them when time permits and one that promotes a community of learning. When students engage one another in online discussions in a focused way, their capacity for reasoned discourse becomes evident.  These are important findings as online discussions link students across diverse characteristics such as race, gender, religion or ethnic profile, such as in these two classes. A highly diverse membership challenges various viewpoints, one where students develop an awareness of alternative points of view and a more reflective understanding of collective problems, including empathy for others and an appreciation of majority and minority rights (Guttman, 2000).

The student perspective from the end-of-semester evaluations noted their perceived benefits or concerns about the online collaboration providing further support of these findings. There benefits cited were positive overall, most stating that they were “…more informed, voice was heard, did not feel ‘alone’ and were part of a larger community built knowledge, offered different viewpoints…” as shown in table 4.

Table 4: Open ended comments about the benefits and concerns about the online collaboration

A sense of community was also measured by anova testing as the last hypotheses assuring significance. In terms of their concerns, they noted that the course was a requirement and “…if they were not compelled to take this class, they would not have been comfortable hearing differing opinions.”

In post semester surveys when asked why they chose to respond and challenge one student versus another, approximately, 30% said that they related to some posts more than others, while 60% chose to post based on difference of opinion, nothing that they choose to do so because, “…I believed they made significant points on the matter I may have forgotten to mention”, and about 10% said that they picked, “whichever person’s response intrigued them” and that may have been similar or opposing views.  In designing a comfortable web space for student interactions, students respond to not only comfortable collegial posts but were challenging the discussions of others, in effect, extending the discussions further. In response to their comfort of controversial questions, 81.25% of students felt that they were comfortable discussing controversial issues and it created awareness of why a position may be dissimilar to theirs, versus the 6% who were not comfortable in these spaces, yet not providing a reason for their discomfort.

As the Fall 2016 semester was immersed in the 2016 presidential election season, in response to open ended question asking for their positives and negatives were that they disliked the 2016 presidential questions, some stated, “…it helped to see what was going on in the world” “voiced their view”, “that they were respectful as they had to do it weekly”, “read differing viewpoints and decide whether to respond or not”. “Encourage people to respond back”, “need more engaging topics”, and “no suggestions or improvements keep doing it…”

As to any additional comments (negative or positive) about the online collaboration itself, students responded in various ways. Most said that the collaboration established, “…sense of community,” “a sense of community, space, knowledge and a peaceful atmosphere”, “helped me to think outside the box at times of what I thought about a topic.” “A sense of knowledge, Sense of civic responsibility,” “It helps you understand others point of view,” “Sense of understanding and comprehending how others think,” “knowledge because if you are unaware of a certain issue, you get to investigate and get informed,” “Knowledge and viewpoints.” “I get to see and read other people’s view on current society, being part of a collaboration benefited me in different ways. I’m now able to have a sense on how my community thinks and how they feel about current events…”

Conclusions

A carefully designed academic online collaboration can be effectively used as a supplement in a face-to-face course, or in a fully online class, cross-country and internationally. When students involve themselves in discussions and take the initiative to revisit their responses to others, they are motivated to interact past their course grade requirements. Fifty-two percent of students reported using the site other than writing their post, past grade requirements.

Building an effective collaborative web space project takes time and commitment from researchers and continuing research on collaborations. Several recommendations for future studies could include a) comparing collaborations across a range of comparable subjects and levels of courses b) comparing collaborations between a class that provides students with sample scripts of posts and responses to those that do not provide student scripting. c) comparing an online course with a face-to-face course using a collaboration across these classes. d) comparing collaborations from one country to another country, on the same topic. Research is crucial for both educators and administrators when making decisions about offering and maintaining techno savvy support systems.

Significant results in this study provides evidence that students do benefit from discussion forum interaction among peers irrespective of their differences.  The research presented here suggests that collaborations can be useful tools for understanding how students engage in political discourse, for providing students the opportunity to exercise their newly developing political communication skills, and for educating students about democratic rights and responsibilities. Such online exchanges provide an environment that mirrors the real-world political exchanges students are likely to participate in as citizens.

Technology in teaching and learning in higher education: Theoretical and practical implications

With evidentiary support of academic reflectivity in an online academic collaboration the practical and theoretical implications of this collaboration are immense. Foremost, a practical implication, of this study is that a collaboration such as this can be replicated across a variety of classes and academic settings, nationally and internationally.  Educators can use online collaborations as a teaching tool either on their own or as supplements to regular instructional tools in face-to-face, hybrid or in fully online courses. This holds true for a collaboration conducted across geographic boundaries, nationally and internationally. In addition to political science courses, online collaborations can be offered across any comparable subjects such as math, English, sociology or engineering including global collaborations. For instance, with the use of technology, better quality preparation,  and more efficient use of class time. In the assignment, students are asked to post responses to thought questions on an internet discussion forum, which is read by the instructor prior to class and is a graded assignment. Before class, the instructor uses these postings to help prepare specific themes or discussion topics for class meetings. When educators reach out to the millennials’ reliance on popular digital resources and design a site that provides scholarship in learning, one can readdress the connection between education and empowered citizenship for our newer millennia. A practical implication that needs addressing is that of University instructional technology departments needing to provide instructors with training in how to create academically challenging online courses and provide sufficient support to both instructors and students.

Theoretical implications in online collaborations abound as well.  As students personalize and identify with others cross-country they involve themselves, their thoughts and positions on issues even if they are different from others, while learning academically from each other. Particularly, as online spaces are considerably unbiased spaces, this provides a space for balanced deliberation and exchange of ideas globally.  Students ‘belong’ to the community of online learning. They ask questions for clarification, furthering discussions by posing additional questions of their own furthering the discussions.  They express themselves, articulate and interact in meaningful ways, deliberate their ideas and positions, reconsider them in light of others’ arguments, and sometimes challenge each other to account for their opinions without the subliminal pressure of familiar hierarchical structures, ethnicity, identity norms, variations in class type or different classes and states. The purposefully designed web space offers time and space for multiple visits and revisits, continuously building diversity of thought and tolerance towards (differing) opinions with careful listening and respectful revisits of the space.

A carefully designed academic online collaboration can be an effective means for promoting an engaged and empowered citizen.  Evidentiary research in this study provides proof that students do benefit from discussions and interactions among peers in an online space even when they are not being ‘watched’ all the time.  Students are linked at any time of the day or evening with the presence of peers felt in real time. Collaborations such as these are effective tools in building an engaged online community, students cultivating their own sense of presence here.

To conclude, the purpose of this investigation was to add to the research about the use of online collaborations complementing classes. While further research is needed to explore collaborative use across different subjects and global collaborations the findings of this investigation adds to existing research-based findings and offers significant results about the use of collaborative discourse. This study is significant for educators, and policy-makers interested in teaching and learning technologies across a variety of comparable subjects.  Online collaborations additionally advance the scholarship and practice of teaching and learning in higher education.  The future of collaborations in higher education is indeed bright.

References

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Changing Course: Ten years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

Asarta, C., & Schmidt, M. (2016). Comparing student performance in blended and traditional courses: Does prior academic achievement matter? The Internet and Higher Education. 32, 29–38.

Bernard, M., Abrami, C., Lou, Y., Borokhovsk, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379–439.  doi: 10.3102/00346543074003379

Botsch, R., & Botsch, C. (2012). Audiences and Outcomes in Online and Traditional American Government Classes Revisited. PS: Political Science & Politics 45, 493–500.

Bowen, J. (2012). Teaching naked: how moving technology out of your classroom will improve student learning. San Francisco, CA: Josei Bass.

Caspi, A., Cheju, E., & Sparta, K. (2008). Participation in Class and in Online Discussions: Gender Differences. Computers & Education 50, 718-724.

Clawson, R., Deen, R., & Oxley, Z. (2002). Online Discussions across Three Universities: Student Participation and Pedagogy. PS. Political Science and Politics (35). 713-718.

Conrad, R., & Donaldson, J. (2004). Engaging the Online Learner: Activities and Resources for Creative Instruction. San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cryan, R., Mentzer, G., & Teclehaimanot, B. (2007). Two peas in a pod? A comparison of face-to-face and web-based classrooms. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 233-246. http://editlib.org/p/19863/

Delborne, A., Anderson, A., Kleinman, L., Colin, M., & Powell, M. (2011). Virtual de­liberation? Prospects and challenges for integrat­ing the Internet in consensus conferences. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.1177/0963662509347138

Delli C., Michael X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know About Politics and why it Matters. New Haven, CT.

Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2, 1-13.

Farinella, A., Hobbs, K., & Weeks, H. (2000). Distance delivery: The faculty perspective. Financial Practice and Education, 10, 184–194.

Galston, W. 2007. Civic Knowledge, Civic Education, and Civic Engagement: A Summary of Recent Research. International Journal of Public Administration 30(6–7): 623–642.

Graddol, D., & J. Swann. (1989). Gender Voices.  Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Gurin, P., Nagda, A., & Lopez, G. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship.  Journal of Social Issues , 1, 17-34.

Guttman, A. (2000). Why should schools care about civic education? In L. McDonnell, P. M. Timpane, & R. Bejamin (Eds.), Rediscovering the democratic purposes of education. Lawrence, KS.

Hamann, K., Pollock, P., & Wilson. M. (2009). Learning From “Listening” to Peers in Online Political Science Classes.  Journal of Political Science Education 5, 1–11.

Hastie, M., Hung, I-C., Chen, N-S., & Kinshuk (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 47(1), pp. 9-24.  Retrieved from doi: 10.1080/14703290903525812

Herring, Susan. (1993). Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated Communication. Electronic Journal of Communication 3(2).

Horspool, A., & Yang, S. (2010). A comparison of university student perceptions and success learning music online and face-to-face. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6, 15-29. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no1/horspool_0310.pdf

Huerta, J., & Jozwiak, J. 2008. Developing Civic Engagement in General Education Political Science. Journal of Political Science Education 4(1): 42–60.

Jankowski, N., & Van R. (2004). Internet-based political discourse: A case study of electronic democ­racy in Hoogeveen. In P. Shane (Ed.), Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the internet. Routledge.

Jahng, N., Krug, D., & Zhang, Z. (2007). Student achievement in online distance education compared to face-to-face education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2007, http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?article=253

Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 29–49. http://editlib.org/p/8371/

Kaya, T. (2010). Enrollment in online courses increases at the highest rate ever. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/enrollment-inonline-courses-increases-at-the-highest-rate-ever

Karlsson, M. (2010). What does it take to make online deliberation happen? A comparative analysis of 28 online discussion forums. In Proceed­ings from the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation, Leeds, UK.

Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text based online learning environments.  Distance Education, 1, 89-106. doi:10.1080/01587910802004860

Kies, R., & Wojcik, S. (2010). Euro­pean web-deliberation: Lessons from the European citizen’s consultation. In Cindio, F.D., Machintosh, A. & Peraboni, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference (OD2010), Leeds, UK.

Kiesler, S., Seigel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication.  American Psychologist, 39:1123-1134.

Kim, K., & Bonk, J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: The survey says. Educause Quarterly, 29(4), 22.

Koory, M. A. (2003). Differences in learning outcomes for the online and F2F versions of an introduction to Shakespeare. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 18–35.

Leasure, A., Davis, L., & Thievon, S. (2000). Comparison of student outcomes and preferences in a traditional vs. world wide web-based baccalaureate nursing research course. Journal of Nursing Education, 39, 149-154.

Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning Online: What Research Tells Us About Whether, When and How? New York: Routledge

Merryfield, M. (2001). Engaging with Issues of Cultural Diversity and Discrimination through Critical Emotional Reflectivity in Online Learning. Adult Educational Quarterly, 59, 61-82.

McBeth, K., & Robison, S. (2012). Introduction to American Government: What is it good for? Absolutely Everything. Journal of Political Science Education 8, 271–287.

Min, S.J. (2007). Online vs. face-to-face delibera­tion: Effects on civic engagement. Journal of Com­puter-Mediated Communication, 12, 1369–1387. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00377.

Pape, L. (2010). Blended Teaching & Learning. School Administrator, 67 (4), 16–21.

Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011, August 28). The digital revolution and higher education: College presidents, public, differ on value of online learning. Retrieved from Pew Internet & American Life Project, http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/College-presidents.aspx

Parry, M. (2010). Will technology kill the academic calendar? Online, semesters give way to students who set their own schedules. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Will-Technology-Kill-the/124857.

Pollock, P., and Wilson, B. 2002. Evaluating the Impact of Internet Teaching: Preliminary Evidence from American National Government Classes. PS: Political Science & Politics 3: 561–566.

Pollock, P., Hamann, K., & Wilson, M. (2011). Learning through Discussions: Comparing the Benefits of Small-Group and Large-Class Settings. Journal of Political Science Education 7, 48–64.

Roscoe, Douglas D. (2012). Comparing Student Outcomes in Blended and Face-to-Face Courses. Journal of Political Science Education 8, 1–19.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. (5th Ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623-664. doi: 10.1111/j.17446570.2006.00049.

Smith, E. l., & Bressler, A. (2013). Who Taught You to Talk Like That? The University and Online Political Discourse. Journal of Political Science Education, 9(4), 453-473. doi:10.1080/15512169.2013.835565

Stanley, J. W., Weare, C., & Musso, J. (2004). Par­ticipation, deliberative democracy, and the internet: Lessons from a National Forum on commercial vehicle safety. In Shane, P. (Ed.), Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the internet. Routledge.

Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring delibera­tion’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 1, 1-35.

Talpin, J., & Wojcik, S. (2010). Deliberating envi­ronmental policy issues: Comparing the learning potential of online and face-to-face discussion on climate change. Policy and the Internet, 2. 61-93.

Tucey, C. B. (2010). Online vs. face-to-face deliberation on the global warming & stem cell issues. In proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Francisco,

Thomas, W. (2002). Learning with Incoherent Structures: The Space of Online Discussion Forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351-366.

Van Vechten, R. & Chadha, A. (2013). How Students Talk to Each Other: An Academic Social Networking Project.  In Alison Rios Millett McCartney and Elizabeth Bennion, Eds. Teaching Civic Engagement: From Student to Active Citizen. Washington, D.C.: The American Political Science Association. Ch. 11, 167-187.

Williams, l., & Lahman, M. (2011). Online Discussion, Student Engagement, and Critical Thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 7, 143-162. doi:10.1080/15512169.2011.564919

Wilson, B., Pollock, P., & Hamann, K. (2007). Does Active Learning enhance Learner Outcomes? Evidence from discussion Participation in Online Classes. Journal of Political Science Education 3, 131–142.

Wojcieszak, E., Baek, M., & Carpini, D. (2009). What is really going on? Information Communication and Society, 7, 1080–1102. doi:10.1080/1369118090272576

Wolfe Angela (2012). Implementing Collaborative Learning Methods in the Political Science Classroom. Journal of Political Science Education 8, 420–432.

Wright, S. (2007). Government-run online discus­sion Fora: Moderation, censorship and the shadow of control. BJPIR, 8, 550–568.

Zuniga, X., Vasques, C., Sevig, T. D., & Nagda, B. A. (1997). Exploring and bridging race/ethnic differences: Developing intergroup diaglogue competencies in a co-learning environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting. Chicago, IL.

This academic article was accepted for publication in the International HETL Review (IHR) after a double-blind peer review involving independent members of the IHR Review Board and two revision cycles. Accepting editor: Dr Tina Bass

Suggested citation:

Chadha, A. (2018). Online collaborations extending reflective deliberations in the virtual hallway. International HETL Review, Volume 7, Article 7,  https://www.hetl.org/online-collaborations-extending-reflective-deliberations-in-the-virtual-hallway

Copyright 2018 Anita Chadha

The author(s) assert their right to be named as the sole author(s) of this article and to be granted copyright privileges related to the article without infringing on any third party’s rights including copyright.  The author(s) assign to HETL Portal and to educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this article for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author(s) also grant a non-exclusive licence to HETL Portal to publish this article in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in electronic and/or printed form within the HETL Review. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s).

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and as such do not necessarily represent the position(s) of other professionals or any institution.