Discussion Activities in Asynchronous Online Learning: Motivating Adult Learners’ Interactions
Abstract
This quantitative study investigates the impact of four types of discussion activities on adult learners’ asynchronous online interactions. Specifically, this study aims to understand how different discussion activities incorporated into online discussion boards motivate adult learners’ online participation. The four discussion activities are video-based text discussion, student-generated problem-based case discussion, self-created meme discussion, and discussion through debate. Results show that all four discussion activities, to a great extent, help motivate adult learners to actively interact with learning content, the instructor, and peers in different ways. Significantly, our study shows that participants identified student-generated problem-based case discussion as the most effective and that the debate was the least effective among the four discussion activities. Results also indicate that the instructor plays a significant role in the design, instruction, and follow-up of discussion activities. This study provides insights into using multiple discussion activities in fully asynchronous online environments for adult learners’ active learning.
Online education, with its ubiquity in technology and format, has actively provided opportunities for adults with greater access, flexibility, and convenience along with lower costs (Buelow et al., 2018). In fall 2019, 33% of postbaccalaureate students in the U.S. took distance courses exclusively (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). Online learning consists of asynchronous and synchronous forms. Asynchronous online learning refers to course delivery in which content and instruction do not happen in real-time, while synchronous does. Asynchronous instruction uses a variety of delivery platforms, such as Canvas, Blackboard, and Desire2Learn. Synchronous courses use tools, such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Webex, along with some combinations of asynchronous and synchronous systems.
Asynchronous online learning is typically considered an optimal modality for adult learners, who are nontraditional students and usually enroll as part-time students due to full-time employment and family obligations (Radford et al., 2015). Most online students enrolled in fully asynchronous online courses are adult learners (Anthony & Thomas, 2020) because of multiple advantages. First, this format enables 24/7 access anytime, anywhere, with the internet. Second, adult learners have the freedom to manage their learning because they can designate time to work at their own pace (Hrastinski, 2008). Lastly, adult learners can explore and share more organized thoughts on asynchronous platforms, such as discussion boards (Hrastinski, 2008). Additionally, instructors use online discussion boards, emails, and other teaching strategies to conduct various interactions for content learning and reflective inquiries (Ruiz et al., 2006). Such capacity of asynchronous learning can reduce peer pressure for learners not ready to share responses, facilitating deep learning and better contributions to peers’ learning (Brierton et al., 2016).
Discussion activities are essential to learning in online courses because the exchange of ideas and thoughts in discussion is a method of adult learning (Lindeman, 1961). Applying different types of discussion provides alternatives for content understanding, information organizing and presenting, and problem-solving while helping to meet diverse learners’ styles and preferences (Carwile, 2007). For example, watching an instructional video while providing comments and perspectives may deepen reading comprehension and lead to reflective inquiry. Having learners create a problem-based case and analyze its theoretical foundation may bring theory into practice; using problem-based discussion may also motivate adult learners’ readiness and help them apply prior learning (Knowles, 1990). Debate is another form of discussion that facilitates critical thinking by challenging assumptions of alternative perspectives with new ideas and actions (Brookfield, 2006).
Furthermore, online discussion enhances interactions while challenging and improving learners’ cognitive presence (Galikyan & Admiraal, 2019). Sharing perspectives and responding to peers’ comments enable learners to participate actively and thus increase peer interaction (DeNoyelles et al., 2014). However, an instructor’s discussion instructions, topics, and questions are essential to establishing a trusting and supportive online learning community (Covelli, 2017). More adult learners take asynchronous online courses, so varied discussion activities may be explored and applied to promote cognitive presence through active interactions with the learning content, instructor, and peers.
Although studies have noted the use of videos, debates, and problem-based case analysis for discussion (Covelli, 2017; Khan et al., 2017), limited studies specifically looked at the impact and adult learners’ perspectives of different types of discussion activities for asynchronous online learning environments. However, understanding adult learners’ views of various online discussion activities may provide new insights for integrating discussion activities in future adult online learning.
Our study explores adult learners’ experiences of four types of discussion activities in an asynchronous online learning environment to understand how each online discussion activity motivates their engagement. Research questions were the following: (1) How do adult learners experience the four discussion activities applied to asynchronous online courses? (2) What perspectives do they hold regarding the effectiveness of each type of online discussion activity?
Literature Review
Social Interaction and Engagement
Learning occurs in a social context and develops through relationships with other learners. Social interaction is required for cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1978), and asynchronous online discussions have been used widely in teaching and learning, providing an online social environment. Such activities also promote learners’ digital communication skills and collaboration (AlJeraisy et al., 2015). Lynch et al. (2011) indicated that 95% of 358 teaching faculty used asynchronous online discussions at one research institution in the U.S., and 87% required class participation in discussion.
Student engagement is crucial to learning (Khan et al., 2017), yet engaging students in asynchronous online learning environments remains challenging. Motivating learners’ active learning becomes essential for effective online teaching. Active learning refers to “seeking new information, organizing it in a meaningful way, and having the chance to explain it to others” (Allen & Tanner, 2005, p. 262). Active learning promotes students’ engagement and improves attitudes toward learning (Vygotsky, 1978). One strategy for active learning in online settings is to use well-conceived discussions (Khan et al., 2017). The social nature of interaction through online discussion boards is likely to engage learners, promote active learning (Alzahrani, 2017), encourage critical thinking, and enhance communication skills (Dallimore et al., 2008). Additionally, effective use of multimedia, including audio, visual, and scripting, can facilitate learners’ online participation in discussion (Lewis & Abdul-Hamid, 2006). Thus, using multimedia may help increase online learners’ learning ownership (Khan et al., 2017).
Motivating Interactions for Effective Online Discussion
Creating an effective asynchronous online discussion board is essential for developing learners’ interaction. Generally, there are three types of interactions identified for effective online education. They are learner-content interaction, learner-learner interaction, and learner-instructor interaction (Moore, 1989, 1993).
Learner-Content Interaction
Learner-content interaction refers to how learners engage with the subject matter or learning resources, including interactions with the course materials in text, audio, video, or online communication formats (Sher, 2009). This interaction could facilitate learners’ understanding or cognitive thinking, thus preparing them to engage in online courses while also serving as a critical segment for online learning (Abou-Khalil et al., 2021; Moore, 1989; Sher, 2009). Specifically, providing multimedia resources (e.g., videos, infographics) for learning-content interaction can lead to high-level engagement and learner satisfaction (Elena et al., 2017). Additionally, the real-world application of projects enhances mastery and critical thinking skills, thus encouraging learner-content interactions (Abou-Khalil et al., 2021).
Learner-Learner Interaction
Learner-learner interaction is “the exchange of information and ideas among students about the course in the presence or absence of the instructor” (Sher, 2009, p. 104). This type of interaction consists of discourse and other interchanges (e.g., project collaboration, knowledge sharing), which help improve their learning experiences, engagement, and motivation (Moore 1989; Moore & Kearsley, 2011). Scholars have noted that learner-learner interaction could significantly influence learners’ engagement in online learning environments (Czerkawski & Lyman, 2016). This type of interaction helps promote rapport and connection among learners. They usually feel more comfortable in a discussion activity led by their peers rather than the instructor because of a hierarchical relationship felt between the instructor and learners, for example, expert-novice (Hew et al., 2010; Lim et al., 2011; Zhao & McDougall, 2005). This relationship may prevent learners from sharing their comments and insights freely because they may worry about how their perspectives are evaluated by the instructor, whom they consider an authoritative figure in the class. Therefore, group chats (D’Errico et al., 2016), collaborative flipped classrooms (Wu et al., 2017), icebreaker discussions, and students moderating the class discussion may be applied to increase learner-learner interaction. Lastly, this type of interaction can also enhance a higher level of knowledge construction when peers share supportive commentaries, provide encouragement, and conclude with the discussion points (To & Carless, 2016).
Learner-Instructor Interaction
Lastly, learner-instructor interaction refers to the communication between learners and the instructor in a class setting throughout the teaching and learning transaction (Moore & Kearsley, 2011). The instructor delivers instruction, discusses learning activities, presents course information, and provides feedback, while learners interact by asking questions and communicating in other ways with the instructor (Sher, 2009). The instructor can facilitate building an interactive and close relationship for engaged learning, contributing to learners’ success (Martin & Bolliger, 2018). Additionally, providing prompt feedback to learners is crucial in online courses (Chen, 2014). Timely feedback from the instructor enhances online learners’ learning experiences (King, 2014). Hence, to make the discussion board effective, the instructor should frequently provide helpful feedback to keep the discussion progressing (Nandi et al., 2012).
Developing a Teaching Presence for Effective Online Discussion
The teaching presence in online courses is another significant aspect of effective online discussion. Teaching presence indicates the “design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes to realize personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 5). It is implemented through the instructor, who is responsible for the following: (a) design and organization of the course and activities, (b) facilitation of the course and activities, and (c) direct instruction and feedback. Teaching presence can set the social climate and facilitate higher-order learning (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
In the asynchronous setting, instructors may design activities for online discussion to motivate learners’ active participation in discussing course topics and connecting them to the unit’s objectives (Wang et al., 2021). Instructors can create asynchronous discussion boards using well-defined goals and transparent rules for various interactions through threads. It is also beneficial to adult learners when the instructor diversifies the interactive modalities for engagement through multimedia, such as voice technology, video clips, and digital resources (Stephenson, 2018), to actively illustrate teaching presence.
Setting Requirements for Effective Online Discussion
Graded discussions may additionally stimulate learners to engage in active conversations. An et al. (2009) stated that if peer interaction is not required in an online environment, voluntary interactions among learners rarely happen. However, setting specific requirements for online discussion may limit strong peer interaction since forced responses may lead to “perfunctory student participation” and “a low level of meaningful interaction” (McKenna et al., 2022, p. 96). It is possible that “students were ‘playing the game’ of assessment, making the posting that earned them marks but rarely contributing otherwise” (Oliver & Shaw, 2003, p. 64). Nevertheless, to promote active involvement in a discussion activity, it is vital that the instructor provide a clear purpose (e.g., resolving a problem through working in a team) and set expectations (e.g., what and when it needs to be completed). Such general requirements may motivate learners to co-construct a project and share different perspectives on the discussion board (DeNoyelles et al., 2014).
More responses and meaningful interactions may be enhanced with “thought-provoking questions for participating in the dialogue as if the learners were in a traditional classroom” (Levine, 2007, p. 94). Utilizing open-ended questions and requiring learners to respond to one another may enhance student involvement. Similarly, asking learners to self-research and respond to others’ comments and questions promotes active participation and interactions (Carwile, 2007).
The Current Study
Asynchronous online discussion boards support knowledge construction and higher-order thinking through interacting and communicating with course content, peers, and instructors (Galikyan & Admiraal, 2019). In a virtual space, discussion activities help adult learners actively share perspectives, acquire understandings (Brindley et al., 2009), contribute to meaning-making, and co-construct knowledge (Schrire, 2006). Scholars also indicated that online discussion facilitates a sense of online community, collaborative learning, and student-centered interaction (Covelli, 2017) by making a space where adult learners can support one another and be empathetic and compassionate about each other’s perspectives as well as encourage authentic discussion and collective learning outcomes (McDougall, 2015).
Therefore, it is important to understand adult learners’ perspectives regarding what discussion activities would better motivate them to participate in asynchronous online learning actively. However, little empirical research has been conducted regarding how discussion activities applied to adult learners’ asynchronous online learning impact class interactions and how adult learners experience these activities’ effectiveness for their learning. To fill this gap, the current study applied four types of discussion activities to fully asynchronous online courses to understand how adult learners feel about each of them and which discussion activities they consider most and least effective. The primary contribution of the study showed which types of discussion activities were felt to be the most effective by online adult learners and how each discussion activity motivated these learners’ online interactions. This study provided new insights into using multiple discussion activities in fully asynchronous online environments for interactive learning.
Methods
Activity Design
Based on the literature review above, four types of discussion activities were applied to two sections of a five-week, graduate-level, asynchronous online course to explore adult learners’ experiences and preferences for discussion activities. Debate and problem-based case discussions are commonly used to enhance online learners’ learning processes, engage them in the debate, and promote higher-order cognitive skills (Khan et al., 2017). Meanwhile, self-created memes and video-based text discussion activities were applied because innovative multimedia tools can increase learners’ engagement and interaction in online learning environments (Stephenson, 2018).
The learning goals of the online course provided an overview of major issues in adult and higher education, along with strategies for teaching adults. The course offered conceptual understanding and experiential skills in planning, implementing, and evaluating instruction. Throughout this course, learners developed critical thinking skills, exercised practical teaching techniques, and reflected on their teaching philosophies. The discussion activities applied to the course included video-based text discussions for Week 1 and Week 5, respectively; self-created meme activity for Week 2; a student-generated problem-based case discussion for Week 3; and a debate discussion for Week 4.
The Video-Based Text Discussion
The video-based text discussion applied to Weeks One and Five required students to discuss topics after watching video-based lectures created by the instructor (see ). The video timeline-anchored comment function available in Canvas Studio allowed writing text comments while watching the video. Learners’ remarks, once made, jumped out as a bubble at the right corner of the video screen. Once the bubble was clicked, learners could read full comments. From there, they could respond to peers and the instructor (see Appendix A for an example). Canvas Studio provides a notification of a new entry. This discussion activity provided learners with diverse perspectives via “real-time” interactions.
Figure 1. Steps of video-based text discussion.
Self-Created Meme Discussion
The self-created meme discussion in Week 2 included multiple steps to complete (see ). Week 2’s topic was learning how to use technology to teach adult learners. Thus, this activity motivated class members to use memes or gif generators to connect their emotions to new learning. Appendix B shows a meme example created by a student.
Figure 2. Steps of self-created meme discussion.
Student-Generated Problem-Based Case Discussion
Student-generated problem-based case discussion employed in Week 3 required two steps (see ). The instructor provided examples of challenging students, such as attention seekers, discussion dominators, and unprepared learners. While developing the case, students were required to include elements, such as settings (i.e., class size, level of the course, online, distance, hybrid, etc.), characters (i.e., the protagonist of the scenario, other additional characters, etc.), and plot (i.e., the story of the scenarios and the conflict/issues in the scenario). As a guide, the instructor provided an example case. The instructor also prepared questions while monitoring the discussion board to facilitate discussion.
Figure 3. Steps of student-generated problem-based case discussion.
Debate
Finally, Week 4 applied debate as a discussion activity, which required evidence (e.g., statements from the textbook, scholarly articles, and other reliable sources) to support arguments and points of view. shows the specific steps of this activity. In short, this discussion facilitated individual and collaborative learning through a shared goal by exploring, organizing, presenting, and building up teams’ statements, arguments, and points of view.
Figure 4. Steps of debate discussion.
Because voluntary interactions among learners rarely happen (An et al., 2009), there were requirements to promote discussion, including posting original threads and responding to at least two peers’ postings by a specific deadline. The discussion board was also graded. Further, the instructor frequently checked the discussion, provided feedback, and asked additional questions to keep the conversation interactive and progressing. Here is an example of such a comment: “In response to [student X]’s comments, what do you think…?” Additionally, the instructor posted a weekly topic learning summary after each week’s learning.
Participants
Twenty-eight adult learners participated in the study from the two sections of a fully online course in a 5-week summer semester in 2021. These adult learners’ responses were collected from weekly anonymous end-of-module surveys. Each week’s survey aimed to understand learners’ perceptions of a specific discussion activity used in that week. The course enrollments were 15 (section 1) and 13 (section 2).
Instruments
The instrument used in the end-of-module survey was adopted and modified from Kuo et al.’s (2009) interaction inventory. The survey consists of 20 items examining three types of interactions: eight items for learner-learner (e.g., I shared my thoughts or comments with peers about the lectures and their applications during this class), six items for learner-instructor (e.g., The instructor regularly posted questions on the discussion boards for us to discuss), and four items for learner-content (e.g., Online course materials helped link my prior learning and experience to new concepts and new knowledge). The final two questions explored students’ overall interaction experiences (e.g., Overall, I highly engaged in this class or unit learning by initiating three or more interactions with the course content, peers, and the instructor; Overall, I was/am highly involved in this class or unit learning by responding to 3 or more interactions with the course content, fellow students, and the instructor).
A 5-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score indicated a more substantial interaction. Two additional questions were added in Week 5’s end-of-module survey asking students to select the most and least effective discussion activity for the whole semester. A multiple-answer question was also added to investigate discussion activities students wanted to include in future online courses.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed via the software program SPSS. Descriptive statistics were generated to examine adult students’ interactions with the discussion activities applied each week, their perceptions of the most and the least effective discussion activities, and the activities to keep in future courses. The Likert scale included ordinal data with clear rank order but not an even distribution (Likert, 1932). Thus, arithmetic operations could not be conducted (Wu & Leung, 2017). Because the current study had a small sample size (N = 28), the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to ensure the accuracy of the results. This nonparametric test effectively analyzes outcomes from as few as two independent samples (Ostertagova et al., 2014). This nonparametric alternative for a one-way ANOVA was undertaken to examine the differences between the three forms of interactions presented earlier among all four types of discussion activities. The alpha level was set at .05.
Results
Cronbach’s alpha results showed that the survey used in this study is reliable (see ).
Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha of weekly discussion activity interactions.
Research question 1: How do adult learners experience the four types of discussion activities applied to asynchronous online courses?
The mean scores of learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-instructor of the discussion activity used each week showed that class members had strong learner-content interactions when using video-based text discussion (Mweek1 = 4.75; Mweek5 = 4.77), the self-created meme (M = 4.63), the student-generated problem-based case (M = 4.71), and debate (M = 4.7). They also actively interacted with their peers when conducting these activities (Mvideo-based week1 = 4.34, Mmeme = 4.48, Mcase = 4.54, Mdebate = 4.34, Mvideo-based week5 = 4.59). Additionally, students expressed that they had a somewhat strong interaction with their instructor while participating in all the discussion activities (Mvideo-based week1 = 4.25, Mmeme = 4.21, Mcase = 4.26, Mdebate = 4.29, Mvideo-based week5 = 4.42).
Regarding students’ perspectives of initiating posts and responding to others, data revealed that students engaged in the class or unit learning by initiating three or more posts to interact with the course, peers, and the instructor (Mvideo-based week1 = 4.74, Mmeme = 4.54, Mcase = 4.63, Mdebate = 4.54, Mvideo-based week5 = 4.83). Similarly, students reported that they engaged in their learning by responding to three or more threads posted by others, with mean scores of Mvideo-based week1 = 4.78, Mmeme = 4.58, Mcase = 4.63, Mdebate = 4.5, Mvideo-based week5 = 4.83. These results showed that these adult learners had strong interactions conducting all the activities on the discussion boards (see ).
Figure 5. Descriptive analysis results of interactions’ mean scores for each week.
The Kruskal–Wallis test comparing the interactions among the different discussion activities showed no significant differences in the interactions among these discussion activities. The comparison of the three forms of interactions (i.e., learner-instructor, learner-learner, learner-content) in a single week’s discussion activity did not show significant differences in the problem-based case discussion applied in Week 3 (Adj. p = .051) and video-based text discussion activity in Week 5 (Adj. p = .051). However, the three forms of interactions were significantly different for video-based text discussion in Week 1 [H(2) = 12.69, p = .002], self-generated meme in Week 2 [H(2) = 8.64, p = .013], and debate in Week 4 [H(2) = 7.60, p = .022] (see ).
Table 2. Pairwise comparisons of interactions.
Specifically, pairwise comparisons using the Dunn-Bonferroni tests on interactions indicated that members had a more active learner-content interaction for video-based text discussion in Week 1 than for learner-instructor interaction (Adj. p = .004) and learner-learner interaction (Adj. p = .01), respectively. For the self-created meme activity in Week 2, data revealed that learner-content interaction was higher than learner-instructor (Adj. p = .01). Regarding the debate discussion activity in Week 4, learner-content interaction increased more than learner-instructor interaction (Adj. p = .04).
Research question 2: What perspectives do they hold regarding the effectiveness of each type of online discussion activity?
Regarding students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the discussion activity among the useable responses (N = 24), most class members rated student-generated problem-based case discussion as the most effective activity (62.5%). In comparison, most class members rated the debate as the least effective discussion activity (41.7%). Finally, of the activities that students preferred to include in future courses, student-generated problem-based case discussion was rated as the top discussion activity (N = 19), followed by video-based text discussion (N = 15), self-created meme (N = 13), and debate (N = 12).
Discussion
This study explored how the four types of discussion activities engage adult learners in online interactions and understand their perspectives on the effectiveness of these discussion activities. Overall, the results of this study indicated that all the discussion activities motivated adult learners’ online interactions with the learning content, the instructor, and peers. These findings echoed the literature that discussion activities can effectively enhance learners’ participation (Carwile, 2007) and further promote meaningful interaction in an online learning context (McKenna et al., 2022). Specifically, this study provided a clear indication of adult learners’ perspectives on the impact of each discussion activity. Our findings also indicated that adult learners prefer certain types of discussion and that the instructor plays a significant role in the design, instruction, and follow-up of discussion activities.
Student-Generated Problem-Based Case Discussion
Students voted student-generated problem-based case discussion as the most effective and preferred activity to include in future course activities. Overall, the results showed that this activity enhances learners’ interactions with the content, peers, and the instructor. Specifically, it leads to a strong learner-content interaction. The current study endorsed the idea that the real-world application of projects encourages learner-content interaction (Abou-Khalil et al., 2021). Second, it illustrated a robust learner-learner interaction, reflecting that this discussion may require learners to collaborate for solutions (DeNoyelles et al., 2014), exchange information and ideas (Sher, 2009), and promote the active integration of new information with learners’ prior knowledge (Schmidt, 1993). Third, it reflected that adult learners’ rich life experiences are valuable learning resources (Knowles, 1973) that facilitate developing and analyzing cases, leading to active peer interactions, which promote knowledge sharing, discourse, and co-construction (Moore & Kearsley, 2011). Lastly, the findings demonstrated that this discussion activity encourages learner-instructor interaction. The instructor’s frequent checking of the discussion boards and replying to threads may help sustain active discourse for diverse perspectives, supporting DeNoyelles et al. (2014) statement that the instructor’s involvement in the discussion board would encourage more frequent and different perspectives.
Video-Based Text Discussion
The video-based text discussion was rated the second top activity which students preferred to include in future courses. By applying this activity in Week 1 and Week 5, the results of this study proved that it enhances adult learners’ interactions with the learning content, their instructor, and peers, especially resulting in a more vital learner-content interaction. This activity integrated into text comments allowed students to post at specific time points while watching a recorded video, making viewers feel a sense of pseudo-synchronicity (Johnson, 2013, p. 301). Since text comments could be added while students watched the videos and the timeline-anchored comments showed up when viewers played the video (Chen et al., 2022), these added comments by viewers looked like concurrent communication with other viewers. Thus, integrating and synchronizing the video content and time-point-specific comments helped develop a sense of real-time interactions among viewers (Johnson, 2013). However, no differences were found in interactions between these two weeks. One possible reason is that the learners likely familiarized themselves with this activity in Week 1 and thus, they knew how to conduct this discussion activity in Week 5. Further research may need to verify this assumption.
Self-Created Meme Discussion
Internet memes are considered a cultural phenomenon representing a transmission unit of ideas, behaviors, or styles (Dawkins, 1989). Memes are identified as simplified words and image presentations of complex concepts information in learning, and their entertaining characteristic meanwhile stimulates information interaction between learners (Xie et al., 2020). Research has indicated that interaction with the course materials in digital resources can enhance students’ thinking as they connect to and reflect on the learning content (Sher, 2009; Stephenson, 2018). The current study illustrated that using multimedia resources, such as self-created meme discussion activities, significantly strengthens learner-content interaction compared to the other two forms of interaction. This type of discussion activity also helps enhance learners’ engagement in content learning, leading to a more satisfying learning experience.
Debate Discussion
Lastly, this study suggested that debate could enhance adult learners’ interaction with the learning content. This finding confirms that debate can enforce content mastery, delivery, and communication of knowledge (Kanuka et al., 2007). The debate also motivates adult learners’ critical thinking because this activity requires them to carefully review content for discourse to a high level of resolution, exploration, and integration of the learning content (DeNoyelles et al., 2014). Interestingly, students rated debate the least effective activity, despite the benefits of such learning via this discussion activity. One possible explanation may be that because debate requires students to challenge, argue, and work through conflicts in concepts and assumptions (DeNoyelles, et al., 2014), adult learners may prefer an environment where they do not have to challenge and argue with their peers. Also, because this was a 5-week summer online course, time may be another factor for such results. It may take longer to establish relationships because students may not feel comfortable challenging each other. We hope to conduct future research to explore this area further.
The Instructor’s Role
The current study indicated that the instructor plays a crucial role in the discussion board. First, it is central that the instructor has learning goals in mind when applying each form of discussion and establishing clear rules, such as deadlines for posting and grading for discussion. These strategies help motivate interaction and engagement in discussions (An et al., 2009; Martyn, 2005). Second, aligning with a previous conclusion (McKenna et al., 2019) that the instructor’s facilitation and guidance are essential for discussion board structure, this study suggested that the instructor should clarify the purpose of the activity and provide specific guidelines and possible examples for each discussion activity. Additionally, the instructor should monitor the online discussion board by asking further questions while reviewing students’ posts, to encourage continued conversations and inquiries. This supports the literature that asking meaningful and thought-provoking questions helps engage learners in online discussion (Levine, 2007). The current study also showed that the instructor should avoid leading the discussion but strengthen peer interactions by intentionally requiring peers’ collaboration. Additionally, replying to members’ threads for online discourse and interactive discussion could enhance the teaching presence (Nandi et al., 2012). Finally, the results showed that the instructor summarizing the main ideas, the key areas, and points to take away by the end of a learning unit enhanced adult learners’ online learning experiences.
Implications and Conclusions
The current study illustrated the implications of applying these discussion activities in fully asynchronous online courses to motivate adult learners’ interactions with the content, instructor, and peers and increase their positive educational experiences. The findings showed that the instructor plays a significant role in guiding the discussion boards, including clarifying the purposes of the activities, providing examples, setting the rules and deadlines for posting, responding, encouraging peer interactions, and summarizing key ideas of the discussion posts. Houle (1961) noted that adult learners are goal-oriented and often seek further learning or continue learning with specific purposes, such as gaining new skills or knowledge to improve their competitiveness in the workplace. Knowles (1980) also indicated that adults are ready to learn and learn best when they are clear about learning connections to their needs. Echoing these statements, this study indicated that problem-based case discussion is considered the most effective and popular learning activity among adult learners because these learners are more interested in activities from which they know their learning may apply, why they need to learn such knowledge and skills, and how they can be used in the real world. Similarly, McDougall (2015) stated that the authentic discussion—where students are asked to link the content of the course to real-life examples—should be applied to the discussion board. Thus, the instructor may set up an online discussion board to encourage adult learners to participate with authenticity and provide a space to support one another.
Moreover, multimedia (e.g., images, gifs, videos) can be used to engage adult learners and motivate significant learner-content interaction in the online discussion board. Therefore, instructors may consider incorporating multimedia, including videos and infographics, to encourage interactions and engagement in online discussions. The timeline-anchored comment helps develop a sense of real-time interaction in asynchronous online learning environments. Thus, instructors teaching online courses may also deliberately consider using video-based text discussion. Finally, the debate stimulated more in-depth interaction with the learning content for learners to challenge, form, and advance arguments and to work through conflicts in concepts and assumptions (Kanuka et al., 2007). Therefore, instructors may incorporate debate in the online discussion boards to help engage in critical thinking, particularly in learning topics that need to be seen from multiple perspectives.
The current study presented promising results and insights for future fully online instructors to apply multiple discussion activities, yet limitations exist. The research sample size was small, which prevents a clear generalized statement about the influence of different discussion activities on adult learners’ online interactions. Along this line, qualitative studies should be conducted to support the quantitative results presented in this study. Therefore, future research may use interviews or focus groups to collect more qualitative data to better understand experiences and perceptions. For instance, although quantitative data indicated strong interactions, whether specific requirements of online discussion boards would limit the interactions (Oliver & Shaw, 2003) could be further examined through a qualitative study. Also, this study was conducted during a 5-week summer course, which was relatively short. Ideally, it would be conducted in a regular 16-week semester to observe the more detailed aspects that learners may experience and address the multiple discussion activities in their questionnaires. Still, the study’s limitations did not negate recognizing the important influences of different discussion activities on adult learners’ interactions in fully asynchronous online courses.
In conclusion, this study presented adult learners’ perspectives of the four types of discussion activities and their impact on class interactions in a fully asynchronous online learning environment. The study results showed that these discussion activities influence the online discussion boards by increasing learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-instructor interactions among adult learners. More importantly, the study illuminated what types of discussion activities adult learners prefer the most or the least, which presents new insights to adult education researchers and practitioners. The discussion activities and practical steps can be easily modified for different subjects, making online learning more engaging and interactive.
Data Availability Statement
Data are available from the corresponding author on request.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Xi Lin
Xi Lin is an assistant professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Professions at East Carolina University. Her research focuses on student engagement and interaction in online and distance learning and on international students and faculty in U.S. higher education. More information about her can be found at http://whoisxilin.weebly.com/
Qi Sun
Qi Sun is an associate professor and program coordinator of the Adult Learning PhD program at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her research includes adult learning, transformative learning, comparative and international education, Eastern and non-Western perspectives on education, and online learning. She designs and teaches courses for distance education programs.
References
Abou-Khalil, V., Helou, S., Khalifé, E., Chen, M. A., Majumdar, R., & Ogata, H. (2021). Emergency online learning in low-resource settings: Effective student engagement strategies. Education Sciences, 11(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010024
AlJeraisy, M. N., Mohammad, H., Fayyoumi, A., & Alrashideh, W. (2015). Web 2.0 in education: The impact of the discussion board on student performance and satisfaction. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 247–259.
Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0113
Alzahrani, M. G. (2017). The effect of using online discussion forums on students’ learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 164–176.
An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). Different instructor facilitation approaches affect students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53(3), 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Anthony, D., & Thomas, M. (2020). Asynchronous learning or live lessons? Which one works better for me? EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-10-01-asynchronous-learning-or-live-lessons-which-one-works-better-for-me
Brierton, S., Wilson, E., Kistler, M., Flowers, J., & Jones, D. (2016). A comparison of higher order thinking skills demonstrated in synchronous and asynchronous online college discussion posts. Nacta Journal, 60(1), 14–21.
Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment introduction: The challenge of creating effective study groups. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.675
Brookfield, S. D. (2006). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Buelow, J. R., Barry, T., & Rich, L. E. (2018). Supporting learning engagement with online students. Online Learning, 22(4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1384
Carwile, J. (2007). A constructivist approach to online teaching and learning. Inquiry, 12(1), 68–73.
Chen, W.-C. (2014). Actual and preferred teacher feedback on student blog writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 402–414. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.635
Chen, Y., Gao, Q., & Gao, G. (2022). Timeline-anchored comments in video-based learning: The impact of visual layout and content depth. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(9), 868–883. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1976505
Covelli, B. J. (2017). Online discussion boards: The practice of building community for adult learners. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2017.1274616
Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60(6), 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0110-z
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2008). Using discussion pedagogy to enhance oral and written communication skills. College Teaching, 56(3), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.56.3.163-172
Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press.
D’Errico, F., Paciello, M., & Cerniglia, L. (2016). When emotions enhance students’ engagement in e-learning processes. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 12(4), 9–23.
DeNoyelles, A., Mannheimer Zydney, J., & Chen, B. (2014). Strategies for creating a community of inquiry through online asynchronous discussions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 10(1), 153–165.
Elena, G., S., O’Dulain, M., O’Mahony, N., Kehoe, C., McCarthy, F., & Morgan, G. (2017). Instructor-provided summary infographics to support online learning. Educational Media International, 54(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2017.1362795
Galikyan, I., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Students’ engagement in asynchronous online discussion: The relationship between cognitive presence, learner prominence, and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 43, 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100692
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0
Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. University of Wisconsin Press.
Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning: A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered that each supports different purposes. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55.
Johnson, D. (2013). Polyphonic/pseudo-synchronic: Animated writing in the comment feed of nicovideo. Japanese Studies, 33(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371397.2013.859982
Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00620.x
Khan, A., Egbue, O., Palkie, B., & Madden, J. (2017). Active learning: Engaging students to maximize learning in an online course. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 15(2), 107–115.
King, S. B. (2014). Graduate student perceptions of the use of online course tools to support engagement. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 8(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080105
Knowles, M. (1973). The adult student: A neglected species. Gulf Publishing Company.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. Cambridge Book Co.
Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Gulf.
Kuo, Y. C., Eastmond, J. N., Schroder, K. E. E., & Bennett, L. J. (2009). Student perceptions of interactions and course satisfaction in a blended learning environment. Paper presented at the Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications World Conference, HI.
Levine, S. (2007). The online discussion board. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2007(113), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.248
Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9010-z
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(5), 5–55.
Lim, S. C. R., Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2011). Critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: An investigation of student facilitation techniques. New Horizons in Education, 59(1), 52–65.
Lindeman, E. C. (1961). The meaning of adult education. Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.
Lynch, D. J., Kearsley, G., & Thompson, K. (2011). Faculty use of asynchronous discussions in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 8(2), 17–24.
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Martyn, M. A. (2005). Using interaction in online discussion boards. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(4), 61–62.
McDougall, J. (2015). The quest for authenticity: A study of an online discussion forum and the needs of adult learners. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 55(1), 94–113.
McKenna, K., Altringer, L., Gebhardt, K., & Long, M. G. (2022). Promoting meaningful interaction and community development through discussion board activities in the online classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 19(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2022.19.1.15
McKenna, K., Gebhardt, K., & Altringer, L. (2019). Exploring community in discussion board activities. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 7(3), 185–198.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education theory (pp. 19–24). Routledge.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.
Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667957
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall Enrollment component. Postbaccalaureate Enrollment. “Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred” surveys, 1970–71 through 1985-86; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Completions Survey” (IPEDS-C:91 and 96); and IPEDS Fall 2001 through Fall 2019, Completions component (Table prepared June 2020). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_324.10.asp?current=yes
Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 56–67.
Ostertagova, E., Ostertag, O., & Kováč, J. (2014). Methodology and application of the Kruskal-Wallis test. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 611, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.611.115
Radford, A. W., Cominole, M., & Skomsvold, P. (2015). Demographic and enrollment characteristics of nontraditional undergraduates: 2011–12. Web Tables. NCES 2015-025. National Center for Education Statistics.
Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81(3), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002
Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem‐based learning: some explanatory notes. Medical Education, 27(5), 422–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00296.x
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006
Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102–120.
Stephenson, J. (Ed.). (2018). Teaching & learning online: New pedagogies for new technologies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315042527
To, J., & Carless, D. (2016). Making productive use of exemplars: Peer discussion and teacher guidance for positive transfer of strategies. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(6), 746–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014317
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, Y., Stein, D., & Shen, S. (2021). Students’ and teachers’ perceived teaching presence in online courses. Distance Education, 42(3), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1956304
Wu, H., & Leung, S. O. (2017). Can Likert scales be treated as interval scales?—A simulation study. Journal of Social Service Research, 43(4), 527–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2017.1329775
Wu, W. C. V., Hsieh, J. S. C., & Yang, J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning community in a flipped classroom enhances EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 142–157. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90002170
Xie, D., De Serio, L., Malakhov, A., & Matys, O. (2020). Memes and education: opportunities, approaches, and perspectives. Geopolitical, Social Security and Freedom Journal, 3(2), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.2478/gssfj-2020-0009
Zhao, N., & McDougall, D. (2005). Cultural factors affecting Chinese students’ participation in asynchronous online learning. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on e-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 2723–2729). AACE.