This document discusses a research project being conducted by Dr. Brenda Bagwell and Dr. Lori Poole at CSU-Global Campus to analyze online class discussions. The research has two phases: Phase I examines how discussion prompts and instructor interactions impact student posts, and Phase II analyzes what Bloom's cognitive levels students demonstrate in their posts and if this deepens over time. Preliminary results of Phase I found that discussion prompt type influences post content and interactions. Phase II initial findings show students are often at remembering and understanding levels, though prompts aiming for higher levels did see some applying and analyzing. The research aims to help improve online discussions and determine if courses are achieving intended learning outcomes.

1. DELVING INTO ONLINE
DISCUSSIONS TO DETERMINE
WHAT WORKS BEST (OR BETTER)
Dr. Brenda Bagwell, Faculty Development Trainer and Researcher
Dr. Lori Poole, Program Coordinator and Research Initiative Coordinator

2. CSU-Global Campus: Brief History
•Nation’s first, independent, 100%
online public university
•Created to serve adult learners in
completing their degrees
•85% of faculty members have terminal
degrees; all faculty members at the
graduate level have a terminal degree

3. Multi-Layered Courses
• Readings (textbook, articles, online)
• Interactive Lecture Pages
•DISCUSSIONS
• Mastery Exercises
• Critical Thinking Assignments
• Portfolio Paper

4. Research Project Questions
PHASE I:
What is going on in our class discussions?
How does instructor and student
interaction affect the class discussions?
PHASE II:
Are we really working through the
Bloom’s levels in our discussions
as the courses are designed to?

5. Online Class Discussions
• CSU-Global Class Discussions:
One discussion question per week about a
topic related to the week’s learning outcomes
in each 8-week long courses.
• Outcomes: Outcomes refer to the learning
goals at each level—at the program level, at
the course level, and at the module level
(referred to as Learning Outcomes).

6. Research Project: Phase I
• Determine if the type of overall discussion
prompt impacts discussion postings and
interactions
• Categorize the types of discussion posts
students are making
• Evaluate how instructor replies impact
discussion participation and course evaluations

7. Research Project: Phase I
Determine if the type of overall discussion
prompt impacts discussion postings and
interactions
• Bullet point the discussion prompt
• Class expectations
• Instructor seeding
• Extra discussion prompts for class
• Summary discussion posting by instructor
Jarosewich, T., Vargo, L., Salzman, J., Lenhart, L., Krosnick, L., Vance, K., & Roskos, K. (2010). Say What?
The Quality of Discussion Board Postings in Online Professional Development. New Horizons in
Education, 58(3), 118-132.

8. Research Project: Phase I
Categorize the types of discussion posts
students are making
• Categories: appreciation, questioning, prompting,
expressing agreement/disagreement, elaboration, opinions
• Students building community
• Most reach module-level outcomes
Lim, S., Cheung, W., & Hew, K. (2011). Critical Thinking in Asynchronous Online Discussion: An
Investigation of Student Facilitation Techniques. New Horizons In Education, 59(1), 52-65.

9. Research Project: Phase I
Evaluate how instructor replies impact
discussion participation and course evaluations
• Categories: appreciation, questioning, prompting,
restatement/re-link with challenge prompting, expressing
agreement/disagreement, elaboration, explanations
• Teaching methods/tips for discussions
• Class discussion set-up tips and techniques
• Outcomes: program level, course level, module level
Lim, S., Cheung, W., & Hew, K. (2011). Critical Thinking in Asynchronous Online Discussion: An
Investigation of Student Facilitation Techniques. New Horizons In Education, 59(1), 52-65.

10. Online Class Discussions
• Bloom’s is a classification of
levels of intellectual
behavior important in
learning.
• All CSU-Global courses
employ Bloom’s verbs in all
kinds of learning outcomes,
with the intent for students
to work through the levels.

11. Bloom’s Taxonomy
Remembering: can the student
recall/remember information?
Understanding: can the student
explain ideas or concepts?
Applying: can the student use the
information in a new way?
Analyzing: can the student
distinguish between different parts?
Evaluating: can the student justify a
stand or decision?
Creating: can the student create new
product or point of view?

12. Research Project: Phase II
• What Bloom’s level are students reaching in
initial posting?
• Is there any relation to the cognitive level
reached and the overall discussion prompt?
• Does the cognitive level deepen throughout
the term?
Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging Critical Thinking in Online Threaded Discussions. Journal of Educators
Online, 6(1).

13. Research Project: Phase II
• What Bloom’s level are students reaching in initial posting?
• Is there any relation to the cognitive level reached and the
overall discussion prompt?
Initial Posting Overall Discussion Prompt
M1
(34 participants;
176 postings)
Remembering, Understanding
(some moving toward Applying)
Understanding, Applying
M4
(34 participants;
177 postings)
Applying, Analyzing Applying, Analyzing
M8
(31 participants;
150 postings)
Applying, Analyzing
(some moving toward Evaluate)
Analyzing, Evaluating

14. Research Project: Phase II
• Does the cognitive level deepen throughout
the term?
• Peaked in middle, but dropped in the end (for both
students and instructors)
• BUT…often the level noted in the course
outline/development was not the level actually
reached

15. Research Project: Phase II
Does student interaction lead to a higher level? When fellow students reply and/or ask
questions is a deeper level attained? Do instructor prompts and questions lead to a
higher level? When students are asked questions by the instructor is a deeper level
attained? Does the cognitive level deepen throughout the term?
• Average levels are remembering and analysis
• Replies varied from student to student
• Peaked in middle, but dropped in the end (for both
students and instructors)
• BUT…often the level noted in the course
outline/development was not the level actually
reached
Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging Critical Thinking in Online Threaded Discussions. Journal of Educators
Online, 6(1).

16. Q&A
Sharing Time!

17. References
Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging Critical Thinking in Online Threaded Discussions. Journal
of Educators Online, 6(1).
DeLoach, S. B., & Greenlaw, S. A. (2007). Effectively Moderating Electronic Discussions.
Journal of Economic Education, 38(4), 419-434.
Jarosewich, T., Vargo, L., Salzman, J., Lenhart, L., Krosnick, L., Vance, K., & Roskos, K.
(2010). Say What? The Quality of Discussion Board Postings in Online Professional
Development. New Horizons in Education, 58(3), 118-132.
Lim, S., Cheung, W., & Hew, K. (2011). Critical Thinking in Asynchronous Online
Discussion: An Investigation of Student Facilitation Techniques. New Horizons In
Education, 59(1), 52-65.
Matheson, R. R., Wilkinson, S. C., & Gilhooly, E. E. (2012). Promoting critical thinking and
collaborative working through assessment: combining patchwork text and online
discussion boards. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 49(3), 257-267.
doi:10.1080/14703297.2012.703023