| dc.description.abstract | Due to the development of e-learning technology and the popularity of Web 2.0 concepts, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) strategies and teaching activities have been widely applied in many online learning communities. In CSCL environments, peer dialogue and interaction can encourage students to review their use of cognitive strategies, enhance interpersonal social skills, and help to construct knowledge.
In online learning environments, discussion teaching methods, which are often used as an interactive teaching strategy by instructors, include synchronous and asynchronous discussions. Related literature shows that synchronous and asynchronous discussion methods have different advantages and disadvantage, but very little literature focuses on the environmental framework of integrating the two discussion devices, as well as the research topics of the learning process. Secondly, the online learning community structure in the everyday Internet community can enhance motivation and effectiveness in learning. Therefore, this study will attempt to develop the ‘Seamless Online Learning the Integrated Discussion (SOLID)’ system that integrates the commonly-used synchronous discussion device (i.e., MSN Messenger) and the asynchronous discussion environment (i.e., Facebook Group).
This study is divided into two sub-studies: Study 1 explores the use of the SOLID in the learning process of problem solving-based discussion activity and project-based discussion activity. Since the problem solving-based and project-based teaching strategies are widely applied for teaching and learning, this study compares these two teaching strategies applied to the learning processes of the teaching activities based on the seamless discussion environment in order to understand their characteristics and limitations. In addition, related literature states that the project-based activity is a more realistic and situational problem-solving activity, which demands more peer coordination and is more complex than the simple problem solving-based strategies. Therefore, Study 2 addresses the limitations found in the behavioral process of project making elicited in Study 1, as well as modify and refine the project-based teaching activity. Study 2 also conducts a lengthier and multidimensional analysis to acquire a deeper understanding of the effectiveness and the limitations of the advanced SOLID project-based teaching and learning activities.
In order to understand students’ device usage and learning behavior in the two studies based on SOLID environment, both sequential and statistical analyses are applied to understand the differences and correlations between group collaboration discussion quality, project quality, cognitive processing phases, knowledge construction and tools selected.
Through pertinent analysis and discussion, this study proposed the following conclusions. At first, cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction in the discussion activities based on SOLID system could indeed stimulate greater diversified behavioral patterns in cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction. Secondly, the proportion of off-topic behavior was high in various activities, which is consistent with the results of previously mentioned studies. The study also found that while these discussions and learning activities had no direct correlations, they may have a positive impact on one another. Thirdly, the advanced project-based discussion activity on the whole better elicited correlations between the group collaboration discussion quality and project quality. Fourthly, this study discussed the correlations between group collaboration discussion quality, project quality, cognitive processing phases and knowledge construction. This study found that the project-based discussion activity pointed out multiple significant correlations; however, the advanced project-based discussion activity had no this phenomenon. It encourages more in-depth exploration. Finally, regarding the proportional distribution of synchronous and asynchronous strategies, most of the groups used the asynchronous discussion and mixed discussion in the three discussion activities. Regardless of the types of discussion and activity, although not all groups used the mixed discussion model, those who did nevertheless had better project quality and group collaboration discussion quality.
| en_US |