Przejdź do treści

Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach

Wydział Sztuki i Nauk o Edukacji


full-text article

DOI: 10.34916/el.2019.11.28

Anna Sajdak-Burska, Marek Kościelniak Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Abstract: E-forum is widely recognized to be an effective method of students’ learning. Research on processes and phenomena in synchronous (SOD) and asynchronous (AOD) discussion at e-forum date back to the first years of the new Millennium and explore both the role and tasks of the moderator as well as complex preconditions of a productive and satisfying students’ participation. The present article focusses on moderation of e-forum discussion and in particular, on two crucial and challenging moments in e-forum moderation: opening and closing. The co-authors of this paper have constructed their perspective on e-forum moderation upon analysis of the role of discussion in the teaching/learning process in face to face, e-learning, and b-learning settings. The final remarks and postulates follow conclusions from the original research study.

Keywords: e-forum moderation, online discussion forum, blended learning, e-learning, discussion, teacher role, student learning, teaching/learning process, AOD, starting a discussion forum, closing down a discussion forum


  • Andersen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249–257.
  • Baker, C. (2010). The Impact of Instructor Immediacy and Presence for Online Affective Learning, Cognition, and Motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30.
  • Baker, D. L. (2013). Advancing Best Practices for Asynchronous Online Discussion. Business Education Innovation Journal, 5(1), June 2013, 11-21.
  • Baran, E., Correia, A., Thompson, A. (2011) Transforming Online Teaching Practice: Critical Analysis of the Literature on the Roles and Competencies of Online Teachers. Distance Education, 3(32), 421–439.
  • Bereźnicki, F. (2001). Dydaktyka kształcenia ogólnego [The general didactics]. Kraków: Impuls.
  • Berge, Z. L. (2008). Changing Instructor’s Roles in Virtual Worlds. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 407-414.
  • Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.
  • Brewer, S. i Klein, J. D. (2006). Types of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 331-354.
  • Chan, J., Hew, K., Cheung, W. (2009). Asynchronous online discussion thread development: examining growth patterns and peer‐facilitation techniques. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 438–452.
  • Cheung, W. S. and Hew, K. F. (2006). Examining students’ creative and critical thinking and student to student interactions in an asynchronous online discussion environment: A Singapore case study. Asia Pacific Cybereducation Journal, 2(2).
  • Chmielewski, K., Chomczyński, P., Głowacka, E., Mytkowski, D., Naftyński, M., Niedzielska, E. i Zieliński, W. (2013). Diagnoza stanu kształcenia na odległość w Polsce i wybranych krajach Unii Europejskiej [The diagnosis of distance education in Poland and chosen countries of European Union]. Warszawa: KOWEZiU.
  • de Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., Simons, R.-J. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35(3) (May 2007), 257-286.
  • de Leng, B. A., Dolmans, D. H., Jöbsis, R., Muijtjens, A. M., van der Vleuten, C. P. (2009). Exploration of an e-learning model to foster critical thinking on basic science concepts during work placements. Computers & Education, 53, 1–13.
  • Díaz, A. L. i Blázquez, E. F. (2009). Are the Functions of Teachers in e-Learning and Face-to-Face Learning Environments Really Different? Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 331–343.
  • Dooley, K. E. i Wickersham, L. E. (2007). Distraction, domination, and disconnection in whole-class, online discussions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 1-8.
  • Echeverria, L., Cobos, R. i Morales, M. (2013). Designing and evaluating collaborative learning scenarios in Moodle LMS courses. Cooperative design, visualization, and engineering (61-66). Berlin – Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Fung, Y. Y. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135-149.
  • Gall, M. D., Gillett, M. (1980). The Discussion Method in Classroom Teaching. Theory Into Practice 19(2). Teaching Methods: Learning Applications, 98-103.
  • Gao, F., Zhang, T. and Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 469–483.
  • Gao, F., Zhang, T., and Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3)/2013, 469–483.
  • Gilbert, P. K. and Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18.
  • Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J., Steeples, C., Tickner, S. (2001). Competencies for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology, Research and Development 49(1), 65-72.
  • Goodyear, P. (2002). Teaching online. In N. Hativa and P. Goodyear (eds), Teacher thinking, beliefs and. knowledge in higher education (79-101). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Guldberg, K. and Pilkington, R. (2007). Tutor roles in Facilitating Reflection on Practice Through Online Discussion. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), Technology and Change in Educational Practice (January), 61-72.
  • Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S. and Ling Ng, C. S. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), November 2010,
  • Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567-589.
  • Hull, D. M., Saxon, T. F. (2009). Negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge: An experimental analysis of asynchronous online instruction. Computers & Education, 52(3), 624-639.
  • Joyce, B., Calhoun, E., Hopkins, D. (1997). Models of learning – tools for teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Kościelniak, M. (2004). Zrozumieć Rogersa. Studium koncepcji pedagogicznych Carla R. Rogersa [Understanding Rogers. A study of Carl R. Rogers’ pedagogical conceptions]. Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
  • Lan, F. L., Tsai, P. W., Yang, S. H. and Hung, C. L. (2012). Comparing the social knowledge construction behavioural patterns of problem-based online asynchronous discussion in e/m-learning environments. Computer & Education, 59(4), 1122–1135.
  • Liu, C. and Tsai, C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627-639.
  • Liu, X., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Lee, S. i Su, B. (2005). Exploring Four Dimensions of Online Instructor Roles: A Program Level Case Study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 29-48.
  • Loncar, M., Barrett, N. E. and Liu, G.-Z. (2014). Towards the refinement of forum and asynchronous online discussion in educational contexts worldwide: Trends and investigative approaches within a dominant research paradigm. Computers & Education 73, 93–110.
  • Maher Palenque, S. and DeCosta, M. (2015). Talking Techne: Techniques to Establish An Active Online Discussion Forum. Journal of Instructional Research, 4, 83-89.
  • Mazzolini, M. and Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education 40(3), 237-253.
  • Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., and Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33(1), 5–30.
  • Neville, B. (2006). Educating Psyche: Emotion, imagination, and the unconscious in learning. Greensborough: Flat Chat Press.
  • Niemierko, B. (1990). Pomiar sprawdzający w dydaktyce. Teoria i zastosowania. [Benchmark testing measurement. Theory and implementation]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
  • Niksa-Rynkiewicz, T. (2017). Podejście nauczycieli akademickich do rozwoju narzędzi e-learningowych na wyższych uczelniach technicznych [The approach of technical university teachers to the development of e-learning tools.]. EduAkcja. Magazyn edukacji elektronicznej 1(14), 90-96.
  • Okoń, W. (1998). Wprowadzenie do dydaktyki ogólnej [An introduction to the general didactics]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Żak.
  • Perkins, C. and Murphy, E. (2006). Identifying and Measuring Individual Engagement in Critical Thinking in Online Discussions: An Exploratory Case Study. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 298–307.
  • Petty, G. (2014). Teaching today. A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Redlarski, K. and Garnik, I. (2014). Zastosowanie systemów e-learningu w szkolnictwie wyższym [E-learning systems implementation in university education]. In B. A. Basińska and I. Garnik (eds), Zarządzanie informacyjnym środowiskiem pracy [Information work environment magagement] (77-94). Gdańsk: Wydział Zarządzania i Ekonomii Politechniki Gdańskiej.
  • Sajdak, A. (2013). Paradygmaty kształcenia studentów i wspierania rozwoju nauczycieli akademickich. Teoretyczne podstawy dydaktyki akademickiej [Paradigms of student education and of supporting university teachers’ professional development. Theoeretical foundations of university didactics]. Kraków: Impuls.
  • Sajdak, A. (2017). Aktywizowanie uczniów w poszerzonym środowisku uczenia się – możliwości wykorzystywania forum dyskusyjnego [Student activation in an extended learning environment – discussion forum implementation]. Rocznik Lubuski, 43(1). 163-174.
  • Sajdak, A., Kościelniak, M. (2014). Teacher competencies and skills for the enhancement of learners motivation within constructivism-based blended learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 24(3/4), 219-236.
  • Theall, M., Wager, W. and Svinicki, M. (2019, 06 21). Gaining A Basic Understanding of the Subject. The IDEA Center Kansas State University. (accessed on 27 May 2019).
  • Thomas, J. (2013). Exploring the use of asynchronous online discussion in health care education: A literature review. Computers & Education 69 (2013), 199–215.
  • Wang, Q. (2008). Student-facilitators’ Role in Moderating Online Discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology. 39(5), 859-874.
  • Wasko, M. M. and Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does:” Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 159-173.
  • Yilmaz, E. O. and Yurdugul, H. (2016). Design and Effects of a Concept Focused Discussion Environment in E-Learning. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 63, 353-374.
  • Young, S. and Bruce, M. A. (2011). Classroom Community and Student Engagement in Online Courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2). 219-230.
return to top