对高等教育在线讨论工具进行混合方法评估

IF 1.3 4区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS International Review of Economics Education Pub Date : 2024-07-14 DOI:10.1016/j.iree.2024.100298
{"title":"对高等教育在线讨论工具进行混合方法评估","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.iree.2024.100298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We present a mixed methods comparative assessment of three online discussion tools widely used in higher education. We combine different data types (quantitative, qualitative) and sources (usage data, survey responses) to assess Piazza, Padlet, and Blackboard discussion boards. We highlight and discuss the differences between, and relative merits of, the tools and report the preferences of students on a large introductory Economics unit for them. We summarise lessons learnt from using the tools and make recommendations to engender greater student engagement with online discussion spaces.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45496,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Economics Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477388024000161/pdfft?md5=fa53615608b6dabbe802c17203cb738d&pid=1-s2.0-S1477388024000161-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A mixed methods evaluation of online discussion tools in higher education\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.iree.2024.100298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>We present a mixed methods comparative assessment of three online discussion tools widely used in higher education. We combine different data types (quantitative, qualitative) and sources (usage data, survey responses) to assess Piazza, Padlet, and Blackboard discussion boards. We highlight and discuss the differences between, and relative merits of, the tools and report the preferences of students on a large introductory Economics unit for them. We summarise lessons learnt from using the tools and make recommendations to engender greater student engagement with online discussion spaces.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45496,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Economics Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477388024000161/pdfft?md5=fa53615608b6dabbe802c17203cb738d&pid=1-s2.0-S1477388024000161-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Economics Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477388024000161\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Economics Education","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477388024000161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们采用混合方法对高等教育中广泛使用的三种在线讨论工具进行了比较评估。我们结合了不同的数据类型(定量、定性)和来源(使用数据、调查反馈),对 Piazza、Padlet 和 Blackboard 讨论板进行了评估。我们强调并讨论了这些工具之间的差异和相对优点,并报告了学生在一个大型经济学入门单元中对这些工具的偏好。我们总结了使用这些工具的经验教训,并就如何提高学生对在线讨论空间的参与度提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A mixed methods evaluation of online discussion tools in higher education

We present a mixed methods comparative assessment of three online discussion tools widely used in higher education. We combine different data types (quantitative, qualitative) and sources (usage data, survey responses) to assess Piazza, Padlet, and Blackboard discussion boards. We highlight and discuss the differences between, and relative merits of, the tools and report the preferences of students on a large introductory Economics unit for them. We summarise lessons learnt from using the tools and make recommendations to engender greater student engagement with online discussion spaces.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.80%
发文量
26
审稿时长
28 days
期刊最新文献
Measuring economic graph competence Turn the camera on to get better grade: Evidence from a field experiment Environmental economics in the wild: Using long-form journalism and other mass media in the classroom Investigating the link between students’ learning intentions and their learning outcomes: A clustered randomised controlled trial A mixed methods evaluation of online discussion tools in higher education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1