Misplaced Pages

Online discussion platform

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

An online discussion platform is an online platform that allows for, or is built specifically for, online discussion.

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Internet forum. (Discuss) Proposed since November 2024.

History

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2017)
See also: Web 2.0 § History, Blog § History, Internet forum § History, and Wiki § History

In 1979 students from Duke University created the first online discussion platform with Usenet.

Uses

Online discussion platforms can engage people in collective reflection and exchanging perspectives and cross-cultural understanding.

Public display of ideas can encourage intersubjective meaning making.

Online discussion platforms may be an important structural means for effective large-scale participation.

In education

See also: Educational technology, Edutainment, and Massive open online course

Online discussion platforms can play a role in education. In recent years, online discussion platform have become a significant part of not only distance education but also in campus-based settings.

The proposed interactive e-learning community (iELC) is a platform that engages physics students in online and classroom learning tasks. In brief classroom discussions fundamental physics formulas, definitions and concepts are disclosed, after which students participate in the iELC form discussion and utilize chat and dialogue tools to improve their understanding of the subject. The teacher then discusses selected forum posts in the subsequent classroom session.

Classroom online discussion platforms are one type of such platforms.

Rose argues that the basic motivation for the development of e–learning platforms is efficiency of scale — teaching more students for less money.

A study found that learners will enhance the frequencies of course discussion and actively interact with e-learning platform when e-learning platform integrates the curriculum reward mechanism into learning activities.

In smart cities

"City townhall" includes a participation platform for policy-making in Rotterdam.

In 2022, United Nations reported that D-Agree Afghanistan is used as a digital and smart city solutions in Afghanistan. D-Agree, is a discussion support platform with artificial intelligence–based facilitation. The discussion trees in D-Agree, inspired by issue-based information system, contain a combination of four types of elements: issues, ideas, pros, and cons. The software extracts a discussion's structure in real time based on IBIS, automatically classifying all the sentences.

Streamlining

Online discussion platforms may be designed and improved to streamline discussions for efficiency, usefulness and quality. For instance voting, targeted notifications, user levels, gamification, subscriptions, bots, discussion requirements, structurization, layout, sorting, linking, feedback-mechanisms, reputation-features, demand-signaling features, requesting-features, visual highlighting, separation, curation, tools for real-time collaboration, tools for mobilization of humans and resources, standardization, data-processing, segmentation, summarization, moderation, time-intervals, categorization/tagging, rules and indexing can be leveraged in synergy to improve the platform.

In 2013 Sarah Perez claimed that the best platform for online discussion doesn't yet exist, noting that comment sections could be more useful if they showed "which comments or shares have resonated and why" and which "understands who deserves to be heard".

Online platforms don't intrinsically guarantee informed citizen input. Research demonstrates that such spaces can even undermine deliberative participation when they allow hostile, superficial and misinformed content to dominate the conversation (see also: Internet troll, shitposting). A necessary mechanism that enables these platforms to yield informed citizen debate and contribution to policy is deliberation. It is argued that the challenge lies in creating an online context that does not merely aggregate public input but promotes informed public discussion that may benefit the policy-making process.

Online citizen communication has been studied for an evaluations of how deliberative their content is and how selective perception and ideological fragmentation play a role in them (see also: filter bubble). One sub-branch of online deliberation research is dedicated to the development of new platforms that "facilitate deliberative experiences that surpass currently available options".

See also

References

  1. Wang, Mo (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Retirement. OUP USA. ISBN 9780199746521. Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  2. Deng, Liping; Chen, Yang-Hsueh; Li, Sandy C. (23 January 2017). "Supporting cross-cultural online discussion with formal and informal platforms: a case between Hong Kong and Taiwan". Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. 12 (1): 5. doi:10.1186/s41039-017-0050-z. ISSN 1793-7078. PMC 6302850. PMID 30613254.
  3. O'Malley, Claire (2009). Computer Support Collaborative Learining Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings. Lulu.com. ISBN 9781615841370. Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  4. ^ Manosevitch, Edith; Steinfeld, Nili; Lev-On, Azi (26 November 2014). "Promoting online deliberation quality: cognitive cues matter". Information, Communication & Society. 17 (10): 1177–1195. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.899610. ISSN 1369-118X. S2CID 145777013.
  5. The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2013, Volume 2. Lulu.com. 23 April 2014. ISBN 9781483406671. Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  6. Cheung, Simon K. S.; Kwok, Lam-for; Yang, Harrison; Fong, Joseph; Kwan, Reggie (29 June 2015). Hybrid Learning: Innovation in Educational Practices - 8th | Simon K.S. Cheung | Springer. Springer. ISBN 9783319206202. Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  7. Wong, Su Luan; Abu Bakar, Kamariah (1 August 2009). "Qualitative findings of students' perception on practice of self-regulated strategies in online community discussion" (PDF). Computers & Education. 53 (1): 94–103. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.021.
  8. Zheng, Binbin; Warschauer, Mark (2015). "Participation, interaction, and academic achievement in an online discussion environment". Computers & Education. 84: 78–89. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.008. Retrieved 27 July 2017.
  9. Coopman, Stephanie J. (17 May 2009). "A critical examination of Blackboard's e-learning environment". First Monday. 14 (6). doi:10.5210/fm.v14i6.2434. Retrieved 26 July 2017.
  10. Lan, Yu-Feng; Yang, Chia-Lung (May 2009). "A practical approach to encourage students participation in asynchronous online discussions based on expectancy theory". 2009 IEEE International Conference on Virtual Environments, Human-Computer Interfaces and Measurements Systems. pp. 271–276. doi:10.1109/VECIMS.2009.5068907. ISBN 978-1-4244-3808-2. S2CID 23457961.
  11. Janssen, Marijn; Kuk, George; Wagenaar, René W. (1 April 2008). "A survey of Web-based business models for e-government in the Netherlands". Government Information Quarterly. 25 (2): 202–220. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.06.005.
  12. Regional Commissions report on the progress on the Implementation of the New Urban Agenda (2019-2022) (PDF) (Report). United Nations. 2022. p. 19.
  13. The Transition of Asian and Pacific Cities to a Sustainable Future:Accelerating Action for Sustainable Urbanization (PDF) (Report). Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 2022. p. 23.
  14. ^ Hadfi, Rafik; Haqbeen, Jawad; Sahab, Sofia; Ito, Takayuki (August 2021). "Argumentative conversational agents for online discussions". Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering. 30 (4): 450–464. doi:10.1007/s11518-021-5497-1. PMC 8143987. PMID 34054250.
  15. Perez, Sarah (22 February 2013). "The Best Platform For Online Discussion Doesn't Exist Yet". TechCrunch. Retrieved 27 July 2017.
  16. Freelon, Deen (1 May 2015). "Discourse architecture, ideology, and democratic norms in online political discussion". New Media & Society. 17 (5): 772–791. doi:10.1177/1461444813513259. ISSN 1461-4448. S2CID 37565851.
Categories: