Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education: A Complete Guide to Building a Dynamic Online Discourse Community (Springer Texts in Education) 3031410378, 9783031410376

Citation preview

Springer Texts in Education

Yu-Mei Wang

Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education A Complete Guide to Building a Dynamic Online Discourse Community

Springer Texts in Education

Springer Texts in Education delivers high-quality instructional content for graduates and advanced graduates in all areas of Education and Educational Research. The textbook series is comprised of self-contained books with a broad and comprehensive coverage that are suitable for class as well as for individual self-study. All texts are authored by established experts in their fields and offer a solid methodological background, accompanied by pedagogical materials to serve students such as practical examples, exercises, case studies etc. Textbooks published in the Springer Texts in Education series are addressed to graduate and advanced graduate students, but also to researchers as important resources for their education, knowledge and teaching. Please contact Yoka Janssen at Yoka.Janssen@ springer.com or your regular editorial contact person for queries or to submit your book proposal.

Yu-Mei Wang

Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education A Complete Guide to Building a Dynamic Online Discourse Community

Yu-Mei Wang School of Education University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, AL, USA

ISSN 2366-7672 ISSN 2366-7680 (electronic) Springer Texts in Education ISBN 978-3-031-41037-6 ISBN 978-3-031-41038-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

To my parents, Zhaoqi Wang and Shuzhen Xu, who taught me the value of education

Preface

As a graduate student, I never liked group discussions, nor did I feel I could learn from them. Being a shy and anxious person, I rarely spoke in class. Seminars were my least favorite courses. I often thought that a professor was not prepared for class whenever it was announced that we were to have group discussions. However, about halfway through my doctoral program, we were notified that the program was being phased out and I had two years to finish all courses and my dissertation. I was desperate. To cope, I joined a study group with three other doctoral students who were in the same boat. We met once a week to report our progress in writing up our dissertations, discussing problems and lending support to each other. At the time, I did not realize this was a turning point in how I perceived group discussions. All four of us completed our dissertations and graduated. Through my experiences at that time, I saw the value of group discussions in terms of emotional support as well as intellectual enlightenment. After graduation, we four worked at different universities but kept in contact with each other, exploring teaching methods, exchanging research information, sharing anecdotes and complaints about our work. Encouraged by my experience in the study group, I deliberately integrated discussions into my teaching. Nevertheless, my efforts often failed to achieve my anticipated outcomes. Students were not engaged. Little knowledge was constructed. At the beginning, I thought that the problem was that the topic might not be interesting to students, or my failure was due to the lack of facilitation skills. I worked hard for improvement. It helped, but not always. Sometimes I was successful—students seemed interested and engaged. However, at other times it seemed I just fell on my face—the silence from students was embarrassing. The entire process felt like flying a kite: when the wind blows steadily, the kite soars across the sky but if the wind changes or dies down, the kite falls dead on the ground. I was puzzled and frustrated by the seeming capriciousness of that pedagogical wind. As learning management systems such as Blackboard and Canvas became more common on university campuses, universities started pushing online programs and I was asked to offer some online courses. I understood that discussion is an essential component of online courses and indispensable in building online learning communities, but I continued to struggle in leading student online discussion. In

vii

viii

Preface

searching for resources to enhance my skills, I realized that most resources simply emphasize the instructor’s role in facilitating online discussion. Few resources touched on other aspects of online discussion, for example, the instructor’s role as a designer or a regulator. One day, I received a call from Victor Chen who was one of the dissertation group members and was teaching at a university in Southeast Asia. The polar opposite to me in terms of engaging in discussions, Victor was always relaxed and felt at home expressing his thoughts and I was often uncomfortable to speak up and quiet in class. He sounded very excited in the call because he had just led a successful student online discussion. Victor invited me to join him in a design-based study investigating factors surrounding the design of online discussion. Design-based research combines systematic design, implementation of the design in real classroom settings, and evaluation of the design of a learning intervention. The results are directly fed back to the next cycle of the design. What makes design-based research very appealing is that it addresses a problem of traditional pedagogical research approaches that split research and teaching. The ability to field-test designs and incorporate them to improve teaching practices is very attractive. Through cycles of design, implementation, investigation, and re-design, I became aware that online discussion is a complicated endeavor, requiring a systematic approach. Reflecting upon my journey, I could see that online discussion requires instructors play multiple roles, not just the single role as facilitator. The idea for this book was born at that moment. I now present this book to all professionals about to embark on the same journey as I did and hope you find it helpful. Online discussion embraces roles that take time and effort to master. I trust this book gets you started on a journey of adventure and will be your worthwhile guide and companion during the journey. Birmingham, USA

Yu-Mei Wang

Acknowledgements

Writing a book is a monumental undertaking that involves the help and collaboration of many people. Although it is impossible for me to recognize them all individually here, I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all of the friends, colleagues and students who helped me along the way. However, I would like to note special thanks to several key people: Professor Peter Harmer, my mentor and friend, who encouraged and pushed me through the entire process. His questioning helped me to see blind spots, clear up ambiguities, and strengthen arguments, and his reviewing and editing of every chapter was extremely helpful. Professor Der-Thanq Victor Chen has been my research collaborator and close friend for more than 30 years. His expertise in the pedagogy of online discussion and willingness to share his experiences with me when I decided to write this book have been crucial in completing this project. I want to express my gratitude to him for his contributions to this book as well as for his lifelong friendship. I am particularly indebted to Prof. Gerry Bogen and his late wife Judy for their unconditional support in my academic pursuits, from providing a home for me while I was competing my doctoral studies to his unreserved encouragement that dispelled my worries and uncertainties about undertaking this book. I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Lois Christensen and Dr. Leigh Zeitz for their dedicated time, professionalism, and valuable input in the initial review of the book, as well as to the two anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments and suggestions greatly contributed to the overall improvement of this book. The support from the editorial staff at Springer was instrumental in guiding me through the publication process. In particular, I would like to thank Natalie Rieborn, for her help and support with the book initially, and Anita Rachmat and Helen van der Stelt for their assistance in bringing it across the finish line. I would like to acknowledge the editors and publisher of the Journal of Educational Technology Systems for their generous permission to use portions of two of my published articles in this book. Finally, I am fortunate beyond measure to have a close-knit extended family. Their love is the source of my strength and I am extremely grateful for their support in all ways. ix

Introduction

Why This Book? The purpose of this book is to provide a complete guide for professionals in conducting online discussions. Online learning has been expanding exponentially and its growth is expected to continue. Currently, one out of three students in higher education (more than 7 million students) are enrolled in at least one online course. With the rapid development of online technologies, online discussion has become an essential component in student learning across course delivery formats—online, blended, and face-to-face, which places an onus on education professionals to develop the skills necessary to lead productive online discussions. Although academia fully embraces the benefits of online discussions, a search on Amazon, Google Scholar and multiple online book clubs shows that while there are numerous works available on e-learning in general in which online discussion may be a component, currently there are few books completely focused on online discussions. The lack of such resources is a concern as leading students in online discussions is a complex process for which professionals must master a range of proficiencies to be successful. Therefore, this book takes a comprehensive and systematic approach in covering three elements of online discussions: design, facilitation, and assessment. These three elements are indispensable in establishing and supporting a productive online discourse community. Design lays down a solid foundation upon which an online discourse community is built. Without robust design, online discussion has no chance to grow and develop. Facilitation is necessary to nurture and sustain a vibrant online discourse community. Just-in-time and just-in-need facilitation strategies to stimulate discussion while maintaining a student-centered discourse environment are crucial features of this concept. Assessment is the key factor for ensuring learning objectives are achieved through online discussion and requires a holistic approach consisting of three components: assessment of learning, assessment for learning, and assessment as learning, to provide a comprehensive profile of student learning performance and to increase the validity and fidelity of assessment of online discussions.

xi

xii

Introduction

As I have been conducting design-based research on online discussions for much of my career, I strived to ensure that this book was theory-framed and evidence-based. But I am also a practitioner, and a key focus was to make it practice-oriented. Each chapter is grounded in theoretical frameworks, supported with research findings, and illustrated with examples of best practices. Designbased research has allowed me to situate my design in educationally sound pedagogies, implement the design to observe student performance in authentic learning contexts, and apply robust research methodologies to investigate the learning effects. The insights and information gleaned from design-based research guides re-design of online discussion activities. Many online discussion activities in this book have been field-tested in my courses, revised, and refined through multiple cycles of design, implementation, investigation, and redesign. The insights, experiences, and reflections I have acquired as a designer, practitioner, and researcher permeate this book, making it an excellent resource for professionals looking for ways to maximize student learning through online discussions.

How is it Organized? This book contains nine chapters, structured around the three core concepts: design, facilitation, and assessment. Chapter 1 This chapter utilizes historical perspectives, learning theories, and case analysis to illustrate how students can master rigorous curriculum content via discussion. Chapter 2 This chapter illustrates how to build virtual learning spaces to promote a dynamic online discourse community. Chapter 3 This chapter details four components of the design process for online discussions that will engage and enlighten students using the analogy of gardening for better understanding: (1) Planting a good seed; (2) Attending to diverse designs; (3) Nurturing the seed; and (4) Harvesting products. Chapter 4 This chapter recommends four strategies for taping into commonality to bond students in group discussions: (1) Make it current; (2) Make it personal; (3) Make it big; and (4) Make it real/impactful. Chapter 5 This chapter addresses how to establish interdependent relationships to support group cohesion where members in a group depend on each other for success. Chapter 6 This chapter explains how to design rules to regulate student behavior in online discussions including student participation, interaction, and quality of postings. Chapter 7

Introduction

xiii

This chapter delineates how instructors can find a balance between relinquishing their power to students to nurture vigorous online discourse and maintaining their presence in online discussions to facilitate when and where needed. Chapter 8 This chapter walks instructors through the process of designing thoughtprovoking questions to stimulate online discussions. Chapter 9 This chapter proposes a holistic approach in assessing online discussions: (1) assessment of learning; (2) assessment for learning; (3) and assessment as learning.

Who is the Audience for This Book? This book is for professionals who are interested in developing the skills necessary to lead online discussions. College instructors, business trainers, and secondary school teachers in all disciplines and across various course delivery formats (online, blended, and face-to-face) will benefit in their efforts to integrate online discussions into their courses and trainings from this book. The book is also intended for graduate students (Masters or Doctorate) who are studying e-learning where online discussion is an indispensable component. It is also beneficial for professionals with varying levels of competence in conducting student online discussions. Beginners can follow it sequentially to develop comprehensive competencies and those with some experiences can use it selectively and focus on the skills they need to develop and master.

Contents

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical and Theoretical Groundings of Online Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . A Bit of History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When Online Discussion Meets Vygotsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mediation of Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The More Knowledgeable Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Learning Through Online Discussions—Case Analysis . . . . . . . . Case Analysis—Cognitive Engagement in Online Discussion . . . . . . . Beyond Text-Based Online Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artificial Intelligence and Online Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 4 4 8 8 10 11 11 13 16 17 19 19

2 Design to Engage Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design to Engage Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion Prompts—Planting a Good Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion for Real Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion through Multiple Voices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion amongst Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diverse Designs—Attending to Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scenario/Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Most Recent News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role Playing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 21 22 22 23 25 26 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 34

xv

xvi

Contents

Subject Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Experiences—Drawing on Inexhaustible Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . Emotional Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recognized Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Requiring a Tangible Product—Harvesting Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 35 37 38 39 40 42 46 47

3 Lay Down Groundwork: Forming, Accessing, and Inducting . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forming Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Balanced Groups: Assessing Student Strengths and Weaknesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polling Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accessing the Virtual Learning Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of the Online Discourse Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inducting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Icebreakers to Reinforce the Overall Goal of the Course . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49 49 50

4 Commonality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commonality in Online Discourse Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hard Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Success Story—a Bond that United Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attend to Commonality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Make It Current . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Make It Personal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Make It Big . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Make It Real/Impactful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63 63 64 65 67 68 68 70 72 73 75 75

50 50 51 51 52 54 55 55 55 56 56 57 60 61 62

Contents

xvii

5 Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interdependence Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Report—Collaboration Falls Apart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designing Challenging Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mutual Needs and Complementary Motives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77 77 78 79 81 81 83 85 92 93

6 Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of Rules in Learning Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Discussion Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designing Rules to Regulate Online Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cognitive Construction—Quality of Student Postings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95 95 96 98 100 101 104 109 113 114

7 Instructor as Facilitator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facilitating Online Discussion: The More, the Better? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Does the Research Say? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Perceptions on Teacher Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graduate Student Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Undergraduate Student Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher-Student Roles Redefined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When to Step In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Presence Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Making it Explicit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summarizing the Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Establishing a Teacher Space—Online Discussion Fireside . . . . . . . . . . E-mail Communication Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117 117 118 119 120 120 122 125 126 129 130 130 132 133 134 134

8 Questioning to Facilitate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questioning as a Way of Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benefits of Questioning for Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questioning in Online Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questioning to Transform Surface Learning to Deep Learning in Online Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

137 137 138 139 140 141

xviii

Contents

Essential Purposes of Questioning in Facilitating Online Discussion . . . Questioning to Make Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questioning to Facilitate Critical Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questioning to Open Student Minds to Multiple Perspectives . . . . . . . Questioning to Promote Actionable Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Considerations in Designing and Implementing Facilitating Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Toolbox of Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

146 146 149 152 154

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessment of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessment for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Rubrics in Assessment for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rubric Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Promoting the Students’ Role in Assessment for Learning . . . . . . . . . . Points for Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessment as Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Holistic Approach to Assess Online Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

163 163 164 170 171 172 179 180 181 187 188 189

157 159 160 161

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

1

Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion?

Abstract

On February 5, 2013, the Washington Post carries an interesting story recounting a journalist’s experience in taking an online course offered on MOOC (Massive Open Online Course). This free online course teaches how to design online courses.

Introduction On February 5, 2013, the Washington Post carries an interesting story recounting a journalist’s experience in taking an online course offered on MOOC (Massive Open Online Course). This free online course teaches how to design online courses. It turns out that 41,000 people have enrolled in the course. The course collapses when students are accessing a Google spreadsheet to sign up for discussion groups, since a Google spreadsheet could only handle 50 concurrent accesses. A cautionary tale. Nevertheless, this incident signals rapidly growing needs for taking and teaching online courses where online discussion is a core component. According to Seaman et al. (2018), online education grew steadily from 2002 to 2012 and this upward trend continued, with 1 out of every 3 college students enrolled in at least one online class, even as overall enrollment in US higher education declined from 2012 to 2016. Although Seaman et al. predicted the expansion of online learning in the 2020’s, they could not have foreseen the almost logarithmic growth necessitated by a global pandemic. In 2020, as I was working on this book, Covid-19 disrupted the usual ways of living and doing business across the globe, with education among the most impacted of social institutions. Almost overnight, faculty and students found themselves immersed in a virtual world as online learning became the sole avenue for continuing education.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y.-M. Wang, Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3_1

1

2

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion?

The sudden shift to emergency remote teaching (ERT) posed severe challenges for educators but the expedited adoption of online teaching, with online discussions fulfilling a central role, might now be seen as a silver lining, especially given that certain facets of online learning technology, such as video conferencing, proved their worth in enhancing student learning across various instructional modes to a much wider range of educators than may otherwise have occurred. For example, one of the most ubiquitous of these technologies was Zoom, a cloud-based video conferencing platform that enables real-time interactions among participants located remotely. It provides audio, video, and chat functions to facilitate student engagement in addition to features, including screen sharing, meeting archiving, the capacity to assign participants to breakout rooms for small-group discussions, and video discussions augmented by text chat. These features played a significant role in the widespread adoption of Zoom, not solely within online courses but also for hybrid and in-person learning environments, once pandemic restrictions were eased. Discussion is a critical dimension of student learning. Online discussion is “the heart and soul” of online courses (Bart, 2017), “the lifeblood” of student learning (Burns, 2015), the area where students are able to construct meaning (Garrison et al. 2001), and an essential component across all course delivery format, be it online or face to face or blended (Wang, 2019a). Educators have been enthusiastic about the potentials of online discussion in promoting student learning. As early as 1999, McLoughlin and Luca (1999) claimed that online discussion would introduce “a whole new educational domain, unique in its potential for interaction, participation and collaboration and a departure from face-to-face didactic paradigms of learning.” Moe than twenty years have passed since 1999, online discussion has been proliferating on university campuses in US. All the universities and colleges have adopted online learning management systems such as Blackboard or Canvas where discussion board is an inherent function. Facebook, Twitter, and Google doc have expanded the pool of tools for online discussion. Due to its unique affordances, online discussion is becoming an important component in courses of various delivery formats, be it online, or blended, or face-to-face at graduate, undergraduate, or even high school levels. Acknowledging the popularity of online discussion, Gernsbacher (2016) stated: “Online discussion boards are here, whether we like them or not. Whether we’re teaching completely online or adding online discussion to a face-to-face class, online discussion boards are increasingly becoming a staple of college courses” (Para 1). Although online discussion holds great potential to promote student learning, it does not transform student learning automatically. It falls on the shoulders of instructors to convert potentials to realities. Instructors are the ones to create, nurture, and sustain a healthy and vibrant online discourse community. However, do instructors buy in the value of online discussion as an effective learning tool? In a paper I wrote (Wang, 2023), I identified numerous factors that were negatively impacting the integration of online discussion as a productive learning tool. One of the findings was that many instructors did not consider online discussion/discussion a valuable learning tool and they did not believe that students

Online Discussion

3

learn, especially learn rigid curriculum, through online discussion. Many instructors include online discussion in their courses due to administrative requirements or peer pressures. The instructor’s belief underpins the way they conduct discussions in their courses, which, in turn, impacts student learning. If instructors believe that true learning is fostered in online discussion, they will weave it seamlessly into their courses to support student academic learning. However, if they harbor doubts, online discussion is likely to be reduced to being an ornament with no discernible pedagogical value. More crucially, instructor attitude impacts how students perceive the value of the activity and, consequently, affects their decision on how to participate. This chapter centers on this issue and attempts to answer the question of whether students learn rigorous curriculum content through online discussion. This chapter will cover historical perspectives, learning philosophies, and best practices from trenches to illustrate the value of online discussion in academic settings to assist instructors gain a thorough understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of online discussion and make the pedagogical shift to fully harvest its potential. Objectives Upon completing this chapter, you will acquire the following knowledge and skills: • Describe the history of the development of discussion as a teaching tool. • Explain how paradigm shifts in education rejuvenate discussion as a teaching tool in classrooms. • Align online discussion with Vygotsky’s social constructive learning theory in supporting student learning. • Analyze cognitive activities required of students when engaging in online discussion. • Articulate why students can learn rigorous curriculum through discussion.

Online Discussion Online discussion has transformed how discussion is conducted. With widespread application of online management system such as Blackboard, Canvas and MOOs, online discussion has been gaining widespread adoption in courses of various disciplines. Due to the aggressive development of online technologies, online discussion will continue to increase its role in student learning. Online discussion differs fundamentally from traditional face-to-face discussion in that it eliminates the time and place constraints imposed by classroom walls, potentially enhancing participation by offering students 24/7 access from virtually anywhere. Additionally, contrary to anxiety-inducing, face-to-face discussion, students can compose postings in a relaxing environment at their convenience. More importantly, online discussion provides more time for discussion to evolve and develop. Rather than being limited to a single class period, online discussion has

4

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion?

the potential to elicit more thoughtful, reflective, and productive postings, potentially increasing the depth and breadth of discussion. Students can even continue to post if they wish even after a discussion is officially closed. The asynchronous nature of online discussion allows students to interact easily with content, with each other, and with the instructor. A multitude of materials can be posted on a discussion board for students to access to facilitate dialogue—books, book chapters, journal papers, web links, video, and audio materials. Student interaction can involve one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many exchanges, situating knowledge construction in intensive and extensive social learning environments. As meaningful dialogue plays an essential role in student knowledge construction, online discussion provides a platform for participants to express, elaborate, clarify, interpret, debate, and negotiate in shared conversations and multiple perspectives contribute to the forming of student social cognition. The fact that online discussion is text-based is also viewed as an advantage because it “enables the combination of thinking and writing so necessary for the facilitation of critical thinking” (Klisc, 2017, p. 63) and “text-based communication may actually be preferable to oral communication when the objective is higher-order cognitive learning” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 91). The requirement to write in online discussion is a hedge against the impetuous and transitory nature of traditional face-to-face discussion as students can see their thoughts as they compose their contributions to a discussion and have time to tweak, twist, pinch, and mold them into the desired shape before they post for public scrutiny. Online discussion has significant potential to benefit student learning in academia. Its characteristics, discussed above, make it a unique tool for framing an interactive and dynamic learning environment within which students can carry out collaborative critical inquiries.

Historical and Theoretical Groundings of Online Discussion A Bit of History Although the history of online discussion is rather brief, discussion as a teaching method is as old as education itself.

Once upon a Time… More than two thousand years ago, Confucius founded the first school in China where he taught through dialogs with his students. Standing among his disciples, the great philosopher and educator would engage them in discussions on politics, ethics, moral standards, and philosophy of education. The discussions were openended and all students were allowed to freely articulate their thoughts, opinions, and arguments. For example, when discussing how to rule a country, every student assumed the role of a ruler and described how they would bring prosperity to the country. Dialogue on the most ideal model ensued among Confucius and his students. These discussions allowed the students to explore and elaborate on

Historical and Theoretical Groundings of Online Discussion

5

various current issues. Numerous important quotations from Confucius arose from these interactions: “To fail to speak with someone who can be engaged is to let that person go to waste; to speak with someone who cannot be engaged is to waste your words. The wise do not let people go to waste, but they do not waste their words either” (Confucius,1998, Book 15). After his death, his disciples collected his dialogues with students into Analects of Confucius, the most prestigious classic text studied through the centuries up to modern-day China. Following, in ancient Greece, Socrates, the founding father of Western philosophy, used inquisitive dialogue as his teaching method. The great philosopher would stand in the market and talk about his thoughts to his disciples circling around him. Instead of lecturing to his disciples, Socrates was very skilled in using questions to guide his disciples in searching for truth, with each question followed by another until all questions were exhausted and students achieved understanding. According to Socrates, interactive dialogues is the best way for knowledge acquisition. Interactive dialogues stimulate student minds and encourage students to think independently, which is core of Socrates’ teaching: “To find yourself, think yourself. I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think” (Stevens, 2020, p. 10). In the process of asking and answering questions, learners become aware of their own inadequacy in understanding the subject. The awareness of ignorance motivates learners to know more and learn more about the subject. “The true wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us. The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing” (Stevens, 2020, p. 26). Equally important, in the process of formulating answers to questions, students are led to discover fallacies and blind spots in their reasoning. Max Maxwell (2009, p.1) wrote the dialogue below to illustrate Socrates’ teaching style: Socrates: You say that knowing God will give me the knowledge of right and wrong. Preacher: Yes. Socrates: In what area of life will the believer know right and wrong. Preacher: The knowledge of God permeates our whole being in every aspect of our lives. Socrates: By the gods, dear preacher! I declare that nothing could be more useful than to learn right and wrong from a deity who knows! Will the knowledge of God help me know right and wrong pertaining to the calculation of the sums of numbers? Preacher: No. Socrates: Will the knowledge of God give me the knowledge of right and wrong with regard to the practice of medicine? Preacher: No. Socrates: How about right and wrong regarding the architectural design of buildings?

6

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion? Preacher: No. Morality is not about this kind of right and wrong. Socrates: Then the knowledge of God does not give us the knowledge of all right and wrong. It just gives us the knowledge of a particular kind of right and wrong that you refer to as moral. Preacher: That is correct.

Through his teaching method, Socrates modeled that learning is a process where learners are actively involved and engaged to explore answers and seek solutions themselves. Socrates is often considered the earliest constructivist who values the process on how students discover knowledge. The legacy of Socrates is that the questioning method has gained so much popularity that it is honored as Socratic Method, which is the core teaching approach in conducting graduate seminars in modern-day universities.

Here Comes the Industrial Age… Discussion as a teaching method lost standing in the industrial age because it was not compatible with the focus on mass education to meet the needs of the industrial society. The issue was both pedagogical and logistical. To provide an efficient workforce schools needed to produce large numbers of citizens who would think and act alike and be well prepared for a factory life. In addition to open and overt curriculum of basic reading, writing, and math, an invisible and covert curriculum included punctuality, obedience, and rote memorization, as Toffler (1980) explained: “Factory labor demanded workers who showed up on time, especially assembly-line hands. It demanded workers who would take orders from a management hierarchy without questioning” (p. 29). The industrial economy did not need a workforce that thought independently or acted individually but, rather, a docile workforce that was good at following orders and performing repetitious tasks on assembly lines. Schools then became part of the gigantic machine manufacturing young generations for the industrial age work force. In this sense, schools in the industrial age did a perfect job: “No generation in history has ever been so thoroughly prepared for the industrial age” (Warlick, 2006). Meanwhile, it is virtually impossible to have students in public education be involved in discussions given large class sizes and teachers were under pressure to cover an over-crammed curriculum. The consequence of the industrial teaching mode was vividly described by Hill (1969): “One learns to say the “right” things in each of the situations distinguished by members of his social community. This performance in the role of “student” finds its most artistic expression in test wiseness and education is operationally definable as learning how to respond to tests by listening to lectures on the same material and by studying the lecturer who usually doubles as the test maker” (p. 7). This factory model of education (obey, accept, be quiet, and agree) is in stark contrast to the very spirit of discussion in every possible way. Discussion is designed to encourage investigation, inquiry, freely expression, and challenge of the status quo.

Historical and Theoretical Groundings of Online Discussion

7

Paradigm Shifts Occur… The twentieth century witnessed paradigm shifts away from traditional didactic approaches in teaching. Newly emerged educational philosophies and learning theories reemphasize the values on learning environments where students are encouraged to think, question, experience, and reflect, all of which underscore the place of discussion as a valuable teaching and learning tool. John Dewey, the most significant modern educational reformer and leader, called for progressive education, advancing the view that learning is a process wherein students actively interact with curriculum. To Dewey, school should not be an appendix of society, but rather an entity to initiate social change and reform. Progressive education considers critical thinking, independent decision-making, worthwhile experiences, and thoughtful reflection far more important than a narrow range of predefined skills typically taught in schools. Dewey (1916/2011) stated: “Were all instructors to realize that the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers, is the measure of educative growth, something hardly less than a revolution in teaching would be worked” (p. 135). As Socrates, Dewey honored discussion and questioning in learning. In his laboratory school, he encourages conversation, discussion, dramatization, and storytelling to engage students in the learning process (Harnack, 1968). The introduction of cognitive science in education brings about cognitive learning theory, shifting the focus on how the human brain functions in the learning process, how they process and store knowledge. Standing in opposition to the view that students learn through regurgitating facts, cognitivism argues that learning takes place through active mental process on the part of the learner. Therefore, teachers need to formulate strategies to initiate complex cognitive activities in students in the process as, ultimately, students drive their own learning. The landmark work cognitivism in education is Blooms’ Taxonomy which classifies student learning into six cognitive levels: (1) memorization; (2) comprehension; (3) application; (4) analysis; (5) synthesis; and (6) evaluation. This taxonomy is frequently applied in measuring the quality of student learning including that of student discussion postings. Jean Piaget’s constructivist learning theory places students at the center, emphasizing that learning is a process of learners actively constructing knowledge and creating meanings through their experiences. Piaget has made great contributions to our understanding of how children’s cognition develops and how children learn. Children’s intellectual development progresses through stages and learning should be conducted differently corresponding to children’s cognitive development. Although children are still developing their cognitive abilities, it does not mean that children should be passive learners. Children can think and reason, albeit in a different way. Learning does not occur when learners sit passively waiting for teachers to deposit knowledge into their minds: “I find myself opposed to the view of knowledge as a passive copy of reality” (Piaget, 1970, p. 15). Children can play an active role in the learning process, exploring, discovering, and constructing truth. In recent years, Piaget’s constructivist learning theory diminishes in significance as social constructivism takes the center stage as a learning theory.

8

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion?

Of the teaching and learning philosophies that have emerged over the past century, the most influential is Vygotsky’s social constructivism. Contrary to traditional constructivism that knowledge is individually constructed, Lev Vygotsky considers learning to be the result of meaningful interaction among learners in social and cultural contexts, mediated by language and learning tools. Learning is a social activity. Although Vygotsky originally published his work in 1930’s in Russia, his works remained unknown to the West until 1960’s due to political barriers but once introduced it quickly gained acceptance and popularity in the dual fields of psychology and education.

When Online Discussion Meets Vygotsky If Vygotsky were living today, he would likely marvel at the capacity of online technologies to actualize the three corner-stone concepts of his teaching philosophy: social interaction, mediation of tools, and Zone of Proximal Development. Online discussion, with its exceptional affordances, supports and reinforces each of these concepts. Vygotsky (1978) emphasized social adaption in human learning: “Human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (p.88). He held that language plays an essential role in children’s cognitive development, shaping thoughts and transforming mental structures: “This brings us to another indisputable fact of great importance: Thought development is determined by language, i.e., by the linguistic tools of thought and by the sociocultural experience of the child” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 94). To Vygotsky, knowledge is the product of social interaction mediated by psychological and cultural tools such as language, signs, and computers. In the process of social interaction, less abled learners are assisted by more knowledgeable others including teachers, parents, peers, and siblings. The essence of social constructivism is best illustrated in Vygotsky’s definition of learning: “Through others, we become ourselves” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 105). Online discussion and social constructivism are a natural fit. When the two intersect, enormous learning opportunities are released as exemplified by educator experiences teaching discussion-based courses and, more importantly, by the academic benefits students derive.

Social Interaction Vygotsky was the first to acknowledge the fundamental role of social interaction in human learning: “Any higher mental function necessarily goes through an external stage in its development because it is initially a social function.” (Vygotsky, 1981a, p. 162). Against traditional constructivism that knowledge construction is a process of self-discovery, Vygotsky considered that human learning occurs on two planes: first on a social level, then on an individual level: “Every function

When Online Discussion Meets Vygotsky

9

in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological)” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.57). According to Vygotsky, learning is a meaning-making process involving cycles of externalization and internalization, different but reciprocal and interdependent processes, enabled by psychological tools such as language. Vygotsky noted that: “When we speak of a process, ‘external’ means ‘social.’ Any higher mental function was external because it was social at some point before becoming an internal, truly mental function” (Vygotsky, 1981a, p.162). The asynchronous features of online discussion support social interaction of students as it transverses time and location. “Anytime and anywhere” access provides convenience for students to externalize thoughts, ideas, perspectives, and opinions. Online discussion promotes an equal learning opportunity for all, embracing male and female, bold and shy, and native or non-native. Students explore, elaborate, clarify, negotiate, construct, and reconstruct. Through interaction, thoughts get clearer, perspective expands, confusion is clarified, and understanding deepened. Online discussion, with features unavailable in face-to-face discussion, transforms the nature of interactions and processes. Students in my courses especially enjoy the multi-voiced features of online discussion as one student reflects: One of the required components of this class was to post our own reflections of initial readings to share our individually constructed meaning of the text. I believe this accomplishes the constructivist component of this theory because each of the students in our discussion group had different ideas about or connections to the readings. In reviewing everyone’s postings, it was as if none of us approached the readings with the same knowledge or understanding or came away with the same knowledge or understanding because we are all unique individuals with distinct experiences and beliefs that make us each who we are. We were able to see the same information presented through the eyes of our peers, which helps us to do the same thing in working with our students. It was this social interaction that really made the content metaphorically come to life. Everyone in the class learn the material in ways that were meaningful to them and to their content areas.

Shared discourse facilitates the building of social cognition. When students reach a consensus, the phase of shared social cognition is completed. Watson (2008) makes this point clear in his statement: “Asynchronous discussion tools enable learners with no face-to-face interaction to communicate with one another and thus allow for the possibility of enhanced learner knowledge building through peer negotiated meaning. For this reason, interaction between learners and between teachers and learners is regarded as an essential part of the constructivist learning environment (p. 1091). Although social constructivism emphasizes the essential role of social interaction in learning, Vygotsky, by no means, downplays the individual’s role in the learning process. Learning cannot occur without the individual’s internalization of social cognition. In internalization learners absorb and digest the social cognition emerging through externalization. In other words, internalization means that an

10

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion?

interpersonal process is transformed into an intrapersonal one and social cognition is incorporated into the knowledge structure of the learner. The reciprocal relationship of the two processes indicates that knowledge is constructed socially as well as individually. The internal process takes place when students reflect upon their learning experience through discussion and absorb the knowledge socially constructed, thus altering student mental functions. Internalization is further reinforced when students personally apply the learned knowledge through discussion in a new context such as writing an essay or create a presentation.

Mediation of Tools Vygotsky was the first psychologist to recognize the role of language in children’s cognitive development. He considered it a tool to aid and drive human thoughts, playing an essential role in knowledge formation: “The specifically human capacity for language enables children to provide for auxiliary tools in the solution of difficult tasks, to overcome impulsive action, to plan a solution to a problem prior to its execution, and to master their own behavior” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 28). Psychological tools include language, signs, symbols, computers, and other cultural artifacts, which, when incorporated in the learning process, “alter the entire flow and structure of mental functions” and can fundamentally transform human learning (Vygotsky, 1981b, p. 137). Vygotsky considered language as the most important psychological tool: “Sometimes speech becomes of such vital importance that, if not permitted to use it, young children cannot accomplish the given task” (1978, p. 26). Online discussion is text-based (written language) and student learning is enabled through interactions mediated by this text-based infrastructure. Text-based communication makes student thoughts visible and facilitates student thinking process. Freeing from the time constraints of face-to-face communication, students have time to compose and construct more thoughtful postings. Garrison et al. (2000) noted that “text-based communication provides time for reflection. For this reason, written communication may actually be preferable to oral communication when the objective is higher-order cognitive learning” (p. 90). Writing frequently provides students with enhanced opportunities to craft thoughtful and comprehensive postings in contrast to verbal communication. The inherent spontaneity of oral interaction poses difficulties in conveying responses that encompass both depth and breadth. This position is shared by my students. For example, comments such as the following are not uncommon in my course: Another aspect of the online discussions that I truly loved was hearing other people’s thoughts on learning styles and how they apply to real life situations. There were times I disagreed with comments but saw merit in the thoughts behind them. Other times my own comments were challenged, and I even changed my mind! I think that seeing thoughts in print, having time to think them through, and respond was a wonderful learning experience for me. My classmates’ comments guided much of my learning, either through correcting, sharing ideas, or challenging my ideas. My perceptions of learning styles were expanded through the online discussions.

Student Learning Through Online Discussions—Case Analysis

11

The More Knowledgeable Other Vygotsky defined the Zone of Proximal Development as the gap between a learner’s actual independent cognitive development level and the potential intellectual development level with guidance of adults and assistance from more knowledgeable others. The more knowledgeable other refers to anyone who has more knowledge or skills than the learner in completing a particular task, whether teacher, an adult, peers, or siblings. Traditional constructivism holds that children’s cognitive development advances through stages of children’s maturation with their biological advancement preceding their cognitive development. Vygotsky believed that learners could accomplish more with assistance from or in collaboration with more knowledgeable others than they could alone. The experience of working with more knowledgeable others provides best opportunities for learners to expand their knowledge and capabilities. What a child can do with help today, he will be able to do by himself tomorrow (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 188). In online discussion, each participant has the opportunity to be a more knowledgeable other. When conducted appropriately, students are keenly aware how much they owe their growth to their peers and can deeply appreciate it as one student in my course expressed: “Being able to read and discuss with my peers about their viewpoints about each learning theory allowed me to have a better understanding of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and social constructivism. Many people say that the best teachers are our peers, so being able to discuss what we were learning expanded my knowledge greatly.” Every participant brings their knowledge and expertise into a discussion and share their experience and expertise in a collaborative effort for knowledge construction. Each participant is enabling and being enabled in the process. They help each other out, learn from each other, stretch each other’s strengths, and minimize each other’s weaknesses. Vygotsky’s social constructivism provides a philosophical foundation for student learning through online discussion. With its unique affordances, online discussion offers a venue to implement Vygotsky’s pedagogical approach to maximize student learning by creating a learning environment that is collaboration based, inquiry focused, language mediated, and technology enriched.

Student Learning Through Online Discussions—Case Analysis To respond to the question of whether students can master a rigorous curriculum through discussion, Hill (1969) stated: “The position taken here is that mastery of difficult material can be achieved through the discussion group, but not through permissive and unstructured approaches” (pp. 15–16). How do we know that online discussion stimulates cognitive activities in students? Is there a measurement to evaluate student complex thought processes?

12

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion?

As noted previously, Bloom’s Taxonomy (Table 1.1) was designed to measure cognitive levels in student learning and for more than sixty years it has proved to be an effective tool for doing so through the application of its six cognitive levels: knowledge/memorization, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. This hierarchy provides a yardstick for gauging student learning: do instructors teach facts, or do they engage students in learning concepts? Do students focus on memorizing facts, or do they engage in constructing knowledge? For example, when students are taught the names of planets in the solar system, learning is on the memorization level in Bloom’s Taxonomy. If students can apply concepts of the solar system to dispute the observation that the sun rises and sets because the sun never moves and the earth moves around the sun, they have demonstrated comprehension. In online discussion activities, deep learning takes place when the discussion activates higher order cognitive skills in students. Thus, Bloom’s Taxonomy can assist educators in designing and determining cognitive levels of student learning in online discussion (Table 1.2). Table 1.1 Cognitive levels in learning activities (Dillard, 2015, slide 8–10) Learning activities—the pledge of allegiance

Cognitive levels

Say the pledge

Knowledge

Give examples of what the words mean: “pledge allegiance”, “indivisible”, “liberty and justice for all”

Comprehension

What else is indivisible in the same sense as our nation?

Application

Compare pledge to another pledge (Scouts, for example)

Analysis

Write a class pledge (school, neighborhood, community, club, etc.)

Synthesis

Should every nation have a pledge? Support your position

Evaluation

Table 1.2 Cognitive levels of student discussion postings Bloom’s Taxonomy

Cognitive levels in student postings

Memorization—recall, list, name, identify

Cites from reading materials

Comprehension—explain, describe, elaborate, demonstrate

Illustrates student understanding of a concept, a theory, or an experiment, etc

Application—apply, interpret, show, solve

Shows how a concept or theory is applied in new contexts

Analysis—analyze, distinguish, categorize, outline

Compares and contrasts differences between concepts, theories, or viewpoints, and etc

Synthesis—write, construct, design, organize

Summaries information from various sources (e.g., various perspectives)

Evaluation—evaluate, defend, assess, judge

Justifies or challenges arguments

Student Learning Through Online Discussions—Case Analysis

13

Case Analysis—Cognitive Engagement in Online Discussion To demonstrate the application of social constructivist learning theory to student learning though online discussion, three cases are presented with an analysis of cognitive skills promoted in each one to illustrate how students learned through online discussion.

Case Analysis #1—Online Discussion in a Math Class This case was shared by a math teacher (Carl, 2014) who recounted how he incorporated discussion board in his online math course on the Internet: I teach math, often online. In my online classes, I hit upon one of the perfect type of questions for a discussion board in a math course. Taking the most recent topic in class, I’d have each student make up a problem on that topic, and then solve one of the other student’s problems. It becomes a sort of musical chairs game, only with just enough chairs for everyone. I make sure each student takes responsibility for the answer to their problem, so that they can help their “solver” if they get stuck or take a wrong turn. Sometimes there’s a mistake in the problem that the solver points out. It leads to some really good interaction! I only intervene when necessary—usually when there’s an error that sends both students out of their depth, which is very rare. Otherwise, my role is mainly encouragement. Sure, some people will lowball their classmates, and some try to be too clever for their own good, but overall it’s usually a good experience, and the feedback supports that.

It should be evident that these students are accessing and developing multiple cognitive skills through this process—comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation: they first need to understand the math concept involved (comprehension), then demonstrate their understanding in a new context, that is, creating a new math problem (application). The other skills follow: analysis—identifying each part of the problem and how they relate to each other; synthesis—connecting each part to create a whole problem; and evaluation—viewing the problem from various angles to make sure the problem is without glitches and could be solved by their peers. The problem solvers practise the same set of cognitive skills— they need to comprehend what the problem is about, work on the problem and apply their knowledge in a new context, analyze each element in the problem and synthesize a solution. Finally, they evaluate whether the problem is created correctly. There may have been errors in the original problem that prevents it from being solved. The whole process can be described as placing particular emphasis on activities and environments that are learner centered, problem oriented, inquiry based, socially situated, and technology facilitated. Since online discussion is text-based and make student thoughts visible, student can review and trace the steps they take in creating and solving the math problems. This process facilitates development of student metacognitive skill, that is, the process of thinking about thinking. Metacognition is valuable because it promotes all of the other cognitive skills and produces learners who are self-directed and self-regulated. If there is an additional element that would further strengthen this case example it would be to have the students compare the various approaches to

14

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion?

solving each problem and vote for the best one, which would further promote the development of metacognition.

Case Analysis #2—Online Discussion and Unit Plan Overview A university professor is puzzled as she grades unit summaries written by her education major students. A unit summary is intended to provide an overview of a unit plan (similar to the abstract of a paper). However, the students do not seem to have grasped what should be included in a unit summary as their summaries do not align with the contents of their unit plans. The professor’s confusion arises from the fact that she has posted samples of unit summaries on Blackboard for students to view and she has even created a presentation to show students how to write a unit summary. However, her efforts have not produced the expected outcome. The professor decides to try a different approach and designs a discussion activity for her students which is detailed on Blackboard. Form a group of three and view a minimum of three samples of unit summaries on Blackboard. Have a discussion on what should be included in the unit summary. Post results of your group discussion in the forum. First, generate a short list on what should be included in a unit summary. Then provide a sample of a unit summary that matches the list.

This approach is very successful. Each group generates an appropriate list. Since each group posts on the discussion board, everyone can compare the results across groups. The consensus from the group discussion is that a unit summary should include the unit topic (what the lesson teaches), learning objectives, major concepts covered by the unit, main learning activities and student learning products. Through discussions, students have grasped the essentials of writing a unit summary and developed summaries that meet the requirements. When the professor reflects upon her experience, she wonders why students have learned in discussions what they could not in the traditional didactic approach of teaching. The online discussion provides students a platform where they can interact with each other, externalizing thoughts in a social sphere and forming and absorbing social cognition. By internalizing understanding, learning occurs on an individual plane. Mastery of difficult subject matter requires complex cognitive engagement on the part of students. What complex cognitive activities can discussion activate? To answer this question, it helps to perform a step-by-step analysis of student thought processes in the discussion. Students are active learners in the meaning-making process through discussions and the complex cognitive skills activated through discussion include application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. (1) Analysis—a process of breaking a whole into pieces and comparing and contrasting the pieces to identify patterns. Since students need to generate a list of elements that should be included in the unit summary, they need to view samples and extract commonly held elements, that is, they break each sample into pieces, and compare and contrast pieces to identify patterns. They also compare multiple contributions from group members to reach a consensus. (2) Synthesis—the process of using pieces to make a whole. Once students generate a list of essential

Student Learning Through Online Discussions—Case Analysis

15

elements included in a unit summary, they need to construct a summary matching their list. In this case, their unit summary should include a unit topic, major concepts covered by the unit, main student learning activities and student learning products. (3) Application—the act of putting what has been learned into practice. Using the knowledge of the elements needed for a summary, the students construct a unit summary, first as a group, then as individuals. (4) Evaluation—the “quality control” element. In some cases, groups provide samples that do not reflect their lists. For example, when asked to identify the learning objectives in their sample, they can’t. Being confronted with the mismatch is a final step in the iterative cognitive process that helps students grasp the essence of writing a unit summary.

Case Analysis #3—Research Through Online Discussion The application of Bloom’s Taxonomy as a guide for another analysis of cognitive engagement in online discussion can be seen in a project conducted by a university professor who teaches a graduate level course. Students in the course are required to investigate teaching and training issues in various learning contexts. The professor introduces online discussion to facilitate students’ research ability. The overall plan has the class break into groups of two students each, with each group to select a topic and lead a discussion on it. Instructions for students are posted: Your group will select a topic on instruction and training methods. Conduct thorough research on the chosen topic, formulate your assertion, and support it with relevant research evidence. Post your assertion on the class discussion board and facilitate the ensuing discussion. Revise your assertion based on the contributions made by classmates in the discussion and incorporate their insights into your final class presentation. Note: It is important to integrate the input received from class discussions to enhance the quality and effectiveness of your presentation.

What cognitive operations are involved in this assignment? First, the students have to choose an issue to evaluate and then start the process of investigation. They have to collect research materials and select and view relevant information. Through their investigation, they gain understanding of their selected issue. They analyze research, breaking a whole into pieces and comparing and contrasting research studies to identify patterns, make connections, and seek relationships among pieces. Based on their analysis, they synthesize research evidence and formulate their assertions, building a new whole from constituent parts. The entire process of making assertions involves numerous higher cognitive activities. “Justify your assertions” is a process of critical evaluation. Students must present research evidence to support and defend their positions. “Revise” and “integrate” involve “analysis”, “synthesis” and “evaluation” cognitive activities. Students need to evaluate peer feedback and integrate it into their final presentation of the investigated issue. All these activities conform to higher cognitive levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy. The three cases studies presented above testify to the fact that students can master rigorous course material through effective online discussion. However, to promote higher cognitive engagement, online discussion must be situated in a

16

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion?

dynamic and nurturing learning community, one where students identify with each other and are engaged cognitively in collaborative critical inquiry. When appropriate strategies are applied, students would be inducted into an online learning community where learning takes place.

Beyond Text-Based Online Discussion This book focuses on text-based asynchronous discussions because of the direct relationship between writing and thinking. Writing plays a significant role in shaping thinking by allowing for reflection, organization, and clarification of thoughts. While the principles, rules, and strategies in this book are primarily intended for text-based discussions, they are also relevant to multimodal discussions, such as those involving video or audio postings. Although multimodal discussions provide more options for students to interact and can accommodate differing learning styles, instructors need to consider several important factors that may undermine student engagement and quality of student discussions with these approaches: (1) contributing video or audio postings requires more effort compared to text-based postings. For example, students must be familiar with the various technologies for recording videos or audios; they must dress appropriately; and they must speak clearly, (2) multiple factors can influence the quality of video postings such as body positioning, audio volume and an individual’s comfort level when presenting themselves on camera, (3) technical glitches are not uncommon, especially in saving or posting videos, and can cause students considerable anxiety or frustration, especially if they have to redo a video session, (4) video discussions may invoke disjointed or stilted thought patterns. This can happen when students are not comfortable speaking extemporaneously and “prepare’ their discussion by writing drafts of a posting and practicing multiple times until they feel they are ready to speak to the camera, interrupting the flow of thoughts, (5) accessing and reading text postings is easier than opening and watching a video posting, especially when video postings are shared as attachments. Despite these potential shortcomings, multimodal discussions can be very beneficial for students, especially those who are visual learners. Therefore, it is important that all students are given options rather than being required to use a particular discussion mode, e.g., text-based or video-based. It should be noted that the increasing flexibility of online technologies is blurring the line between these various approaches. For example, students can attach and integrate video, audio, images, and other visual elements to support their arguments or viewpoints even in text-based discussions. Some online apps provide translation functions to allow students to read comments in a language of their choosing. As technologies evolve, preparing postings in multimodal format will become easier for students, as will transitioning between various online discussion modes. For example, video/audio postings can generate corresponding text automatically, allowing students to decide to read text postings or watch video postings.

Artificial Intelligence and Online Discussion

17

Artificial Intelligence and Online Discussion The accelerating advances in Artificial Intelligence technology (AI) will have significant impact on online discussion platforms by making them more personalized, dynamic, and diverse. Additionally, AI can support the design, facilitation, and assessment of productive online discussions. In 2009, two colleagues and I envisioned AI features being integrated into discussion fora (Chen et al., 2009). We outlined a wide-ranging list of ways discussion fora could be improved with AI. While some of these features now exist, they may not currently be applied in the context of discussion forums. However, we anticipate AI will continue to influence the functionality of discussion forums and strengthen their pedagogical value for student learning. Following is a summary of the list outlined in our 2009 paper: Activity Management System (AMS)—Design An Activity Management System (AMS) can be used to automate the important but tedious task of assigning students into cadres for various group assignments. Instructors could choose from a list of templates or to design a new activity from scratch. With pre-designed templates the system would automatically assign participants to specific groups and create an online space for the activity, dissolve the group at a given time, and later assign participants to a different group, depending on the goal of the assignment. Another example of a template is a think-pair-share activity where participants are required to brainstorm individually on a particular issue, then pair up to share their ideas and later report to the whole group the consensus from the pair-team. Each template activity would have its own parameters in terms of the sequence of required tasks and the associated directions for completing the assignment activity. The instructor would be able to adjust logistical issues, such as start and end dates, and directions as necessary depending on the students’ progress with the activity. Group Management System (GMS)—Commitment The function of a Group Management System (GMS) would be to automatically coordinate the formation and dissolution of various working groups across a course. As not all participants need to take part in all activities or tasks (i.e., some activities may involve require the whole group, some a smaller group, a pair, or even just individuals) the more seamless the coordination in assembling the appropriate “groupings”, the greater the potential for focusing on the learning tasks. The GMS should be capable of matching people with similar interests, but diverse expertise or needs, to maximize engagement and progress. Minimizing coordination tasks frees instructors to on facilitation. Reference Management System (RMS)—Engagement Collaboration is a critical element of online discussion. Therefore, there is constant need to refer to other participants’ contributions. A Reference Management System would provide a comprehensive and efficient way to correlate all online

18

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion?

correspondence in a course, for example, by assigning every message a unique ID that can be readily pasted into any post on a discussion board. Subsequently, whenever someone reads a message, they could activate the link and read the original message. Personal Assistant System (PAS)—Bridging A Personal Assistant System (PAS) can be utilized to send daily “to do” and “happenings” lists directly to course participants. Normally, Learning Management Systems (LMS) are perceived to be cognitively more remote from participants than e-mail or SMS because to be engaged in an LMS, participants must manually logon to the site, whereas e-mail or SMS is usually open all the time for working purposes. A PAS could bridge the gap between these two modes of interaction and provide multiple entry points for individuals to participate. For example, the PAS could be linked to an individual’s preferred mode of communication such as email or SMS through their mobile devices and be used to provide “up-date” reminders, such as (a) a list of activities to consider registering for, (b) a list of unattended new messages, and/or (c) class responses which need to be attended to. In addition to these four systems, we envisioned other tools which could contribute to enhancing the pedagogical impact of online discussion. Body Language System (BLS)—Acknowledgement Extending the RMS discussed above, a Body Language System (BMS) that enables people to “tag back” on messages they read could provide cues that messages are read and appreciated. Most existing LMS systems allow participants to attach body languages (e.g., emoticons) to their own messages but we also need to show body language in messages sent by others. For example, if a person just wants to acknowledge another person’s contribution without really replying to a specific message, he/she could choose from a range of body languages and attach. These could include traditional emoticons or more descriptive responses such as “thank you for bringing the matter up.” This system will help leave equivalent body language traces in an online environment without disrupting the reply structure of a discussion. Portfolio Management System (PMS)—Reflection A Portfolio Management System is a personal space within the social online learning community. A portfolio is intended to be a repository of all the contributions made by a member of the community which he/she can use for reflection at any time. Therefore, all contributions by an individual should automatically be documented in the PMS. The PMS should also have a mechanism by which participants can tag or bookmark contributions from others to augment their own thoughts, reflections and learning progress. The PMS space should be flexible enough for participants to organize their work and contain reflection tools for them to regulate their learning and thinking (Chen and Hung, 2002). Finally, it should contain

References

19

a publish function for participants to share selected parts of the portfolio for assessment or feedback purposes. Discussing the impact of computer technologies upon language learning, Mark Warschauer (1998) posited: “I would suggest that 50 years after the computer was invented, we do not have old language learning plus the computer, but we have a different language learning” (p. 758). Aggressive development of online technologies has expanded human interaction from one-to-one to one-to-many to many-to-many. Online discussion is not just an added tool to student learning. The pervasiveness of online discussion should fundamentally change how discussion is conducted in academic settings. Following Warschauer’s note, education is not student learning plus online discussion but rather student learning transformed through online discussion. The next chapter examines strategies for motivating and engaging students in a discussion-based online community that have been derived from years of fieldtesting in discussion-based online courses.

Summary • Discussion as a teaching method has a long history in its use and evolvement. • Major learning theories, such as cognitivism and social constructivism, form the theoretical basis for using online discussion as an effective teaching and learning tool. • Bloom’s Taxonomy is an analytical tool to assess the cognitive levels of discussion postings. • Students engage in complex cognitive activities during online discussions designed to promote higher order thinking skills. • Students can learn challenging course content, such as sciences or social sciences, through both online and face-to-face discussions.

References Bart, M. (2017, May 2). How to design and facilitate online discussions that boost student learning. The teaching professor. http://qa.teachingprofessor.com/topics/online-learning/course-designonline-learning/design-facilitate-online-discussions-boost-student-learning/ Burns, M. (2015). Helping learners get the most out of online discussions. E-Learning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/helping-learners-get-online-discussions Carl (2014, March 7). Re: Discussion board assignments: Alternatives to the question-and-answer format. Faculty focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-studentengagement/discussion-board-assignments-alternatives-question-answer-format/ Chen, D. V., Wang, Y. M., & Hung, D. (2009). Design-based research on refining rules for online discussion. Interactive Learning Research, 20(2), 157–173. Confucius. (1998). The analects of Confucius: a philosophical translation (T.R. Ames & H. Jr. Rosemont, Trans. Ballantine Books.

20

1 Do Students Learn Through Online Discussion?

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: MacMillan. Dewey, J. (2011). Democracy and edKliscucation: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Digireads.com Publishing. Dillard, D. W. (2015). Higher order thinking skills [PowerPoint slides]. Arcadia Valley CTC. https://documents.pub/document/higher-order-thinking-skills-david-w-dillard-arcadia-valleyctc.html Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. Gernsbacher, M. A. (2016, October 31). Five tips for improving online discussion boards. APS Observer, 29(9). https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/five-tips-for-improvingonline-discussion-boards Harnack, R. V. (1968). John Dewey and discussion. Western Speech, 32(2), 137–149. Hill, W. F. (1969). Learning through discussion. Beverly Hills: Sage. Klisc, C., McGill, T., & Hobbs, V. (2017). Use of a post-asynchronous online discussion assessment to enhance student critical thinking. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 63–76. Maxwell, M. (2009). The moral bankruptcy of faith: A modern example of Socratic dialogue. http:// www.socraticmethod.net/morality/page1.htm McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (1999, December). Lonely outpourings or reasoned dialogue? An analysis of text-based conferencing as a tool to support learning. In ASCILITE, (Vol. 99). Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology (E. Duckworth, Trans.). Columbia University Press Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Stevens, R. (2020). Wise quotes: Socrates. (n.p.) Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. Bantam books. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981a). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, (pp. 144–188). Armonk. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 134–143). Sharpe. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The genesis of higher mental functions. In R. Reiber (Ed.), The history of the development of higher mental functions (pp. 97–120). Plennum. Wang, Y. M. (2019). Enhancing the quality of online discussion—Assessment Matters. Educational Technology Systems, 48(1), 112–129. Wang, Y.M. (2023). Terrain of Online Discussion—Faulty Assumptions versus Harsh Realities [Unpublished manuscript]. Warlick, D. F. (2006, June 30). Our students—our world. Annual Conference of International Society for Technology in Education, San Antonio. http://2cents.onlearning.us/?paged=2&m= 200602 Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental, and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 757–761. Watson, A. (2008). Developing teaching practice for more effective use of asynchronous discussion: A preliminary investigation. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? In Proceedings Ascilite Melbourne 2008, pp. 1090–1099. http://www.ascilite.org. au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/watson.pdf

2

Design to Engage Students

Abstract

When you observe a lively discussion, what impresses you most? Student engagement is the response that comes to mind for most teachers. In a dynamic discussion, students actively interact with each other, exploring, elaborating, negotiating, constructing, and re-constructing.

Introduction When you observe a lively discussion, what impresses you most? Student engagement is the response that comes to mind for most teachers. In a dynamic discussion, students actively interact with each other, exploring, elaborating, negotiating, constructing, and re-constructing. It is engagement that stimulates and sustains a discussion that students would hate to see end. In a vibrant online discussion where students demonstrate a high level of engagement, deep learning takes place. This chapter focuses on how to design online discussion to engage students, including creating discussion prompts, varying discussion structures, drawing on student experiences, and requiring a tangible product. Objectives Upon completing this chapter, you will acquire the following knowledge and skills: • • • • •

Understand the role of design in building successful online discussions. Create engaging discussion prompts. Apply diverse discussion structures. Incorporate student experiences into designing online discussion. Design deliverable products to ensure student learning through online discussions.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y.-M. Wang, Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3_2

21

22

2 Design to Engage Students

Design to Engage Students It is challenging to engage students in online discussion. Although in theory, most students accept the importance of online discussion, in practice, they might just do the minimum necessary to satisfy the requirements for class credit. Instructors can always make discussions mandatory but without active engagement, students could be participating without interacting, conversing without communicating, and posting without contributing. For learning to occur, students must be actively involved in discussions. To promote successful online discussions, it is imperative that student engagement be fostered and nurtured from the outset. The real challenge is “to design a first discussion topic that is so enticing, so intriguing, and so marvelous that they really do not want to miss out on it” (Bender, 2012, p. 37). Students yearn for exciting and engaging discussions that pique their interests. Instructors are often disappointed by low quality postings, assuming that students cannot distinguish quality postings from poor ones. However, students have a clear understanding of what type of discussions leads to successful learning. Research has shown that students value asynchronous discussions “when the subject matter was new, challenging, or particularly complicated” (Sullivan & Freishtat, 2013, p. 18). The postings they consider favourably are those that (1) enhance their understanding of the topic; (2) make them think; (3) connect with research evidence; (4) compels them to read twice; (5) use examples to illustrate difficult concepts; (6) use simple language to explain difficult concepts; (7) provide useful resources (Wilton, 2018). When students produce poor postings, it is because they are placed in a learning environment where their interests are stifled. Instructors must realize that it is their responsibility to engage student interest in online discussion. They are responsible for crafting a design to have discussion come alive, be fascinating and captivating. But how? Instructors who are new to implementing online discussion often wonder where they should start. Designing an engaging online discussion is a complicated process, involving numerous components. Each component requires meticulous, well-thought, and even artistic planning.

Discussion Prompts—Planting a Good Seed Discussion design starts with discussion prompts. What is a discussion prompt? Although many consider the term to be self-explanatory, there are various definitions. It is the very first posting instructors present to propel students into the trajectory of a discussion. It could be interpreted as a setting or a context similar to the beginning of a book which sets the tone, theme, and scope for the entire enterprise. The first few sentences either entice readers to read on or bore them so much they quit reading. No matter how defined, it is agreed that discussion prompts play an essential role in supporting student engagement and interaction. To illustrate its importance, the analogy of gardening can be used. A discussion prompt is like the seeds. The quality of seeds is fundamental. Only good quality

Discussion Prompts—Planting a Good Seed

23

seeds can germinate into thriving plants. A successful discussion prompt should hook students. A good beginning is halfway to success. Let’s view the discussion prompt presented below. The purpose of this specific online discussion was to make students aware of the rules and regulations they were expected to follow in their field experience. The School of Education Student Handbook listed these responsibilities for teacher education candidates observing classrooms or student teaching. To complete this discussion, students would have to read the guidelines, find three responsibilities, post them on the discussion board, and then comment on two postings of their peers. The discussion prompt below comes from a course for undergraduates intending to enter the teaching field. In addition to other requirements, students were required to complete ten hours of classroom observations. Online Discussion Sample—Responsibilities

Please read the Student Handbook and post three significant responsibilities from each of the areas in the threaded discussion: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The The The The

Student Teacher Cooperating Teacher Principal University Supervisor

Respond to a minimum of two peers who selected different points from your submission. Is this discussion prompt a good seed? In what way could this online discussion engage students? Alternatively, what type of discussion prompt would be considered a good seed? To achieve its goal, a discussion prompt must be designed for real purposes, stimulate multiple perspectives, and be benignly controversial.

Discussion for Real Purpose A good discussion must be designed for real purpose, that is, it must center on something worthy of student attention. Unless students perceive the learning experience worthwhile, they will not get engaged. What is the purpose of discussion? To put it another way, why do people carry on discussions? Dillon (1995) provided some insights: “People do not discuss a topic that they already know and understand—that matter is closed, it is not an issue for them. They do not discuss actions that they are resolved to undertakethat matter is decided, their minds are made up. Similarly, people do not discuss experiences whose meaning is plain to them, nor their indisputable feelings or incontestable values. When they do discuss these things they have some questions about them and they join with others to form an answer” (p. 8).

24

2 Design to Engage Students

In the sample discussion on responsibilities above, is there a problem for students to solve, an issue to investigate, a case to analyze, or a decision to make? None readily apparent—it simply required students to copy answers from the handbook and post them on the discussion board. All possible answers were predefined. Once correct answers were posted, the discussion was sealed. There was no sense of moving on further because there was nothing more to explore. Worse, the list of responsibilities in the Handbook was quickly exhausted. Students who posted later had no choice but to recycle answers previously posted. In circumstances such as this, instructors often complain that student postings are boring, tedious, repetitive—but what else could students do; what choices did they have? If the purpose of this assignment was to have students remember their responsibilities for field observations, a test would be a far more efficient way to accomplish the learning objective. An online discussion is a mismatch for this type of assignment. Even if the purpose of the assignment was to have students remember rules and regulations, copying and pasting on the discussion board is not a good way to do this. Students need to understand rules before they can remember them. To move the argument further, would students know how to carry on their responsibilities in particular circumstances even if they remembered the rules? The discussion board could help students better understand and apply their responsibilities in field observations. For example, the discussion prompt could present a scenario where students are required to demonstrate how to apply certain responsibilities. To push them a little bit further, they could be asked to create their own scenarios where they need to apply particular responsibilities. Below is a sample list of discussion prompts surrounding student responsibilities in field observations, placing students in a context where they have a problem to solve, an issue to explore, a case to analyze, and a resolution to achieve. Discussion Prompts

• Based on your field experience, generate a list of responsibilities as a teacher candidate when observing in a school setting. Have a group discussion to compare the lists within the group and then vote for which responsibilities to be included in the final list. • Reflecting on your field experience, compile a list of responsibilities as a teacher candidate when observing in a school setting. Compare your list with the ones in the handbook. Discuss with your peers the differences between the two lists. What counts for the differences? • Drawing on your field experience, create a list of responsibilities as a teacher candidate when observing in a school setting. Make a recommendation to the school of education, providing convincing argument for the rationale of your chosen responsibilities.

Discussion Prompts—Planting a Good Seed

25

• Utilizing your field experience, make a list of responsibilities as a teacher candidate when observing in a school setting. Submit the list for class discussion. Rationalize your list on why it is the best list for the candidate responsibilities in observing K-12 classroom. • Review the responsibilities listed in the handbook and identify one responsibility that surprises you. Elaborate on the reasons for your surprise. • Analyze the responsibilities in the student handbook for student candidate in field experience. Discuss what responsibilities are necessary and what should be removed. Provide rationales for your arguments. • Create a scenario where you need to apply your responsibilities as a teacher candidate when observing in a school setting.

Discussion through Multiple Voices Multiple perspectives are imperative for student learning in online discussion. Without multiple perspectives a monologue (or, at best, a chat) develops, rather than a dialogue. Multiple perspectives is to online discussion as a heart is to the body. In anecdotal reports, students always highlight multiple perspectives as one of the aspects they enjoy most in online discussions because they provide a wider lens for them to view an issue as students in my course reflected: “Reading the perspectives of others brings out ideas that you might have never considered and while some had very similar perspectives, others had new and different ideas.” Or “I learned to think outside of my box and to see things from different perspectives.” Thus, multiple perspectives are the driving force for dynamic discussion. When students work through different perspectives, their perspectives are shaped against those of their peers, setting the stage for students socially constructing knowledge. Social cognition can only emerge with multiple voices expressed through cycles of externalization and internalization and students have expressed recognition of this reality: “The best teachers are our peers”; and “Multiple perspectives help each of us learn and adjust our personal understanding of the topic being discussed.” A discussion prompt must be open-ended to inspire multiple perspectives. When a discussion is designed to seek pre-defined answers, students are deprived of opportunities to express multiple perspectives which limits exploration and investigation. Going back to the example of responsibilities listed in the handbook mentioned above, to encourage multiple perspectives, the discussion prompt could propel students to discuss why these responsibilities should be their responsibilities or why it is important for students to accept these responsibilities. To motivate students to articulate multiple perspectives, they could be asked to create a list of responsibilities and discuss their rationales. Students would be free to bring various perspectives to the table on what responsibilities they consider important and whether they agree with the list.

26

2 Design to Engage Students

Discussion prompts must be student-centered to solicit multiple perspectives from students. Appreciation of student perspectives is rooted in social constructivism. When a discussion requires students to regurgitate facts per the instructor’s request, it contravenes the fundamental principle of social constructivism. A student-centered discussion should not have to conform to an instructor’s prestated viewpoint. Instead, the discussion is student-driven and student-directed. Within the scope of a curriculum, students should be given the opportunity to pursue what they consider important to satisfy their academic curiosity and thirst for knowledge. Allowing students to create their own discussion prompts can be very productive as they become highly engaged and truly appreciative of the autonomy they gain in their learning. On the other hand, students quickly disengage from discussion that is not open to their perspectives. When students feel their voices are restricted in the discussion, they are no longer engaged participants but rather captive attendees. Discussion prompts must have a certain level of complexity built into them to generate multiple perspectives. When a discussion seeks easy answers, students can post off the top of their heads. No exploration or investigation is needed. Easy answers only activate the lowest level cognitive skills in Bloom’s Taxonomy. Complexity at the appropriate level activates student higher cognitive skills and students embrace discussions with a level of challenges and complexity because they compel students to explore, elaborate, and rationalize in formulating a response. For example, in an online discussion conducted in a graduate teacher preparation class, students investigated the role of computer games in student learning. Multiple perspectives flowed as students viewed the issue from various angles: cost-effectiveness of developing games for learning, games for higher-order learning; ill effects of excessive gaming; gender issues in gaming; games for intrinsic learning; assessment of gaming in learning; and impact of gaming on the culture of learning. To increase the complexity of the topic, a student moderator explained: “I will try to branch out to other areas of gaming to maximize richness of discussion.” The discussion branched into a dozen threads focusing on particular aspects of gaming. Students navigated through the threads, giving their thoughts and perspectives. Thus, the complexity of the issue brought out multiple perspectives from students and helped them gain a broader and deeper understanding of the issue.

Discussion amongst Conflicts “Benign” means “mild” or “gentle”. Benign conflicts are helpful, positive disputes or disagreements. Although conflicts can lead to negative consequences, benign conflicts are healthy for student learning in online discussion. Instructors should purposely infuse benign conflicts into discussion prompts to shake up a discussion and hook students as discussion can thrive on them. Conflict is a catalyst for student engagement in online discussion as varying student positions will certainly bring out challenges and conflicts. Vigorous online discussion welcomes conflicting opinions as long as the conflicts are manageable. A stifling discussion is one

Discussion Prompts—Planting a Good Seed

27

where everybody agrees with each other, which absolutely disengages students. If everyone agrees, what could students learn? Nothing. Conflicting opinions allow students opportunities to fine-tune their thoughts. As conflicts develop, the core of an issue surfaces for open debate. What is highly desirable in student discussion is differing opinions expressed openly and honestly as they can be questioned and challenged. Students gain clarity in their thinking as issues are debated revealing misconceptions and point of confusion. This process is very much like that of gold mining. At the beginning, gravel, sediment, mineral ores, and gold are mixed, grinding against each other in swirling water. Gradually, other particles are sifted out and only gold remains. Students may stay with their original positions or accept opposing arguments. Either way can satisfy students since their thoughts are tweaked, adjusted, and enhanced. In the process, students learn to accept conflict as an inherent part of discussion as this student comment showed: “I cannot but think about how different each and everyone’s view or lens of learning is. The diverse backgrounds and learning episodes that everyone experience will continue to play a part in shaping our lens of learning. Discussions allow for such collision of ideas, not to compare to find fault, but to bring to light that which was not seen. Our lens of learning is complex and will continue to be in a state of flux, only occasionally finding a state of equilibrium, till it is challenged once again.” When conflicts occur in online discussion, instructors should use it as an opportunity to engage students. Remember, a good seed can germinate in the middle of a storm. Students are always able to work through conflicts and learn more. Once students learn to navigate conflicts, they are extremely proud of themselves: “There are no other groups like ours! We truly learn!” Conflict facilitates student growth and development just as in sports where athletes push each other to new heights. To infuse benign conflicts into a discussion, the discussion prompt needs to center on a topic somewhat controversial, argumentative, and unpredictable. There is little value in asking students to debate whether milk is good for health since there is little controversy over this issue so responses are likely to be predictable. Similarly, in a university class exercise, students were divided into opposing groups to argue for or against how they learn best—through test-based learning or inquirybased learning. They protested that it was difficult for them to defend test-based learning because they all supported inquiry-based learning. On the other hand, they were much more involved in debating who was at fault if a child fails in school. A good discussion prompt should inspire students to challenge, question, and think critically, which not only creates worthwhile learning experiences, but also benefits students as life-long learners, as one student reflected: My mind is invigorated Often times disturbed Not coz of a lack of passion

28

2 Design to Engage Students But coz I’m forced to question All the knowledge acquired

Am I in the right direction? That I am uncertain Coz the instructor doesn’t provide us with a definite answer He wants us to be constantly questioning and thinking Perhaps that is a probable reason As to why often times I’m disturbed

Accustomed to a definite answer Provided by our former educators I presume one of the qualities of a lifelong learner Is to challenge and be challenged of what we claim to be masters.

Diverse Designs—Attending to Variation Variation plays a major role in sparking student interests and rejuvenating online discussion, which is especially important when there are a number of discussions students are required to complete in a course. To illustrate the importance of variation in online discussion, the analogy of gardening still applies. When you own a vegetable garden, you are likely to grow multiple vegetables: tomato, cucumber, green beans, chilies, and squash. With a fruit garden, a variety of fruit trees: cherries, peaches, apples, persimmons, and pomegranates. For roses, a range of colors: white, red, yellow, lavender, and pink. These variations are advantageous in significant ways—they fulfill diverse purposes: enriching fruit bowls, enhancing the dinner table, and brightening up a living room with natural and beautiful colors. Variation produces economic gains and makes a garden attractive. It is not uncommon for syllabi to contain numerous online discussions which all follow the same structure: “Please complete the readings and discuss so and so”, a design that often persists throughout a semester. Only the topic to be discussed changes. Human minds have a natural tendency to resist repetitious performances.

Diverse Designs—Attending to Variation

29

Student interest quickly dies when they are required to perform similar activities ad nauseum. Variation in online discussion not only maintains student interest, but also fulfills diverse purposes of the discussion by aligning with learning objectives of a course. To prevent student interests from running dry, variations should be implemented when creating discussion prompts, designing discussion procedures, and providing resources. Variation in discussion structure requires instructors be creative risk-takers. Unfortunately, instructors are often creatures of habit because familiarity creates a comfortable zone. It is challenging to get out of that comfort zone and change the usual way of doing things. Instructors must realize that they do not have to get stuck in a one-plus-two approach, that is, contribute one posting and comment on the two by your peers, especially when there are multiple discussions in which students need to participate in a course. There are alternatives instructors can explore to thoroughly engage students in online discussion. Variation in discussion structure can make each student participation a unique learning experience. To keep student interests fresh, instructors can vary the type of discussion prompts, procedures students follow in participating, and resources provided for students as food for thought. In this section below, a “routine” discussion sample, the theme “educator code of ethics is used to illustrate how it can morph into various alternative designs to help engage students in learning the subject through online discussion.

Reading Materials To help students understand the required curriculum, instructors often ask students to discuss course materials they are required to cover. It is hoped that discussion will increase student understanding of the concepts they are to learn through discussions as the sample below illustrates. Discussion Prompt—Reading Materials

Please read the attached documentations on educator code of ethics and discuss why the code of ethics is important in teaching profession. Contribute one posting and comment on the two of your peers. Discussion Focus: Why it is important to establish the educator code of ethics in teaching profession? Alternative: After student complete reading a paper or a book chapter, they are required to post one to three points they agree or disagree with the author. Discussion of these points helps elaborate on the reading materials and increase student understanding of the topic. The climax of the discussion could be that the author of the book or the paper is invited to join in the discussion, interpreting, and illustrating his/her points.

30

2 Design to Engage Students

This design seems fine. However, if students are continuously required to participate in discussion of the same format, they would quickly get bored. Alternative designs can help instructors break the traditional read-and-comment routine and ignite student interests to stay on task. Below are diverse designs on the topic with an alternative version attached to each design. This list is by no means exhaustive.

Quote A well-chosen quote from course materials can draw student interest, just as an enticing beginning of a novel does. It crystalizes the thoughts of the author and anchors the discussion on the author’s foremost point. An alternative is to have students choose and post a quote they consider represents the author’s central argument. Discussion Prompt—Quote

Below is a paragraph in the forward by James Kauffman for the book The Ethics of Special Education (Howe et al., 2018, p. xviii). I have long felt that we give too little thoughts to ethical dilemmas in special education. Like other groups in our society today, we special educators find simplistic answers to complex problems highly seductive. Too often, we offer or accept oversimplified responses to ethical issues: “It’s right because it’s law,” “It’s right because it’s consistent with our concept of human dignity,” “It’s wrong because it separates out and segregates,” “It’s right because it works in most cases,” “It’s wrong because it does not work for all,” and so on. Discussion Focus: You have completed your class observations of special education students, provide an example to illustrate the point made in this quote. You do not have to agree with the author. However, you do need to elaborate on your position.

Scenario/Case Study Scenario is always a fun way to engage students in a discussion. A scenario is a fictionalized episode where a problem is presented in a real-life context. A case study presents a problem supported by real data. Case studies detail a problem in its various aspects. Both scenario and case studies give students something concrete to work on. Students need to apply what they have learned to the analysis of the problem and eventually present a solution. In studying the “educator code of ethics”, although guidance is clear on teacher behavior, there are grey areas that are often ignored for which there is no clear-cut right or wrong. The following scenario illustrates a dilemma that teachers face on daily basis.

Diverse Designs—Attending to Variation

31

Discussion Prompt—Scenario

Mr. Gregory and Ms. Samuels are both eighth-grade science teachers. Ms. Samuels has a strong command of the science curriculum, and she is also a strong believer in creationism. While Mr. Gregory and Ms. Samuels work together at their weekly planning meeting, Ms. Samuels tells Mr. Gregory that she does not feel comfortable with nor will she teach her class about topics related to evolution, the subject for the coming week’s lessons. She goes on to explain that presenting students with information about evolution will violate her religious beliefs. (Bucholz et al., 2007, p. 63). Discussion Focus: Please use the educator code of ethics as a guideline for your response to the scenario. (1) Can a teacher refuse to teach the required curriculum? (2) How would Ms. Samuels’ decision affect students? (3) What would be your response if you were in Mr. Gregory’s position? Alternative: Students create a scenario where a teacher faces an ethical dilemma and discuss proactive approaches to resolve it to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

Most Recent News In an interesting recent case, as teacher ethics were being discussed with students, an event that caught national attention occurred. Kim Davis, a county clerk, refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Situations like this allow instructors to tap into real events and lead students in exploring its relevance to their discussion on educator ethics. Current events always add excitement to student discussion as they have an undeniable reality and immediacy and provide authentic contexts for student discussion. Students learn to provide rational analysis of events rather than emotion-charged opinions. What they learn in discussion this way will equip them to analyze real events happening around them in real life, thus bringing practical relevance to course concepts. Discussion Prompt—Most Recent News

The newspaper clip below appears in NBC News (McClam & Williams, 2015, September 1): Defying the Supreme Court and invoking “God’s authority,” a Kentucky county clerk on Tuesday turned away two same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses—and then was summoned to federal court. Kim Davis, the clerk for Rowan County, who says that her personal Christian objections preclude her from issuing licenses to gay couples, declined

32

2 Design to Engage Students

the licenses to two men and two women. She said in a statement that it was not a “gay or lesbian issue” but a “Heaven or Hell decision.” “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience,” she said. She said she would not resign. Discussion Focus: Ethics play an important role in every profession, including the teaching profession. In light of this, consider the case of Kim Davis and her behavior in handling the working ethics in her profession. How relevant is her case to the broader discussion on the educator’s code of ethics? Alternative: Students are encouraged to search for news articles or YouTube segments that highlight instances of teacher ethics. Engage in a discussion centered around these news stories, exploring their implications and relevance to the field of education.

Research Research projects allow students opportunities to activate multiple higher-order thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, which provide them a chance to study a topic thoroughly. Students can be divided into groups conducting research on various aspects of teacher ethics. For example, one group can focus on violations of teacher ethics in the state. They can view research papers and legal documents, read newspaper, and interview teachers, principals, and students involved. They need to provide background for their research, conduct analysis of the data collected, and present their findings. Additionally, a group can research trends in violations of an educator code of ethics wherein they categorize cases of violations to identify patterns of violations—What is the most violation? Is there a trend? Varying? What might explain trend variation? A group can conduct interviews that might reveal reasons or motives of teachers who knowingly break the educator code of ethics. Are they aware of the consequences of their behaviors? What could have been a proactive measure at that time? Discussion Prompt—Research

Please form a two-person group, conduct a comprehensive study on the educator code of ethics. Provide the background and context for your research, review relevant research papers on the topic and formulate your assertion. For example, your assertion might be: “The code of educator ethics is a guideline, not a law.”

Diverse Designs—Attending to Variation

33

Discussion Focus: Post on the discussion board at each stage of your research to gather feedback from your peers. Present your preliminary findings for peer critique. You must incorporate your peers’ feedback in the final draft of your research. Alternative: Students are tasked with finding peer-reviewed research papers and critique the research studies based on their analysis.

Debate Debate is a popular instructional approach for actively engaging students in the learning process. In commenting on the role of debate in student learning, Zare and Othman (2013) stated: “Debate encourages students to learn course content better, since they are engaged in the course content actively, broadly, deeply and personally” (p. 1507). Debate helps students develop multiple skills. In arguing for or against a position, students must exercise critical thinking skills—reasoning, assessing, and critiquing. They have to search for supporting evidence, identify fallacies in logic, and formulate persuading arguments. Debate exposes students to differing perspectives and alert them to their own biases. At times, debate may become emotionally charged. However, keeping the emphasis on evidence-based arguments should keep students on track and defuse potential emotional conflicts. Discussion Prompt—Debate

The scenario below is taken from the book by Howe et al., 2018, p. 68). It’s a situation too many teachers face: after an all-day event like a debate tournament, the activities bus returns to school in the evening. All the students are picked up except one, who tells the debate team sponsor that he doesn’t have a ride home. The district’s policy specifically prohibits teachers from transporting students in their personal vehicles, but it’s getting late and no one in his family is answering their phones. So this teacher breaks policy, and not for the first time in this same situation. Every time she’s driven a student home after a tournament, she’s worried a little about what might happen if she was caught—would she receive a letter in her personnel file? Be fired? Would her peers wonder if she had other motives for driving students around? Discussion Focus: There arises a conflict of following educator code of ethics or fulfilling moral obligation of a teacher. Take a position and argue for your position. Such dilemmas occur on a daily basis in schools. Make suggestions on how the situation can be improved. Alternative: Students can be required to follow the claim-counter-claim approach for their debate. A student makes a claim, for example, I think the

34

2 Design to Engage Students

teacher should provide a ride for the student. A teacher should care for the safety of her students, which presents a positive public image in the community. Another student counters the claim: “But it is against the school policy to provide a ride for a student. The teacher should follow the school policy.” A third student posts another claim: “The policy serves as a guideline, not to chain teachers.” Students can continue to add claims, counter claims, and counter counterclaims.

Role Playing Role playing can be an effective strategy to engage students in the learning process. Originally, role playing came from storytelling. When applied to online discussion, it allows students to take responsibility for their own learning. Each Individual student is held accountable to fulfill his/her role, which can enhance student learning. Students explore a topic from various aspects to dig deeper into it. Role playing in online discussions has produced good results. Discussion Prompt—Role Playing

Facebook is a popular social networking platform enjoyed by many teachers. However, as Nancy Solomon (2011) warns, social networking “has blurred the lines between private and public, work and personal, friend and stranger.” Some teachers have lived a nightmare for what they post on Facebook. Some have been fired. This YouTube video shows an interview with Ashley Payne, an English teacher in a country high school in Georgia. She posted a photo from a trip in Europe on her Facebook page, showing her sipping a beer. A parent saw the photo and complained to her school principal. Ashley was called to the principal’s office the next morning and asked to resign right on the spot. Ashley argued that she was simply sipping a beer, not acting wildly in the photo. The photo is not bad at all. She had posted other photos from her trip as well. Asked how the parent could view the photo, Ashley said that she did not know since she sets her Facebook page at the privacy level and was not aware how the parent could have accessed it. Ashley had hired a lawyer and decided to fight for her job in court. Discussion Focus: In this discussion, you are to take one of these roles to voice your opinions: Ashley, parent, students, school principal, a colleague, and a community member. Based on your discussion, your group is to develop a “Facebook 101: A Guide for Teachers” to educate teachers on Facebook use.

Diverse Designs—Attending to Variation

35

Alternative: Students can be assigned various roles as discussants: initiator, elaborator, challenger, questioner, and summarizer and post to fulfill their respective roles, which will encourage active peer interaction and sharing of multiple perspectives.

Subject Expert Research shows that students are always interested in learning from an expert. If students are studying a book, invite the author into the discussion. Have students prepare questions, justify the value of the question, and seek the author’s opinions of the questions. If students are doing a science project, invite a scientist into the discussion. Students can discuss scientific concepts with the expert and glean insights from the interaction. Invited experts bring a human touch to a subject and help students connect a discussion with real world experiences. Discussion Prompt—Subject Expert

Veteran schoolteachers are experts in handling ethical dilemmas. We are inviting a veteran teacher to join our online discussion on teacher ethics. This teacher has had over 30 years of working experiences in the public school system and is experienced in dealing with ethical problems in classroom settings. Please prepare three questions you would like to discuss with this teacher. Post your questions and provide a rationale for why your questions are relevant to the discussion to receive approval from your peers. Discussion Focus: Teachers’ dilemmas in dealing with educator code of ethics in the classroom settings. Alternative: Students can interview veteran teachers on ethical dilemmas and produce an interview video/podcast. The video/podcast can serve as the basis for student discussion on ethical dilemmas teachers face on daily basis in the classroom. Veteran teachers can be invited to join the discussion.

Reflection Students can be asked to post pre-reading and post-reading thoughts on a discussion board. As the purpose of discussion is to expand the horizon of student knowledge, reflection is an essential part of knowledge construction. Dewey emphasizes the value of reflective learning and contends that students learn from reflecting upon experience rather than from experience itself: “When we reflect upon an experience instead of just having it, we inevitably distinguish between

36

2 Design to Engage Students

our own attitude and the objects toward which we sustain the attitude… Such reflection upon experience gives rise to a distinction of what we experience (the experienced) and the experiencing—the how.” (Dewey, 1916, p. 173). When students post their pre-and-post reading thoughts, they show how their thinking has changed through reading and these changes are presented for peers to discuss. Other students may agree and identify with the changes or disagree and challenge them. This makes student reading more productive since students must think carefully about their reading to complete the reflection process. As Confucius said: “Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.” Preand post-reading discussion allows students to dig deep into their readings by comparing and contrasting their pre-reading and post reading thoughts. This type of discussion strategy is highly personal. Students bear their inner thoughts and share a leap of faith in their thinking process. Discussion Prompt—Reflection

After reviewing the documentation on the educator code of ethics, you are required to post a reflection in which you present three pairs of statements. Each pair should consist of your initial thoughts about an idea before reading and any changes in your perspective after reading. For example: Pre (your original thinking/belief): “I believe that following the educator code of ethics ensures that I won’t make any mistakes. All I need to do is be familiar with the code and know what I should and shouldn’t do.” Post (insights gained from this thematic cycle): “I now realize that it’s not as simple as I initially thought. Teacher ethics is a complex issue, and I face difficult choices on a daily basis due to the many gray areas. How can I maintain a professional distance from my students while also showing them that I genuinely care? I would like to help a needy student by buying him a pair of shoes, and I wouldn’t hesitate to offer a ride to a student in a dangerous area as it gets dark. I enjoy listening to my students’ stories and forming personal connections with them. However, now I have to consider whether these actions align with the code of ethics. Reading this book has raised more questions than answers for me.” Alternative: After interacting with their peers in discussions, students can reflect on whether their positions have changed and share their reflections, starting another round of discussion.

Student Experiences—Drawing on Inexhaustible Resources

37

Table 2.1 Ways to vary structures of online discussion Discussion prompt Student participation

Alternatives

Reading materials

Students read and react to their readings

Students agree or refute points in reading materials

Quote

Students interpret and elaborate on the quote with examples and evidence

Students post the quotes of their choices

Scenario

Students work on the problem through analysis and evaluation of the scenario

Students create their own scenario for discussion

Recent event

Students identify relevance of the Students locate relevant news on the event to the topic discussed national and local levels relevant to the topic discussed

Subject expert

Students prepare questions and interact with the subject expert

Students interview subject experts and post the interview videos or podcasts for discussion

Debate

Students argue for or against a position

Students post claim, counter claim, or counter counterclaim in the debate

Role play

Students assume hypothetical roles in the discussion

Students assume various roles as discussants (e.g., initiator, elaborator, challenger, and questioner)

Research project

Students use the discussion board Students critique peer-reviewed studies to facilitate the development of projects

There are numerous ways to vary the structure of the online discussion to maintain student engagement. Variation refreshes student learning experiences and makes online discussion attractive and fulfilling. The summary of suggestions is presented in the Table 2.1.

Student Experiences—Drawing on Inexhaustible Resources Student personal and professional experiences can be a rich reservoir for online discussion to tap. As in gardening where even a good seed needs to be nurtured in rich soil with abundant water in order to grow and thrive, so too student experiences can provide an environment where learning emerges. Dewey was a strong advocate for student experience in learning because he believed it influenced student attitude, desire, and purpose for learning. He stated (Dewey, 1938): “Every experience is a moving force. Its value can be judged only on the ground of what it moves toward and into…. Failure to take the moving force of an experience into account so as to judge and direct it on the ground of what it is moving into means disloyalty to the principle of experience itself” (p. 35). Student experiences are a “direct avenue” for students to understand subject matter in schools and later on

38

2 Design to Engage Students

the “surest road” to comprehend problems in the economy and industry that society faces. Nevertheless, in traditional schools, curriculum and teaching methods are distanced from student experiences, thus closing the channel for students to access genuine learning: “The gap is so great that the required subject matter, the methods of learning and of behaving are foreign to the existing capacities of the young. They are beyond the reach of the experience the young learners already possess” (Dewey, 1938, p. 19). Dewey urged teachers to evaluate the quality of student experiences and organize curriculum around student experiences, which is the foundation of new education where students are placed in the center of learning. Instructors need to create opportunities for students to bring their cultures and experiences to the learning process. Constructivist learning theory considers all knowledge is constructed based on previous knowledge. Knowledge construction occurs when new knowledge is assimilated into the current knowledge base. Therefore, learning is a continuous process where previous knowledge is expanded, transformed, and advanced. Instructors have long acknowledged the importance of student personal experiences in learning. However, they seldom realize how easily they can bypass this important resource for promoting student learning in online discussion as Skinner (2009) pointed out: “A teacher might know in theory that it is important to recognize students’ individual needs but can easily miss putting this into practice. Teachers need to focus on the importance of reaching out to individuals, making personal contact and touching each person’s emotional interest” (p. 98). In designing online discussion, instructors need to be cognizant of the value of student experiences as a resource they can utilize to promote optimal student learning. A discussion will hold student interest if it immerses students in a learning environment where their cultures and experiences are acknowledged and valued. Student experiences can bring personal interests, authenticity, and existing knowledge into the learning process.

Emotional Connection Student personal and professional experiences can also bring an emotional connection to online discussion. Emotion plays an important role in student learning (Engelmann & Bannert, 2019; Pekrun, 2014; Rowe, et al. 2015). “Positive emotions influence learning by affecting students’ attention, motivation, use of learning strategies and self-regulation of learning” (Pekrun, 2014, p 12). Emotion drives student motivation to get involved since learning then becomes personal and relevant. Students quickly lose interest if they cannot relate to a discussion in a personal way. In an entry-level education course, when discussing educator code of ethics, students were asked to recount their experiences in a K-12 school. Had they personally encountered a teacher who behaved unethically? Had they ever witnessed a teacher behaving unprofessionally? Students were reminded not to reveal any

Student Experiences—Drawing on Inexhaustible Resources

39

names. These experiences provided rich cases to explore the negative consequences of unethical behavior on victims as well as its impact on any student who witnessed the incident. In their postings, students were required to apply the educator code of ethics in analyzing the questionable behavior. As the discussion moved along, the code of ethics was no longer just a set of rules on paper. It now had life, meaning, and relevance. One student posted that she was a cheer leader in high school and frequently skipped classes, falling behind in her academic work. Her teachers always gave her grades she did not deserve. As a consequence, her writing skills were poor, and she had difficulty in her completing the academic work in college. Narration of personal experiences helps students gain insights into the impact of unethical teacher actions on students. They became keenly aware that the code of ethics was established to protect students. In the discussion, some students posted that they decided to become teachers because they did not want future students to suffer what they suffered in their K-12 educational journey. As future teachers, they came to realize their responsibility to follow the code of ethics and protect students physically, intellectually, socially, and environmentally. Their experiences infused emotion into the discussion helping students learn not through memorizing the code but through analysis, evaluation, and reflection of each other’s experiences. When discussion is built around student experiences (personal and/or professional), students readily take responsibility for their learning and wholeheartedly get involved. An interesting by-product of introducing student experiences into online discussion is that each posting is unique, therefore, plagiarizing peer postings is never an issue. Educator Code of Ethics

Please think about your K-12 experiences. Did you ever have a teacher you considered to be unprofessional (no names please)? Describe the specific behaviors of this teacher that led you to perceive them as unprofessional. Conduct an analysis of the behaviors by referring to the educator code of ethics.

Authenticity Student experiences bring authenticity to their learning. When students are assigned an academic task or activity, their initial thoughts often revolve around the purpose behind it and the benefits they can derive from it. Online discussions are no exception. If students are motivated solely by the desire to earn credit, their engagement and commitment are likely to be limited. Therefore, when designing online discussions, it is crucial to identify opportunities to incorporate real-world problems and challenges that students have encountered or are likely to encounter in their lives and future careers.

40

2 Design to Engage Students

When online discussions are linked to student experiences, students develop a sense of ownership and engagement in their learning. Espino-Bravo (2015) highlights how personalized discussions can appeal to students. For instance, a discussion on environmental issues like climate change and pollution may not immediately resonate with students, despite their awareness of these problems. While the topic itself is important, students may struggle to connect with its practical relevance. However, by incorporating student experiences, the discussion becomes more authentic, placing them at the center and making them feel personally invested in solving environmental problems. For example, the focus of the discussion could shift to actions they have taken to improve the environment, such as recycling, going paperless, or carpooling. By relating the discussion to their role in environmental improvement, students are motivated to actively participate. Personal connection can trigger student interest in learning sciences through discussion. In an introductory bioscience course discussing bacteria, the instructor directed the discussion to food processing and e-coli. Obviously, food is an essential part of everyone’s life and students became deeply involved in the discussion and considered it is an important tool for learning the subject. They had such a positive learning experience that they protested when the teacher announced that they would not use the same discussion approach for the subsequent topic in the class (Brett, 1998). Thus, authenticity in online discussion can increase student commitment to learning. Students buy into the activity since they gain some ownership of learning that addresses real challenges in real life. In this way, online discussion provides a valuable platform supporting authentic science and social science projects. For example, online discussion can be used to have students explore teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, drunk driving, AIDS, and obesity in a biology class. These are the things that are happening in student lives: they may have a teenage sibling who is pregnant, know someone whose life is ruined by drugs. They may be facing these challenges themselves. Their personal connection forms the basis for their active inquiries. In seeking answers, they are helping others as well as themselves. Authentic discussions can touch student life in a major way. It makes a curriculum real and encourages student engagement. Students can apply what they have learned to explore myths involved in everyday issues (e.g., “I won’t get pregnant from having sex just once”, “Could I get AIDS from wearing second-hand jewelries?”, “I can always quit drugs”, “Having a beer will not affect my driving. I know what I am doing”). A discussion can also lead to creation of materials for educational purposes: brochures, multimedia presentations, webpages, YouTube videos, and podcasts.

Recognized Venue Student experiences bring prior knowledge to learning process and create a relational venue in which they can access new knowledge. Learning is not a process of replacing or erasing previous knowledge; rather, it involves constructing knowledge based on prior experiences. Piaget emphasized that humans construct

Student Experiences—Drawing on Inexhaustible Resources

41

knowledge centering on their prior experiences. From this model, it can be seen that student past learning and experiences shape how they respond to the learning of new knowledge, serving as the basis for exploring, understanding, and internalizing new knowledge. Therefore, activating student experiences is a critical link in bridging prior knowledge and new knowledge. Instructors leading online discussion should exploit this fundamental principle of learning and activate student prior knowledge and experiences as the basis for exploring and constructing new knowledge. In a class on teaching learning theories, students were required to post about an instance in which they believe they truly learn—what they learned, how they learned and why they believed learning occurred. From their personal learning experiences, students defined their personal teaching philosophy and identified with a learning theory. Their experiences provided a relational context wherein they explored and investigated learning theories. By applying learning theories to their past learning experiences, they transformed a theory from an abstract entity to a tool guiding them in their learning and future teaching. Access new knowledge through a recognized venue makes student navigation of new knowledge less challenging. Brain research has shown that when new knowledge is connected with what learners have already experienced, learning becomes less overwhelming. Student experience lends incredible support for them in assuming command of new subject knowledge. For example, a student expressed: “This discussion has allowed me to reflect on my experiences. I have enjoyed looking back on my classroom time and my life lessons. Placing them within the categories/theories of learning has been revealing and help to fine-tune my ‘personal’ learning theory.” At times, student prior knowledge is not accurate (and may even be erroneous). However, this is where the learning process comes into play. Students continue to expand and refine their existing knowledge. Online discussions provide a platform for collaborative critical inquiry and the social construction of knowledge. The process of constructing social cognition is effective in countering individual errors in prior knowledge. However, it is important to note that cognitive dissonance, as a driving force, is not an easy process. One student spoke of the challenge shared by many: “I get it, and it definitely shakes my confidence in some way. But I find it fascinating to learn this way because it is so different for me. Challenging, but frustrating. Enlightening, but a little scary. Risky, but worth it. I have been forced out of my comfort zone, but I am learning to do so many different things and truly re-thinking my philosophy of teaching and learning.” When students were asked to identify their teaching philosophy, most students in this class adamantly claimed they were constructivists, dismissing other learning theories, particularly behaviorism. However, through discussions, many students came to realize the importance of being open to other learning theories: “I find that all of the theories have validity in certain situations. No one of these theories is completely ‘correct’ in the sense of explaining all learning phenomena teachers encounter. But each is correct within certain circumstances or for certain problems. Teachers, being pragmatists, should choose the best approach depending on the instructional problem at hand.”

42

2 Design to Engage Students

Personal experiences not only aid students in their own learning but also contribute to the learning of others. In an education course for graduate students at a major American university, some students were currently working as schoolteachers. During online discussions, they shared their experiences with K12 students, which served as an invaluable learning resource for all students. These teachers utilized their experiences to illustrate teaching strategies aligned with specific learning theories in various contexts. Students who were not yet teaching found these personal stories enlightening. One student expressed their gratitude for having classmates who were already teachers: “I was also grateful to have several classmates who are already teaching and could provide real-life examples. Although I was glad not to be the only prospective teacher in the group, one thing I quickly learned on my path to becoming a teacher is the wisdom of learning from the experiences of others, particularly ‘well-seasoned’ teachers.” The students valued online discussions as a platform to access personal stories, as expressed by another student: “It was great to be able to hear the authentic teaching experiences of the group members. I gained insights and valuable knowledge from the stories they shared and how they resolved any problems they encountered. In a traditional classroom setting, I feel that my group members would not have shared the same level of personal stories.” Student experiences can serve as an inexhaustible resource for instructors to enhance student engagement in learning. They have the power to personalize, authenticate, and validate learning within online discussions. Instructors play a crucial role in unlocking the “potentialities inherent in experience” (Dewey, 1938, p. 86) to promote student learning. When conducting online discussions, student experience should be regarded as a valuable resource that must not be overlooked. Instructors should actively explore, exploit, and capitalize on it to maximize student learning. Failing to do so would be a disservice to students.

Requiring a Tangible Product—Harvesting Season Currently, most online discussions follow a discernible pattern: students participate, post contributions, receive a grade, and it ends there. This “post and done” approach provides little incentive for student engagement and, more importantly, limits the impact of online discussions on student learning. To address this, online discussions should culminate in a tangible product that students are required to deliver based on their learning from the discussions. While developing a “product” from online discussions may be discussed later in this chapter, instructors should consider it as an essential element in the design of their online discussion activities from the outset. By aligning course learning objectives, designing assignments, and integrating online discussions, instructors can support student learning effectively. Online discussions should function as a platform that guides and sustains students’ social and cognitive engagement, ultimately leading to the creation of a meaningful deliverable. In this context, online discussions become a means

Requiring a Tangible Product—Harvesting Season

43

rather than an end. The requirement of a tangible product transforms online discussions into task-oriented learning episodes, where students actively participate to accomplish meaningful tasks. With clear expectations and goals, students have a sense of purpose and direction in their online discussions. The requirement for a tangible product conveys the value of online discussion to students and clarifies its relevance to their overall learning in the course. Without a deliverable product, online discussion might be perceived as an optional add-on activity that students could easily dismiss. If it is separated from course assignments, it may have a low priority on students’ to-do lists, as they might struggle to see how their participation would contribute to their overall learning. Student motivation stems from a clear understanding of the immediate connection between the discussion and their overall learning objectives. By incorporating online discussion seamlessly into course assignments, instructors can encourage student participation and reinforce its importance. As Weimer (2015) noted, “Discussions shouldn’t be islands in a course. They should be regions within a country with borders that touch or overlap, where students can navigate from familiar to unfamiliar content areas and back again” (para 8). By making online discussion an integral part of course assignments, students are held accountable for their participation, as the primary source for their final product stems from their engagement in online discussions. The deliverable product provides students with a new context in which they can apply what they have learned through online discussion. It allows them to demonstrate their ability to independently apply knowledge in a different setting. Without a tangible product, students are left halfway through their learning process. When discussing complex concepts, subjects, issues, or problems, students engage in multiple cycles of articulation, negotiation, elaboration, construction, and reconstruction. Through online discussion, they gain new understanding, insights, and hypotheses. The question then arises: what should they do with their newfound knowledge? They should be given the opportunity to demonstrate, apply, and reflect upon it. For example, a discussion of a scientific concept could lead to a science project or a laboratory experiment report that showcases students’ understanding and application of the concept. A debate could result in an essay that illustrates students’ ability to present convincing arguments on an issue. A discussion on global warming could inspire various related endeavors, such as writing an essay that debates whether global warming is primarily a consequence of human behavior or a natural fluctuation, conducting an experimental science project that explores the effects of polluted air on plant growth, drafting a proposal to the state legislature outlining strategies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, creating a personal action plan to combat global warming including measures like reducing electricity and water consumption, designing a poster to promote energy-saving products, or developing educational resources like booklets or web pages dedicated to raising awareness about global warming. By requiring a tangible product, students are given an outlet for their new knowledge. Furthermore, the archives of online discussions retain all the postings,

44

2 Design to Engage Students

allowing students to conveniently access them at any time and from anywhere during the different stages of completing their work. This enables them to revisit and analyze the connections between thoughts and ideas, evaluate multiple perspectives, and synthesize information from the discussion into their final product. Throughout the process of creating the product, students can generate additional insights and thoughts, facilitating further learning. It empowers students to discover and rediscover new meanings within the discussion postings. A deliverable product can take various forms, ranging from large-scale and collaborative projects to small and individual pieces, such as reflective learning journals. Some instructors facilitate weekly online discussions and require students to submit weekly learning journals as a means to promote reflective learning. Reflection is a crucial aspect of student learning. In discussing the importance of reflection, Moon (2005) emphasized, “It can be challenging to reflect when we are fully engaged in an activity. Reflection provides a way of ‘stepping back’ from the emotions and hasty judgments made in the moment, allowing for the development of a clearer perspective” (p. 1). This rings particularly true in the context of online discussions where students often engage in back-and-forth exchanges, sometimes involving heated debates. Through writing journals, students can critically review their own postings, examining their thoughts and emotions. There are various approaches to incorporating reflection into online discussions. For instance, students can be tasked with selecting the most thought-provoking postings from their peers and elaborating on their choice. They can also identify a specific point with which they strongly agree or disagree in a peer’s contribution and provide a reflective response. Additionally, students can reflect on whether their own stance on a topic has evolved throughout the discussion. These opportunities encourage students to consider not only their successes but also their failures, with a focus on extracting valuable lessons from both experiences. Reflection can be likened to an appetizer, tantalizingly initiating a discussion, as well as a dessert, providing a sweet sense of closure. In a discussion-based online university course centered around learning theories and technology, students are tasked with sharing their personal learning theories at the outset of the semester. This initial reflection serves as a foundation upon which subsequent discussions evolve and develop, drawing upon students’ individual learning experiences. Appetizer—Using Reflection to Start a Discussion

Instructions: • • • • •

Describe what learning is to you (your personal theory of learning). Share a recent incident or experience that you believe you have learned. Justify how this incident illustrates your theory of learning. Post your story and justification. Note: Remember that learning can occur in various contexts, not just within the school settings.

Requiring a Tangible Product—Harvesting Season

45

There are separate discussion forums dedicated to each of the major learning theories. In addition to designing lesson plans that align with the discussed learning theories, students are also expected to continuously reflect on and refine their personal learning theory throughout the semester. As part of the final assessment, students are required to submit a revised version of their learning theory, which has been shaped through cycles of discussions, reflections, and revisions. Desert—Using Reflection to Close a Discussion

Please write a 500 word paper on the learning theory based on discussion: • • • •

Provide a brief summary of the discussion thread. Highlight postings that help you understand the learning theory. Revisit your personal learning theory. Reflect on whether the discussion has changed your personal learning theory.

A tangible product can also serve to promote metacognitive skills. Metacognition is the process of thinking about thinking and learning about learning. Research shows that metacognition activities enhance student awareness of how they think and learn through critical analysis of their own learning performances. Students gain insights into why they succeed or fail in learning a subject matter. With metacognitive skills, students can proactively apply effective strategies in various learning contexts. Online discussion makes student thoughts visible, faithfully recording the development of their thoughts. They can clearly see their thought process and conduct critical analysis on how they think and why they think a particular way. For example, in a math class, the tangible product could be a list of math problems students created and a presentation on various pathways to solve them. Having them backtrack and retrace the steps involved in problem-solving would reinforce student learning. Students not only learn how to solve problems, but also learn how to learn to solve math problems. They learn to rise above the subject matter. Similarly, a “discussion board audit” is a metacognitive assignment where students are asked to think over their performance in an online discussion (Kelly, 2014). In this type of assignment, students are asked to review their postings and complete an analysis of their performance in a four-to-five-page paper. A “discussion board audit” can be a weekly assignment or a final assignment with instructors providing a list of questions for students to consider: “Has the nature of your posts changed over the quarter?”; “What surprised you as you reread your work?”; “What ideas or threads in your posts do you see as worth revisiting?” In classes where this has been implemented, student responses to these assignments change from negative (“Why would I go back and look at all the work I’ve done?”) to enthusiastic (“Oh, I’ve learned so much. My opinion on this has changed. My writing has improved. My research has improved. My critical thinking has improved”) (para 6–7).

46

2 Design to Engage Students

A deliverable product should connect student learning and assessment by being an assignment that aligns with course learning objectives. In assessing these assignments, instructors measure student learning progress and receives credible feedback on their teaching. Currently, determination of student learning in online discussion is primarily through assessment of their postings. That is too simplistic. By assessing a deliverable product, instructors gain a clearer idea of whether online discussion achieved expected learning outcomes. To increase accountability in online discussion, a deliverable product must be designed in a way that makes participation crucial for students to be able to develop it, such as the discussion being the primary source of a product geared towards higher order thinking skills and requiring diverse perspectives. For example, if students missed discussion on a learning theory, it would be difficult for them to develop a unit or lesson plan aligned with the theory. Skipping a debate on international trade conflicts would presents challenges to students constructing legitimate arguments in an essay on whether zero tariffs or high tariffs should be implemented between two countries because they would not be privy to valuable resources, multiple perspectives, and insightful interpretations of data on each phase of their research. In this chapter, the analogy of gardening was used to illustrate how to design for student engagement in online discussion: planting a good seed—creating meaningful discussion prompts; attending to variations—delineating diverse designs; utilizing inexhaustible resources—taking advantage of student personal and collective experiences; and enjoying harvesting time—delivering a tangible product. Once a tangible product is delivered, then what? Celebration! Eventually it is harvesting season. A bouquet of roses for your neighbors would bring smiles to their faces. Fresh fruit is everyone’s favorite at a party and a variety of vegetables will increase the appetites of party guests. All from the garden.

Summary • • • •

Successful online discussion requires meticulous design. Online discussion with real purposes effectively engages students. Varying discussion structures can stimulate student interest. Student personal and collective experiences are invaluable resources for designing online discussions. • Online discussions should always lead to the creation of tangible products.

References

47

References Bender, T. (2012). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory, practice and assessment. Stylus Publishing, LLC. Brett, W. J. (1998). Commonalities in biology. Bioscene, 24(2), 13–17. Bucholz, J. L., Keller, C. L., & Brady, M. P. (2007). Teachers’ ethical dilemmas: What would you do? Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(2), 60–64. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: MacMillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Phi Delta Kappa. Dillon, J. T. (1995). Using discussion in classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press. Engelmann, P., & Bannert, M. (2019). Fostering students’ emotion regulation during learning: Design and effects of a computer-based video training. International Journal of Emotional Education, 11(2), 3–16. Espino-Bravo, C. (2015). Using personal stories to engage students in conversation, Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/using-personal-stories-toengage-students-in-conversation/ Howe, K. R., Boelé, A. L., & Miramontes, O. B. (2018). The ethics of special education. Teachers College Press. Columbia University. Kelly, R. (2014). Discussion board audit—A metacognitive, wrap-up assignment. Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/discussion-board-audit-metaco gnitive-wrap-assignment/ McClam, E. & Williams, P. (2015, September 1). Kentucky clerk Kim Davis defies supreme court, turns down gay couples, U.S. News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/same-sex-mar riage-kentucky-clerk-defies-supreme-court-turns-down-n419351 https://www.nbcnews.com/ news/us-news/same-sex-marriage-kentucky-clerk-defies-supreme-court-turns-down-n419351 Moon, J. (2005). What is involved in reflection? University of Hull. http://mmiweb.org.uk/hull/1_ hullpgce/assessment/ass_supp_secondary/reflection/reflectionmodels.html Pekrun, R. (2014). Emotions and learning. Educational Practices Series-24. UNESCO International Bureau of Education. Rowe, A. D., Fitness, J., & Wood, L. N. (2015). University student and lecturer perceptions of positive emotions in learning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(1), 1–20. Skinner, E. (2009). Using community development theory to improve student engagement in online discussion: A case study. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17(2), 89–100. Solomon, N. (2011). Friendly advice for teachers: Beware of Facebook. National Public Radio [npr]. https://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143264921/friendly-advice-for-teachers-beware-of-fac ebook Sullivan, T. M., & Freishtat, R. (2013). Extending learning beyond the classroom: Graduate student experiences of online discussions in a hybrid course. Continuing Higher Education, 61(1), 12– 22. Weimer, M. (2015). Effective ways to structure discussion. The Teaching Professor. http://info.mag napubs.com/blog/articles/teaching-professor-blog/effective-ways-structure-discussion/ Wilton, L. (2018). Quiet participation: Investigating non-posting activities in online learning. Online Learning, 22(4), 65–88. Zare, P., & Othman, M. (2013). Classroom debate as a systematic teaching/learning approach. World Applied Sciences Journal, 28(11), 1506–1513.

3

Lay Down Groundwork: Forming, Accessing, and Inducting

Abstract

An online discourse community does not happen on its own. It must be designed and created. Although a group is usually formed under the premise that “two heads are better than one”, members do not always collaborate effectively. Building and nurturing a learning community is a process which occurs even before the discussion starts.

Introduction An online discourse community does not happen on its own. It must be designed and created. Although a group is usually formed under the premise that “two heads are better than one”, members do not always collaborate effectively. Building and nurturing a learning community is a process which occurs even before the discussion starts. Important groundwork needs to be completed before group members start to work. The groundwork centers on forming groups, providing member access to the community space, and inducting students into the discourse community. Objectives Upon completing this chapter, you will acquire the following knowledge and skills: • Explain the necessary groundwork to forge a thriving online discourse community. • Identify effective methods for collating student information to ensure balanced discussion group formation. • Effectively form and structure discussion groups

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y.-M. Wang, Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3_3

49

50

3 Lay Down Groundwork: Forming, Accessing, and Inducting

• Construct online learning spaces to facilitate a vibrant online discourse community. • Implement strategies to effectively induct students into the online discourse community.

Forming Groups The first challenge instructors encounter when conducting online discussions is the formation of groups. At the start of a semester, instructors often have limited knowledge about their students. Allowing students to choose their own groups is not a viable option due to the lack of familiarity among students and the absence of useful information about one another, particularly in an online learning setting. Therefore, logistically, it is not feasible for students to select their own groups. Pedagogically, it is important for students to cultivate the ability to collaborate with any peer, as this reflects real-life situations where individuals do not always have the luxury of choosing their working partners. A balanced group is crucial for fostering productive group dynamics, which is essential for the success of a discourse community. Ideally, a group should consist of members with diverse attitudes and competencies. The challenge for instructors lies in gathering information about students in a timely manner in order to form groups and initiate online discussions promptly. While obtaining the necessary student information may not be readily available, there are several methods that can assist instructors in collecting the required information to establish balanced discussion groups.

Building Balanced Groups: Assessing Student Strengths and Weaknesses Polling Students Instructors can use polling to gather baseline information from students. For instance, instructors can ask students to rate the following aspects: (1) experience—How much experience do students have with online discussion? (2) attitude—Do students believe they learn effectively through online discussion? (3) participation—Did students actively contribute to group discussions in the past? (4) learning style—Do students prefer collaborative or individual work? (5) leadership/interpersonal skills—How well do students rate their ability to work with peers? Are students willing to volunteer as discussion group leaders? It is important to note that the information collected through polling is self-reported and may be subject to biases as students may want to present themselves in a positive light.

Forming Groups

51

Instructors should be prepared to adjust group arrangements based on the outcomes of the initial discussions.

Observations Another way to gather student information is through direct observations. Personally, I prefer to wait for about two weeks into the semester before forming discussion groups for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this gives me time to observe and identify students who are stronger or weaker in their engagement and participation. Secondly, the Add/Drop deadlines typically fall within that timeframe, and waiting allows students to settle into their classes, reducing the need for disruptive re-forming of groups due to class changes. To ensure course and group stability, I regularly access the course site to see which students have logged in as soon as the course becomes available online. I have found that students who proactively log in before the class starts display a positive sign of engagement. Throughout the first week of class, I monitor the frequency and duration of students’ logins. Most learning management systems provide this information. If a student fails to log in during the first week, it raises a red flag for me. In face-to-face learning, attending the first class, reviewing the course syllabus, asking questions, and interacting with peers are expected. If a student remains inactive online during the initial week, it is equivalent to their absence from the class. Along with tracking login frequency, I also take note of the duration students spend online—some may spend a few hours, while others may only stay for a few minutes. Based on this information, I categorize students into the top five or six and bottom five or six in terms of login frequency and time spent online.

Small Assignments During the first two weeks, I have students complete a couple of small assignments to observe how well each student does. For example, an assignment that requires students to compose and post on a discussion board gives me an opportunity to assess student writing and communication skills. Meanwhile, the gradebook records the time of assignment submission: who is early, who is late, and who has missed it. The Canvas learning system has a notebook embedded in the gradebook where I can enter my observations. Once I have collated this information, I can make an initial ranking of the potential relative academic strengths of the class members and make sure each discussion group has a reasonable mix of the strongest and the weakest. The rest of the students are randomly assigned. There is no guarantee that this strategy will be 100% accurate and reliable. Nevertheless, it yields first-hand information about students that I cannot obtain

52

3 Lay Down Groundwork: Forming, Accessing, and Inducting

otherwise. There are always opportunities to adjust the group composition later in the semester.

Group Size Group size is an important factor influencing group dynamics in online discussion - it influences participation, interaction, performance, and learning outcomes, quality of postings, group cohesion, social presence, evolvement of the discussion, and eventually student learning outcomes (Afify, 2019; Chen & Liu, 2020; Hew & Cheung, 2011; Kim, 2013; Peddibhotla & Jani, 2019; Tomei, 2006). As Afify (2019) noted, “the size of the group participating in the discussion is an essential factor that requires more investigation, specifically at the level of interaction, improving participation, and the critical thinking development for students. In that, the group size in the discussion assumedly affects the learning performance.” (p. 133). A Wild Guess—What is the Number? How many students should be put in one discussion group? Rosales and Soldner (2018) stated that students performed better “following discussion in dyads” (a group of 2) compared with groups of 4 or 5, (p. 105). Lowry et al. (2006) discovered that “3-person groups maintained higher levels of communication quality than did 6-person groups”. Watson (2020), based on his teaching instincts and a review of research, considered the ideal group size to be 4 or 5 students. Qiu et al. (2014) emphasized that a discussion group should not exceed 5, while Morrison (2015) argued that 5 was too big for an online discussion group: “... it’s more challenging to coordinate and a group member that is by nature lazier, will find it easier to shirk responsibility in a group of five. In smaller groups there is more responsibility and pressure for each group member to perform. I’ve found the ideal size to be three or four.” Piezon and Donaldson (2005) added that a discussion group should not exceed 6. Rovai (2007) raised the group size to 10 participants. Afify (2019) suggested that discussion groups could go up to 12 students as his research found that small-sized (5 students) and medium-sized (12 students) discussion groups enhanced student critical thinking skills, although there were no significant differences between the two group sizes in student learning performance. The largest group size came from Chen and Liu (2020) who found that a group size of 30 students enhanced student social presence and led to in-depth investigation of the discussed topic. This is definitely confusing. How many students should be placed in one online discussion group? I do not have the magic number. More importantly, I consider the discussion on group size has missed a vital point. Group size should be determined by the purpose and structure of the discussion, not vice versa.

Forming Groups

53

Small Versus Large I have used both large and small groups in online discussions. As noted earlier in Chap. 2 of this book, role playing is a discussion method I use quite frequently. Students are assigned to various roles in the discussion group such as researcher, challenger, elaborator, and questioner. In this scenario, a four-person group works best. If there are too many roles, students can become confused, distracting them from focusing on their own roles in the discussion. A large group is needed when the purpose of discussion is to have students brainstorm ideas. I often involve the entire class when there is a need to generate as many thoughts as possible. When the issue concerns everyone and a consensus needs to be reached, a large group is needed for the discussion. At the beginning of the semester, I will involve the entire class in discussing rules to follow in their online discussions as this best fits the purpose of soliciting everyone’s input as every voice counts in deciding on new rules or modifying the old ones. The large volume of inputs is helpful in creating fair and robust rules. Micro Versus Macro Group size should be determined by the nature of the discussion. Instructors can vary group size within a discussion activity. To be more specific, instructors can structure discussions simultaneously on two levels: micro vs. macro. For example, students first conduct discussion within a small group of three to four, that is, on a micro level. This is followed by cross-group discussion in which all groups in the class interact with each other (the macro level). Each group leads a discussion thread, posting their work, encouraging critique, and responding to questions. In my experience, this micro vs macro approach is successful for both undergraduate and graduate students. I would like to recount one experience in a successful online discussion that involved two tiered interactions—within the group first and across groups later. This online discussion was conducted in an undergraduate course where the students were required to investigate an issue in the field of education. Three students comprised a group and there was a total of 8 groups. The students were free to research a topic of their choice but had to post their findings on their group discussion board on each phase: statement of the issue, rationale for their research, information collection, research analysis, and summary of major findings. After completing the research, each group posted their draft for across group critiques, producing a total of 8 discussion threads. Members of each group served as a leader for the discussion on their research, initiating and managing the discussion thread, which included encouraging peer participation, responding to questions, commenting on peer feedback, and expressing appreciation for peer contributions. Each group demonstrated strong leadership, making sure their threads drew in adequate participants and generated sufficient input that could be incorporated into revision of their final research presentation. Since the discussion was arranged in threads, postings were well organized, limiting confusion. The structure of the discussion facilitated strong group dynamics and ensured meaningful discourse.

54

3 Lay Down Groundwork: Forming, Accessing, and Inducting

It is clear that group size is not a black and white issue. When people’s thoughts are fixed on extreme opposites, intermediate options are ignored and abandoned. As shown in the conflicting statements presented in this section, there is no such thing as “one size fits all”. Group size should be determined by the task to be completed. Group Adjustment Group adjustment should be conducted as early and as quickly as possible. When a group does not function well, it is usually due to one of the two reasons: (1) The group has an inadequate number of members. For example, when an assigned member drops the course; (2) Inactive members, that is, group members who do not participate. One strategy, when a discussion group does not function well, is to move members from active groups into the dysfunctional group in an effort to “jumpstart” discussion in the group with fresh blood. However, the truth is that once they are established in a group, students are understandably reluctant to be transferred to another group and it may not be in the best interest of good students to have them move. Additionally, there is no guarantee that introducing an active new member would revive an indolent group. Therefore, when a group is failing to function appropriately, the best approach is to dissolve the group and distribute its members into other groups. However, it is important that instructors seek input from group members about this proposed action even though it is difficult to salvage a group where most members are not contributing. In my experience, dissolving group members into new groups usually results in a stronger overall discussion environment as reformed groups tend to welcome new blood, feeling it strengthens their groups (as opposed to the impression that a group is weakened if members are pulled away). Instructors should communicate clearly with all stakeholders, letting students in the dysfunctional group know they will merge into other groups and informing the recipient group of a new member coming.

Accessing the Virtual Learning Community This section is based on the ideas discussed in my paper Instructors as architects— Designing learning spaces for discussion-based online courses (Wang & Chen, 2011) and here is used with the permission of the publisher. A community must provide space for members to access and work together. The same principle applies to the online discourse community. Participants need a space where they can converse and achieve desired learning goals. Traditionally, learning has taken place in a physical space built with little input from the instructor or students who are to use it. Online learning differs in that it grants instructors the opportunity to be architects of learning spaces, that is, they have the freedom to design not only an online classroom, but also the entire learning community. Learning spaces can thus be designed to fulfill the pedagogical goals

Design of the Online Discourse Space

55

specifically identified by instructors. Instead of the monetary and human resources involved in designing a physical learning space, designing an online learning space requires instructors to possess clear pedagogical aspirations, technology competencies, and design skills. Learning spaces are closely related to teaching and learning as “Learning space—whether physical or virtual—can have an impact on learning” (Oblinger, 2006, p. 1.1). Unfortunately, few instructors have an adequate awareness of their role as learning space designers even though they have the power to be learning space architects. Generally, the tendency for online course instructors is to accept the default online course settings. This might well be due to the mind-set that a learning space is fixed and given.

Design of the Online Discourse Space As an architect, instructors can build online discourse communities that contains five spaces: (1) group space; (2) class space; (3) teacher space; (4) personal space, and (5) community space. Each learning space should be designed with careful consideration of its purposes and functions.

Group Space Group space is for group members to discuss and work on their projects. Each group should have a space of its own where major discussion activities are conducted, and access is restricted to group members. It is like a conference room in a learning community. In a discussion-based online course, discussion is integrated in most assignments, serving as the steppingstone for students to understand course content and complete assignments. Before an assignment, students are required to discuss related theories, concepts, and topics in the group space. To ensure that students focus on the discussion, the use of the group space is restricted to discussions of required topics in the course. Other activities that might side track discussions are discouraged. Rules and regulations must be established and enforced to maintain the use of the group space for the purpose for which it was originally designed.

Class Space Class space is owned by the entire class and open to everybody. This is like a town hall in a learning community. It is the area where an entire class can gather and participate in across-group discussions. The class space should stimulate interaction between groups, providing a window for groups to learn what other groups are doing—Have other groups reached different conclusions through their discussions? What alternative perspectives have emerged in discussions in other groups?

56

3 Lay Down Groundwork: Forming, Accessing, and Inducting

What new insights have other groups generated? Thus, the class space is a central area where students can give and receive feedback on each other’s work. For example, when students complete their research within their group, the group can post their findings in the class space for across group critiques. Each group can then revise their work based on the feedback in the class space. Across-group discussion provides different lenses for each group to view their work, helping them understand blind spots and differing viewpoints and arguments. In this way, comments and critiques in the class space help students enhance the quality of their work. In student reflections of my course, most students consider across-group critiques a highlight of their learning.

Teacher Space Teacher space is where instructors should demonstrate a strong teaching presence. A healthy learning community should balance student-centeredness and teachercenteredness. Teacher space is owned and managed by instructors. As instructors monitor student discussion, they should be able to identify teachable moments. For example, when it is clear that students are confused about a concept, instructors may need to post a short lecture, a brief video, or links to resources in the teacher space. Rather than intruding into the student space, instructors can invite students to the teacher space to chat about any questions or confusion that emerges during discussions. Instructors and students can also continue conversations even when a discussion closes. The teacher space is also the appropriate forum to assist students understand class etiquette. For example, if students are not following discussion rules, instructors can bring this issue to their attention. Instructors can also post their reflections on the course—what went well and what needs to be improved. Although instructors should keep a measured presence in student-led discussions, they need to take center stage in the teacher space.

Personal Space Learning is a social as well as an individual endeavor. In the learning community, there needs to be a personal space (owned by each individual student) for students to build their discussion portfolios and reflect upon their learning. After each discussion, students should be required to post their best contributions to their personal space and use the assigned criteria to justify why their contributions warrant points (e.g., I contributed new ideas to the discussion). Discussion portfolios allow students to track their progress and can motivate them to improve their discussion performance since they need to provide a rationale for why their postings should receive credit. Evaluation of discussion contributions can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive task for instructors and discussion portfolios can help them evaluate student discussion performance as they will not need to

Inducting

57

sift through numerous postings to decide which meet the requirements. Students can also post their reflective learning journals in their personal space. The purpose of keeping the reflective learning blog is to help students learn and grow. Through keeping a reflective learning journal, students make learning personal, meaningful, and applicable to their prior knowledge. Through reflective writing, they can formulate new insights about what they have learned in the process.

Inducting In discussion-based online courses, it is important to ease student entry into the discourse community where they are required to participate in professional discourse. Students in online learning environments can experience a high level of anxiety due to physical separation from peers and instructors. They often feel lonely, isolated, and disconnected. Prior to discussions of major topics, it is helpful to design small discussions as icebreakers to induct students into the trajectory of collaborative critical inquiry. An icebreaker that is fun and engaging can relax students, create a friendly atmosphere, and help them get their feet wet in the new learning environment. When they post, share, and interact with each other, they start to feel the presence of their peers and connect with each other. More importantly, an icebreaker can set students into motion for new learning. In discussion-based online courses, an icebreaker can be applied as a prelude to more complicated discourse tasks. Conventional Icebreaker—Self Introduction Students are often asked to do a self-introduction at the beginning of a semester in face-to-face classes. In online learning, they are asked to post a self-introduction on the discussion board. I used to use self-introduction as an icebreaker as the sample below shows. Welcome to Threaded Discussions! To kick off your initial thread, please respond to each bullet point listed below. Do not forget to comment on two of your fellow classmates’ responses. • Provide an introduction (including your name, where you are from and past experiences that have brought you to where you are now). • Include Information about yourself that is both personal and professional. • Identify three key takeaways you want to obtain from this course. • Attach a digital picture of yourself—This may be a social picture but if multiple people are in the picture, please be sure to identify yourself.

This icebreaker reads fine. However, I have found this introduction to be too formal and dry. It fails to capture student interest and encourage meaningful interaction. Consequently, student comments often mirror this formal and dry tone. They appear to have little to say about each other’s personal information, and the

58

3 Lay Down Groundwork: Forming, Accessing, and Inducting

topic of self-introduction fails to ignite excitement or fascination among students. Furthermore, in most online learning management systems, students can create a profile page where personal information can be posted for everyone to access and view in the semester. Interactive Icebreaker A successful icebreaker should spark student creativity, curiosity, and amusement. Students should interact with each other based on genuine interest rather than feeling compelled to do so. To stimulate student interaction, icebreakers need to be fun, suspenseful, and creative. I have searched the internet and found numerous creative icebreakers available online. While some were originally designed for face-to-face classes, they can be easily modified and adapted for the online learning environment. Personally, I have experimented with several of them in my discussion-based online courses and achieved positive results. Two Truths and One Lie I found this icebreaker online, and it has generated a lot of enthusiasm among students. The activity requires each student to share two true things about themselves and one statement that is false. Group members then have to identify the false statement. This icebreaker creates uncertainty and suspense, similar to a story, which triggers student interest and makes them eager to find out the answers. It’s a fun way for students to get to know each other. Students can be highly creative in crafting deceptive statements, making it challenging to distinguish truth from fiction: “Hmmm, these are harder than I thought… I am going to guess number 2 is your lie.” They often ensure that the most obvious statement is true, which tempts others to believe it’s false. It becomes a trick to make sure that others don’t guess the correct answer right away, stimulating curiosity and increasing interactions as they make their guesses. Through this activity, students often reveal intriguing truths about their lives that they may not disclose during formal introductions. “I am adopted from China”; “I model clothes for Ambiance in Homewood”; “I have seven sisters”; I have broken my right arm 3 times”; and “I have traveled to over half the states in the continental United States”. Student Posting 1. I was home-schooled my entire life. 2. My mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother were all teachers. 3. I graduated high school when I was 16. Response The lie is you graduated when you were 16. Answer Well, I did graduate when I was 16.

Inducting

59

Response The lie must be about your family all being teachers. Response What grade did your great grandmother teach? Answer My great grandmother taught pre-school and kindergarten. Response I Believe the Lie is #1. Answer Well TJ you are correct. I was only home-schooled in high school and that’s how I graduated so early.

Space Station This icebreaker is also found online. I modified it to intensify and increase student interactions. After the initial posting, students are required to post another contribution identifying students who provide a similar list as theirs. Students can find peers who share the same interest, belief, and personalities. Imagine that you have been residing on the International Space Station for a year. Suddenly, the on board computers malfunction, and you have a mere fifteen minutes to evacuate to a space shuttle before all life support systems collapse. You are permitted to bring with you five items. Please share five things you would take with you in your response. Post another message identifying peers whose choices are similar to yours and possibly share your priorities and interests.

When students share the five items they would grab and take away with them, they identified peers with similar interests, values, and elements of personalities: “We both listed the Bible first so I’m assuming that’s the first thing we thought of, which could imply that it’s our top priority.” “Julia and I both put a notebook and a pen. I think this is cool because it shows that we both see value in writing.” “You and I almost had the same list except I forgot to put my phone as one of mine”. “The first item I would grab honestly would be my dog, Lucky.” “Hi Ann! I also put that I would bring my dog because I couldn’t live without him!”; “Similar to Emma, I enjoy a good book and if my journey away from the space station is going to be long, I’ll need something to keep me entertained.”; “Going on, we both grab the necessities in life while also cherishing little things such as a favorite book or pictures; “Andi and I both would bring photos of our families, a phone, and a blanket. So, I think we both like to be comfortable and a sense of happiness”. “Amelia said she would bring her cat if she could, and I said I would bring my two dogs. Amelia and I are similar because we both enjoy animals.”

60

3 Lay Down Groundwork: Forming, Accessing, and Inducting

Technology Mishaps When students take online courses, they have to deal with technologies, which might be frustrating and even intimidating at times. This icebreaker urges students to recount an embarrassing experience involving technologies they would like to share with their peers. This sharing makes students realize they are not the only ones to encounter technology mishaps. On the contrary, it is a unifying experience for everyone, and shared embarrassment is a great leveler. In this way, this icebreaker can help students relax with each other: submitting a paper in which they typed “ass” instead of “as”; sending e-mail to a professor with the professor’s name misspelled; texting the wrong person; doing a quiz and hitting the submit button before answering all questions; and scolding their dog without turning on “mute” in a Zoom course. One student described an experience in which a piece of music started to play loudly as soon as he opened his laptop in a deadly silent classroom. Many lessons and much advice can be shared: always edit your papers and do not rely on the spell checker, double or triple check e-mails before sending them, be aware that you are not alone in a Zoom classroom and make sure that all apps are closed on your computer when taking it to a class.

Icebreakers to Reinforce the Overall Goal of the Course An alternative way to apply icebreakers is to align them with the overall goal of the course so they can support it and pave the way for students to develop skills required for the course. For example, in a marketing course, the instructor asked students to write and post a personal marketing statement, that is, students had to market themselves in a two-minute pitch. Thus, the icebreaker introduced students to the subject of marketing and gained an initial insight into what marketing means as a career. Additionally, they got to know their peers through each self-promotion (Volchok, 2006). Similarly, an instructor teaching a health and wellness course recounted her experiences in working to add a spark into student introductions to stimulate student interests. As part of an introductory forum, she asked students to do a search and post an outrageous claim related to health and wellness they found in commercials (e.g., Do this exercise and lose 20 pounds or take this supplement and gain 10 pounds of muscle in one week.). Students searched advertisements in infomercials, newspapers, and magazines and shared their findings. This activity got students to interact with each other and paved the way for them to identify topics that would be covered later in the course. In an online learning environment, student interaction is critical. Their first experience will color their perceptions about the environment in which they will spend the rest of the semester conversing and interacting with other students.

Summary

61

In one of my courses, students enrolled are interested in teaching as their career. The overall goal of the course is to help students understand teaching as a profession and thoroughly reflect upon their choice to become a teacher. To align with the course objective, I design an icebreaker discussion activity: Numerous misconceptions exist regarding the teaching profession, perpetuating false claims that require clarification. Share an example of one such claim you know or have heard about teaching, for instance, “Teaching is an easy job.” Then explain why this claim is invalid, utilizing research or personal experiences to refute it.

Student He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches—George Bernard Shaw. George Bernard Shaw could not have been more wrong in his generalization on why teachers choose to be teachers. Obviously, there are people who think that a career in education is an “easier” path, so they go for it. However, those who do that are in a small minority. Shaw is utterly incorrect because he fails to identify how one chooses a specific career. In his head, the decision is based solely on one passion. However, that said passion is only half of it. When anyone is choosing a career, the decision tends to be based not only on what you know, but what you want to do with what you know. Obviously, the matter of what one wants to do with what they know differs for each individual. Some may choose a field in research in order to expand more on what they know, while others may choose education to ignite that same passion of a particular topic in a younger generation. Some may even choose a field where they’re using their knowledge on a subject first-hand to help others, such as nurses. Therefore, Shaw completely ignores the individual in his failed statement, and his legacy will always have to live with that fact.

This icebreaker supported the goal of the course (to help students understand teaching as a profession and thoroughly reflect upon their choice of being a teacher). In refuting misconceptions, students needed to search for information about teaching as a profession, get to know what it means to be a teacher, and evaluate their decision to become teachers. My experience has repeatedly demonstrated the application of icebreakers is an effective way to induct students into the online discourse community. They contribute to building a strong community, bonding students, and preparing them for new learning experiences.

Summary • It is important to lay down solid groundwork in building a productive online discourse community. • There is no one-fits-all group size for discussion tasks. • Group size is determined by the nature of the discussion task. • Each learning space is built to fulfill intended instructional goals.

62

3 Lay Down Groundwork: Forming, Accessing, and Inducting

• Icebreakers that are fun, creative, and interactive can help to induct students into the online discourse community.

References Afify, M. K. (2019). The influence of group size in the asynchronous online discussions on the development of critical thinking skills, and on improving students’ performance in online discussion forum. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (online), 14(5), 132. Chen, L. T., & Liu, L. (2020). Social presence in multidimensional online discussion: The roles of group size and requirements for discussions. Computers in the Schools, 37(2), 116–140. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2011). Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions: An analysis of group size, duration of online discussion, and student facilitation techniques. Instructional Science, 39, 303–319. Kim, J. (2013). Influence of group size on students’ participation in online discussion forums. Computers and Education, 62, 123–129. Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano, N. C., Jr., Cheney, P. D., & Hightower, R. T. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computermediated communication make a difference? Small Group Research, 37(6), 631–661. Morrison, D. (2015, November). What is the Optimal Size for Online Groups within MOOCs? Online Learning Insights. https://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/what-isthe-optimal-group-size-for-onlinegroups-within-moocs/#comments Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Space as a change agent. Learning Spaces, 1(6), 1–2. Peddibhotla, N., & Jani, A. (2019). How group size and structure of online discussion forums influence student engagement and learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 48(2), 225–254. Piezon, S. L., & Donaldson, R. L. (2005). Online groups and social loafing: Understanding studentgroup interactions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(4), 1–11. Qiu, M., Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2014). Influence of group configuration on online discourse writing. Computers and Education, 71, 289–302. Rosales, R., & Soldner, J. L. (2018). An assessment of group size in interteaching. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(2), 105–117. Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88. Tomei, L. (2006). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for online courses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 531–541. Volchok, E. (2006). Building better virtual teams. eLearn, 2006(7), 3. Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. V. (2011). Instructors as Architects—Designing learning spaces for discussion-based online courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(3), 281–294. Watson A. (2020, June). What’s the ideal size for online discussion groups? Learning & the Brain. https://www.learningandthebrain.com/blog/whats-the-ideal-size-for-online-discussion-groups/

4

Commonality

Abstract

This true story happened on a Christmas Eve during the Second World War. A German mother took her ten-year-old son to a cabin deep in a forest, where she hoped to celebrate a peaceful Christmas Eve with him.

Introduction This true story happened on a Christmas Eve during the Second World War. A German mother took her ten-year-old son to a cabin deep in a forest, where she hoped to celebrate a peaceful Christmas Eve with him. While she was preparing their Christmas dinner, there was a knock at the door—three American soldiers from the front line, one of whom was seriously wounded. After the soldiers agreed not to bring their guns inside the cabin, the mother and the son welcomed them in. Then three German soldiers showed up. They were also welcomed in on the same condition that their guns must left outside. The mother succeeded persuading both sides to put aside the war for one night and celebrate a peaceful Christmas Eve together. The soldiers sat down at the table and contributed food for the Christmas table—cookies, chocolates, and wines. One of the German soldiers had a surgical background and helped the wounded American. When the morning sun rose, the two sides said goodbye and wished each other good luck. For a short time, the soldiers recast themselves as one group, connected though their religious belief. This shared commonality united them. Commonality is essential in building a dynamic learning community. Researcher Kurt Lewin was a pioneer in studying the uniformity of group behaviors. He believed that although a group may contain members with different dispositions, as long as they had a shared goal, they would work together to accomplish it. In the preceding story, the soldiers overlooked their separate interests as soldiers and regroup as civilians who were Christians. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y.-M. Wang, Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3_4

63

64

4 Commonality

Objectives Upon completing this chapter, you will acquire the following knowledge and skills: • Define the concept of commonality. • Recognize that commonality is established through shared goals and interests among students. • Explain the significance of commonality in maintaining a productive discourse community. • Understand that commonality is not a spontaneous occurrence; it requires deliberate design. • Utilize strategies to incorporate commonality into online discussions.

Commonality in Online Discourse Communities Commonality refers to shared interests, goals, beliefs, and problems. For example, now a days, people host YouTube channels on almost every conceivable topic. Physicians host platforms to discuss health issues, housewives teach tips on cooking, sewing, and cleaning and stock traders provide advice on buying or selling stocks. They accumulate subscribers, who join because they share similar interests or problems. Subscribers can become so invested that being active and interactive on the site becomes a part of their daily routine and group members identify with each other. They post comments and respond on each other’s comments—and they can get as much information from each other as from the host. The joined interests create a bonding among subscribers. The success of a YouTube channel depends on how well the commonality of subscribers is supported. The same principle applies to student learning. Brown (2001) conducted a study of online community building in which she interviewed participants about their definitions of community and found they considered “commonality was the essence of community” (p. 22). Individual who decides to work together normally share something in common. In a learning community, students also share responsibilities for each other’s learning. For example, when online discussion was applied to scaffold students to achieve student shared goals, the quantity and quality (especially in terms of the in-depth cognitive elements) of their postings greatly increased (Wang & Chen, 2008). Commonality plays a significant role in forging a vibrant learning community. Through the process of working together on tasks of their common interests, participants identify with each other, and a close bonding evolves in the process. “Learning communities are fostered by commonality and consistency of purpose, shared values, and transcendent themes” (Schroeder, 1994, p. 171). Bonded by the commonality, participants abide by the rules in the community and take joint actions in achieving shared goals. Commonality helps students make sense of their collaborative work, validate the time and energy they are to invest, and motivates them to work together in common areas in which they are interested. Differences in interests can greatly impact learners’ commitment

Hard Lessons

65

to working collaboratively. For example, when education major students discuss lesson plans, early childhood majors differ from secondary education majors in interests and focus. Math education majors have different interests and needs from those of art education majors. This is most obvious when students are asked to critique each other’s projects. As one student remarked: “Why should I as an art major student be interested in a lesson plan designed by a math major?”.

Hard Lessons Skinner (2009) provided a case study involving a university course with 25 firstyear business students that showed how a carefully designed online discussion fell apart due to a lack of commonality shared by students. The online discussion was introduced to support student learning in a module called “Management at Work”. The discussion was designed on Salmon’s five-stage model: (1) Access and motivation; (2) Online socialization; (3) Information exchange; (4) Knowledge construction; (5) Development. To motivate student participation, the discussion accounted for 50% of the course grade. Here is the description of the discussion topic: “Introduce your previous experience of management. Everyone has experience of management—at school, at work, at home, in the community or in social groups. Tell your group about an experience of either good or poor management.” Although the instructor felt these directions were sufficient to drive the activity, the students were not engaged. Only 16% met all the deadlines for posting their contributions. Students openly expressed their disinterest in the subject and considered it boring. While the instructor reflected upon this experience, he saw that the discussion “failed to strike a personal chord with many students.” As one student put it: “I do not like management, it is boring. You start the course with that and then it’s always going to be an uphill struggle. If you take it the other way, you get students all excited and then just guide them into the stuff they think is boring.” Another student said “if it does not flick my switch, I am just going to do absolute necessity. That’s really it.” The instructor realized that the students might be motivated if they chose their own topics within the frame of the subject. The instructor noted that every learning experience should revolve around the core of one’s individual and personal self. Therefore, the design of online discussion should attend to those individual interests and needs. I made the same mistake in conducting online discussions. Early on when I taught learning theories, I constructed four modules, each of which covered a major learning theory. An online discussion was built into each module and each discussion was anchored on four questions covering four major aspects of a specific theory. I felt that these discussions would enhance student understanding since the four questions encompassed the essence of each theory. I saw no problems with my design and believed that the questions were sufficient to provide focus and direction for the discussions. My instructional goal was only partially fulfilled.

66

4 Commonality

Although the students posted, they did not truly interact with each other. Their comments on their peers’ postings were shallow and superficial. It was obvious that some students posted simply to meet the requirements for course credit. Students tended to agree with each other and accept whatever their peers had posted. It was rare to see challenges and negotiations, not to speak of collaborative critical inquiry. The students did not show strong engagement. What had I missed? What accounted for the lack of interest in the topics I had framed? More importantly, what were the students interested in concerning learning theories? These were questions I turned over in my mind when I reflected on my online discussion design. When I asked for student feedback about their experience with the discussions, I got some insight into the flaws in my design. Although I originally believed my questions would provide focus for the students in the discussion, they thought the questions limited their motivation to explore the issue in depth. They were busy trying to figure out a “suitable” response to each question: “Sometimes it seemed more like each of us were just trying to answer the questions you presented about the topic rather than discussing the topic. When someone would try to ask a question to turn our group interaction into more of a discussion there would be limited responses.” There are multitude of paths to explore any issue. The topic I chose represented only one path. However, my fixation on this topic blocked alternative paths students might have been more interested in exploring. Similarly, a later assignment centered on assessment methods. Students were instructed to identify assessment methods aligned with different learning theories, for example, constructivist learning theory. I considered this question is open-ended. However, looking back, I can see now that I forced a narrow focus and ignored many issues involved in assessment in real classroom settings. And these issues might have been what students were interested in. For example, when teachers evaluate student collaborative projects, how can they know whether each student has mastered the core knowledge? My approach was too theoretical, devoid of the complexities of the real world. Concomitantly, as I read a student reflection, I realized that my designated topic was exclusive rather than inclusive: “The disadvantages of this kind of learning are obvious. Since there is no real interaction, learning and conversation is limited. The restrictions set on the discussions are meant as a content guideline, and while it is necessary, it is also restrictive to the discussion because the participants must constantly evaluate themselves and their choice of words. There is not really any freedom to discuss secondary and tangential topics that are just as relevant to the discussion as the focused topic.” I learned important lessons. To attend to student commonality, instructors have to be willing to let students take the reins. When instructors exert strict control over a task, students feel they are forced to do what the instructor expects of them. Their sense of ownership of learning is removed and their conception of student responsibilities for their own learning and collaboration is lessened. Within the boundaries of curriculum, students should get more latitude in deciding what to explore. For example, Huang (2019) reported a study from an online health promotion course in which the instructor created 10 health promotion topics and students could sign up for the topic(s) in which they had an interest. When they were given

A Success Story—a Bond that United Students

67

the opportunity to choose their own topics based on their common interests, they were more willing to join efforts to work on them. Given an appropriate degree of autonomy and latitude, students can discover and build on their joined interests.

A Success Story—a Bond that United Students Standing in contrast to my experience was that of a colleague who had successfully infused commonality into online discussion. Several years ago, I received call from him in which he told me that he had conducted such a productive online discussion in one of his courses that he wanted to write a paper about it and invited me to join him. This call started me on a journey of conducting design-based research about online discussion. My colleague taught a graduate level course with 20 students at a Southeast Asian university in which they explored various teaching and training methods and design instructional and training strategies for education. He introduced online discussion to support student inquiry. The students were divided into groups and each group was allowed to choose an issue, formulate an assertion about the issue, provide rationales for why the issue was important, conduct research on the issue, and suggest instruction and training tips and strategies. Each group had to lead the online discussion on their issue of the choice and were required to integrate peer comments into their final projects. Various issues emerged: inquiry-based learning, game-based learning, on the job training, community practice in learning, cognitivist teaching methods, emotional quotient training, authentic learning approach, inquiry-based learning, and team roles in collaborative learning. As I was reviewing the data, I was impressed by the students’ enthusiasm. They actively participated in the discussions and were deeply engaged. Although each student was required to post a minimum of two contributions, in actuality, most posted at least five times more. They commented, questioned, challenged, debated, and negotiated. When we analyzed the discussion postings, we found the project design attended to student commonality, a significant factor in motivating and sustaining student participation and engagement. First, students were allowed to select an issue they are interested in. They then posted their assertions on the discussion board allowing the class to help shape the focus of the issue. Students also had the choice to comment on the issues they were interested in. If an issue received no comments, it would be a clear indication that the class as a whole was not interested in it, for example, the issue was not considered important, or the rationale or significance was weak. Each group could then refocus or even change to a different issue. The groups understood that if an issue failed to engage the class, the discussion would halt. However, students were highly engaged if they were interested in the identified issues. One student wrote: “Fantastic!! Glad to know that we are all working so late for this discussion. Thanks for swift reply. Good night.”

68

4 Commonality

Attend to Commonality Although commonality is an important factor in stimulating group dynamics to complete a task, it is often ignored by instructors when they design online discussion. When a learning task capitalizes on commonality, students are more likely to identify with the task and buy into the goals of the assignment. Therefore, it is the responsibility of instructors to tap into the commonality of their students to bond them in collaborative effort to complete the learning task. The challenge is how to identify and promote the commonality shared by students? A potential productive starting point is to consider the example of “environmental print” as a teaching strategy for developing reading skills in young children. Environmental print is the text children encounter frequently in daily life—street signs, store logos, labels on bags, cans, bottles, box packages, and candy wrappers. For example, when teaching the letter “M”, teachers can ask children to bring to class a McDonald’s logo from commercials or magazines, M&M or Milky Way wrappers, or any product labels with the letter M on it. An isolated alphabet “M” means little to children but when they recognize “M” in their environmental print, the letter “comes alive”. Environmental print builds a connection between the alphabet and children’s initial attempts to read. The concept “environmental print” can be extended to online discussion. Instructors need to find the environment print in student lives and capitalize on it to connect students with their learning through online discussion. Chasteen (2017) suggested that “students are motivated by interest: if a task feels stimulating, fun, relevant, authentic and novel, this will draw students in” (para 4). There are numerous approaches to designing online discussion that can center on student common interests.

Make It Current Current news (text, photos, videos) always sparks strong student interest. When a piece of news hits the headlines, students tend to follow it and talk about it—and an online discussion where current news is a component is inherently exciting. For example, when students in my course discuss professional ethics in teaching, I introduced the case of Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who became a national figure for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Students were required to discuss her actions from the standpoint of the ethical constraints of her position as a government employee and then extrapolated to an analogous situation involving an Education Code of Ethics. Their postings were invariably analytical, reflective, and substantial: Kim’s obligations as a county clerk should trump her religious beliefs when it comes to her duties as a government official. In 1996 it would have been proper work ethic to not issue a marriage to a same sex couple. But that protocol does not exist as of 2014. Kim definitely violated county clerk ethic when she denied marriage licenses to gay couples.

Attend to Commonality

69

When it comes to Kim being a teacher, I feel as if her religious devotion would lead to the violation of certain teacher ethics. One possible violation I see would be a violation of the MCEE’s code that states that it is necessary for educators to advocate adequate resources to ensure that each student has an equal opportunity. I have a feeling that she would not treat any kids that have a different sexuality fairly, either consciously or unconsciously. This same principle exists in the NEA code of ethics, under principle I, article 6; the educator must not exclude students from aid, or events on the bases of race, gender or sexuality. It would be hard to ignore the subconscious bias that one who has such a devotion to religion like Kim has. But more likely than not, there would be more than subconscious bias present towards those of a different sexuality than Kim’s. The state Educator Code of Ethics also has a code that Kim would likely violate if she were to become a teacher. Standard 4 says that the teacher is to not engage in harassing behavior against students on the basis of race, gender or sexuality. If Kim’s religious beliefs override her occupation’s ethics, then she would most likely partake in mild harassment in any students she perceives or knows are a different sexuality.

The beauty of news (paper or media) is that it adds a sense of reality and urgency to what students are to discuss. Current news or spicy topics bring discussion alive and is one of the best ways to inspire student to learn, explore, and discover through discussion across a wide range of disciplines. For example, the global impact of Covid-19 began unfolding in early 2020 and can be introduced as a discussion topic to boost student learning in biology, bioscience, statistics, economics, laws, philosophy, health professions, and political science courses. It will remain “newsworthy” for the foreseeable future and continue to provide stimulus for student discussions. Below are some possible topics for student discussions centering on Covid-19—the options are extensive. • Will the origins of the virus ever be identified? • What sets Covid-19 apart from other types of viruses? • Why do individuals exhibit varying responses to the virus, with some surviving, others succumbing, and some experiencing prolonged illness? • How does this pandemic differ from previous global health crises? • What is the impact of Covid-19 on the global economy? • Which governmental policies have proven effective or ineffective in controlling the pandemic in your country? • What rights do individuals have in deciding to be vaccinated or quarantined? • How does Covid-19 affect the field of education? • Did the World Health Organization play a positive role in managing the Covid19 outbreak? • How do you envision the future evolution of Covid-19?

70

4 Commonality

Make It Personal I remember once seeing a cartoon showing an old man with a sad face staring at a board full of math formulae and murmuring to himself: “I’m still waiting for the day to actually use this in my life.” I do not want to have this happen to my students. Dewey once said: “I believe that the school must represent present life— life as real and vital to the child as that which he carries on in the home, in the neighborhood, or on the playground” (Dewey, 1959, p. 22). Relevance not only gets students involved in learning cognitively, but also emotionally. It is important for students to forge a personal connection to the content they are to learn. Relevance helps them make that connection by convincing them that what they are learning will be beneficial to their short- and long-term personal and/or professional development, subsequently providing a meaningful context for pursuing new knowledge. This, then, lays the groundwork for them to commit time and effort. When discussion is relevant to student lives, they enjoy the discussion so much that they completely immerse themselves in the learning process. An instructor in a university biochemistry course (Wilson, 2021) illustrated how to use online discussion to connect student personal life to course content. According to the instructor, all discussions in the course infused student daily living into the topics of biochemistry to increase student interest and deepen student learning of biochemistry against the tendency to simply pass the course for graduation or admission to graduate programs. For example, in studying the topic of mutation, students were led to discuss how mutation related to a disease important to the student and his/her family. In the course survey, students were overwhelmingly positive about their experiences in learning through online discussion, acknowledging the value of being exposed to real world implications of biochemistry. STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) courses are challenging subjects to most students, and many feel unmotivated since they do not believe that they can ever apply what they learn in real life. Therefore, as noted above, it can be very helpful to connect the subject with the students’ personal lives and discussion can be a catalyst for that connection and clarify how they can benefit personally from learning the subject. Obviously, there are numerous discussion topics that can relate science and math to everyday life to boost student interest, but it is not uncommon for students to believe that there is little meaningful connection between math and daily life. This belief reinforces their unwillingness to invest time and effort in learning math. To have student question their doubts, instructors could get them involved in a discussion (online or face-to-face) about fascinating situations such as the real-life case presented below. Discussion topics could include: what unique circumstances allowed Jerry to win big? What was the mathematical/logical thinking behind Jerry’s strategy? Why was Jerry so sure that he would win 18 × 3-number matches? What did he need to know to come up with his strategy? How could you replicate Jerry’s success in your investments? Through discussion, students may get to understand how math is around them in their daily life. They just need to find ways to apply it for their benefit.

Attend to Commonality

71

See How This Retired Couple Made $26 Million, Using Only Basic Arithmetic Boysun 2020

Jerry and Marge Selbee, a couple from smalltown America ran a convenience store. When they hit their 60 s, they decided it was finally time to sell the store, retire, and relax. One fine day in 2003, Jerry noticed a new lottery game called “Winfall”. He realized after a mere three minutes or so, that there was a loophole in this lottery. This lottery had a unique feature, “Rolldown”. If the jackpot hit $5 million, and no one matched all six numbers, all the prize money ‘rolled down’ to who matched five, four or three numbers. Every 4-number winner was worth $1000, and 3-number winner was worth $50. Jerry figured out that if he invested $1100, he’d win 18 * $50 + $1000 = $1900. That’s a profit of around 73%. The next time there was a rolldown, Jerry bought $3600 worth of tickets, and won $6300. Then invested another $8000 and doubled it. He started betting hundreds of thousands of dollars—because after all, he knew it would be a guaranteed win—and soon set up a corporation, G.S. Investment Strategies. He sold shares in the company to friends and family and gave them massive returns on their investments. By 2005, Jerry had 25 members in his lottery club. All of them were lottery winners. With there being no Tom to compete with, Jerry and his club’s wealth continued to rise unchecked. That is, until Winfall fell. Michigan shut down the game, blaming it on lack of sales. In teaching geometry, students may have discussion on how to design a home garden or decorate their classroom or bedroom wall. In a physics course, discussion on Newton’s laws of motion could revolve around why wearing a seatbelt is necessary; how seatbelts protect people during a car crash; and what happens if they do not wear a seatbelt in a crash. Students can question the necessity of wearing a seatbelt if they are sitting in a large truck, a compact car, or driving at a slow speed. In bioscience, the topic of preservatives in food processing is a potential jumping off point for extensive discussion. Students can discuss their thoughts about whether preservatives harm their health or whether there are better ways to preserve food than the use of standard chemical preservatives. They can further explore whether freezing and sealing can be used to preserve all food and what danger humans face if preservatives are not used in food processing. Finally, some issues that can be used as stimuli for enhancing discussion of chemistry in daily life: medication, hygiene, cosmetics, detergents, and synthetic fabrics. A sample set of starter questions for a ubiquitous item—detergent: what is the best brand of

72

4 Commonality

detergent? How do you compare soaps and detergents? Are synthetic detergents harmful to your skin? Do detergents harm the environment?

Make It Big “Big” here refers to putting student learning in a bigger context. Online discussion will draw student participation and interest when they are allowed to explore and solve real world problems that not only relate to their personal lives, but also to the collective future of the community and society. A big context allows them to see the value and importance of a project and contribute to building and bettering their local communities. This point is illustrated with this story from an instructor of an environmental geology course who had students investigate resources and hazards (flooding, earthquake, slopes and etc.) of their local area and used a discussion board to communicate and share their findings. Ultimately, the students applied their learning with real-world implications by writing proposals for the future development of the area. The projects successfully tap into the universal commonality that students care for themselves, friends, families, and neighborhoods. The discussion is infused in the process for data analysis, report of findings, and writing up proposals for the betterment of the area. (Phillips, 2021). Similarly, a student project I lead years ago when I was lecturing in a teacher education program on Guam demonstrates how important it is to place student learning in a bigger context. My students were learning multimedia design and were to conduct research on a critical issue in the community and then create a multimedia product to educate local schools and the community. The purpose of the project was to have students learn multimedia design skills by serving schools and the community. A variety of topics emerged: traffic accidents, drug abuse, teenage smoking, domestic violence, child abuse, AIDS on Guam, youth gangs, graffiti, teenage pregnancy, recycling, water resources, student dropouts, and the health of the coral reef. I was amazed by the level of student involvement. Their concern for their community fueled their motivation and they were willing to invest considerable time and effort. As one student commented: “You are doing a service for the community by doing something like this, and you understand where you live and plus you can get the information back to your community, which is a good thing. At least, you know, give something back to the community.” In their research, students conducted surveys and interviewed school counselors, teachers, parents, former gang members, former drug addicts and dealers, teenage mothers, school dropouts, law enforcement officers, village mayors, and community members. Here are some excerpts from their interviews. I found out in high school that it is better to make a friend than an enemy. I realized if they (gang) really wanted to be my friend that I didn’t have to do all the things that they did (drugs). (former gang member)

Attend to Commonality

73

Wait till you are much older. It is very hard having a baby because you don’t have a job to support your baby and yourself. (Teenage mother) I can only say, don’t give in to peer pressure. If you are curious like I was, the best way to find out is to read about it. Also, don’t associate with people who might be doing drugs. Stay away. (former drug user).

Group discussion centered on the multimedia project. How should they divide the work? What methods should they use to collect information (Internet, surveys, or interviews)? How should the information be analyzed and synthesized? What multimedia design should they apply to appeal to audiences (music, animation, graphics, text color, and background layout)? Interactive dialogue flowed among group members. Students articulated, debated, negotiated, and collaboratively constructed meanings. Each group member’s voice was recognized and valued. Group interaction was dynamic and the core for the success of the project. The impact of working on projects that were immediately applicable to the community was evident in the students’ reflections on the process. Well, we did not know that drug issue was so critical, we knew there was a concern. But when we look at statistical data, that’s when we were overwhelmed. I think it is very important for everyone to know the critical issues in Guam, because this is all our part of community involvement. If you don’t know what is going on in your community, then you don’t know your home. As an educator, you need to know the critical issues in Guam. These issues will come up in your class. If that should happen to your students, at least you could direct them to the people they could get help. Even just discussing the issue, you know, stir their interests.

Students contacted local schools to present their multimedia education materials. They talked to community members about their projects. One day, as I was on the way to my office, I noticed a group of students were campaigning for AIDS awareness on the campus. They set up a table and passed information and red ribbons to passers-by. As I came closer, I recognized they were students in my class and AIDS was the topic of their project. They pinned a red ribbon on the collar of my dress, which I wore for many, many days.

Make It Real/Impactful Learning in this category moves one step further than previously discussed. In this model, students serve as change agents in activities that impact their academic endeavors. In the case described below, students were learning how to write argumentative papers but were also becoming more concerned with their school’s Internet policy which prevented them from accessing resources by blocking websites. The teacher successfully channeled student emotion into productive

74

4 Commonality

argumentative writing, which resulted in changes in the school Internet policy. Online discussion was incorporated to facilitate the student writing process. Elizabeth taught a 12th grade College Writing class. Her students were unhappy that the school had filters blocking certain websites because it inhibited their research for class projects (Doerr-Stevens et al. 2011). Elizabeth decided to use this issue as impetus for a persuasive writing assignment. Instead of assigning a traditional approach where students write to convince one audience, she involved students in a collective argument. Students were to write to convince multiple audiences, including peers, parents, community members, school administrators and technology coordinators. They were highly motivated when they learned that they would have the opportunity to change school policy because their analyses would be reviewed by the school administration and technology coordinator. To facilitate collaborative argument, an online discussion board was established so that students could participate in and outside of class and revisit the postings when they began to write their papers. They were required to explore the issues from various viewpoints including students, student hackers, parents, librarians, school administrators, technology coordinators and lawyers. The instructor scaffolded student learning of argumentative writing skills by having them analyze their own postings on the discussion board such as the problem statement, support evidence, and presentation of counterarguments. As the students dug deeper, they started to understand the issues from perspectives other than their own. It was clear that students were open to the complexities of the issues—some students came to realize the necessity of Internet filters to protect them from online predators while some, who had strongly support administration supervision of Internet access, began to realize the sensitivity of the privacy issue and the students’ right to access information. Collaboration argumentation led to collective action. Three weeks later, the school technology coordinator visited the class, which was well prepared for the meeting after undertaking extensive role-playing positions on the discussion board. They asked challenging questions, voiced their concerns, and had an honest exchange of opinions. The meeting was productive with the school revising its policy and allowing YouTube to be used in classes. In this case, commonality was established when students understood they were writing to prompt changes to a policy in which they had a meaningful stake, and they were highly motivated by the authentic nature of the task. They were not simply submitting their work to the instructor making academic arguments about the school policy. They were presented with the opportunity to apply their argumentative skills to facilitate changes that impacted them directly. In designing online discussion, instructors must think about the common areas in which students are interested—what is happening or has happened in their lives, and how this can help them to find connections to the content. Although this can require extra effort on the part of instructors, the return on investment is significant—a dynamic online discussion students enjoy so much that they hate to see it close.

References

75

Summary • Commonality is the fabric of a collaborative group. • Commonality exists even among people with differing backgrounds and dispositions. • An online discussion that is relevant to students’ lives tends to actively engage them and fosters full immersion in the learning process. • Online discussion will draw student participation and interest when they are allowed to explore and solve real world problems. • Online discussion can provide a platform for students to become change agents.

References Boysun (2020). New discoveries in space exploration. See how this retired couple made $26 Million, using only basic arithmetic. Opera News. Retrieved from https://ng.opera.news/ng/en/techno logy/8bdd463e28c3963f778c1381e2c5501c Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18–35. Chasteen, S. (2017, June 20), How can I help students work well in small groups, so they are more likely to engage? PhysPort. https://www.physport.org/recommendations/Entry.cfm?ID= 101224 Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In J. Dewey, (Ed) Dewey on education, (pp. 19–32). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. (Original work published 1897). Doerr-Stevens, C., Beach, R., & Boeser, E. (2011). Using online role-play to promote collaborative argument and collective action. English Journal, 33–39. Huang, Y. (2019). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online health promotion course. e-Learn, 2019(2). https://doi.org/10.1145/3310377.3310381 Phillips, M. (2021). Environmental geology of the area where you Live. Teaching introductory geoscience courses in the 21st century. https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/intro/activi ties/23424.html Schroeder, C. C. (1994). Developing learning communities. In C. C. Schroeder & P. Mabel (Eds.), Realizing the potential of residence halls (pp. 148–162). Jossey-Bass. Skinner, E. (2009). Using community development theory to improve student engagement in online discussion: A case study. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17(2), 89–100. Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. V. (2008). Essential elements in designing online discussions to promote cognitive presence—A Practical experience. Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 157– 177. Wilson, K. J. (2021). Online discussions in biochemistry to increase peer interactions and student interest. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 49(2), 298–300.

5

Interdependence

Abstract

Contrary to the common image of the lone genius whose remarkable insight transforms the world.

Introduction Contrary to the common image of the lone genius whose remarkable insight transforms the world, Sawyer (2017) argues that it is group genius that leads to breakthroughs and revolutionary innovations. Sawyer insists that it is collaboration that releases creativity. “When we collaborate, creativity unfolds across people; the sparks fly faster, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (p. 16). Despite the encouraging rhetoric surrounding the value of collaboration, it proves to be elusive in practice. For example, simply placing students in a group does not guarantee its members will work together. They could work separately and glue their individual contributions to a project into a whole at the deadline. Such incidents are not uncommon in student learning, which compels Admin (2018) to question whether group work always involves collaboration for his experiences show that group work tends to end up with division of labor with little collaboration among group members. Online discussion is collaborative by nature and students are expected to engage in dialogues that are intensive and extensive. The members interact with diverse ideas, elaborating, questioning, interpreting, and challenging. Thoughts spark thoughts. Challenges lead to counter challenges and counter-counter challenges. Ideas and perspectives bump against each other, resulting in new understanding and insights. However, if collaboration falls apart, dialogues turn into monologues and student postings are isolated, indicating disconnection among group members. There is no group flow. Thoughts are thwarted. This chapter discusses the role of interdependence to promoting group collaboration in online discussion. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y.-M. Wang, Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3_5

77

78

5 Interdependence

Objectives Upon completing this chapter, you will acquire the following knowledge and skills: • Explain the concept of interdependence. • Elaborate on the importance of interdependence in group work. • Design learning tasks that leverage on various competencies and expertise of students with online discussion as a vital component. • Infuse mutual needs and complementary motives in online discussion. • Implement role interdependence strategies in online discussion.

Interdependence Defined Collaboration collapses when interdependence is absent. Interdependence is defined as a relationship where members in a group depend on each other for success. Basketball is a good example—it is a highly interdependent sport. Team members must work closely with one another to achieve success individually and collectively. Efficient ball movement requires high group flow—efficient and rapid-fire communication (albeit most often through body language), seamless coordination, and strong dynamics. Members must constantly act and react to each other in concert against their opposition. Every score is a group effort even as each member plays a unique role. Positive interdependence emerges when individuals understand that they can only achieve their goals if and only if the other members in the group attain theirs. Positive interdependence is successfully structured when group members perceive that they are linked with each other so that one cannot succeed unless everyone succeeds. Students must realize that each member’s efforts benefit not only the individual, but all other group members as well. Students’ vested interest in each other’s achievement results in their sharing resources, helping and assisting each other’s efforts to learn, providing mutual support, and celebrating their joint success. Positive interdependence is the heart of collaborative learning (Johnson et al., 1994, p. 5). Interdependence is a powerful impetus to stimulate, strengthen, and sustain positive group dynamics. Those in the relationship identify with each other and are empowered to take action together. By sharing a common goal and agreeing to a set of principles, members are bound emotionally, morally, intellectually, and spiritually. This is how they forge a mutually beneficial arrangement in which they depend on each other for success, that is, they are all reciprocally responsible for each other’s performance. The group’s welfare hinges on how well each member performs. If the group gains, each individual succeeds. If the group fails, everyone loses. This mindset is the call of the Musketeers: One for all and all for one. Interdependence is so essential to group cohesion that Lewin (1947) concludes that only a group with high interdependence can be defined as a real group: “For instance, it may be wrong to state that the blond women living in a town ‘exist as

A Report—Collaboration Falls Apart

79

a group’ in the same sense of being a dynamic whole which is characterized by a close interdependence of their members. They are only a number of individuals who are classified under one concept” (p. 146). In a group with high interdependence, individual members can achieve little without working closely with other members. In education, the fundamental rationale for interdependence is that students produce greater learning outcomes by working together than working alone. When interdependence is knitted into the fabric of a task, each learner’s contribution is necessary to achieve the group goal of learning. Everyone has a distinctive role to play and is required to make unique contributions. Failure to participate will set back the group’s success as well as individual achievement. In sport motivation terms, team means: “Together Everyone Achieves More.”

A Report—Collaboration Falls Apart Lowes (2014) conducted a study on an online economic course that involved upper-level high school students from around the world. The course was chosen for its exemplary group projects. One of the projects in the course focused on the topics of supply, demand, and equilibrium, and three learning activities were designed for each of these topics. Each learning activity consisted of five sub-questions and one summative question. The students were divided into groups of four or five, and a discussion board was set up for each group to access and collaborate on the project. They were expected to discuss, explore, and elaborate on the answers to the assigned questions, which would then be submitted to the instructor. Lowes (2014) observed that in most groups, at least one group member never showed up, and some members disappeared for long periods only to reappear when the work was done, offering profuse apologies. During the process, there was no collaboration. This pattern was repeated across groups. Usually, the first student to post would suggest dividing the work: “There are a total of fifteen questions here and five of us. I’ll start by doing the first three. Whoever posts next, please do the second three, and so on” (p. 5). The other members always agreed, and each member completed their assignments separately. No members ever bothered to view or comment on their peers’ contributions. “Interactions within the group were parallel, with group members not assisting each other in any way”. This lack of assistance turned what was intended to be a collaborative project into disjointed pieces. The absence of interdependence was evident, as collaboration collapsed as a result. It came as no surprise when students expressed negative attitudes about their experiences with group work in the final course evaluation, stating, ‘I liked the course overall, just remove the group activity things, they do not help with learning and take a lot more time than just doing it by yourself.’ Although the task was designed to be a collaborative project, the students converted it into individual work. Why did this happen?

80

5 Interdependence

Many details about the assignment’s design remain unknown, as the article did not provide the assignment instructions for analysis of the task’s nature. Nonetheless, some basic questions can be raised regarding the task’s design to avoid future pitfalls. According to the researcher (Lowes, 2014), the initial post in each group consistently suggested that each student tackle three questions, which was unanimously accepted by the other group members. It appeared that the students were confident in their ability to handle the task without any assistance. Furthermore, each group had a member who contributed nothing at all. Why should an extra member be included in a collaborative project? In designing a collaborative project, we adhere to the rule that no extra member should be included in the team. An idle member does not contribute to learning and can negatively impact the group’s morale. Instructors need to consider the complexity of the task when designing a collaborative project, ensuring that the full participation of each group member is required for successful completion. The inclusion of the 15 questions is also problematic. The complexity of a task is not solely determined by the quantity of work but, more importantly, by its quality. The greater the complexity of a task, the higher the level of knowledge and skills required of the students. However, knowledge and skills can be reduced through component redundancy. As Wood (1986) explained, ‘When the knowledge or skill requirements for the performance of one act generalize to another act, then the total knowledge or skill required for the performance of a task is reduced’ (p. 67). Simply put, the sum of the parts does not equate to the whole. For instance, an essay might encompass a wider range of knowledge and skills compared to an assignment consisting of 15 separate questions. It appeared that the instructor’s intention in the example above was to foster collaboration among students by having them work together on all of the questions and incorporate their diverse perspectives into the answers. The ideal outcome would have been for them to complement each other’s understanding, contributing unique thoughts and insights. However, when the students chose to divide the questions and work on them separately, each answer reflected only one person’s perspective, resulting in a one-sided viewpoint. The underlying issue may lie in the assignment’s construction as a ‘question-and-answer’ format. When students are simply asked to provide answers, it can reinforce the perception that the instructor is primarily interested in checking for ‘correct’ responses. As a result, students may lack motivation to fully comprehend or explore the complex aspects of the topic. They stop challenging and exploring once they believe they have arrived at the correct answer. The use of a simple question-and-answer format can dampen students’ enthusiasm for delving deeply into a subject, as their thinking becomes confined within the boundaries set by the questions. This rigid format restricts their autonomy, originality, and creativity, leading them to prioritize meeting the instructor’s expectations over expressing their own voices. Although the instructor divided the project into several parts, which may have been perceived as a means of collaboration, it ultimately fell short of achieving true collaborative engagement.

Building Interdependence

81

As I analyzed the shortcomings of this project, it became evident that student collaboration could have been facilitated more effectively if they were tasked with completing a research project, analyzing a case study, or writing an argumentative essay. These types of tasks, if appropriately challenging, would have allowed students to demonstrate their understanding of the interrelationships between the three covered concepts: demand, supply, and equilibrium, as all these concepts are interdependent. Therefore, there would be no need to address each concept separately. Online discussion serves as an ideal medium for student collaboration in completing these alternative tasks. The discussion board could have engaged all students to the maximum extent in each stage required to accomplish the task. Group members could have collaborated regardless of time and place, outlining the necessary steps for task completion, brainstorming strategies, sharing resources, deliberating on various arguments, exploring diverse thoughts, and most importantly, accessing all the archived discussion postings, materials, and drafts of work. However, in the previously discussed project, none of this took place. Despite the availability of the discussion board, it was not utilized for collaboration. Clearly, the missing element was interdependence.

Building Interdependence “Interdependence does not occur spontaneously in group work. It must be intentionally planned, designed, and nurtured, and certain conditions are necessary for its emergence. For instance, interdependence will not exist in a task that merely involves regurgitating facts or finding a single “correct answer” to a question. Individual students can handle such tasks without any assistance. To foster interdependence, a task needs to be designed in a way that it is too challenging for any individual to complete alone but can be solved collectively by a group. A complex task that involves conceptual learning or problem-solving, such as learning a new theory, conducting research, or designing a solution, is ideal. It should be multifaceted, allowing multiple paths for students to explore. Interdependence arises when the task leverages diverse intelligence, expertise, information, and resources, with each group member making unique contributions. Additionally, student mutual needs and motives also contribute to the development of interdependence within a group. To complement each other’s needs and motives, students must have a strong desire to collaborate. In a complex task, students can divide the work, with each member playing a different but interdependent role in accomplishing the task.”

Designing Challenging Tasks To foster interdependence, instructors should design intellectually challenging tasks that capitalize on the varying levels of competency, knowledge, and expertise among group members. Intellectually challenging tasks can effectively promote positive group dynamics. As Lewin (1947) stated, “Any normal group, and certainly any developed and organized one, contains and should contain individuals

82

5 Interdependence

of very different character” (p. 165). In a vibrant learning community, each participant contributes his/her strengths, and both teaches and learns from others during the process of task completion. At different points, each participant becomes an enabler and an enabled peer, imparting knowledge and expertise while also expanding their own understanding. As Little (2011) put it, “No one knows everything at all times, but everyone knows something at some time. Behind this truism lies the principle of empowerment through collaboration” (para 1). I was once involved in a student collaborative project as a researcher in which collaboration occurred on two levels: first within groups, and second, across groups. Within groups, members collaboratively investigated a topic of their choice. Once each group completed its initial research, it would access a discussion board to post its problem statement and supporting evidence. Collaboration then occurred across the groups. Students actively contributed to the areas in which they were most capable. Groups assisted each other to refine problem statements. Participants volunteered their knowledge, perspectives, information, and resources. In utilizing their strengths to help each other out, students narrowed gaps in knowledge and expertise. For example, one group posted the following statement: “Computer gaming can impair students’ ability to learn and perform”. It presented evidence that many students were addicted to computer gaming, may become violent after being exposed to games, and cases of gamers dying of exhaustion after gaming continuously for days. Some students agreed with the statement—with the following observation being presented to support their viewpoint: “When we talked about learning, we are mainly focusing about learning in schools. Gaming has many students listless and inattentive in class. In fact, I have a student who says his erratic performance in the subject depends on whether he games or not.” Other students disagreed—one student recounted his experience of being a gamer and suggested that computer games per se might not be the issue: I started playing games in primary school, and I managed to finish my university education with ok results. I play educational games, all kinds of violent games, fantasy games and strategy games (Civilization, Age of Empires) etc. In my opinion, there are all kinds of things to get addicted to. Addiction to gaming is simply a manifestation of a person’s weak willpower. Take away the game and he will find something else to get addicted to.

Another student responded: “I disagree on ‘Addiction to gaming is simply a manifestation of a person’s weak willpower’. I believe a lack of parental control, guidance and supervision plays a more critical role/condition to development of addiction of computer games in the gamers’ formative years.” Some students pointed out that computer games can be a powerful learning medium that benefits students academically: “I propose that we look for articles (scholarly or/and news) that supports gaming specifically designed for learning CAN be a good learning medium.” One student shared a piece of information to show how games could help student learn curriculum: Just something to share. Qing May Primary School is presently using a driving simulation software complete with steering wheel, accelerator, break and gear (I thought it was very

Building Interdependence

83

much similar to what you will get at the Games Arcade) to conduct lessons on National Education, Mathematics or English Language. At the Excel Fest this year their teachers shared with other teachers on how they carried out a math lesson on speed with this software. For more information, you can access this website Honestly, I was very impressed when I knew about it. I had actually started to look around for other relevant gaming software that I could use with my pupils to teach other topics. After reading your articles (thank you), I realized that I had to weigh all the pros and cons carefully.

There were suggestions that the group should categorize video games as entertainment versus education. “It should be noted that commercially available games were never designed with learning in mind. They are more for entertainment values. If there are any positive or negative learning, they are accidental. “There were critiques that the group’s assertion was too generalized”: Are you claiming that gaming inherently (whether they are addicted or not) affects the ability to learn and perform?” Students also provided relevant journal articles, web links, and workshop presentations to the group in revising their problem statement. Through elaboration and debate, students complemented each other’s understanding of the issue and took it to a deeper level.

Mutual Needs and Complementary Motives In the early days of the Internet, there were a multitude of mailing lists that people who shared similar interest could join and communicate with each other. Some were short-lived but I joined a technology-related list that had a 10 year life span. Members were school computer coordinators, computer lab directors, teachers who taught computers, and individuals who worked with computers. It was an active list with a very short turn-around time for questions being answered. I was serving as a computer lab director at that time and the list was truly a blessing. I came to rely on the list for helping solve difficult problems in my lab and I often felt I was sitting in a room full of experts. There were basically two types of members: those who sought help and those who offered help. However, all of the members were motivated by mutual needs and complementary motives. Those who sought help depended on expert advice to solve their problems related to computing. Those who offered help gained prestige as experts in the group, thus achieving professional and personal fulfilment. One day, one member sent a message to the mailing list saying that he was moving and packing. He understood that some people in the list depended on him for help. He assured the group that he would come back in a couple of days Such is a typical relationship of interdependence. For a long time, I marvelled at the dynamics of the group and wonder what was driving the group. Only when I start to reflect upon this experience through lens of interdependence, could I see the driving force behind the group’s dynamics and robustness. Interdependence could be forged by creating mutual needs and complementary motives among group members and online discussion thrives on these factors.

84

5 Interdependence

Students, in general, do not like to disagree with each other and they particularly have a hard time critiquing others’ project, often concerned that their feedback will offend their peers: “We were assigned to critique the projects that our classmates posted online. While it was productive to have the task of critiquing the work of our peers, it is hardly ever easy to point out the negatives of another’s performance. It can be even more difficult to do it publicly, and the online format did concern me with being unable to provide the supportive voice I would have liked to use when giving feedback.” To be on the safe side, many students feel that it is better to simply compliment their peers’ postings, although they agree that “while compliments are easy to give, they do not help improve the projects”. This tendency can be reversed with instilled mutual needs and complementary motives. In my courses, I require students to post their projects on a discussion board for peer critique as I believe that peer feedback is beneficial for improving the quality of student work. However, student critiques were generally disappointing and did little to help their peers. I then decided to infuse interdependence into their discussions to generate worthwhile comments on their peer’s work. For example, I added a requirement that students integrate peer critiques in the revision of their projects, which meant students then needed quality reviews that could enhance their work. Motivated by mutual needs and complementary motives, students encouraged each other to generate reviews that could be integrated into their final projects. Sugar-coated comments disappeared. Students stopped beating around the bush and became open and straightforward: “I did notice that you didn’t include any accommodations for exceptional education students.” Student reviews clearly indicated a commitment to making their peers’ work better, as this critique of a lesson plan illustrates: “My suggestion would be to make the use of web links part of the presentation. It seems that students do not really need to use the resources to be able to complete the project because they are sharing their findings as it relates to the plants that they are caring for in the classroom. Maybe their presentation should include facts or information about the kind of plant they have planted?” Students appreciate the feedback: “I learned a great deal from the suggestions of others to my work. It was very insightful to see the perceptions of others and have the opportunity to improve my work before turning it in to be graded.” As one student noted: “I give honesty and receive honesty.” In a colleague’s class, to increase group interdependence, the instructor required each group to specifically address how they incorporated peer feedback into their final projects. Thus, it was essential that each group received input—and it was clear that if a group did not have it, the group would not be able to complete the assignment. This design provided a legitimate foundation that helped students overcome their hesitation and offer meaningful reviews of each other’s work. With a sincere desire to help each other improve their work, students offered very pointed comments. They were challenging as well as open to being challenged. Not surprisingly, they frequently disagreed with each other, but none took offense. On the contrary, they actively sought honest and reflective views of their peers.

Building Interdependence

85

In one instance, a group posted the following research statement: “The Community of Practice (COP) is suitable for training of practitioners of a profession only.” The group received numerous responses: I have been trying to understand what your assertion is, but I get lost in it. How I understand it, you have 2 assertions: 1. COPs are effective only in training of practitioners, for example in training of teachers 2. COPs are not effective in domain-specific learning, for example, in teaching physics If we take assertion (1) to be true, assertion (2) is a non-example of assertion (1), but it is not the only non-example. Is my understanding correct? It’s hard to respond to your assertion because it seems a bit ambiguous, but if nobody tries, your thread will stay empty. Another critique went: I agree with Brian that it was not easy following through the material. And I am glad someone fired the first shot. The gist I glean is that COP is for professionals who need to be ‘enculturized’ and not suited for students because they feel attachment to the school and not to the subject (physics) and therefore would not want to be an expert in that subject (physicist). What you would mean in another sense is that members must first identify with a community before any benefits of COP can follow forth? So if there is no identification, there is no community, not activity at all? Is identify that narrow?

Please note that the first student stated that “if nobody tries, your thread will stay empty,” the implication being “I am helping your group by posting my critique”. The group appreciated that: “Thank you very much for pointing out the ambiguity and blind spots that we have. Maybe that’s why there was ‘no business’ for our thread and I am beginning to get worried.” This example clearly illustrates the reciprocal needs and complementary motives among group members established through interdependence.

Role Interdependence Role playing is a popular instructional strategy for engaging students in the learning process and has been widely implemented in various disciplines. Research shows that it positively impacts student learning (Burenkova et al., 2015; Fominykh et al., 2018; Geurts et al., 2007; Hally & Randolph, 2018; Hou, 2012; Yilmaz & Karaoglan Yilmaz, 2019). It also offers a creative way to establish an interdependent relationship among students in online discussion. To have each student make a unique contribution, instructors can assign each student a different role for their participation in online discussion. Role playing inspires students to a more active engagement in content materials as it creates both educational and enjoyable learning experiences. Through role playing, students are intimately involved in the course content. Bender (2005) introduced role playing in her online courses for which students were divided into

86

5 Interdependence

groups with each group assigned a topic to investigate or a story to perform and each member required to assume a character to play. Bender (2005) established an online backstage rehearsal area where the students could discuss and practice their roles. When a group was ready to present, a “curtain up” forum opened on the class discussion board labeled with the title of the group’s play. After entering the forum, each student performer introduced their character and then started their virtual performance. The entire play was enacted through written dialogues. Afterwards, a new forum labeled “Analysis” became available and the entire class conducted an analysis of the topic with the performers responding to questions from the audience. Student responses were overwhelmingly upbeat about the exercise. One student exemplified the general consensus: “I cannot remember when I had so much fun... I found myself laughing with tears coming out of my eyes... I wish all classroom assignments can be that enjoyable (Bender, 2005, p. 4). The entire process was thought-provoking. Students described their learning experience as not only enjoyable, but also addictive. Due to the role playing, some students developed an abiding interest in their topic and continued to explore it after the course. Students who enrolled in new courses with Bender kept inquiring about whether there would be role-playing assignments. Role playing promotes student autonomy because they take responsibility for their learning and exert control over the learning process. When this happens, they are more motivated and engaged. As individuals, students are independent learners and decision makers and must decide how to unfold their role but as a group, role interdependence compels members to collaborate to make learning happen. The following episode illustrates how role playing empowers each student to make a unique contribution in the learning process. Frey et al. (2009, pp. 32–33) vividly recorded a class scenario where students took discussion roles in learning. The students interacted with each other through role playing in learning the concept of decomposers in a science class. Students formed groups of four with each student assigned a role (questioner, clarifier, summarizer, and predictor) and then given a passage to read and discuss. Here’s how the students interacted in the discussion: Tino: OK, I’ll go first. I’m the summarizer, so I’m supposed to say the main idea. So here goes. The main idea is that when plants and animals die, they get decomposed. That means they get eaten by stuff, and they turn into soil. And the stuff is bacteria, or fungi, or earthworms. Miriam: I’m supposed to ask a question. Do earthworms decompose plants or animals? Tino: They eat plants and animals. Miriam: Right! It says right here [points to text]: “Earthworms decompose dead plants and animals.” Adriana: Ask a harder question, Miriam.

Building Interdependence

87

Miriam: OK. What do you think would happen if there weren’t any decomposers? Romel: That’s something I don’t understand. How could everything that ever died be turned just into dirt? Wouldn’t we be under piles and piles of dirt? Tino: You’re the clarifier. How can we find the answer? Adriana: Oh yeah, that’s my job. I forgot about it! Maybe we thought of that question like the author did. At the end of the third paragraph, it says, “Decomposers are an important part of the web of life because without them there would be no plant life. Without plant life, other organisms would no longer exist.” As the group continued to read and discuss the assigned passage, they discovered that decomposers play an important role in passing on energy.

The entire process was self-directed, and student led. They took the initiative in exploring the scientific concept of decomposition and their autonomy was evident. All members were actively engaged in the process, concentrating on the task. No one directed them on how to proceed with their collaboration. It is fascinating to see how this learning process unfolded as the students completely immersed themselves in the learning. There is also a sense of ownership in the scenario. Through role playing, the students complemented each other’s understanding of the concept of decomposition and eventually achieved their learning goal. The teacher stayed in the background and provided suggestions but only when studentsinitiated contact. When introduced into online discussion, role playing can be beneficial in multiple ways. It is an excellent tool for promoting diverse student voices as online discussion should be a place where students are encouraged to articulate differing thoughts and perspectives. A common complaint from instructors is that students post similar contributions so by the end of the discussion everybody is simply repeating each other. I have encountered this problem and have explored solutions. I started to consider introducing role playing into online discussions when I was assigned to teach an undergraduate course conducted completely online. The students were struggling to adjust to university study, with most having transferred from community colleges, and, without doubt, taking a fully online course added to their anxiety and uneasiness. Although I had plenty of experience with online discussions in graduate level courses, this was my first exposure to the undergraduate level course. In designing the online discussions for this course, I considered role playing to be an effective strategy for promoting diverse student voices as each student had to explore and investigate a topic from the perspective of their specific role and post as their roles allowed. I divided the students into groups of five and assigned the roles: initiator, researcher, elaborator, challenger, and questioner/summarizer. I also developed five discussion topics for the semester and required group members to rotate roles so that each student experienced every role. The initiator starts a discussion, and this role is always taken by the group leader who is responsible for facilitating and

88

5 Interdependence

managing the discussion. The researcher provides research resources on the topic and presents summary of research findings. The elaborator deliberates on peers’ postings and expands the depth and breadth of the discussion. The challenger plays devil’s advocate and introduces critiques and counterarguments. The questioner raises issues that could take the discussion in new directions (but should not ask questions focusing simply on facts). My experience validated the multiple benefits of using role playing in online discussions. It enhanced student motivation, especially with the role specifications guiding them in their work as it clarified what was expected of them. One student noted: “I think it does help to have students assigned to different roles. I think it helps the students have a clear understanding of what exactly they are supposed to do.” I rarely posted or intervened, which allowed spontaneous facilitation to emerge as the students did not wait for me to tell them what to do or how to proceed. They took the initiative to steer the development of the discussion. The group leaders (as required) were the first to post (e.g., putting out a few questions as “starters” on the topic of cellphones in schools): “Here are a few questions we should ask ourselves about allowing cellphones to be used as educational tools: (1) Is it important to incorporate cellphones in the classroom as another form of technology, since technology is becoming a huge part of students education today? (2) If they are allowed and found useful, how do you monitor cellphone use in the classroom?” Alternatively, a leader posted a resource and asked members to contribute other resources: “For this week’s discussion, I would like to focus on finding proof that cell phones can act as effective educational tools. Please locate at least one source that can support this idea. In addition to your post, please add a brief explanation as to why your source is relevant.” Some group leaders took a position on the issue as the starter: As the initiator of this discussion I want to present my opinion on this topic. I do believe that cell phones can be used as educational tools for many reasons. Personally, I have had teachers that have allowed us to use cell phones in class to support and encourage our learning. I know that in high school there are collaborative websites such as Kahoot that would allow the class to work together to review a topic through student answers to questions on their phones and the data being immediately displayed on the board. What would be each of you guys’ opinions on the subject. What research or personal stories do you have about the success or failure of cell phones being used as learning tools?

Students generally do not like to disagree with each other. Role playing grants them agency to challenge, question, and debate. Each statement or opinion is fair game for examination and inquiry. The following discussion exchanges illustrate how students interact with each other with the implementation of role playing in online discussions. The specific focus of the discussion was on the utilization of cell phones in classroom settings.

Building Interdependence Initiator: I think that cell phone should never be used in class because the way students are now is they are addicted to their phones and constantly snap chatting in class. At my high school we used iPads and chrome books in class and I think that would be a much better option than cell phone do y’all agree? Challenger: Cellphones are capable of performing many more tasks than a computer. Some applications that are available on a cellphone are not accessible on a computer. For instance, there are various apps for math, English, science, and history. As for math, it can help us students increase our math skills. Elaborator: I came from a low-income rural high school so we didn’t have computers available for everybody. Like you all said it can be useful to use cellphones for quizzes and things like that. So many people have a cell phone now a days it could be beneficial to use cellphones. Researcher: Phones can be instructive devices. Cell phones are amazing these days. There are such a significant number of applications that could help students make strides. These days, students are indeed, even ready to download books onto their cell phones with the goal that they won’t have to purchase textbooks in the long run. Students could likewise message one another and chip away at gathering ventures together. I did a little research and found the article “Young teens in U.S. use mobile devices for homework” from Reuters.com states that more than one-third of teens in the United States said that they are using their cellphones to do homework. Smartphones were used at home for school work by 39% of 11–14 year olds. But the usage was lower in schools. Elaborator: I like your point of the use of cellphones in the classroom teaching students how to properly use cellphones as an educational tool. I think they can be very beneficial in the classroom, but distraction was a big con for me. Challenger: I can be just as distracted on my laptop considering the easy access to iMessage and websites like Pinterest or Facebook. It was also pointed out that students used their cell phones because they felt bored in class and that perhaps teachers needed to make more effort to make classes interesting: Elaborator: My “pro” to your challenge is that we can’t expect so little from our generation or the ones to come as you said, we shouldn’t doubt our students of being so incapable of establishing some self-control. I would also like to add that the misuse of cell phones or technology, in

89

90

5 Interdependence general, speaks volumes of the amount of respect a student has for the class, the subject, and the teacher. Initiator: I am viewing this topic through the lens of personal experience. I can say that in my time both as a student and as a teacher, students have a tendency to do well when they are allowed to use cellphones as tools as long as there are clear boundaries. Students must be monitored on some basic level because there will be many students who use the device appropriately for the activity but also students who do not. Elaborator: I would like to bring attention to a specific detail in your post—that students must be monitored on some basic level. While I do agree, I must challenge this notion by making the point that students have to be expected to maintain some sort of responsibility for themselves, especially if we are looking at high school students. Necessary, yes, but almost unrealistic based on the size of the teacher to student ratio. In my experience as a student who has been enrolled in classes of remarkable size, I know for a fact that it would have been nearly impossible for the teacher to supervise every single student’s use of technology in the classroom. A teacher already has a massive amount of duties to fulfill and can only manage student behavior to a certain extent; adding cellphone use into the mix could potentially add too much on a teacher’s plate without the proper training.

The students debated and negotiated while gradually building to a consensus on the benefits and drawbacks of cell phone use in classroom settings. By the end of the discussion, they had turned their focus to how to monitor student cellphone and various strategies emerged: There would have to be strict rules on the use of cell phones in class. Maybe even make those assignments a group activity and only use one cell phone per group? The school could also regulate the Wi-Fi and block sites like Snapchat and Facebook so the students aren’t tempted to get off task. Having a written contract, they say will help students police themselves when it comes to using the cell phone or not using the cell phone. The research I have is based in using a color system much time traffic lights to regulate to usage of cell phones. The green light posted in the classroom is to notify students they will be using the cell phones in class that day. The yellow light will let students know that cell phones will be used some but not the whole class time. The red is to let students know that cell phones will not be used at all and they should be prepared to leave them somewhere out of sight in order to follow the rules.

As can be seen in these examples, role playing compelled students to view the topic from different positions as each role had different responsibilities, which made it impossible for them to simply repeat what others had said. All members contributed uniquely as there was nothing to copy.

Building Interdependence

91

Student perceptions provided insights to the importance of role playing in these online discussions. As I read their reflective learning journals, any doubts I had at the beginning of the semester had disappeared. I became a convert to the value of role playing in student learning. Students were positive about their experiences and agreed that role playing was instrumental in maintaining a dynamic online discussion: “I did learn different viewpoints by being assigned different roles. I really liked this aspect of the discussion because it allowed me to constantly be looking at the topic from different perspectives. Assigning roles also helps ensure that each member can see the opinions of others.” When asked whether role playing should be removed from online discussion, most students objected: “I think students should be assigned different roles because it gives everyone the opportunity to contribute to the discussion differently and not the same person is doing the same thing every time. It also teaches the students to be responsible about knowing what they are supposed to be contributing to the conversation that week.” Students valued their experiences of playing various roles in discussions: “I feel like you approach subjects differently based on the role you have in the discussion. As a challenger, you are focused on challenging a specific part of what someone else has already said. As a researcher, you are focused on bringing specific legitimate facts to the table backed up by a source on the topic. As an elaborator, you extend the thoughts of someone else on the topic your group is discussing, and so on”. Role playing allowed students to view issues through various lens: “I am able to think about topics from a different angle. For example, when I take the role of “challenger”, I must understand my peer’s argument and think critically to make a counterargument.” In addition to each role having a specific function it carries specific obligations. When students assume their roles, they also assume those responsibilities and they realize they need to work hard to fulfill their responsibilities as one student reflected: “With roles there is structure and that does not allow for the students to slack off or only write about 30 words and call it done. The roles gave the students something to go off of for the post and I think it helped them a lot.” With specific roles, students are held accountable for their learning performance. Students commented: “When assigned roles, I also think that with those specific roles, it coerced the students into doing more research than they would alternatively since the role description called for it.” As a result, the quality of online discussion increased: “I think the discussion flows well because we have to make a certain number of posts, but the quality of those posts does change when we are assigned a certain role. By having roles, students have to challenge an idea or point of view or summarize everyone’s opposing thoughts. I think by assigning roles everyone comes to an agreement easier because they have to have a meaningful discussion.” Moreover, there is an element of fun. Students noted that the variety of roles sparked their interest: “I enjoyed all of the roles and thought each added a new perspective to my learning. Once the group members posted, I really enjoyed challenging their ideas” and role rotation kept things fresh “I think that

92

5 Interdependence

the role rotation system is very beneficial so that students don’t get stuck in a specific role that they may or may not enjoy. I think role rotation also helps develop students into better discussion participants”. After this experience, I catalogued several things to be considered for role playing in online discussions to be successful: 1. Each role needs to be clearly explained, including its definition and responsibilities. Instructors must provide examples to help students understand each. Roles must be rotated among group members. If there are five group members, there should be five topics for discussions. 2. The initiator’s role is important. In my course, the group leader took the initiator role and posted first to lead the group discussion. If the initiator missed a deadline, any member could step into the role and post first. In these cases, the originally designated initiator must take the assigned role of the member (e.g., challenger) who replaced him/her as initiator. It may be helpful to have two initiators in a group considering the importance of the role. 3. It is a good idea to offer training on how to be a group leader as there are areas where they face challenges: (a) formulating good questions to get a discussion started, (b) managing the development of a discussion, (c) using questions to facilitate a discussion, and (d) handling uncooperative group members. 4. It takes time for students to adapt to their roles. At the beginning, students may forget they have been assigned a specific role and make postings that do not match their roles. For example, a challenger posts completely agreeing with the group. To remind students of their roles, I require students to label their roles in their postings, e.g., “I am the researcher” or “I am the challenger”.

Summary • Group collaboration (face-to-face or online) does not just happen, it is designed. • Interdependence plays a central role in stimulating and sustaining group collaboration. • In a highly interdependent group, individuals can achieve little without working closely with other members. • When interdependence is missing, group cohesion falls apart. • The instructor can design cognitively challenged learning activities to leverage on task and role interdependence among group members.

References

93

References Admin, B. (2018). Collaboration or division of labor? https://www.webblots.se/mdh/onl/collabora tion-or-division-of-labor/ Bender, T. (2005). Role playing in online education: A teaching tool to enhance student engagement and sustained learning. Innovate: Online Education, 1(4), p. 1–7. Burenkova, O. M., Arkhipova, I. V., Semenov, S. A., & Samarenkina, S. Z. (2015). Motivation within role-playing as a means to intensify college students’ educational activity. International Education Studies, 8(6), 211–216. Fominykh, M., Leong, P., & Cartwright, B. (2018). Role-playing and experiential learning in a professional counseling distance course. Interactive Learning Research, 29(2), 169–190. Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Everlove, S. (2009). Productive group work: How to engage students, build teamwork, and promote understanding. ASCD. Geurts, J. L., Duke, R. D., & Vermeulen, P. A. (2007). Policy gaming for strategy and change. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 535–558. Hally, E., & Randolph, Z. (2018). A game of ideas: The effectiveness of role-playing games in the political theory classroom. Excellence in College Teaching, 29(2), 5–17. Hou, H. T. (2012). Analyzing the learning process of an online role-playing discussion activity. Educational Technology and Society, 15(1), 211–222. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Holubec, E. J., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school. ASCD. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153. Little, B. (2011, March 1). From ‘e’ to ‘we’ learnings. eLearn, (3). https://elearnmag.acm.org/arc hive.cfm?aid=1966298 Lowes, S. (2014). How much “group” is there in online group work? Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1), 1–14. Sawyer, K. (2017). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Basic books. Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(1), 60–82. Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2019). Assigned roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: Comparison of transactional distance and knowledge sharing behaviors. Educational Computing Research, 57(5), 1303–1325.

6

Rules

Abstract

Rules permeate every aspect of our life. We are surrounded by them from a young age, including house rules, school rules, church rules, and traffic rules.

Introduction Rules permeate every aspect of our life. We are surrounded by them from a young age, including house rules, school rules, church rules, and traffic rules. We learn to follow rules to stay safe (e.g., traffic rules), equal (e.g., etiquette) and efficient (team rules). More importantly, rules hold each of us accountable to ourselves and to those around us, which means our behavior impacts others. Thus, rules regulate behavior, guiding everyone to what is acceptable and what is not. Imagine the chaos if there were no traffic rules. A friend of mine recently moved into a gated community and was struck by the level of regulation present. There were strict requirements, such as regularly mowing lawns, frequently painting mailboxes, and pressure washing driveways as needed. Any violation of these rules would result in a warning or even a fine. The rationale behind these regulations is clear. The maintenance of a house is no longer solely the owner’s concern; it becomes a collective responsibility because the condition of each house affects the overall market value of the entire community. Rules are necessary for any learning community to survive and thrive as learning activities are regulated by rules. Referring to rules for group discussions, Hill (1969) noted: “when the group is larger and when it has a common purpose (which requires people to listen to each other rather than merely to think out loudly), then there has to be enough definition of expectations so that individuals know how to participate, can quite consciously guide their own behaviors, and can learn from the responses it provokes in others” (p. 10). Rules help organize participants towards the goal the community are striving for, provide boundaries for learner behaviors, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y.-M. Wang, Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3_6

95

96

6 Rules

and serve as a guide for participants to interact with each other. To sustain a learning community, participants need to understand and follow rules established and endorsed by the community. This chapter will detail how to establish rules in the online discourse community to regulate student participation, interaction, and knowledge construction. Objectives Upon completing this chapter, you will acquire the following knowledge and skills: • • • • •

Explain the significance of rules within the online discourse community. Analyze affordances that the online discussion environment offers. Design rules in regulating student participation in online discussions. Design rules in facilitating student interactions in online discussions. Design rules to enhance cognitive construction in online discussions.

Importance of Rules in Learning Communities The importance of rules is best illustrated in Activity Theory, which is a popular conceptual framework in instructional design for shared learning. Activity Theory can be attributed to several prominent figures in the field of psychology. The foundation of this theory was laid down by Vygotsky’s socio-cultural learning theory. Russian psychologist Aleksei Leontiev, who collaborated with Vygotsky from 1924 to 1930, further developed Activity Theory based on the concept of cultural mediation. In the 1980s, Finnish researcher Engeström revised the theory and emphasized its goal to transcend dichotomies such as micro- and macro-levels, mental and material aspects, and observation and intervention in the analysis and redesign of work (Engeström, 2000, p. 960). Activity Theory builds upon the concept of mediation in human learning and illustrates the intricate structure of a learning community. As an analytical conceptual framework, the theory finds application in instructional design across various fields (see Fig. 6.1). Lines within the triangle represent mediational relationships between components. According to Activity Theory, a shared activity is built upon five elements: (1) Subject, which refers to participants in the activity—a group of people working collaboratively and purposefully. (2) Object represents the learning outcome that the subjects strive for. The learning outcome validates and motivates the collective efforts of the participants. (3) Tool is the means applied by the participants to achieve the object (learning outcomes), which includes mediating artifacts such as language, signs, and computers. These tools, when integrated into the task, facilitate the subjects’ efforts towards the object. (4) Rule regulates participant behaviors in the process of achieving the object. (5) Role signifies the division of labor among participants. In summary, Activity Theory describes an activity system where members (subject) of a community, driven by a shared goal, collaborate

Importance of Rules in Learning Communities

97

Tools

Subject

Rules

Object

Community

Outcome

Roles

Fig. 6.1 The structure of an activity system (Engeström, 1999, p. 31)

to achieve a desired outcome (object). This process is mediated by agreed-upon rules (rule) and facilitated by the division of labor (role). Rules are an indispensable component in shared learning because they mediate the relationships between subjects and the community, providing guidance on how to act and collaborate. By instructing members on how to engage in collaborative efforts, rules shape individuals within the social framework of the community. Hung and Chen (2002) argued that rules play a vital role in fostering a vibrant learning community as they direct learner activity towards the learning objectives: “Thus, we perceive that rules play a central part in learning to be or in identity formation. Participants usually organize their actions based on the rules that regulate the particular community” (p. 253). Despite its importance, the role of rules in online discussions has often been underestimated, with primary focus placed on facilitation (Wang, 2019b). Gernsbacher (2016) noted a common shortcoming in instructors’ use of online discussion boards: “The most common shortcoming I see among instructors’ use of online discussion boards is that the instructors aren’t directive enough. Most instructors simply post a prompt and tell all students to respond. The instructors also might tell students to respond to each other” (para 10). It is a pedagogical issue that the significance of rules is often overlooked in designing online discussions. Unfortunately, the term “rule” usually carries connotations of control, authority, and domination, with penalties for violations. For many, the word stands in opposition to autonomy, independence, and liberty. Consequently, some educators perceive rules as inflexible and even oppressive in controlling student learning. For instance, Ferreday and Hodgson (2008) strongly objected to mandated participation in student collaborative learning, stating that such a rule could be experienced “as a form of tyranny of the dominant and which

98

6 Rules

instead of having a liberating effect, reinforces a form of oppression and control” (p. 640). Rarely considered is the illuminating and enlightening nature of rules. While rules set boundaries for behaviors, they also guide participants to function well as a community. For example, when technicians work in a chemistry laboratory, they need to observe rules to ensure the safety of all participants and prevent accidents. Boostrom (1991) sheds light on the nature of rules: “The only way to be able to reflect on such matters is to see rules for what they are—not a harness, not a leash, but the handle that we grasp” (p. 214). What are the perceptions of students regarding the establishment of rules in online discussions? I strongly believe that student perception is an important dimension of student learning. To gather information about how students perceive rules in online discussions, my colleagues and I conducted a series of studies investigating student perceptions on rules over a span of ten years (Chen et al., 2009; Wang & Chen, 2008, 2010; Wang, 2019a, 2019b). These studies revealed that an overwhelming number of students had a positive attitude towards implementing ground rules in online discussions. They appreciated that rules provided guidelines for their participation and acknowledged multiple benefits: (1) Rules held them accountable for their performance in online discussion and ensured participation. They were held responsible for posting and responding to peers’ postings, which moved the discussion forward. (2) Rules set clear expectations. The students understood what they were required to achieve and how to proceed and they pointed out that they felt confused and frustrated without rules (and probably would not learn as much). (3) Rules enhanced the quality of their postings by specifying the quality expected and preventing irrelevant and slopping postings. (4) Rules helped promote collegiality among students, which lead to a safe learning environment. During heated discussions, participants can be overly critical, and rules remind them they need to be respectful and critical in a professional way. Overall, the findings of the study revealed that students recognized the value of discussion rules and perceived them as beneficial in regulating their performances in online discussions. The ultimate goal of designing rules is to promote productive and dynamic online discussions. When creating rules to overcome challenges, instructors must have a clear understanding of the learning environment online discussions entail and anticipate the obstacles that may hinder student participation and engagement. Therefore, it is imperative that instructors address these difficulties in designing rules.

Online Discussion Environment Online discussion is a unique learning environment. Denne (2005) defined asynchronous learning as qualitatively different from traditional classroom learning, which requires new approaches in design, facilitation, and assessment. “There is no traditional instructional method that is truly analogous to asynchronous discussion,

Online Discussion Environment

99

and thus this medium needs to be examined closely to generate knowledge that will help online instructors learn and make informed decisions about how to design and facilitate asynchronous course interactions” (p. 127–128). Rule design must take into consideration the unique features of the asynchronous learning environment. What kind of learning environment does online discussion create? It is important to understand that online discussion is not merely a technology medium. Ryder and Wilson (1996) cautioned against considering online technology as a medium. “It is really an infrastructure that brings together media, tools, people, places, and information, expanding the range of human capabilities” (p. 647). Online discussion, in reality, offers an ecological environment for student learning. Thus, an ecological approach in affordance analysis is more appropriate. To design rules to regulate student behaviors, we need to first understand what types of behavior the online environment elicits in students. Attributes of the online discussion environment can be best demonstrated through affordance analysis. American psychologist Gibson (1977) was the first to coin the term “affordance.” An affordance is defined as a perceived property of an object for possible actions. We live in an object-enriched world where each object possesses properties that suggest perceived or actual actions users can perform, such as pushing a button or turning a knob. Ryder and Wilson (1996) further explained: “We use the term affordance to describe the potential for action, the perceived capacity of an object to enable the assertive will of the actor… Natural affordances emerge into effectivities through use in conscious activity” (p. 643). The possible action of an object is appropriated by the assertive will of users to expand human capabilities. For example, a chair affords the action of being sat on. However, a chair can also be stood on if the user needs to change a lightbulb in a kitchen. In this case, the chair is used to increase our height. However, we cannot use a chair to pick up fruit in a tall tree since this is not an affordance offered by the chair, but an affordance of a ladder. In conducting affordance analysis of technologies, Gaver (1991) proposed an ecological approach because “… it allows us to focus not on technologies or users alone, but on the fundamental interactions between the two” (p. 83). Ryder and Wilson (1996) pointed out that “action transforms affordances into effectivities which extend human capabilities” (p. 643). Online discussion possesses unique affordances. However, affordances alone will not yield successful student learning outcomes. Instructors need to transform affordances into effectivities through design, facilitation, and assessment. Affordance analysis (Table 6.1) illustrates the possible actions (not all positive) enabled in an online discussion environment. These attributes enable desired actions as well as unwanted actions. For example, the text-based feature encourages thoughtful and reflective postings. Meanwhile, it makes contributors sensitive to scrutiny of peers and fearful of errors. This is where the rule comes into play and fulfills its role. Instructors can design rules to achieve desired actions and minimize unwanted actions through regulating student behaviors. Affordance analysis is significant in that it helps instructors understand the complexity of an online discussion environment and, subsequently, design rules to encourage desired student actions and minimize unwanted actions.

100

6 Rules

Table 6.1 Affordance analysis of online discussion Attributes

Desired actions

Unwanted actions

Flexibility

• Extended participation time • Participation at any time/place • Participation between classes, cultures and countries • Simultaneous postings without waiting for turns

• Non-participation • Procrastination in participation • Disorientation with multi-thread discussion

Diversity

• Various types of “public discourse” • Diverse writing styles • Diverse learners (e.g., shy, non-native students)

• Posting formally • Less sensitive to individual and culture differences

Individual engagement • Composing thoughtful postings • Increasing understandings • Promoting higher order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation • Encouraging reflection upon postings

• Fear of errors and permanent records • Contributing superficial postings • Counting quantity instead of quality • Posting the minimum to meet requirements

Collective engagement • Socially negotiating and constructing knowledge • Sharing and contributing ideas • Promoting collaborative work • One to many interaction • Many to many interaction

• • • •

Isolated postings Not reading other’s postings Being active, not interactive Non-responses to other’s postings • Causing group conflicts

Designing Rules to Regulate Online Discussion I have collaborated with colleagues to conduct design-based research in online courses over the years. This approach allows me to merge research and teaching practices. We develop rules for online discussions, implement them in authentic course settings, and assess their impact on student learning. The findings from previous investigations (Chen et al., 2009; Wang & Chen, 2008, 2010; Wang, 2019a, 2019b) are applied to redesign and refine rules. All the rules presented here have been field-tested and evaluated through multiple cycles. Productive discussion is characteristic of active participation, intensive interaction among participants, cognitive in-depth postings and collaborative group working relationships. To support productive discussions, I focus on designing rules to promote student participation, interaction, knowledge construction, and social presence.

Designing Rules to Regulate Online Discussion

101

Participation Student participation is the precursor of a successful online discussion. Although online discussion offers students anytime-and-anywhere access, participation has been a serious concern. The “invisibility” of online discussion tends to lead to inactivity because students do not need to face the embarrassment they would experience for self-exclusion in face-to-face discussion. Thus, instructors have two choices—to make participation required or to make it optional. If the decision is left to the students, how can student learning be guaranteed if they decide not to participate? Instructors need to ask themselves these questions: Is it essential that students participate in the discussion? If students choose not to participate, how will it hurt their learning? If online discussion is supplemental to a course, it may be reasonable to allow students to decide on their level of participation. However, if it is an essential component in student learning, it is imperative that students do not miss the learning opportunities imbedded in the online discussion. Unfortunately, research has shown that participation generally remains low when participation is optional, and this is a primary cause for underdeveloped discussions. In one of my studies (Wang, 2019b), students were asked whether they would participate in online discussion if it was not required. About 49% of the students indicated that they would not participate if it was not mandatory. This should not be taken to indicate that students were not committed to the course but rather that they needed to prioritize their obligations for learning in the course. Optional participation seems to convey the message that discussion is insignificant to student learning, an add-on activity that the course can do without. However, non-participation jeopardizes the sustainability of the learning community. Without a critical mass of contributions, discussions cannot grow and develop. Students who do not participate relinquish their memberships in the learning community, undermining its morale. In an online discussion, student existence can only be assessed by their posting and contributing. Moreover, non-participation can be contagious. When students post and do not receive responses, they understandably lose interests in contributing again. More crucially, students who do not participate deprive themselves of the opportunities to be included in the learning process, stalling their professional progress. Skinner (2009) pointed out: “People who remain outside the community risk reinforcing their disadvantage, missing out on opportunities for developing skills and knowledge” (p. 91). I have found in my courses that students who missed discussions had tremendous difficulties in completing their assignments, floundering in their understanding of critical issues.

Non-participation In designing rules to deal with student non-participation, two approaches can be applied. Explicit Mandatory Participation When I make discussion participation mandatory, I assign a portion of the course grade (e.g., 30%) to discussion contributions to indicate the discussion being as

102

6 Rules

important as any other assignment. Additionally, since all course assignments are based on group discussions, a portion of each assignment grade is also allocated to discussion participation. In this way, online discussion is incorporated to enhance overall student learning. Mandatory participation makes sense to students if they see their participation is related to their overall learning in the course. Mandatory participation can be explicit, as shown in the example below. Explicit Mandatory Participation

In this course, a significant amount of learning will take place on the discussion board. Active participation in online discussions is required for you to successfully complete course assignments. It is important to note that your contributions to the discussions will be graded and will count for 30% of your total assignment grade.

Implicit Integrated Participation Here is a way to integrate discussion participation into course assignments implicitly, as illustrated in the examples below. Implicit Integrated Approach

1. Conduct research. Your group is required to select a topic, conduct research, formulate an assertion, and provide research evidence to justify your assertion. Post your assertion on the class discussion board and lead a discussion on the topic. Revise your assertion based on contributions from your peers in the discussion. You must integrate feedback from your peers into your final presentation. 2. Write a reflective journal on your learning experiences through online discussion. Compare postings on the discussion board and select one posting that you consider significantly contributes to your understanding of the topic. Explain how the posting helped build your knowledge in your reflective learning journal. 3. Write a persuasive essay on U.S. immigration policy. Select a posting from the discussion you interacted with most in the discussion. This posting must contradict your opinion on the issue. Formulate your arguments against the position of the posting in your essay. Note in the examples above, “mandatory participation” is not included. There is no requirement for minimum postings. However, students are not able to complete the assignments without participating in the online discussions. If students need feedback from their peers, they need to give feedback to their peers. To reflect upon a peer’s posting, students need to read, follow, compare, and contrast

Designing Rules to Regulate Online Discussion

103

various postings to choose one that they learn most from. The discussion board provides a platform where they develop argumentative writing skills as they interact to question, challenge, and debate. Without participating students would miss differing opinions and perspectives, reasons and rationales from both sides, and rich resources provided by peers, which are all essential in writing an argumentative essay. The integrated approach motivates student participation and there is no need to specify a minimum number of postings as students always exceed what would have been the designated required quantity.

Lurking Some students prefer being “lurkers”, hiding comfortably behind a computer screen. Should lurkers be allowed in online discussion? Some argue that lurkers learn by reading contributions, but they do not exist in the eyes of other community members and the very behavior of lurking erodes the foundation of the learning community of critical inquiry. Lurkers may learn from others, but they then deny others opportunities to learn from them by not posting and contributing. Further, lurkers are quite limited in what they can learn compared with that of active participants. Therefore, I strongly discourage lurking in online discussion. Procrastination/Late Participation In addition to non-participation, procrastination should also be discouraged. Some students postpone participation until the last minute, posting just before a discussion is about to close, missing the opportunities to interact with others and leaving little chance for any in-depth development of their ideas and perspective. The class is already preparing to move on to the next activity and rarely would other students return to read these new postings. The key issue here is that discussion is not merely about posting—it is about the interaction of ideas, so procrastination hinders the full development of discussion. Therefore, it is not sufficient to have cut-off deadlines to start and close a discussion. I add a deadline for an initial posting: once a discussion is open, students are allowed two or three days to cover the reading materials or conduct their own search for materials and then must make their initial postings before the first deadline. Set a Timeline for Initial Postings

Please be aware that there are two deadlines for this discussion: (1) Your initial posting is due by January 9; (2) The discussion will close on January 21.

One-Time Participation Some students prefer completing their participation as soon as possible. They may post five messages at one sitting and get off the discussion board for good. Some do this simply to meet the minimum requirements for postings or because they want to save time. Whatever the reason, it is obvious that one-time participation

104

6 Rules

does not help a discussion develop. It takes continued input and interaction for ideas and thoughts to take shape and isolated bits from individuals are contrary to the essence of collaborative inquiry. One way to prevent this is to require students to post on different days, for example, on three different days. Spacing postings will ensure students access the discussion board, view new postings, and follow the development of the discussion and that their subsequent postings will be influenced by new postings from peers. Space Discussion Postings

You are required to contribute your postings on three different days.

Making up for Missing Participation If a student miss participating in a discussion or fall short of the required contributions, they have the opportunity to compensate for their grades in the subsequent discussions. There are various reasons why students might miss a discussion; they could be new to the online learning environment or unfamiliar with the discussion rules. Allowing students to make up contributions benefits slow starters. Once a discussion closes, it’s unlikely that students will revisit the closed discussion forum. Therefore, in my course, students are allowed to submit additional postings in the next round of discussions to earn extra credit, albeit with a limit of earning one extra point in one round of discussion. For example, if a student missed 5 postings previously, they must distribute five extra contributions across the next five discussions, rather than posting them all in one. This approach balances flexibility with consistency, allowing students who stumble early to demonstrate their learning through ongoing discussions. Missed discussions are a setback, not a dead end. With some effort, students can get back on track. Making up for Missing Participation

If you missed postings in one discussion, you could make up for one missed posting in the subsequent discussion.

Interaction Student to Student Interaction Student interaction defines the quality of online discussion. Skinner (2009) defined participation as both “presence” and “interaction”: “Participation in a learning community depends first on a student being present and secondly on the student interacting with others by making a contribution to discussion” (p. 90). Learning

Designing Rules to Regulate Online Discussion

105

through online discussion is a meaning-making process through social interaction. Vygotsky (1981).considered learning to be a process of transformation between externalization and internalization: “When we speak of a process, ‘external’ means ‘social.’ Any higher mental function was external because it was social at some point before becoming an internal, truly mental function” (p. 162). Discussion, as a tool, mediates learning through a process of facilitating student externalization and internalization. While interacting with each other, students share thoughts, claims, and opinions. As they deliberate, question, challenge, and reflect, the internal process of absorbing knowledge occurs. Through interaction, they complement one another in understanding a subject. As a discussion proceeds, the process of externalization and internalization continues. With each cycle, learning transacts at a higher level until students reach consensus, completing the process of building social cognition. As noted previously, even when students post, it does not mean they are interacting. They can be centered on their own opinions, ignoring other postings. Rather than exchanging thoughts and ideas, each posting is isolated. Collaborative activities can have parallel interaction or collaborative interaction (Lowes, 2014). When student postings are parallel, the end result is a collection of individual contributions. This is problematic as social cognition only emerges in collaborative interactions—students frequently exchanging thoughts and reflections. In my online courses, I design rules to promote productive interaction among students. Interaction with Your Peers

You are encouraged to build on your peers’ contributions.

Reference to Peer Postings When students respond to peers’ postings, they are encouraged to include specific references to the peer postings (either paraphrased or quoted). This rule serves several purposes: (a) it helps students read peer postings carefully and to interact with their peers’ thoughts, (b) it serves as an acknowledgement that postings are being read, (c) when postings are accumulating and being nested in several layers, students can become confused about which posting comments or analyses are based on. This rule is intended to minimize confusion or misunderstanding. Reference to Peer Postings

You are encouraged to include the original posting(s) of your peers in your response.

106

6 Rules

Responding to Peers Usually, instructors require students to comment on two or three of peer postings. However, some students may not get any responses to their postings. In these cases, students can send invitations to three peers asking them to comment. The three recipients can choose to offer comments or refer the invitation to other students. This rule increases opportunities for all students to interact with one another, making sure no student is left out. Responding to Peers—Invitation

If your posting doesn’t receive any responses, you can send invitations to three peers requesting their responses.

Responding to Peers’ Comments—48-H Rule Students are required to respond to comments on their postings within 48 h. This rule helps intensify interactions among students. Ideally, responses spark new thoughts, leading to a more intensive discussion and ideas build on one another. Because online discussion can have a long turn-around time it is necessary to gather a critical mass for the development of a discussion in a timely manner. If students are required to respond to peer comments within 48 h, they have to constantly log in and add responses to the developing discussion. 48-H Rule

You must respond to any comments on your postings within 48 h.

Summarizing Discussion Postings A common complaint from students is that they feel they have nothing more to add to a discussion. In this case, students should provide a summary of a discussion thread. Writing a summary allows students to synthesize what has been discussed up to that point in time. The summary may serve as closure to a discussion thread or, more importantly, sharpen the focus of the discussion and bring overlooked thoughts and ideas to the fore. For example, an interesting idea may have been posted but it was not pursued because other ideas caught the group’s attention. While closing a discussion thread, a summary may counterintuitively open a new thread. Summary of Discussion Postings

If you have nothing more to add, wrap up the discussion thread with a concise summary.

Designing Rules to Regulate Online Discussion

107

Playing Devil’s Advocate Students often too readily agree with each other, which is the primary cause for a stagnant discussion. Playing Devil’s Advocate gives students permission to challenge each other and raise objections as much as possible. Playing Devil’s Advocate helps to generate debates and stimulate discussions. As students debate each other, they start to see both sides of a picture which can generate new thoughts and insights. It also helps students identify their own blind spots, for example, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in their arguments, thus enhancing the thoroughness of their analyses. It is not always pleasant to encounter objections to one’s proposal, claim or arguments but I have noticed when students indicate their intent to “Play Devil’s Advocate”, the tension is greatly reduced. Playing Devil’s Advocate

Please play devil’s advocate, but clearly signify your intent in the message.

Constructive Disagreement Because online discussion is a virtual learning environment, physical cues such as body language, tone, and facial expressions are missing, increasing the risk of misunderstanding. While students are encouraged to freely express disagreement, which is valuable for the evolution of a discussion, they are required to do so in a constructive manner if productive discourse is to emerge. When students become overly critical and negative, disagreement can be interpreted as disrespectful and aggressive. This rule serves as a reminder that students be sensitive and constructive for the ultimate benefit of all. Disagreement

Please be constructive when you express disagreement.

Compliments and Humor Although merely providing compliments will not earn credit, students should be encouraged to compliments their peers when a posting provides food for thought. While a general compliment such as “Nice work” or “Good Job” does not mean much and is a vague way of showing appreciation, a specific compliment can be a great motivating factor for participants to produce thoughtful and insightful postings. This is also an important option for students to build rapport with one another. Humor is another effective strategy for relieving student anxiety and creating a relaxing learning environment. Students in online learning can often feel lonely and isolated. Humor helps break down distance between students. For example, when students engage in a heated discussion, using a smiley face can help reduce tension and convey good intentions.

108

6 Rules

Compliments and Humor

Be generous in offering compliments and using humor.

Student Interaction with Text—Writing Style As online discussion is text-based, writing style not only influences the way students communicate with one another, but also the purpose of a discussion. Contrary to fleeting face-to-face discussion, online discussion leaves a permanent record of student interactions, available for scrutiny by all. Because of the possibility of embarrassment over errors or looking silly, students tend to write as formally as if they were constructing an essay. This creates several problems. Composing postings like this is time-consuming. When students pay too much attention to grammar and word choice, it can be intimidating and interfere with the free flow of their thoughts. It also prevents students from posting ideas they consider premature or imperfect, which totally defeats the purpose of a discussion. Online discussion is a place where students should feel free to experiment with thoughts, ideas, and opinions, no matter how premature. I require students write in an informal way, focusing on communicating content and let them know their postings are not graded on writing mechanics. However, there are requirements for proper writing mechanics in student deliverables (e.g., research papers and reflective learning journals). Taking Risks

Keep in mind that the discussion board is an area for you and your peers to exchange thoughts and sharpen your arguments. This is not a place for anyone to show off how much he/she knows. Rather, it is to celebrate our ignorance, imperfection, confusion, and struggles, and eventually our growth. Writing style not only relates to how students interact with text, but it also affects the development of a discussion. Long postings are difficult for peers to read on screen. Concise postings convey meanings more effectively. A posting with several points can divert student focus from the main point, therefore students are advised to make one point per message with multiple points spread over different postings. Instructors should add a rule to emphasize the importance of the subject line of a posting, which is crucial for both authors and viewers. If an author has a thorough understanding of what is being posted, the subject line should be no more than ten words and should provide cues for the content of the posting. Too often, students tend to use default subject lines, especially when they use the ‘reply’ function, which can obscure the specific state of a discussion. Used appropriately,

Designing Rules to Regulate Online Discussion

109

subject lines help to organize a discussion board by separating threads and distinguishing postings and, consequently, allowing students to quickly locate (or relocate) postings that interest them most. Without clear subject lines, the latter can be like looking for a needle in a haystack with students open every posting a truly unproductive (and frustrating) use of time. Writing Style

• • • •

Write informally as if you are having a conversation. Focus on one point per message. Keep your messages short. Use a meaningful subject line. The subject line should summarize your posting in no more than 10 words. • Open a new thread if your topic introduces a new direction to the discussion.

Cognitive Construction—Quality of Student Postings Quality is a widespread concern in online discussion as student postings often lack in-depth cognitive elements. Garrison et al. (2001) proposed the term cognitive presence to measure the quality of student postings. Cognitive presence is defined as “the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry” (p. 9). Successful online discussion has as its purpose enhancement of cognitive presence, where students participate in a meaning-making process to gain command of various subjects. Therefore, cognitive presence defines the quality of online discussion. Just as students must meet a requirement for quantity of discussion postings, they must also be required meet a standard for the quality of postings, otherwise they can default to the minimum to receive credit. To enhance cognitive presence, rules must clearly communicate expectations concerning the quality of postings.

110

6 Rules

In designing rules to raise the quality of student postings, I have collected problems students encounter, analyzed the rationales behind each rule, and assessed the validity of the rules to ensure the quality of student postings. These rules are both facilitative and restrictive. They provide guidelines for students to identify the quality of discussion postings and prevent them from producing shallow and sloppy postings. As an instructor, I use the rules to guide the assessment of the quality of the postings and the students can use them as a self-assessment tool to improve the quality of their postings. The “Quality” Rules: • Staying focused—Relating to discussion topics All postings must be relevant to the topic. No side-tracking is allowed. For example, in a discussion of strategies to integrate computers in the k-12 curriculum, a posting on inequality in education (that is, not all schools have equal access to computer technology) is a diversion from the topic at hand. Of course, important topics that emerge from a main line of analysis can become separate lines of inquiry—but the requirement for postings is to be directly relevant to the topic remains. • Striving for new—Contributing new ideas and perspectives The purpose of this rule is to emphasize the importance of contributing new/ original ideas and thoughts. Students are discouraged from merely posting facts. New ideas and perspectives are the blood line of dynamic online discussion and without them a discussion loses its dynamics. • Going in depth and breadth—Expanding ideas and perspectives To develop discussion in depth and breadth, students are encouraged to build upon each other’s postings. If they do not, the discussion becomes a collection of remotely related messages without any possibility for knowledge construction. As students interact, a critical mass forms, which is essential for the development of depth and breadth of the discussion. • Making connections—Referencing course materials Students are encouraged to make references to course materials in their postings, linking discussion with their other learning, as a major purpose of online discussion is to enhance student understanding of subject content. Knowledge transfer is a cognitive practice demonstrating student abilities to apply what they have learned in new contexts. Only when students comprehend course materials can they recognize relevant contexts for knowledge transfer and signify their progress from surface learning to deep learning. • Grounding in reason—Supporting with evidence Students must learn to argue with reason supported by evidence as opposed to arguments that are vague and opinion based. Without evidence, arguments easily slip into meaningless bickering and the discussion becomes unproductive because there is no possibility for students to achieve shared meanings if the

Designing Rules to Regulate Online Discussion

111

driving element in a discussion is unexamined opinion. This rule compels students to learn what constitutes a strong argument and how to use evidence to substantiate a position. It is a cognitively challenging activity to formulate and refine an evidence-based argument but, as research shows, a challenging online discussion is a great motivator for student engagement. • Initiating inquiries—Questioning for multiple goals In my experience, most students in online discussion do not consciously apply questioning as a strategy for learning, possibly because it is never easy to ask good questions. As Dillon stated (1983): “To conceive an educative question requires thought; To formulate it requires labor; To pose it, tact (p. 8).” However, questioning is a good strategy to apply in online discussion and can inspire student curiosity to know more about a topic. It can activate complex thought process and engage students as active learners in a discussion. Moreover, questioning can have numerous purposes: students can question to explore a topic, clarify confusion, and challenge claims. They can question to convey disagreement in a way that can be more diplomatic, and a purposeful question can introduce a new perspective or a new direction in a discussion. • Weaving it together—Summarizing a discussion thread As previously mentioned, if students feel they do not have any new ideas to contribute, they can summarize previous postings as a contribution. Summary writing has numerous benefits. For example, as an online discussion has multiple threads synthesizing previous postings can sharpen the focus of a discussion or bring closure to a thread. As a discussion unfolds, some threads need to be closed to reorient the group to more significant aspects of the topic. Additionally, summary writing enhances an author’s comprehension of what has been discussed—it requires reading, analyzing, and synthesizing postings, combining main ideas and key points in the thread. Finally, a summary provides all students a succinct overview of the crucial details in a thread, allowing them to see the development of their thought process. • Disagreeing professionally—Providing constructive criticism Students participate in online discussion not only to share their thinking, but to have their thinking questioned, challenged, and refined. To critique peer postings, they must be critical readers and independent thinkers. Disagreement introduces alternative thoughts and perspectives into a discussion. As students interact, they gain opportunities to reshape and restructure their thinking, eventually completing the process of building shared meanings. • Giving and receiving—Responding to questions In online discussion, it should always be the case that “ask and you will receive”. Responding to questions sustains a thread. If students post questions and do not receive responses, they will justifiably lose interests in posting again.

112

6 Rules

Table 6.2 Ground rules—participation Rules

Rationale

Participation Explicit mandatory participation—You are required to participate in the online discussion

• Prevent non-participation • Ensure student learning through online discussion

Implicit (Integrated) participation—You must • Increase student voluntary participation address your peers’ feedback in your final • Promote student motivation for participation draft of your presentation Minimum threshold—You must meet the minimum requirements of postings

• Guarantee the number of postings • Ensure each student has a voice • Gather a critical mass

Multiple deadlines—You must post your initial postings on time • deadline #1 start of the discussion • deadline #2 initial posting • deadline #3 closure of the discussion

• Facilitate student planning • Prevent late participation

Space your postings—You must make your postings in three/five different times

• Keep students engaged • Increase thoughtful postings • Increase continuity of discussion

Making up for missing participation—If you missed postings in one discussion, you can make up for one missed posting in the subsequent discussion

• Help slow starters to catch up • Space student postings

From 2008 to 2019, I collaborated with my colleagues and published a series of papers on designing rules to regulate online discussions (Chen et al., 2009; Wang & Chen, 2008, 2010; Wang, 2019a, 2019b). The Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 summarize the most recent version of the rules discussed in this chapter, which have been revised and refined through multiple cycles of design, implementation, investigation, and re-design. These rules should continue to evolve contingent on contexts as there are multiple variables that influence the process of online discussions. It is importance to get students involved in the design of the rules. Student involvement provides them opportunities to understand the rationales behind rules and be familiar with them. More importantly, when students take an active part in rule design, they would be more likely to follow the rules. There are several approaches to encourage student participation in the rule design. At the beginning of the semester, students can engage in discussions on rules where they will familiarize themselves with rules. As the semester progresses, students gain experiences of applying rules in online discussion, the instructor can poll students to gather their feedback on discussion rules. At the end of the

Summary

113

Table 6.3 Ground rules—interaction Rules

Rationales

Students to Students If no one answers your posting, you can send invitations to three students for responses

• Legitimacy to respond • Shorten waiting time

You must reply to any comments on your posts within 48 h

• Generate greater ownership to discussion • Increase momentum of discussion • Clarify ideas and thoughts

If you have nothing more to add, conclude the • Bring proper closure thread with a concise summary • Sharpen focus of the discussion • Open new directions for discussion Be constructive! It is always possible to disagree

• Promote good rapport among participants • Legitimize disagreement

Do not spare your compliments and humor. Use them profusely!

• Support collegiality • Lessen tension

Students to Text Keep one point per message

• Keep postings organized • Present the main point clearly

Keep postings short

• Enhance focus of postings • Increase clarity of postings

Keep your postings informal

• Promote flow of discussion • Foster a comfortable and relaxing environment • Encourage students to take risks

Play Devil’s Advocate, but signify your intent • Legitimize disagreement in the message • Introduce alternative perspectives

semester, students can reflect upon their experiences in following the rules throughout the semester and provide insights on how the rules should be modified and refined for improvement.

Summary • • • • •

The importance of rules has been underestimated in online discussion. Activity Theory illustrates the importance of rules in the learning community. Rule has two contrasting aspects: restrictive vs illuminative. Each rule is designed for a purpose. Rules must be established to regulate student participation, interaction, and knowledge construction to maintain a dynamic online discourse community.

114

6 Rules

Table 6.4 Ground rules—cognitive construction Rules

Rationales

Relate to the topic

• Discourage side-tracking talk • Make discussion focused

Contribute new ideas/perspectives to the discussion

• Prevent repetitious postings • Initiate new discussion thread

Expand the idea/perspective of the previous postings

• Encourage multiple perspectives • Promote in-depth discussion • Build on social cognition

Make references to course materials

• Apply knowledge in new contexts • Enhance understanding of learning in the course

Provide evidence-based contribution (e.g., research evidence and real-life examples)

• Avoid baseless arguments • Apply reason in arguments • Promote meaningful cognitive engagement

Give constructive critiques to previous postings

• Negotiate knowledge • Facilitate multiple perspectives

Ask questions that lead to more in-depth discussions of the topic or bring out different perspectives

• Clarify confusion • Provide new directions • Generate new thoughts

Respond to questions

• Make sure each question is answered • Add new information • Produce new insights

References Boostrom, R. (1991). The nature and functions of classroom rules. Curriculum Inquiry, 21(2), 193– 216. Chen, D. V., Wang, Y. M., & Hung, D. (2009). Design-based research on refining rules for online discussion. Interactive Learning Research, 20(2), 157–173. Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. Dillon, J. T. (1983). Teaching and the art of questioning. Dallas: Phi Delta Kappa. Engestrom, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974. Ferreday, D., & Hodgson, V. (2008). The tyranny of participation and collaboration in networked learning. In V. Hodgson, C. Jones, T. Kargidis, D. McConnell, S. Retalis, D. Stamatis, & M. Zenios (Eds.), Networked Learning, (pp. 640–647). Halkidiki, Greece. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, & J. S. Olson (Eds), Human factors in computing systems, (pp. 79–84). Orleans, Louisiana. Gernsbacher, M. A. (2016). Five tips for improving online discussion boards. APS Observer, 29(9). https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/five-tips-for-improving-online-discus sion-boards

References

115

Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw and J. Bransford (Eds.) Perceiving, acting, and knowing. toward an ecological psychology, (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale: NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hill, W. F. (1969). Learning through discussion. Sage. Hung, D., & Chen, V. (2002). Learning within the context of communities of practices: A reconceptualization of tools, rules and roles of the activity system. Educational Media International, 39(3–4), 247–255. Ryder, M., & Wilson, B. (1996). Affordances and constraints of the internet for learning and instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 642–654). Indianapolis. Skinner, E. (2009). Using community development theory to improve student engagement in online discussion: A case study. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17(2), 89–100. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981b). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe Wang, Y. M. (2019a). Enhancing the quality of online discussion—Assessment matters. Educational Technology Systems, 48(1), 112–129. Wang, Y. M. (2019b). How did graduate students of education majors perceive the ground rules in online discussions? Interactive Learning Research, 30(1), 5–26. Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. V. (2008). Essential elements in designing online discussions to promote cognitive presence—A practical experience. Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 157– 177. Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. V. (2010). Promoting spontaneous facilitation in online discussions: Designing object and ground rules. Educational Media International, 47(3), 249–264.

7

Instructor as Facilitator

Abstract

Facilitation is considered one of the most significant factors in promoting dynamic online discussion and considerable emphasis has been placed on the instructor’s role as facilitator.

Introduction Facilitation is considered one of the most significant factors in promoting dynamic online discussion and considerable emphasis has been placed on the instructor’s role as facilitator. Instructors are expected to participate actively in student online discussion, contributing thoughts, commenting on student postings, and answering questions. Nevertheless, it is a complex task to facilitate online discussion. It is considered to increase student satisfaction with the learning process when the instructor shows a strong presence in an online learning environment. However, there is a concern that instructor’s strong presence may negatively affect student participation in online discussion. When the instructor post frequently, students tend to lose the desire to take initiatives, turning the discussion from being studentdriven to being teacher-centered. As an authoritative figure, the instructor’s strong presence might shut down student voice. Students may look up to the instructor for thoughts and ideas, which should never happen in a healthy discourse community. On the other hand, there is a worry that students may feel that their instructor does not care for their learning if the instructor rarely participate in the online discussion. Therefore, the instructor seems to get stuck in a dilemma of “to be” or “not to be.” How much should an instructor facilitate and when should the instructor facilitate? How could the instructor keep a balanced teacher presence in facilitating online discussion? This chapter answers the aforementioned questions.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y.-M. Wang, Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3_7

117

118

7 Instructor as Facilitator

Objectives Upon completing this chapter, you will acquire the following knowledge and skills: • Define teacher presence in facilitating online discussions. • Explain the power relationship between teachers and students in leading online discussions. • Discuss research findings about the instructor’s participation in online discussions. • Identify situations where the instructor should intervene and facilitate online discussions. • Maintain an appropriate level of teacher presence when facilitating online discussions.

Facilitating Online Discussion: The More, the Better? Since Garrison et al. (2001, p. 7) coined the term “teacher presence” to project instructor visibility in leading and managing online discussion, the term has been used to describe instructor involvement in online discussion. However, it is a complex phenomenon to facilitate online discussion. The long-established mindset assumes instructors should model how to actively participate in online discussion for students. Therefore, instructors have been expected to post regularly, provide feedback promptly, and compliment student contributions profusely. In a study by Larson et al. (2019), more than one third of students expected their instructors to post five to seven days per week. Another 46% wished to see them to participate in a discussion at least four days per week and close to half of all students believed instructors should contribute 10–20 postings weekly (another 10% thought they should post more than 20 messages per week). More than 80% of students thought their instructors should respond to student postings within one or two days. In a discussion forum managed by the Chronicle of Higher Education (2014), an instructor talked about how she was required to fulfill her role as a facilitator in online discussion: “Recently, the ID (instructional design) team has strongly suggested (i.e., mandated) that all instructors respond to each main student posting directly (so I need to respond to all 100+ students each week in addition to using a rubric to assign their grade)” (Personal Communication, 2014a). Another instructor wrote: “It’s bad for teaching, but the online-only and the two majorityonline universities/colleges I taught for as an online adjunct (with a canned course) all wanted me to do that. One posting read: “I had to say something nice in every post before I could criticize anything. I think they figure that when given more engagement with the professor, students will stick around. Or something” (Personal Communication, 2014b). These statements emphasize the assumption that students are likely to be more motivated when they see their instructors as being part of online discussion. This “the more, the better” mentality, as I term it, presumes that the greater the instructor participation, the more likely students

What Does the Research Say?

119

would be to post. Until recently, this mindset has been prevalent among instructors. For example, Ergulec (2019) found that instructors could be so active that their participation was higher than that of any students in a forum.

What Does the Research Say? The “the more, the better” mentality is, in large part, due to inherent characteristics of online discussion. According to Media Richness Theory, media can be defined as rich or lean based on its ability to sustain communication as measured by immediate feedback as well as the presence of simultaneous visual, auditory, and facial cues. In contrast to rich media, such as face-to-face exchanges, online discussion is considered to be lean as it is text-based, asynchronous, and devoid of physical and social cues. Students are separated from instructors and one another physically, which can lead to loneliness and anxiety. In my discussion-based online course, I have observed that some students experienced such high anxiety that they e-mailed me on daily basis, seeking reassurance. High achiever students are no exceptions. Ekmekci (2013) called for attention to this challenge: “There is one other aspect of an asynchronous online learning environment that deserves special consideration. Since instructors and students hardly ever get together in the same space and time, there is a need to close the gap that separates the students from the instructor” (p. 34). Teacher presence helps connect instructors with students, thus assuaging student isolation in the online learning environment. In this context, advocates for high teacher presence argue that online discussion board is an area where instructors can model appropriate online behavior, adding more perspectives, and responding to student questions (Fu, 2019). A strong teacher presence can make students feel their instructors care for them and support them in their learning and, obviously, a positive instructor-student relationship is of great importance to student learning. Based on her research findings, Larson et al. (2019) concluded that teacher presence promotes student motivation, increases the level of student engagement, and closes the gap between instructors and students: “The ability of instructors to develop positive relationships with student through interactions within the discussion forum plays a vital role in student success and the development of emerging scholars” (p. 24). Additionally, studies have shown that high teacher presence positively correlates with student satisfaction about their learning (Bedi, 2008; Gorsky & Blau, 2009; Greenberger, 2012; Khalid & Quick, 2016; Sheridan & Kelly, 2010; Witthaus, 2018; Ondrey, 2017; Kucuk & Richardson, 2019). In discussing the importance of teacher presence, Richardson et al. (2016) stated: “As these aspects of a course can potentially impact learning in many ways, instructor presence is an important construct to consider when designing or facilitating online instructional experiences” (p. 83). Nevertheless, other studies challenge the idea that instructors should be highly visible in student online discussion and have found that teacher presence has no effect upon student learning achievements (Cho &Tobias, 2016; Ertmer & Koehler,

120

7 Instructor as Facilitator

2015; Hoey, 2017; Mazzolini & Maddison, 2007; Preisman, 2014; Wendt & Courduff, 2018; Zhao & Sullivan, 2017; Yao, 2008). On the contrary, these studies have found that instructor active involvement has a negative effect on student participation. Zhao and Sullivan (2017) concluded: “A higher level of teaching presence was observed to be associated with a lower level of student participation, peer interaction, cognitive presence and learning uptake” (p. 538). Higher teacher presence diminished student engagement. The more instructors posted, the less students contributed, and the shorter discussion postings became. When instructors were not present, students responded to each other, visited the forum more frequently and posted follow-up questions. With very active instructor participation, students tended to shift their attention to the instructor and stop writing to each other. The discussion reverted to teacher-centered and teacher-controlled. (Correia & Baran, 2010; Mazzolini & Maddison, 2007; Murphy & Fortner, 2014; Yao, 2008; Zhao & Sullivan, 2017). A sense of dependence set in, students lost their initiatives and the discussions rarely evolved in much depth. After efforts to create extra teacher presence, Preisman (2014) evaluated the results and claimed: “There was minimal evidence from this study that demonstrated creating a greater sense of teaching presence in the online classroom was an effective use of the instructor’s time and efforts” (p. 10).

Student Perceptions on Teacher Presence Due to the conflicting research findings, I decided to conduct investigations on teacher presence in my courses, focusing on student perceptions as it is an important aspect of student learning. I teach both graduate and undergraduate online courses and have had multiple opportunities to investigate how students perceive instructor participation in online discussion.

Graduate Student Perceptions In graduate courses I taught, which cover technology integration and learning theories, most students have been teachers in local schools and discussion boards have been where most learning has occurred. My courses have four learning modules on major learning theories and online discussion is integrated into each. I introduce major concepts in each learning module and then students get on the discussion board to explore the concepts. I keep a minimum presence and intervene only when absolutely necessary. Student perceptions, which were collected through written narratives over a span of several semesters, revealed that the majority of students (80%) preferred a “light” teacher presence, that is, they felt the instructor should not have a large footprint in online discussion. Therefore, instructors should only participate when discussions are not progressing well or get stalled: “I tend to see instructors post the most when I (and obviously they) notice that the discussion is hitting a low

Student Perceptions on Teacher Presence

121

point, moving at a snail’s pace, or new ideas need to be introduced to ignite the conversation.” Although instructors could post occasionally, they must not be a continuous presence. Students should be the driving force even though it might mean they struggle at times: “I think that the instructor should participate occasionally if the students are getting off on a tangent. I think that as long as the students are progressing in a positive direction then what can be better than the natural struggle between peers?” Overall, students agreed low teacher presence aligned with the constructivist learning theory. As learning theories were the subject students were exploring in online discussions of the course, some students applied different theories to support their positions for low teacher presence: “Social constructivism considers the teacher should always be in the background available to guide a discussion towards deeper thinking or a better understanding. I do not think this guidance should be frequent, rather patient and hopeful that the students will make the discoveries themselves.” The students also thought my presence as an authoritative figure affected their performance in a negative way. “An instructor who posts frequently could stifle or inhibit discussions because students might feel pressure to agree with the instructor or fear posting something that contradicts the instructor.” Once instructors play a dominant role, performance anxiety can set in and students may no longer be inclined to discuss freely with their peers: “In my opinion in order to get the best responses from students I think it is a positive for the teacher to stay away from the discussion board. Once the students know that the teacher is reading and posting, the performance anxiety sets in for students and they are no longer free to discuss areas they are interested in and have the freedom to talk among their peers.” Some students complained that frequent instructor participation not only took away their voice, but also deprived them of the opportunity to earn grade credit for their posts. Some students wanted more teacher presence as they felt they would learn more as instructors are experts in subject matter: “I think it would be nice if the instructor could offer contributions in the discussion because she has a lot of experience in the field and could really contribute to the quality of the discussion.” And instructor feedback would let them know whether they were on point, for example, “I think it’s a good idea for the instructor to use questions to facilitate the discussion because it keeps the class on track and prevents the discussion from going off on tangents. Posting comments and statements to student posts is a good idea as well because it lets the students know that we are on the right track.” The students valued the feedback from the instructor as they did with all course assignments: Although I had the opportunity to develop my understanding of the various learning theories, I would have liked to have had more input from the instructor. While interacting with peers is an important component of the social constructivist model of instruction, I wanted to receive feedback from the instructor. As a student, I yearned for consistent and constructive feedback on my discussion responses as well as my individual projects from the instructor.

122

7 Instructor as Facilitator

There are students who pointed out that as they could not have face-to-face interaction with the instructor in an online learning environment, they felt a personal connection when they saw that the instructor participated in the discussion: I think it’s important for the instructor to participate in discussions as well. First of all, it helps to create that sense of community and I think online students like to have that feeling of the instructor’s presence. We don’t have face-to-face interaction, it’s nice to see that interaction online. Because of that, I am a bit bothered when an instructor keeps a low presence. I feel like the students are on their own trying to wade through the class without much guidance, and that can lead to frustration.

Undergraduate Student Perceptions Undergraduate students had fewer learning experiences than graduate students, so their responses to teacher presence in online discussion were interesting. Those in my courses were a unique group as most came fresh from community colleges and were still adjusting to university courses. In the courses, online discussions were conducted on a weekly basis but, differing from graduate students, they took turns in assuming the leadership roles in the exchanges. Each student led at least one discussion during the semester. I posted occasionally when there was a need. Student written narratives showed that most undergraduates opposed high teacher presence and felt that discussions should be student-led: “The discussion should be amongst the students so that we can learn, not have the instructor to steer us one way or the other.” Their rationales included: (1) Student-led discussion is more beneficial for student learning than teacher-led discussion. When instructors surrender power to students, students tend to learn more: “I think that a student led discussion is typically more beneficial than a teacher led discussion. I don’t mind the instructor not participating in discussions, I think having for my peers is very beneficial and useful. I think it is a good thing for the instructor to stay updated on what everyone is posting, but besides that I think it is good to allow the students to have their roles and discuss with their classmates.” (2) Instructor participation would prevent students from freely expressing their thoughts: “If the instructor is too involved and gives her own opinion in the discussion, this may make students lean towards whatever the instructor’s opinion is even if it is not their own.” Similarly, some students felt some stress when responding to the instructor: “I have enjoyed the high level of student facilitation in these discussions. When instructors facilitate discussions, they are usually very formal. This makes them very challenging and intimidating to respond to. When students are given the freedom and relaxed environment to respond to in a discussion it is less stressful and is easier for true thoughts and opinions to be shared.” Moreover, without instructor presence, students are more likely to be active: “When the teacher does not have a large presence in the discussion, it encourages the group members to participate more.” (3) Student-led discussion cultivates independence in students: “I think the

Student Perceptions on Teacher Presence

123

students taking the leadership roles in online discussions can also act as facilitators in learning because it allows independence and responsibility to make the topic easier to understand”, and “I do not see the need for the instructor to show a high presence in participating in the discussion, as our group was able to work together which gave a sense of independence and freedom in a more adult setting, if that makes sense”; (4) Instructor active participation would deprive students of opportunities to take leadership roles, which students considered important as an avenue to developing their leadership skills: “Taking the role of group leader is a great way to build leadership skills as well as confidence, and preventing students from being able to assume this role would be depriving them of these valuable skills”, and “Often times, I feel that instructors have too much of a hand in leading discussion. Since we are supposed to be learning to become teachers, it makes sense that we should lead our own discussions.” (5) Students believed they could lead discussions without instructor participation: “I do not think at the college level it is necessary for the instructor to be a facilitator and guide a discussion because at this level students have developed a sense of leadership and are capable of leading a group discussion.” However, not every student expressed this level of confidence. Some preferred high teacher presence and contended: (1) The instructor should comment on student postings so that students know whether they are on the right track: “I hope the instructor shows a high presence in participating in the discussion, so we know if we are understanding the material correctly. I hope the instructor also is going over our discussion to make sure we have conversations that coincide with the topic at hand.” Additionally, they felt feedback was necessary for them: “I think it is useful to get feedback from the instructor by comments.” When the instructor posts frequently, it allows students to know what the instructor thinks and expects: “I would prefer the teacher be the facilitator because then it assures that we know exactly what the teacher is looking for in the discussion and we don’t go off topic.” (2) Instructors are subject experts with experience in the profession students are pursuing. Therefore, their participation is necessary, and they can add more perspectives to a discussion: “I would love to hear what my professor had to add to the conversation. It is great to discuss with classmates and share experiences of time spent in field placements, but the professor has years of experience as an educator and would be valuable during discussion,” “I think having the instructor comment would make it interesting and would change the dynamic of the discussion and could possibly lead to more interesting conversations and opinions.” (3) Students are certain that instructors can provide better guidance and increase the overall quality of a discussion: “I do want the professor to show a high presence in the discussion because we could be going off topic and the teacher would be there to both lead us in the right direction and ask questions to our replies”, and “I feel like the instructor plays an important role in starting and stirring up the conversation because they will be the one who feeds into the conversation and is able to correct students if they are wrong.” Moreover, instructors can catch student flawed perspectives in the process of discussion and make timely corrections: “This gives the instructor the ability to show where our opinions of certain subjects could be

124

7 Instructor as Facilitator

flawed or how we could expand on our current thinking. I think it’s very important for the instructor to be a participant as well.” (4) When instructors participate in online discussion, it shows they care for student learning and can create a connection between them and their students: “I do hope the instructor shows a high presence because it makes me feel as if they care more about the class and what is going on when they are more involved”, and “I personally like when instructors give their own opinion and respond to student posts in a discussion, especially in an online course. This allows you to bond with the teacher.” Finally, in both graduate and undergraduate courses, there are a number of students who have no particular preference: “I am indifferent about whether or not the instructor shows a high presence by participating in the discussion because I do not mind either way.” They understand that their instructors are monitoring discussions behind the scenes: “It doesn’t matter to me if the instructor posts in student discussions, either way works for me. It doesn’t matter to me how low a profile the instructor keeps in discussion because I also know that they can see everything in Blackboard and knowing that they are checking keeps me on my toes throughout the semester.” Although some enjoy aspects of instructor participation, they see benefits of student-led discussion: “I think it would be nice if the instructor could offer contributions in the discussion because she has a lot of experience in the field and could really contribute to the quality of the discussion. One the other hand, it is good for the students to carry out the conversations on their own, so they do not rely only on the instruction to get a good conversation started.” These students realize there are advantages to both approaches: “I do prefer sometimes for the instructor to take leadership in online discussions, because it helps the students understand the assignment better, but other times, I do prefer students taking leadership because they might explain it better for us students.” In summary, students who supported low teacher presence argued that online discussion should be student-led and student-driven as lower teacher presence is conducive to student learning as indicated by the frequent references to “independence”, “student voice”, “free expressions”, and “leadership roles” in their comments. Students who opted for higher teacher presence emphasized the academic and emotional support students need from instructors. Key words in this group were “guidance”, “feedback”, “connection”, and “care”. Perceptions of both sides need to be taken into consideration when designing teacher presence in online learning environments. My studies have shown that low teacher presence does not negatively affect student participation or the quality of their postings. Student reflections showed that the desire for high teacher presence was driven by emotional need rather than intellectual need. Students who desired higher teacher presence often displayed uncertainty about their competence for conducting self-directed learning, for example, they often worried whether they were doing the right thing. This uncertainty highlights the fact that some students are stuck in a mindset that a discussion is designed to find the “right” answer. Instructors should reach out to these students to reduce their anxiety levels by explaining that this is not the pedagogical goal of online discussions.

Teacher-Student Roles Redefined

125

Teacher-Student Roles Redefined The debate on teacher presence is fundamentally a pedagogical issue concerning teacher-student roles. Traditionally, teachers play a dominant role in student learning. They decide what and how students should learn, that is, the learning process is teacher-directed and teacher-controlled. If students have any role to play, it is to be passive, submissive, and unassertive. In student eyes, teachers are authoritarian figures—a status established by the powers teachers exert over students, including (1) the legitimate power to decide what assignment students should do and what standards to apply in assessing student work; (2) the power of their knowledge in subject matters; (3) reward power that is exemplified through the ability of teachers to grant bonus points and offer extra credit to students who, in their discretion, demonstrate excellence; (4) coercive power to subject students to penalties. For example, deviations from instructor expectations may result in grade deduction (Schrodt et al., 2007). In a teacher-controlled learning environment, students expect teachers to exert their power over them and are willingly influenced by instructors. Therefore, students believe that they need to think as their teachers do and do as their teachers direct. This assumption is reflected in student narratives on teacher presence in online discussion. Students who prefer higher teacher presence are eager to know what instructors want them to post and whether their postings meet instructor expectations. They need approval that they are doing the “right” thing. Underlying student anxiety and uncertainty is the fear of failure to discover correct answers they think instructors expect. Instructors and students must be aware that they need to redefine their roles to adapt to the new online environment. Although online learning and face-toface learning share some similarities, the two differ “qualitatively” (Dennen, 2005, p. 127) and instructors and students cannot continue traditional predefined roles if they are to be successful in the new learning environment. However, instructors face dual challenges in this regard: they need to understand how to relinquish their power to support robust academic discourse while simultaneously assisting students in assuming new roles, without compromising the integrity of the learning process. Both instructors and students must be willing to step out of their comfort zones and challenge the predefined roles they have become accustomed to in traditional learning environments. Deep down in their hearts, some instructors may harbor a secret worry that students cannot engage in discussions without their heavy involvement. However, students do not need instructors to hold their hands at each step. Meaningful learning design encourages students to take responsibility for their own learning as only when students take an active role in the process can learning be meaningful and comes alive. My research testifies to student capabilities in leading and directing online discussion, that is, they can function successfully in online discussion without visible teacher presence, initiating, investigating, exploring, integrating, and reaching consensus (Chen et al., 2009; Wang & Chen, 2008, 2010). When instructors relinquish power to students, spontaneous facilitation emerges in which students step in at

126

7 Instructor as Facilitator

multiple levels: (1) Intellectual: they facilitate discussion, postings questions, providing information, summarizing discussion threads, giving informative feedback, and making suggestions. (2) Social: they set the tone for a collegial and respectful learning atmosphere, acknowledging peer contributions, encouraging participation, and inviting responses. (3) Managerial: they organize the discussion, including previous postings in their replies, and using meaningful headings (Wang & Chen, 2010). My most recent studies in this series confirmed previous findings that the quality of student postings was not adversely affected by low teacher presence. Student postings showed strong cognitive presence when instructors adopted a balanced presence in the discussion. Students contributed new thoughts and perspectives, provided evidence to support their positions, and elaborated on peer postings (Wang, 2019a, 2019b). Peer interaction was strong in discussions where all acknowledged peer contributions, invited responses, and responded to questions. In conclusion, in a healthy learning community, students did not need to look to instructors for approval about what they should or should not say. Given the opportunity, students rose to take the lead and excelled in every conceivable aspect of learning.

When to Step In Hayek (2012) stated: “Unquestionably, successful online forum facilitation is a daunting and complicated equilibrium that, if unbalanced, can inhibit learning” (para 4). To take a balanced approach to teacher presence, instructors must have the ability to determine when intervention is necessary in a discussion. Low teacher presence does not imply a laissez-faire approach where students are left alone and their needs are disregarded. Instead, it entails timely and targeted intervention, as there will be instances when instructors need to step in and facilitate the discussion. Knowing when to intervene in online discussions requires careful consideration. It is crucial for instructors to allow sufficient time for the discussions to develop naturally, without rushing in to fill any perceived gaps. Instead, instructors should actively listen and pay attention to the student voice. If it becomes evident that students are not actively participating or their voices are not emerging, it is then appropriate for instructors to take action. How can instructors tell if students have lost their voice? I have a deep love of Greek mythology. In listening to my students’ voice, I think of the tragic story of Echo because it has great implications in discerning and promoting student voice in online discussion. Echo was most admired for her beautiful voice and her ability to strike up conversations with anyone she met. However, once Hera, the wife of Zeus, suspected that Echo was using her glib tongue to deliberately distract her from catching Zeus in dalliances, Hera cursed Echo: “You shall forfeit the use of that tongue with which you have cheated me, except for that one purpose you are so fond of—reply. You shall still have the last word, but no power to speak first” (Bulfinch, 1979,

When to Step In

127

p. 101). Echo was forevermore deprived of the ability to initiate a conversation and condemned to merely repeat the last words others have uttered. When students just recite what they have read and scoop up bits and pieces uttered by others in online discussions, they lose their voice and, in effect, become Echoes in real life—they do not have their own thoughts and their postings sound hollow. If instructors are well attuned, they can quickly identify “false” voices that undermine student learning and the development of online discussion and that is when they need to step in and help students talk in their own voice. • Falsetto voice is characterized by mimicking and babbling. The postings are devoid of any real thought. There are several scenarios that illustrate this behavior, for example, when students simply paraphrase what peers have posted, changing a couple of words, and then posting it as their own. I have had students who express their frustration that their postings were being plagiarized by their peers. Similarly, students may simply copy paragraphs from the Internet and paste them onto a discussion board. Some students post lengthy quotes from textbooks or articles without explaining how these quotes relate to what is being discussed. These students do not own their own voice and their postings reduce the quality of discussion. • Broken Voice When students speak in a broken voice, it is an indication that they are confused. Their postings are vague or incoherent. Sometimes, unclear expressions might imply that the author is experiencing a language or writing problem. In actuality, incoherence usually means students are struggling with a concept or a topic. Instructors should give students time to work out their confusion on their own, as students continue to investigate and explore, they develop a better understanding and resolve their confusion on their own. However, instructors need to watch out for unresolved broken voices and not leave any student confusion unaddressed. • Out-of-Tune Voice The most obvious out-of-tune voice is side-tracking, which needs to be stopped immediately otherwise it can quickly divert student attention from the real issue. The more subtle out-of-tune voice are postings that are tangentially related to the topic. They may seem to be relevant but are about a different issue. For example, when discussing strategies to integrate technology into the school curriculum, a posting pops up discussing budgeting issues in schools. Or during a discussion on the pros and cons of social media, a posting focusses on school policies for student use of smart phones in classroom. Although irrelevant, these side-tracking postings may appeal to the interests of some students and can quickly take a life of its own. In online discussion, students do not need to wait for individual airtime. They have 24 h access to the discussion and can post anywhere and anytime. These sidetracking postings can gain a momentum and draw in a train of followers in fairly a short time. The instructor must act quickly to fine tune student voices. I

128

7 Instructor as Facilitator

always acknowledge student postings and suggest students post in “coffee shop”— a forum set up for free discussion in the course: “You have raised an important point. However, it is not the focus of the current discussion. Please post in “coffee shop” for further discussion.” Student misconceptions is often conveyed in out-of-tune voice. This type of voice must be re-tuned to promote student progress in learning. Misconceptions are a normal part of learning and instructors should use these instances as teaching moments to expose students to accurate concepts and information by using questions, examples, and hints to get students involved in identifying their misconceptions and discovering truth rather than just giving them the “correct” answer. Student: Group work is important for social constructivist learning approach. Only when students are placed in a group, could they socially interact with each other. Then the teacher needs to monitor students working together to make sure the process goes on smoothly. Instructor: Students working together in a group does not necessarily suggest that a social constructivist approach is adopted. Think of a common situation in a science lab. Students work in groups. They follow predetermined experimental procedures. They fill in the worksheet and come to the common conclusion set by the expert (teacher). What is still missing here for a true social constructivist learning approach?

• Honeyed Voice A honeyed voice can be very appealing but simply conveys a convenient thought, involving little thinking. In critiquing peer projects, such postings are not uncommon. These postings appear pleasant and reasonable, but the content is superficial. In the example below several problems exemplify the honeyed voice trap: (1) A critique means critical and constructive reflection and requires a set of higher order thinking skills, including analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Evidence of these qualities is clearly missing in posting, which did not require much thought. (2) This “critique” is not contextual. Its generic nature makes it fit almost any lesson projects with the change of a couple of words, for example, replacing PowerPoint with other computer applications such as Word, Excel, and Publisher, or change “book” to “video” or newspaper clip. (3) The purpose of a critique is to improve the quality of peer projects. A posting like this has no substance and therefore could not provide any meaningful contribution to peer work.

Teacher Presence Revisited

129

Student: This is a fun lesson with great materials. This lesson has excellent use of PowerPoint and should prove to be fun and engaging for the students. PowerPoint is an effective learning tool. It benefits students when it is integrated into the lesson. It also makes me think of using PowerPoint with younger children. The very basic functions can be taught to them, then they will have some sort of foundation for later more involved uses. I love the activities you have where students are working together. I think it is a great way for students to show what they are learning and also to learn from each other. I love that you start this lesson off with reading a book. That is a great way to introduce a lesson. Instructor: In what way does your critique contribute to the improvement of this lesson project? Could you add some suggestions for improvement of the project? To contribute to the improvement of the lesson project, you should provide more specific and detailed feedback.

• The Merry Chorus A common variation of the Falsetto voice, the Merry Chorus occurs when a student contributes a substantial posting which contains good points. Other members of the discussion community then vie with each other to agree with these insights as it seems the posting has said it all and there is nothing left for others to say. Very soon, everyone is saying the same thing and, consequently, there are no new insights or new perspectives, and the discussion gets stalled. Everyone is singing the same tune, so no arguments or negotiations take place. In this situation, instructors need to inject fresh air into the discussion and open student minds to alternative perspectives or solutions, thus breaking the unproductive cycle.

Teacher Presence Revisited Although instructors need to project a controlled teacher presence in online discussion, they must be fully aware of its importance. It is crucial that students feel instructors are at their side, supporting and caring for them. While instructors need to keep their presence to a minimum level in student discussion, they should project a strong presence off the discussion board, connecting and bonding with students to dispel student isolation and reduce their anxieties, making them feel secure in a learning environment where they do not see one another physically. The rest of this chapter discusses multiple strategies for instructors to apply in solving the dilemma of teacher presence in the online learning environment.

130

7 Instructor as Facilitator

Making it Explicit If instructors decide not to actively participate in a discussion, it is important for them to clearly communicate their decision to students so that students are aware of the low or no instructor presence and can be prepared accordingly. It is important to avoid leaving students in the dark, as this can lead to confusion and anxiety. Students may naturally feel disappointed or abandoned if they had expected active instructor participation. Therefore, it is essential to communicate to students the rationale behind the instructor’s decision to remain behind the scenes, which may involve explaining teaching philosophy and the benefits of minimizing instructor presence in online discussion. Nevertheless, students should be reassured that the instructor is always at their side monitoring the discussions closely. Here is an example of what I typically communicate in my courses: Make Your Stance Explicit

As the instructor, I strongly believe that online discussions are the platform for students to express their voices. I want to inform you that I will not be actively participating in the online discussion on a regular basis. Therefore, please do not expect frequent contributions from me. Nevertheless, I will closely monitor the discussion and read each of your postings attentively. However, I will only intervene when necessary. My intention is to foster a student-centered and student-directed online discussion by taking a background role. I encourage you to take the lead in initiating discussions, asking questions, negotiating ideas, and constructing knowledge. You do not need to rely on me for guidance on what to compose and post. Please know that even though I may not be actively involved, I am always here to support you. Feel free to reach out if you have any concerns or need assistance.

Summarizing the Discussion Summarizing a discussion illustrates instructor presence in a powerful way and instructors should do this on an appropriately regular basis. Discussion summaries have numerous benefits: (1) If instructors elect a low presence approach (staying at the background), students have no marker for whether they are even following the discussion. Providing discussion summaries shows students that instructors are monitoring discussion activities and tracking out their progress. (2) A discussion summary highlights key points, which, conversely, helps students identify irrelevant elements in a discussion. This is important because as a discussion progresses, it is necessary to sharpen its focus. (3) A summary allows instructors to identify teaching moments and elevate student understanding of the subject content. Instructors need to make sure that the discussion covers all major concepts and by

Teacher Presence Revisited

131

way of a summary they can address missing points in student discussion and add new perspectives and insights to expand student understanding of the subject. (4) A summary allows instructors to comment on student performance, for example, what has gone or is going well and what needs to be improved, which provides students with guideposts to enhance their performances. (5) A summary can prompt students to reflect upon their learning. When students get caught up in the act of discussion participation, they often fail to take time to reflect. John Dewey noted that we do not learn from our experiences but by reflecting upon them. In discussions, students can easily succumb to their emotions and assumptions and a summary provides them a way to re-examine their thoughts from various angles. Sample

Instructor’s Summary of Student Discussions The purpose of this project was to expose you to as many technologies as possible as well as ways to categorize digital technologies. All groups did well to pull out your collective efforts and intelligence in completing this project. I just have a few comments to make. Most groups separated hardware (e.g., computer, scanner, digital camera, and projector) and software (e.g., Microsoft, Adobe, Google, and Photoshop) in their categories, which hit a fundamental concept in the design of the computer system. The computer becomes such a powerful tool because its pioneer designer (Charles Babbage) separated hardware and software in designing the computer system. The power of computing lies in the fact that its uses are up to users (e.g., the user decides whether to use the computer to communicate, to write a letter or to do a calculation). Hardware is anything that you can lay your hands on. Software are application programs. Groups differed in how to categorize software. Two groups suggested software be put into two categories—teacher-uses versus student-uses or teacher-specific vs student specific. One group added a new category— schoolwide software such as Windows, Star program, Facebook, and Twitter. Another group took a product-oriented approach in categorizing software (e.g., yearbook creation software; podcast software; cataloging software in the library; and grading software). However, one issue arises if we use end-users or end-products to categorize technologies. The proposed categories so far are not exclusive to each other. A tremendous amount of overlapping across categories is inevitable if we categorize digital technologies by end-users or end-products. Most pieces of hardware and software can be used by teachers, or students, or administrators. Adobe Photoshop is a piece of software to create graphics. However, other software could also be used to create graphics, such as MS Word. Let’s think about the functions performed by software programs. Could we use functions to group software so that our categories could be more

132

7 Instructor as Facilitator

exclusive to each other? For example, we could group software as instructive tools (e.g., all the tools teachers could use in teaching), communication tools (e.g., e-mail, videoconferencing, and Skype), constructive tools (e.g., webpage design, graphic design, and podcasting). The list could go on. I am sure you could add to the list in your next week discussion.

Establishing a Teacher Space—Online Discussion Fireside Teacher presence should not be limited to the discussion forum. Off-board, instructors should play an active role in promoting student learning. The virtual learning space opens limitless opportunities for instructors to play a guide at the side. They can build a teacher space to hold conversations on a wide range of issues (student discussions, teaching philosophy, professional experiences, etc.). The space can be an area in a learning management system, such as Blackboard and Canvas, a Facebook page, a webpage, or a blog. Instructors can be informal in a space open to all students, who are welcome to bring any issues or concerns. The conversation below occurred in a teacher space in an online graduate level course: Instructor: My philosophy of teaching/learning is more in line with the social constructivist approach. I believe students learn best in authentic collaborative problem- solving contexts. Learning must be intrinsically motivating. That is, students must take ownership of their own learning. As such, student projects in my courses are always related to solving real-life problems. There may be some preparatory activities, such as how to participate in online discussions, which are not so “authentic”, but all courses end with students solving their own problems. I am more interested in reading students’ defining moments of learning rather than seeing students following the requirements to the dot. An outstanding final project but weak contribution to discussions or reflection, although meeting all minimum requirements, shows little evidence that the student has experienced true learning. To achieve the above, I have decided to share my reflections with all students. I know this is a “risky” move, but I am willing to give it a try. Student #1: Thank you for sharing your reflections. This is the first time I have been in school in about 15 years. All of the technology is new to me, but the learning theories are not. I have just not thought about them in a very long time. I feel that I have already learned some things that I will use in the classroom. It has been helpful for me to hear how some of the teachers are using technology in their classroom today. Thanks again. Student #2: I also appreciate you sharing your philosophy. I am also a student re-entering the world that has left me behind. I think that is why I’m such a nervous wreck. I am aware also of

Teacher Presence Revisited

133

the different learning styles presented but have not given them much thought. I already am starting to see changes in my oversimplified learning theory and am looking forward to how much that will change over the course. Student #3: I started thinking about this last night. Then woke to this Message. Thanks for posting and for taking a risk. I appreciate your clarity in your goal for us. I feel like I am going to have to think and experience much more with the theories and how to match up to different learning styles and needs. I then find myself with Blooms Taxonomy and wondering where (not how) it fits into each of these topics. Thanks for opening the door, I think some of my guarded response has been in fear of saying something “wrong”:)

At the beginning of the semester, I often post on how to be successful in online discussion. Instructors should talk about how to compose thought-provoking contributions and what goes into a good posting. When instructors identify a teaching moment arising from an online discussion, they can post a presentation on the issue, enhancing student understanding of the subject. Often, a discussion can trigger interesting issues that students desire to further explore after a discussion is closed and the teacher space is one way they can continue to do so with the instructor. Additionally, as discussions progress, issues can emerge that require specific attention and instructors can use their teacher space to address these to the entire class. The teacher space is also where instructors can post discussion summaries, which may stimulate more discussions and comments. Finally, instructors can also use multimedia (audio, video, etc.) to reinforce teacher presence rather than just text responses.

E-mail Communication Exchanges E-mail communication is vital for connecting instructors with students in a personal way and is the most convenient communication channel for doing so within the constraints of university regulations. It is easy, quick, direct, and private. Instructors can assume various personae and demonstrate strong presence in communicating with students this way. For example, when students e-mail instructors seeking advice about group conflicts, instructors are counselors or if communication is about technical problems, instructors may be technicians. Alternatively, instructors often need to serve as quality control managers and communicating with specific students through email can facilitate this role. For example, I never openly praise a student on a discussion board as that can lead others to feel that their postings are unworthy of my attention. Similarly, if I praise everybody, the compliment can ring hollow. Finally, the discussion forum is where students should concentrate on learning. Therefore, if I read an excellent posting, I e-mail the author, letting him/her know their posting was very much appreciated. If students perform below expectations or miss an assignment, an e-mail can highlight the concern and provide suggestions for how to improve while making them feel supported and cared for. This latter point is important as instructors must necessarily

134

7 Instructor as Facilitator

assume the role of comforter, providing emotional support to sometimes desperate students overwhelmed by their educational situation. During the first few weeks of any semester, I am often bombarded by student e-mails as their anxiety runs high in online courses and they need guidance and assurance. I check my email several times a day, and once students become more familiar with the course, there is a noticeable decrease in email traffic. There is no doubt that there will be times when instructors feel the need to step in and facilitate a discussion. The next chapter covers strategies that can be applied to ensure this is fully productive.

Summary • Strong teacher presence in online discussion can potentially stifle student voice. • There are mixed research findings on instructor’s active participation in online discussion. • To facilitate online discussion effectively, the instructor should avoid the mentality of “the more, the better”. • The instructor must have a thorough understanding of the power dynamics between teachers and students when facilitating online discussion. • The instructor should only intervene and facilitate online discussion when it is necessary.

References Bedi, K. (2008). Best practices of faculty in facilitating online asynchronous discussions for higher student satisfaction. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1601047 Bulfinch, T. (1979). Bulfinch’s mythology. Gramercy Books Chen, D. V., Wang, Y. M., & Hung, D. (2009). Design-based research on refining rules for online discussion. Interactive Learning Research, 20(2), 157–173. Cho, M. H., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 123–140. Correia, A. P., & Baran, E. (2010). Lessons learned on facilitating asynchronous discussions for online learning. Educação, Formação & Tecnologias., 3(1), 59–67. Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. Ekmekci, O. (2013). Being there: Establishing instructor presence in an online learning environment. Higher Education Studies, 3(1), 29–38. Ergulec, F. (2019). Design and facilitation strategies used in asynchronous online discussions. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 20–36. Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2015). Facilitated versus non-facilitated online case discussions: Comparing differences in problem space coverage. Computing in Higher Education, 27(2), 69– 93. Fu, J. (2019). Five strategies for enhancing instructor presence in online courses, Instructional Design. https://www.instruction.uh.edu

References

135

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. Gorsky, P., & Blau, I. (2009). Online teaching effectiveness: A tale of two instructors. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3). Greenberger, S. W. (2012). Teacher passion and distance education theory. Instructional Research, 1, 34–41. Hayek, C. (2012). How many faculty discussion posts each week? A simply delicious answer. Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com Hoey, R. (2017). Examining the characteristics and content of instructor discussion interaction upon student outcomes in an online course. Online Learning, 21(4), 263–281. Khalid, M. N., & Quick, D. (2016). Teaching presence influencing online students’ course satisfaction at an institution of higher education. International Education Studies, 9(3), 62–70. Kucuk, S., & Richardson, J. C. (2019). A structural equation model of predictors of online learners’ engagement and satisfaction. Online Learning, 23(2), 196–216. Larson, E., Aroz, J., & Nordin, E. (2019). The goldilocks paradox: The need for instructor presence but not too much in an online discussion forum. Instructional Research, 8(2), 22–33. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49(2), pp. 193–213. Murphy, C. A., & Fortner, R. A. (2014). Impact of instructor intervention on the quality and frequency of student discussion posts in a blended classroom. Online Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 337–350. Ondrey, Z. L. (2017). The relationship between teaching presence and student satisfaction in online learning. Wilkes University. Personal Communication. (2014a). https://www.chronicle.com/page/chronicle-forums Personal Communication. (2014b). https://www.chronicle.com/page/chronicle-forums Preisman, K. A. (2014). Teaching presence in online education: From the instructor’s point of view. Online Learning, 18(3), n3. Richardson, J. C., Besser, E., Koehler, A., Lim, J., & Strait, M. (2016). Instructors’ perceptions of instructor presence in online learning environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4), 82–104. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Turman, P. D. (2007). Reconsidering the measurement of teacher power use in the college classroom. Communication Education, 56(3), 308–332. Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M. A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to students in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 767–779. Wang, Y. M. (2019a). Enhancing the quality of online discussion—Assessment matters. Educational Technology Systems, 48(1), 112–129. Wang, Y. M. (2019b). How did graduate students of education majors perceive the ground rules in online discussions? Interactive Learning Research, 30(1), 5–26. Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. V. (2008). Essential elements in designing online discussions to promote cognitive presence—A practical experience. Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 157– 177. Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. V. (2010). Promoting spontaneous facilitation in online discussions: Designing object and ground rules. Educational Media International, 47(3), 249–264. Wendt, J., & Courduff, J. (2018). The relationship between teaching presence and student course outcomes in an online international population. e-Learning, 17(1), 111–129. Witthaus, G. (2018). Findings from a case study on refugees using MOOCs to (re) enter higher education. Open Praxis, 10(4), 343–357. Yao, Y. (2008). Comparing the impact of two different designs for online discussion. In Proceedings of international conference on web-based learning, (pp. 366–376). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Zhao, H., & Sullivan, K. P. (2017). Teaching presence in computer conferencing learning environments: Effects on interaction, cognition and learning uptake. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 538–551.

8

Questioning to Facilitate

Abstract

Questioning and discussion are both effective teaching tools, each with great potential to empower students in the learning process.

Introduction Questioning and discussion are both effective teaching tools, each with great potential to empower students in the learning process. It seems reasonable, then, to assume that combining them would likely offer an environment for students to maximize their learning. However, we actually know very little about how to apply questioning techniques to facilitate student discussion. Dillon (1983) noted: “We have a volume of research on questioning—but not in discussion... What we have is bits and pieces, the rest of the picture is blank” (p. 50). There has been a call for applying questioning skills in classroom discussions as Walsh & Sattes, (2015, p. 11) commented: “Perhaps this is one reason for the current emphasis on questioning and discussion in curriculum standards and teacher evaluation systems. Skillful use of questioning for discussion is clearly a classroom practice that is worthy of pursuit.” Still, little attention seems to have been given to the value of questioning as a strategy to promote discussion, whether face-to-face or online. This chapter explores questioning techniques as a pedagogical strategy, centering on how to design and employ questioning to foster deep learning in online discussion. Objectives Upon completing this chapter, you will acquire the following knowledge and skills: • Explain the benefits of questioning in online discussion. • Recognize different types of questions. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y.-M. Wang, Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3_8

137

138

8 Questioning to Facilitate

• Design quality questions. • Identify appropriate facilitating questions to be applied in various online discussion contexts. • Employ questioning strategies to transform surface learning to deep learning in online discussion.

Questioning as a Way of Teaching Questioning as a teaching method has existed as long as education itself. Confucius, the founder of the first school in China, and Socrates, the early Greek philosopher and educator, were both very skilled in using questioning to stretch student thinking in the acquisition of knowledge. Confucius believed that one should never feel ashamed for asking questions for the purpose of learning. Socrates conducted dialogues with his students to engage them actively in uncovering truth. By questioning them in a systematic manner, he intended to cultivate certain critical intellectual skills: to think independently, reason logically, and debate rationally. His approach inspires the conversational teaching style of the modern-day graduate seminar where, instead of lecturing, professors and students explore course content through mutual questioning and dialoguing. In the early twentieth century, the educator DeGarmo (1902) argued that: “To question well is to teach well” (p. 179). John Dewey (1916/2011), an ardent supporter for school reform, valued questioning as the core of knowledge inquiry: “The individual who has a question which being really a question to him instigates his curiosity, which feeds his eagerness for information that will help him cope with it, and who has at command an equipment which will permit these interests to take effect, is intellectually free” (p. 233). Postman (1979), a well-known author, educator, and media expert, also considered questioning the driving force of learning: “All our knowledge results from questions, which is another way of saying that questioning is our most important intellectual tool” (p. 154). Stoll (1995), author of the book Silicon Snake Oil, vividly described a Socratic experience between him and his physics professor at UC-Berkeley, who coached him to understanding a concept through a series of questions: I am studying radiative transfer, along with Jon Gradie, Guy Consolmagno and five other grad students….Professor Tomasko’s showing us how. I am lost, hiding in the back, which isn’t easy when there are only seven people in the class. A computer monitor sure would be handy here. “So tell me, Mr Stoll, is this room in local thermodynamics equilibrium?” Gawk. What’s equilibrium? “Well, the entire room’s at the same temperature, so I guess so.” “Really?” Dr. Tomasko raises one eyebrow. “Uh, it’s a little warmer at the ceiling…” “OK, assume the room’s isothermal. But are we in LTE?”

Benefits of Questioning for Student Learning

139

I blew it. I am flailing around. “Uh…” “Well, what do you see out the window?” “Outside, there’s trees. And uh buildings.” What am I doing in grad school when I could be a plumber? “And?” “Clouds, sky…” “And what color is the sky?” Huh? “Blue, of course,” I say, still not getting it. “What temperature do you see need to get blue light?” Oooh—a glimmer of understanding. “You need to heat something to ten or twenty thousand degrees to make it blue-hot. So the blue sky has radiation temperature of twenty thousand degrees.” “Go ahead…” “And the room’s is only seventy degrees. So the radiation temperature of the light isn’t the same as the room temperature.” “Now Mr. Consolmagno, could you turn off the light?” Guy, the genius from MIT, flips the switch. “Thank you. This room is now filled with natural sunlight coming through the window. But we are not at sixty-three hundred degrees, any more than the temperature of the sky is twenty-thousand K. Any comments?” Jon Gradie’s turn. “We’re at ordinary room temperature, but the light’s coming from a much hotter source.” “Precisely. This room’s mechanical temperature doesn’t match its radiative temperature. Which means, Mr. Stoll…” “…that we aren’t in thermodynamics equilibrium,” I finish his sentence.

Benefits of Questioning for Student Learning Questioning as a teaching method has numerous benefits. As Vogt et al. (2003) commented: “Questions open the door to dialogue and discovery. They are an invitation to creativity and breakthrough thinking. Questions can lead to movement and action on key issues; by generating creative insights, they can ignite change” (p. 1). Questioning is a springboard to engaging students as active learners. As an instructor, it is likely you have experienced this scenario: As you ask a thoughtprovoking question, you will notice a change in the expressions on students’ faces. Their eyes will fixate on you, and some may even sit up immediately in anticipation. You can almost discern the churning in their minds. This is the moment you know that your question strikes a chord in their hearts, sparks their interests,

140

8 Questioning to Facilitate

provokes their thinking, and unleashes their imaginations. You can feel that the entire dynamic in the classroom has been transformed. Questioning is a catalyst for shifting surface learning to deep learning by challenging students cognitively, motivating them to explore deeper and opening their minds to new insights. Paul & Elder (2019) emphasized the value of questioning in teaching and learning: “Any teacher concerned with the development of the student’s mind must be concerned with the role of questions in teaching and learning, for it is through our questions that we understand the world and everything in it. It is through our questions that we understand subject matter and academic disciplines. It is through our questions that we express our intellectual goals and purposes. It is through our questions that we think superficially or deeply” (p. 62). In summary, questioning has received acclaim as an effective teaching method (Amin & Khoo, 2003; Fusco, 2012; Rhodes, 2020; Walsh & Sattes, 2005; Wells & Arauz, 2006; Wang, 2013, 2014) and when applied appropriately, it can facilitate student learning in multiple ways: • • • • • • • •

sparking student interests. provoking more thoughtful reflection. releasing student creativity. promoting deep learning. encouraging students to speak their minds. developing critical thinking skills. motivating students to further explore a topic. helping instructors assess student learning.

Questioning in Online Discussion The online discussion environment provides fertile ground for applying questioning techniques. It alleviates the pressure instructors often have to act on the spur of the moment in synchronous face-to-face discussion, formulating, asking, or modifying questions because online discussion is asynchronous and text based. Time is on the side of the instructor as well as the students. In the online learning environment, instructors can sit down, read student postings, assess the situation, decide on why and how to formulate questions. They also have opportunities to check on resources and consult with colleagues as they prepare quality questions. The same advantage is extended to students. They do not need to respond spontaneously. They have time to read the question and be thoughtful in the preparation of their responses, using time to search for information that will inform their thinking or work with their peers to compose their responses. Online discussion also removes a psychological barrier that students face in traditional classroom settings where students may feel embarrassed if they cannot proffer a “good” response. I

Questioning to Transform Surface Learning to Deep Learning in Online …

141

still remember how nervous I felt as a graduate student when the professor presented a question to the class. The only thing I could do was to pray that I wasn’t called on. This situation is particularly stressful for students who are working in a second language. However, online environments also have drawbacks. For example, instructors and students may not actually see each other. Misunderstanding can occur due to lack of physical cues such as facial expressions and tone of voice. The instructor’s questions might be interpreted as being cold and abrupt. Although Socratic dialogue can work well in face-to-face discussions, it might put students on the defensive in online discussion if they feel bombarded with a series of questions. I have encountered situations where students feel singled out or picked upon—“why always me?”—often because they take the questioning personally. Therefore, it is important for instructors to take the unique contexts of online discussion into consideration when using questioning as a facilitating strategy. Later in this chapter, I will show questioning strategies that can be applied in the online context to alleviate these problems.

Questioning to Transform Surface Learning to Deep Learning in Online Discussion The quality of questions plays a crucial role in shaping students’ learning experiences in online discussions as Vogt et al. (2003) stated: “The usefulness of the knowledge we acquire and the effectiveness of the actions we take depend on the quality of the questions we ask” (p. 1). Obviously, not all questions are equally effective in promoting student learning. There are questions that deepen student learning, stretch their minds, kindle their curiosity, release their creativity, and develop their critical thinking skills while there are questions that require nothing more of students than to retrieve facts or regurgitate information. These types of questions contribute little to the development of a discussion since one answer provided effectively brings the discussion to a full stop. Questions can be classified into the two broad categories—close-ended and open-ended. A close-ended question is a terminal event; the (usually) single correct answer ends the educational interchange: “In what year was Socrates born?” “Was Plato a disciple of Socrates?” However, an open-ended question can serve as a gateway to multiple responses, each propagating a new series of questions and responses. For example, the question “How would you compare the value of student learning through lectures vs. Socrates’ dialogues?” is likely to produce different perspectives that act as a catalyst for students to explore and evaluate. In general, close-ended questions activate lower-level thinking since the answer requires simple retrieval of memorized information while open-ended questions activate higher-level thinking involving analysis, synthesis, and evaluation to formulate a response.

142

8 Questioning to Facilitate

Table 8.1 Cognitive levels of questions Bloom’s taxonomy

Action verbs

Sample questions

Knowledge

Define, identify, list, locate, • How would you define capitalism? name, memorize recall, recite • Can you provide a list of five key characteristics of capitalism? • What does the term “monopoly capitalism” refer to?

Comprehension

Classify, demonstrate, describe, elaborate, explain, interpret, outline, illustrate

• What are the appealing qualities of capitalism? • Is capitalism inherently fair? • Can you summarize the spirit of capitalism in one word?

Application

Apply, derive, predict, produce, show, solve, model, simulate

• How does capitalism regulate markets? • How do you personally benefit from capitalism? • Why does monopoly undermine fair competition in capitalist economy?

Analysis

Analyze, differentiate, compare, contrast, infer, outline, correlate, relate

• How do capitalism and socialism compare in their approaches to addressing poverty? • What are the strengths and weaknesses of capitalism and socialism in improving people’s living standards? • Why is capitalism incompatible with totalitarian dictatorships?

Synthesis

Construct, change, design, formulate, generate, modify, propose, revise, structure

• How would your life be different if you lived in a socialist system? • What changes would you propose to make capitalism more effective? • How would you construct an ideal social system where you would like to live?

Evaluation

Assess, defend, evaluate, • How effective is capitalism in stimulating judge, justify, validate, verify, the economy? summarize • What are pros and cons of capitalism? • How do you counter the statement: “Capitalism is doomed to fail”?

Therefore, it is essential that instructors design and utilize questions that promote student higher order thinking. In Chap. 2, we discussed the role of Bloom’s Taxonomy in designing cognitively challenging discussion activities. The taxonomy similarly can be used as a guideline for designing quality questions. Table 8.1 provides examples of open-ended questions at each cognitive level in Bloom’s Taxonomy. As noted above, well-conceived open-ended questions activate higher order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, which, in turn, lead to deep learning. In online discussion, students demonstrate deep learning when they conduct a thorough investigation of topics and issues, making thoughtprovoking postings, supporting their positions with evidence, debating logically,

Questioning to Transform Surface Learning to Deep Learning in Online …

143

and constructing new meanings. On the contrary, surface learning is a corollary of close-ended questions in that it requires little cognitive effort on the part of students. Surface learning is evident when students make shallow and superficial contributions, such as posting claims as truths, repeating what peers have posted, copying and pasting text from information resources such as textbooks or online sites, or posting generic comments that fit all contexts. These tend to stifle and prematurely close discussions as they do not provide any viable jumping off point to extend exploration of a topic. Superficial postings are a frequent and frustrating problem for instructors but may reflect a significant lack of student engagement tied to course structure, that is, students are content to post simply to meet course-indicated minimum requirements to receive a grade. Although difficult, problematic superficial postings can provide the impetus for instructors to make online discussions more appealing by deploying questioning techniques to help students transit from surface learning to deep learning. Facilitating questioning can guide student in conducting a thorough investigation of a topic, prompting them to argue with evidence, encouraging them to apply learning in new contexts, and opening their minds to multiple perspectives. Following are examples of superficial postings that frequently appear in online discussions, along with facilitating questions I have used to guide students into deeper-level thinking with good results. These questions can be applied or adapted as necessary to best fit any specific online discussion context. Claims Students often make claims and post them as facts, without distinguishing them from personal opinions or unsupported assertions. To address this issue, here are some facilitating questions that can help guide students towards deeper thinking: • • • • • •

How does your posting relate to current research? What evidence do you have to support your claim? How could you relate your claim to your personal experience? Could you support your claim with an example? What would be your claim if you take an opposite position? Why did you make this claim?

Copying and Pasting Text The information age has opened access for students to shove tons of information onto a discussion board (uninformed or unevaluated information from textbooks, journal articles, or online resources: quotes, long paragraphs of text, pieces of news, summaries of reports). Their voice is nowhere to be found in the morass. Although quality information is important, it is more important for students to know how to personalize and engage with it.

144

8 Questioning to Facilitate

To address this challenge, here are some facilitating questions that can help students contribute meaningfully to the discussion: • • • • • •

How does this information relate to what we have been discussing? Could you provide further elaboration on your posting? What are your thoughts on this information? Why is this information important to our discussion? Could you explain the information in your own words? What are the implications of this information?

Perplexing Postings Online discussions are text-based, which requires students write clearly and concisely. Incoherent and ambiguous postings deter the progress of a discussion. Confused or confusing postings may indicate that students lack written communication skills or have inadequate understanding of the curriculum content. In engaging a process of clarification, instructors can identify communication and conceptual errors. Below are some examples of facilitating questions that can promote clarity: • • • • • •

What do you mean by this? Could you clarify….? Could you explain…? Are you assuming….? What is your key point? Could you rephrase your posting?

Easy Agreement Easy agreement postings are the echo chambers of online discussion. Everyone agrees with each other and simply amplifies what has been said—a typical demonstration of superficial postings. There is a lack of negotiation and knowledge construction. Instead, there is only a lot of empty noise that renders a discussion boring and meaningless, as reflected in the following tweets from college students: Posting: The war occurred in 1812. Response: I agree, the war did occur in 1812. Posting: Jim: 2 + 2 = 4. Response: Wow Jim I totally agree. I like how you added the 2’s together and got 4, very insightful. Posting: I think we should go eat at that restaurant tonight. Response: I love how you mentioned that we should go eat there tonight. Tomorrow would be too late. Good observation.

Questioning to Transform Surface Learning to Deep Learning in Online …

145

These tweets might make us laugh but I have encountered the same situation in leading online discussions. Students follow a pattern such as “I agree with how you…’”or “I love how you…”, decorating their agreements with “insightful”, “good observations”, and “nice thoughts.” Instructors can use directed questioning to challenge students and encourage critical thinking, breaking them out of the mindset of easy agreement and kick starting their thought processes as the examples below show: • • • • • •

Could you give reasons to support this argument? Could you elaborate on your position? In what ways does your posting differ from those of your peers? How could you expand on the ideas presented in your peers’ previous postings? Are there alternative ways to view this issue? Is there anything that you feel missing from the discussion?

Generic Postings This type of posting fits all contexts. For instance, let’s consider the posting, “The computer has great potential to promote student learning. After receiving some training, students could learn how to use it to enhance their learning. Teachers should work on how to integrate it in the k-12 school curriculum.” This posting works regardless of the context. If we replace computers with the cellphone, or iPad, or video games, the posting reads just fine. Generic postings do not add anything new to a discussion. I have seen some students use the same posting in multiple discussions changing a couple of words here and there. To facilitate a more meaningful discussion, consider asking questions that explore the specific aspects of the topic, such as: • Can you provide more specific examples of how computers are used in classroom settings? • How does the use of computer assist student in learning subjects like math? • Can you give an example that demonstrates how students benefit from using computers for learning? • In what ways does student learning with computers differ from learning with traditional tools like paper and pencil? • Can you elaborate on the advantages of using computers to enhance student learning? • What computer apps would you recommend for students to use in collaborative science projects or social science projects? Please provide your reasons for the recommendations.

146

8 Questioning to Facilitate

Essential Purposes of Questioning in Facilitating Online Discussion I have provided examples of questions that could be applied in some frequently encountered situations in online discussion. To be an effective facilitator, instructors need to be clear about what they are attempting to accomplish when applying facilitating questions. Each facilitating question should be designed to guide a discussion in a particular direction. To systematically employ questioning strategies, I conducted an analysis of facilitating questions applied in diverse situations. Four essential purposes of questioning strategies emerged in the analysis: (1) making connections; (2) facilitating critical inquiry; (3) opening student minds to multiple perspectives; and (4) fostering actionable outcomes. To illustrate, consider the scenario where an instructor asks a student to provide evidence for a claim. In this case, the facilitating question serves the purpose of helping the student establish connections with current research, course materials, and/or personal and collective experiences. When students encounter confusion, instructors should seize the opportunity to encourage them to conduct more thorough investigations. It is crucial for instructors to guide students in uncovering the core issues behind their confusion. Therefore, facilitating questions should foster a collaborative process where students and instructors engage in critical inquiries together. In online discussions, it is not uncommon for students to get stuck in a particular position and passionately defend it. Instructors can utilize facilitating questions to prompt diverse thoughts, enabling students to view the issue through multiple lenses. Lastly, discussions should not be conducted solely for the sake of discussion. Whenever a discussion takes place, it should center around addressing and resolving an issue. Moreover, discussions should inspire and prepare students to take actions and bring about changes. For instance, when discussing a community issue such as recycling, water conservation, or air pollution, students should be encouraged to reflect on what they can do to improve the situation. The following sections discuss the essential purposes of questioning strategies in online discussions.

Questioning to Make Connections Facilitating questions can help students build a matrix of connections in the pursuit of knowledge, connecting them with course content, research evidence, scientific experiments, peer postings, and personal as well as collective experiences. (a) Connecting Students with Course Content The hypothetical question below encourages students to connect with John Dewey’s learning theory, build connections with the theory and apply their learning in a real-world situation. To formulate a response, students must dig

Essential Purposes of Questioning in Facilitating Online Discussion

147

into their knowledge of Dewey’s philosophy and consider how to apply it in a new context. In an undergraduate course, students are discussing the standardized test as an assessment of student learning. The instructor uses facilitating questions to reinforce student understanding of Dewey’s teaching philosophy and helped students connect theory with practice. Student Standardized tests are seen by some as an obstacle to effective learning. Preparing for these tests takes fun out of learning. Students are under great pressure from peers and parents to perform well. They often study for hours to cram large amount of information to test well. It teaches students that their competence is determined by test scores and that a good test score is all they should work on. Instructor What do you think Dewey would say about the standardized test? Student John Dewey was big on hands on, experience-based learning so I doubt he’d be a big fan of such a system that completely revolves around abstract study to make a good test score.

(b) Connecting Students with Evidence It is always important for instructors to connect students with research findings so that they could support their assertions with evidence. Student Including art and music curriculum benefits students in all other areas of their education. Art and music have the ability to be translated to other subjects in a way that increases the students learning abilities. Listening and reasoning skills are increased, a sense of community among classmates is formed, and many other benefits begin to take place when students participate in the arts. The arts also allow students to express themselves in ways that positively influences their social and emotional learning, something that is crucial for the foundational growth of the individual. Although the benefits of the arts in schools are apparent, funding for them has been either drastically reduced or removed entirely. Instructor Is there any research evidence that arts benefit student academic learning? Student Yes, there are many different studies that have supported that the arts benefit students in their education. One study observed that integrating the arts into the curriculum improved students’ ability to retain long-term information (Rinne, Gregory, Yarmolinskaya, & Hardiman, 2011). Another study observed how students enrolled in schools with arts-integrated curriculum performed better in math than students in schools without arts-integration (Smithrim & Upitis, 2005). The same students also showed to have higher levels of engagement and motivation for learning (Smithrim & Upitis, 2005). A different study showed the correlation between the arts and students having higher levels of concentration and increased self-regulation (Upitis, 2018).

148

8 Questioning to Facilitate

(c) Connecting Students with Examples In online discussion, whenever possible, instructors should encourage students to provide examples. Examples is an effective way to help students explain their points. When students use examples to illustrate their positions, it does not only help their own understanding of a subject, but also broadens and deepens other students’ mastery of the material. In addition, it helps the instructor to assess how well the student understands the subject. Student When we as educators are concerned with a test and test scores it can sometimes be hurting the students more than helping them…. Our job as educators is not only to educate students for the present, but also prepare them for the future. As preparation we can encourage them to strive to learn, we can make learning fun and create an environment when learning is fun. We can also discourage teaching to a test, only teaching things that will be known for the test but rather make them put the things they have learned into practice. Instructor “We can make learning fun and create an environment when learning is fun”. How could we make learning fun and still make sure students are learning what they are expected to? Could you give an example? Student Children love to play games, so any way we can incorporate a small game when learning or even have a kahoot game. Make it a challenge, divide the class into teams and make it a friendly competition among the class and make them work for their score, which would increase with knowing more material.

(d) Connecting Students with Thoroughness It is essential to encourage students to provide sufficient information about their positions in discussions. When instructors prompt students to elaborate on their points, it enhances student understanding of the issue and promotes more in-depth discussions. By urging students to expand on their perspectives, instructors facilitate thorough exploration of ideas and enables students to investigate the subject matter in more depth. Instructor You have come up with good points—agreements and disagreements in the research. I would like to see you elaborate on some of the points. For example, "Bullying comes from an imbalance of power"—What does “power” refer to here? Student “Power” in regard to bullying refers to the efforts of gaining high status and dominance. Bullying has been found in all progressions of society, including modern hunter-gatherer societies and ancient civilizations. Examples of motives for “power” in these earlier societies include getting access to resources, secure survival, reduce stress, and allow for more

Essential Purposes of Questioning in Facilitating Online Discussion

149

mating opportunities. Similarly, the exertion of “power” in a school setting refers to the act of intimidation in order to establish a social network or hierarchy for personal gain. Instructor What are the personal gains a bully gets in school settings? Student The bully gets to feel superior to the victims. It is an illusion that they have more power than they actually do. Sometimes other kids view a bully as untouchable, and that makes them feel important. In a school setting, everyone wants to feel like they are in control, and a bully definitely feels like that.

Questioning to Facilitate Critical Inquiry Deep learning encourages student critical inquiry, which, in turn forms the basis of deep learning. Students may be interested in knowing more about a topic, or they may feel perplexed about a concept, or they may disagree with an established principle, concept, or theory. When students make inquires, they are showing their commitment to deep learning. Deep learning implies the demonstration of higher order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation, and a personal commitment to learn the material, not merely learning for the sake of a passing grade (Biggs, 1987; Ramsden, 2003; Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Tagg, 2003). The instructor should use this opportunity to support student pursuit of deep learning. Student inquires is the driving force for deep learning. Instead of providing direct answers to student inquiries, the instructor should scaffold student learning through thought-provoking questions. Questions by the instructor serve as a guidance for student inquiries and make sure the process of seeking truth is focused and productive. Carefully crafted facilitating questions could get to the deeper issue of student inquiries and support student deep learning. It is an exciting learning experience for both students and the instructor, with students eagerly seeking truth and the instructor actively assisting students through thought-provoking questions. The example below illustrates a student questioning the validity of Vygotsky learning theory that social interaction is essential to human learning. Student I will be curious to hear my classmates’ thoughts. One question I had was that one of the articles seemed to purport that one cannot learn without social interaction. I think of Abraham Lincoln sitting in a cabin by candlelight learning alone and it makes me wonder if they really mean that a person can only learn within a social context.

As background, and referenced below, Vygotsky proposed that human learning takes place on two planes: a social plane and an individual plane. However, in the preceding example, the student appeared to have misunderstood the theory, perceiving these planes as dichotomous and mutually exclusive failing to recognize

150

8 Questioning to Facilitate

their interrelated and reciprocal nature. The student’s question raised an interesting point: Is learning purely social, or purely individual, or a combination of both? This inquiry prompted a process of critical inquires, as evidenced in the subsequent discussion postings presented below. During the initial inquiries, the instructor steered the discussion towards whether learning can be deprived of its social context. When learners engage in solidary activities such as reading and writing, can we interpret it as that learning can take place separated from its social context? Through probing, students realized that learning is inherently connect to its social context and cannot be separated from it. Even when students are learning in solitary, they are interacting with authors, characters, and the contextual information in books. Therefore, learning still take place within its social context. Instructor Marie raises a good question in her posting. Can learning occur independent of the social context?” I would like to know your thoughts. Student A It depends on how you define a social context. When you are reading, you are interacting with the author of the book, albeit indirectly. You can either agree or disagree with the author. Your mind is processing the information, analyzing, synthesizing, and absorbing information. Physically, the reader may seem to be alone, but mentally, the reader is interacting with the author or figures of the book. Student B That is a good question, I am not sure what all Abraham Lincoln studied, but if he read biographies or studied histories of people then, in a sense, he had some social interaction. He also lived in a family where there is a great deal of give and take from siblings and parents. As he began practicing law, he would have had to listen to other people’s point of view and maybe change his perspective or try and change the other person’s perspective. Student C I agree with your thoughts on Vygotsky and the social constructivist approach. I know learning CAN be done alone, but with much more effort and frustration. Social interaction is a natural way for students to learn all kinds of things! The best part of this approach is that, many times, the student doesn’t even realize he is learning!

As the discussion continued. The instructor posted a question prompting students to examine the role of individuals in the process of learning—an issue that is often overlooked in the discussion of social constructionism. Through engaging in explorations, students reached the consensus that individuals play an essential role in the learning process. Learning cannot take place without the active participation of individuals. Instructor Vygotsky states that learning occurs on two planes, first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level. What is the individual’s role in learning?

Essential Purposes of Questioning in Facilitating Online Discussion

151

Student D I feel the individuals’ role in learning is to come willing to learn. If an individual does not want to learn, no learning will occur even when this individual is placed in a social context. We have all seen examples of students who, for whatever reason, do not want to do their share of work in a group project and learn nothing. Student C I think that students have to internalize subject matter before they can truly master the material. I know a seventeen-year-old young man who when ask to read in Bible class, he mouths the words, but he is just going through the motions. If you ask him what the passage means, he has no clue. Sometime students can display a skill but will not have internalized the knowledge. Young children can copy adults but until they understand the reason and can justify the skill, practice, or knowledge, they have not learned it. The external skill will fade over time if it has not been internalized and made relevant to students. At the end of the discussion, the instructor posted a question that intended to underpin the inherent reciprocal relationships between individuals and the social context in the process of learning. Instructor “Internalize subject matter” …. How did Vygotsky explain internalization? Is the process an individually completed or collectively completed? Student A Vygotsky explains that internalization is a process where an external activity is reconstructed internally. An interpersonal process is thus transformed into an intrapersonal process. It is a process individually completed. Student E It shows that individuals play an important role in learning. That is why there are individual learning activities and group activities. Sometimes, learning is best done individually and sometimes collaboratively. For example, it is an intrapersonal process when we reflect upon our learning experiences or read a book or write a paper. The intrapersonal activities are greatly assisted by interpersonal activities. We learn by reading a book, listening to a lecture, or watching a video. However, we may learn more by discussing the book, the lecture, or the video with our peers. Student B I think the implication of that statement is that students first observe and engage in the culture around them before turning inward to make their own opinions. Students (and adults) need opportunities to hear various perspectives, discuss their thinking, and interact with content before they are able to make an informed decision about what they believe to be true. If you are learning in isolation, your “truth” is all you know. If you are learning in a social context, you are able to have a broader understanding of a topic. Ultimately, however, you are the one who decides what you believe to be true.

152

8 Questioning to Facilitate

Questioning to Open Student Minds to Multiple Perspectives It is common for students to take a one-sided viewpoint in discussions. For example, when conducting research on a topic, they tend to focus on collecting and presenting information that aligns with their preconceived notions or existing preferences. This inclination towards one-sided viewpoints often oversimplifies complex issues, leading to surface-level learning and reinforcing biases. For deep learning to take place, students must open their minds to differing opinions and opposing arguments. Facilitating questions can help students view an issue through different lenses and recognize the complexity of an issue. For instance, most students do not like standardized tests, arguing against its use and flatly rejecting them as an assessment method. By utilizing facilitating questions, students can transcend a binary “good versus bad” mindset and develop a more balanced viewpoint. Facilitating questions can prompt students to consider alternative perspectives, critically analyze different aspects of the issue, and uncover the complexity inherent in the topic. This approach encourages students to embrace a more open-minded approach in researching and discussing an issue. The following discussion exchanges illustrate how the instructor employed questioning techniques to guide students in moving beyond one-sided viewpoints and exploring multiple perspectives regarding the assessment methods for student learning in schools: Student Standardized testing has been a controversial issue. Research shows that it has numerous drawbacks as an evaluative system. Standard testing has never really had positive impact upon student learning. The ranking of students in US in math competencies has been dropping from 18th to 31st in the world from 2002 to 2009. Standardized testing compels teachers to teach to test since teachers working performance is tied to student test scores. When so much time is spent in helping students improve their test scores, students may receive high test scores, but they are not developing important skills such critical thinking and creativity. Standardized testing further disadvantages students from poor areas since students in poor school district do not have access to adequate resources for academic studies. Our group considers that standardized testing should be replaced, and a different evaluation system could serve our students better. Instructor “Our group considers that standardized testing should be replaced, and a different evaluation system could serve our students better.” If standardized testing were to be abolished, what kind of a system of assessment could replace it? Student Portfolio assessment may be an alternative approach. Instructor What are pros and cons of standardized testing?

Essential Purposes of Questioning in Facilitating Online Discussion

153

Student Pros • Standardized testing offers an objective measurement of student learning. Students are taking the same test and are evaluated the same way. • Standardized testing is an effective tool for large-scale learning assessment. It can handle a large amount of data. • Standardized testing provides data to show teachers’ competencies to teach curriculum by showing how well students master the curriculum content.

Cons • Standardized testing does not reflect student learning abilities. Students may learn testing skills without truly understanding the subject. • Standardized testing is tied to teacher evaluation, which forces teachers to teach to the test and narrow down important skills students should develop. • It often takes a long time for test scores to return to the school district.

Instructor Good response. What are the pros and cons of portfolio-based assessment? • Portfolio is an individualized collection of work. Portfolio-based assessment provides a comprehensive record to track student progress over time. • Portfolio-based assessment encourages student autonomy. Students plays an active role in constructing their portfolios. They are also participants in assessing their work. • It promotes student reflection. By viewing their portfolios, students could identify their weaknesses and work for improvement.

Cons • It lacks standardization. Portfolio-based assessment is tailored to each individual student. • It is time consuming. Teachers need to spend an enormous amount of time in evaluating student portfolios. Therefore, portfolio-based assessment is not feasible in large-sized classes. • It may be subjective. According to research, inter-rater reliability is low in assessing portfolios. Teachers may give different scores in assessing the same set of portfolios.

Instructor If your group were asked to propose an evaluation system, what would it be? Student We would take a hybrid approach. We will likely include various assessment methods including testing and portfolios. Each approach has advantage and disadvantages. By using a hybrid approach, methods could complement each other and achieve better results.

154

8 Questioning to Facilitate

Questioning to Promote Actionable Outcomes Through participating in discussion, students can expand their understanding of the issues they are investigating. They collect information, analyze research, explore multiple perspectives, and reach the consensus—then what? What should students do with the knowledge and understanding they have grasped through the discussion? I believe it crucial to have students reflect upon how their knowledge and understanding might be transformed into action. For instance, if students are discussing a problem in their community such as water conservation, recycling, or air pollution, they should be encouraged to make suggestions on how to solve the problem or improve the situation. This approach moves students to a deeper level of learning, connecting them to real life issues, and cultivating in students a sense of responsibility as active citizens in a democratic society. The culmination of learning outcomes is achieved when discussion paves the way for students to put their knowledge in action: Students identify new solutions, formulate plans for changes, and, if feasible, take actions to alleviate or solve a problem, as in the three examples below show. Example 1 No Child Left Behind Act One group of students conducted research about the No Child Left Behind Act. Through engaging in discussion, students reached the conclusion that the Act is deemed a complete failure. However, the discussion should not stop at this point. Although students reached the consensus that the Act was a failure, there were valuable lessons for students to glean from their investigation facilitated through the use of questioning techniques. One question that I contemplated was: “How could we avoid such errors in decision making related to education reform if there were opportunities to start afresh?” By asking this question, students were prompted to critically analyze reasons why such errors occurred and how to mitigate opportunities for similar errors in future education reform. This questioning technique encourages students to think about education reform in a broader context. It promotes a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in policy-making process and prompts students to seek solutions that address the challenges faced in education reform. Student Although the No Child Left Behind Act encouraged some schools to improve their teaching, testing, and general curriculum, the act has generally been unsuccessful when it comes to improving performance in poorer areas. While there are theoretical punishments for schools that do not meet the requirements of the act, in practice these punishments are ineffectual…. Instructor If you were given the opportunity to re-design the "No Child Left Behind Act", what would you like to change?

Essential Purposes of Questioning in Facilitating Online Discussion

155

Student I would change the act so that a method other than standardized testing would be used to track students, such as the progress that each student made over a semester or year. Additionally, if schools were failing the requirements, I would not threaten them with sanctions or lack of federal funding, but rather send in people to focus on that school specifically so that it could improve instead of just punishing the school.

Example 2 Parental Involvement. In the same course aforementioned, another group of students decided to focus on parental involvement in their children’s education. Parental involvement is vital in children’s education. However, lack of parental engagement has been a concern for schools and teachers, often leading to a blame game where parents are held responsible. Instead, schools and teachers should take a proactive approach in seeking and encouraging parents’ participation in their children’s education. It will likely result in disappointment if teachers take passive attitudes, waiting for parents to initiate contacts. Schools and teachers should realize that they have a responsibility to cultivate strong parent-teacher relationships and contribute to improving the situation. I believe it is important for students, who are to become teachers, to realize that as future educators, they have the responsibility to positively shape parent-teacher relationships. The facilitating questions serves to guide students in exploring the various ways in which they, as future teachers, can take actions to establish a collaborative environment that promotes parental involvement. Student However, there are many ways that parents could probably take the back seat and allow the professionals to do their job. Instructor Why are some parents not willing to get involved in their children’s education? Student I think a lot of parents blame their lack of involvement on working, being busy, having multiple kids, and maybe their child is already doing well in school so they feel that they do not need to be involved. However, we need parents to encourage their children to love school, learn, and actually participate in class. It can make such huge difference when the parent/parents are discussing school/school-related things at home. I also think a parent’s involvement can make the lives of teachers easier. Instructor What are the teacher’s roles in getting parents involved in their children’s education? Student I think some overlooked teacher’s roles in getting parents involved would be just getting their contact information. I would suggest having their phone numbers and emails. I would

156

8 Questioning to Facilitate

also email a newsletter at least once a month to let the parents know what we are learning and what would be helpful for them to practice with their children at home. I would also send out informal progress reports to the parents each month so that they can see what their child may be struggling with and help them. If a parent had a concern or any questions, I would recommend reaching out to the teacher and possibly having a parent-teacher conference. I also think just consistently communicating with the parents would help.

Example 3 Bullying in Schools Some students were interested in the issue of school bullying and decided to conduct research and lead discussions on this topic. Students gathered information on the detrimental effects school bullying could inflict upon a child. Bullying in schools could have devastating effects on a child in multiple ways. Bullying could result in emotional and psychological distress such as fear, anxiety, and stress. The distress could negatively affect the child’ learning and academics progress. It was difficult for a child targeted for bullying to concentrate on his/her study. Furthermore, bullying could have detrimental effects on a child’s physical health. Worst of all, bullying could have long- term negative consequence that might continue into a child’s adolescence and adulthood. This topic evoked emotions from some students since they personally experienced being bullied in schools. Nevertheless, it is important for students to rise above their personal experiences and consider their responsibilities in preventing and stopping bullying in their classrooms once they become teachers. My questioning facilitation intend to channel students’ emotions into an understanding of the actions they can take as classroom teachers. Through discussion and investigation, it is hoped that students understand that teachers play a vital role in preventing bullying in schools since it is their responsibility to create a classroom environment that is safe and secure for all children, shaping classroom dynamics, providing support to victims, and educating students in the class. By adopting a zero-tolerance stance towards bullying, teachers can promote a culture of respect and empathy in the classroom. Instructor What is the teacher’s role in prevent bullying in the classroom? Student As a teacher, I think it is very important to lay down ground rules before the curriculum is even started. At the beginning of the school year, teach the children about kindness and how the way they say things may make others around them feel. Secondly, it is very important to create a safe space for the children. Assure them that when they come to you, they can confide in you. Not only do you have to assure it, but you have to prove it. Give them constant examples of being a safe haven. When kids know that they have someone to talk to in confidence, it makes it easier for them to vent and tell the truth about what is really taking place. Lastly, do not be blind in the classroom. Observe the children’s behaviors. You need to paying attention to their verbal language and body language, it will tell more than you know.

Considerations in Designing and Implementing Facilitating Questions

157

Instructor If bullying occurs in your classroom, how would you handle it? Student If bullying occurs in the classroom, I would make sure to respond quickly and consistently to bullying behaviors in order to reiterate that bullying is unacceptable. I will separate the students involved, make sure everyone is safe, and get another adult’s help if necessary. I will meet any immediate medical or mental health needs as well as stay calm to show that the situation is under control. It is important that during intervention to model respectful behavior to be an accurate example on how to deal with conflict instead of showing expressive emotions and reaction. Common mistakes to avoid when stopping bullying include making kids involved apologize or patch up relations on the spot, forcing other kids to say publicly what they saw, and talking to the kids involved together, only separately. Instructor Can you provide any strategies for parents to prevent their children from becoming victims of bullying? Student Suggestions for parents in protecting their children from becoming victims of bullying can include contributing to a positive school climate through the parent teacher association, volunteering, and school improvement events; monitoring their child’s behavior and taking note of any sudden mood changes by having open conversations about their child’s day; and advocating for the school’s work in bullying prevention.

Considerations in Designing and Implementing Facilitating Questions When designing and implementing facilitating questions, instructors should consider the following strategies, many of which apply to both online and face-to-face discussions: • Avoiding superficial questions Superficial questions trigger lower order thinking skills and only allow students to touch an issue at the surface level because they usually involve a simple and single response. For example, who was the first US president? Once students provide the answer, the discussion ends. It is important to note that instructors should refrain from asking questions about facts, which are, at times, needed. However, they need to understand the impact of their questions on the dynamics of a discussion. Cognitively challenging questions allow students to develop higher order thinking skills and motivate them to explore an issue at a deeper level. Bloom’s Taxonomy provides a handy tool for instructors in formulating questions at various cognitive levels.

158

8 Questioning to Facilitate

• Keeping the purpose in mind Every question serves a purpose. Questions should not be asked for their own sake. Instructors must be clear about the purpose of each question on multiple levels: (1) Curriculum level: The instructor needs to review curriculum objectives and align the purpose of the question to learning objectives, for example, they should ask themselves: “what do you expect students to learn in formulating responses to your questions?” (2) Cognitive level: To facilitate student higher order cognitive engagement, the instructor can refer to Bloom’s Taxonomy to formulate questions at various cognitive levels. The instructor needs to decide on what thinking skills students are expected to practise and develop in the process. (3) Tactics level: The instructor needs to consider the function of the question: Are you attempting to connect students with course materials, or are you using questions to clarify student confusion? (4) Question type: More specifically, what question type serves the purpose well: a hypothetical question or a comparison question? • Making the scope of the question manageable. Questions should have an appropriate scope that is challenging but attainable. When the scope of a question is too broad, it leads to frustration and confusion on the part of students. Instructors need to set a suitable boundary for the question, keeping information and resources manageable for students to explore and formulate responses. Further, a broad question might prevent students from exploring and investigating an issue at deeper levels since it may divert student attention in too many directions. Furthermore, students might not have adequate knowledge to address a topic that is too broad. For example, although school is an interesting topic, it is too broad and requires knowledge beyond that of most students to effectively discuss the issue. The discussion question is more manageable when students are asked to investigate whether standardized testing should exist as an assessment method for student learning. • Asking one question at a time It is never a good strategy to ask more than one question at a time, as this example shows: “So, what are some ways parents can find their balance between work, kids, and other outside responsibilities? Could teachers, parents, and the school systems come together to find more solutions other than PTA meetings to keep everyone up to date on the student’s status in school? Finally, for parents that are overbearing, are there other ways for them to be active in the student’s education?” It can be overwhelming to have to respond to a series of questions like this and students might not be able to explore each question in adequate depth.

A Toolbox of Questions

159

If instructors have more than one question to ask, they should rank them by priority and start with the most important one. In many cases, associated questions could be consolidated into a single coherent one. In the example above, we can see that the central point of all these questions is how to get parents actively involved in their children’s education: “What are effective ways for teachers to get busy parents involved in their children’s education?” • Softening the tone In online discussion, instructor and student interaction is asynchronous and misunderstanding can occur due to lack of facial expressions and tone of voice. Instructor questions might be interpreted as unnecessarily cold and abrupt, for instance, “why do you think that?”. Word choices can soften the tone of a question to foster a more inviting and open discussion environment. Instead, instructors can rephrase the question to show their genuine interests in students’ thoughts: “I would like to know how you have come to this conclusion” or “I am interested in learning more about your position.” • Building questions from student postings When instructors build questions on student postings, there are several advantages: (1) The facilitations are specifically targeting issues emerging in the discussion; (2) The inclusion of the original posting helps clarify the specific issue being addressed; (3) It shows students that the instructor is closely monitoring the discussion. Because the question focuses on an issue rather than a particular person, instructors can call for all group members to respond to the question: “This question is intended for everyone in the group to explore and offer your response.” This approach promotes collective engagement and encourages responses from all participants. • Following up your questions Instructors follow up on questions they have posted and make sure that all questions have elicited responses. If a question does not receive any responses, it should be re-posted or reframed if necessary. In my courses, I have a rule that all questions have to be answered in the group discussion, regardless of whether they come from peers or the instructor. Another strategy is to assign specific students to respond to specific questions to make sure that every question is addressed.

A Toolbox of Questions As detailed in this chapter, questions can be very effective tools for facilitating online discussion. To help me utilize these tools, I have built a toolbox where I store all my tools: questions of all types. This allows me to quickly select the right tool for a given situation. Hopefully, you will find this toolbox a useful starter kit to which you can add new tools of your own (Table 8.2).

160

8 Questioning to Facilitate

Table 8.2 A toolbox of questions Question types

Sample question

Question for extension

How do you relate … to…? Could you elaborate…? How could you build upon …?

Question for example/evidence

Could you give an example of …? Is there any evidence for…? What is your personal experience…?

Question for clarification

Are you assuming….? Could you clarify….? What do you mean by….?

Questions for hypothesis

If … what …? If… how…? If…why…?

Question for inference

What has caused…? What are the implications of …? What are your reasons…?

Question for alternatives

Is there a different approach …? What have we missed? What has made you choose…?

Questions for comparison

What are the pros and cons…? How do you compare…? What are the differences…?

Question for prompting

What is…? How…? Why…?

Summary • Not all questions are equally effective. • Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as a valuable guide for crafting high-quality questions. • Facilitating questions should strike a balance between being challenging and attainable. • When utilizing questioning as a facilitating strategy in online discussions, instructors should consider the unique characteristics of the online platform. • Instructors have a range of questioning strategies at their disposal to foster deep learning in online discussions.

References

161

References Amin, Z., & Khoo, H. E. (2003). Basics in medical education. World Scientific. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. research monograph. Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd., Radford House, Frederick St., Hawthorn 3122, Australia. DeGarmo, C. (1908). Interest and education: The doctrine of interest and its concrete applications. Macmillan Co. Dillon, J. T. (1983). Research on questioning and discussion. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 50– 56. Fusco, E. (2012). Effective questioning strategies in the classroom. Teachers College Press. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The thinker’s guide to Socratic questioning. Rowman & Littlefield. Postman, N. (1979). Teaching as a conserving activity. Delacorte Press. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge. Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(3), 368–383. Rhodes, S. (2020). Eliciting critical thinking through purposeful questioning. mathematics teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 113(11), e71–e77. Rinne, L., Gregory, E., Yarmolinskaya, J., & Hardiman, M. (2011). Why arts integration improves long-term retention of content. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(2), 89–96. Smithrim, K., & Upitis, R. (2005). Learning through the arts: Lessons of engagement. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 109–127. Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway. Anchor. Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Anker. Upitis, R. (2018). Arts education for the development of the whole child. Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. Vogt, E. E., Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2003). The art of powerful questions: Catalyzing, insight, innovation, and action. Whole Systems Associates. Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2015). Questioning for classroom discussion: Purposeful speaking, engaged listening, deep thinking. ASCD. Wang, Y. M. (2013, 2014). Questioning as facilitating strategies in online discussion. Educational Technology Systems, 42(4), 405–416. Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379– 428.

9

Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

Abstract

The ultimate purpose of assessment is to enhance student learning by addressing important questions such as: Are students acquiring the intended knowledge and skills?

Introduction The ultimate purpose of assessment is to enhance student learning by addressing important questions such as: Are students acquiring the intended knowledge and skills? What areas of learning need improvement? How can instruction be tailored to enhance student learning? The answers to these questions empower instructors to make informed decisions and implement effective pedagogical strategies that promote optimal learning outcomes. Research has consistently demonstrated the pivotal role of assessment in enhancing the quality of online discussions (Andresen, 2009; Cann et al., 2006; Fleming, 2008; Klisc et al., 2009, 2012; Matheson et al., 2012). Assessment serves multiple purposes, including promoting student engagement, increasing accountability, offering valuable feedback on student performance, and enabling instructors to adjust their instructional approaches. However, to fully realize these benefits, it is imperative to integrate assessment into online discussion, as emphasized by Swan et al. (2007): “In essence, this means that to encourage online discussion, it must be graded, and the grades assigned to discussions must carry substantial weight in the final course evaluation” (p. 1). However, assessing online discussion has posed significant challenges for instructors due to its interactive, dynamic, and conversational nature, distinguishing it from other types of course assignments. Elliott (2010) highlighted these difficulties in his examination of current assessment practices for online discussions, expressing concerns about the lack of guidance and the limited fidelity © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y.-M. Wang, Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3_9

163

164

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

and validity of existing assessment methods. Consequently, instructors often find themselves uncertain about what aspects to evaluate. Elliott (2010) observed, “There seems to be a consensus in the academic community regarding the need to modernize assessment practices to encompass contemporary skills such as collaboration and adapt to new media. However, this transition itself presents challenges” (p. 3). These challenges include determining which aspects of student performance should be measured to gauge learning outcomes in online discussions, whether assessment should be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of both, and how instructors can minimize subjectivity when evaluating student participation in online discussions. As an instructor who specializes in teaching discussion-based online courses, I have dedicated considerable time and effort to exploring different approaches for assessing student online discussions. This chapter presents a comprehensive framework for assessing online discussions, encompassing three key perspectives: assessment of learning, assessment for learning, and assessment as learning, which I first discussed in my paper Assessing online discussions: A Holistic approach (Wang & Chen, 2017) and here is used by the permission of the publisher. The designs, practices, and reflections shared in this chapter draw upon my extensive experience teaching and assessing student online discussions over the past 15 years. Objectives Upon completing this chapter, you will acquire the following knowledge and skills: • Understand the challenges instructors face in assessing student online discussion. • Explain a holistic approach to assessing student online discussion. • Define and implement assessment of learning strategies in the context of online discussions. • Define and implement assessment for learning strategies in the context of online discussions. • Define and implement assessment as learning strategies in the context of online discussions.

Assessment of Learning Assessment of learning is designed to verify whether student learning performance has satisfied curriculum requirements. The purpose of assessment of learning is to collect evidence of student achievements (Earl & Katz, 2006). To apply this approach, the prerequisite is that online discussion is integrated into a specific assignment and leads to an end product. For example, online discussion could be used to help students learn a chemistry concept. The end product would be a report about how they applied the concept in a laboratory experiment. The instructor can

Assessment of Learning

165

observe the students while they conduct the experiment and read their report to determine whether they have grasped the particular concept through their online discussion. Similarly, if online discussion was designed to strengthen student argumentative skills, the end product could be an essay where students argue for or against an issue with the instructor evaluating the content to determine whether the online discussion assignment was effective in developing argumentative skills. However, the assessment of online discussion often focuses solely on evaluating individual discussion postings, which can overlook the intended learning outcomes. This approach assesses students while they are still in the process of learning, rather than at the conclusion of the learning experience when they can demonstrate more comprehensive learning achievements. Elliott (2010) reviewed contemporary online discussion assessment paradigms and noted: “most awarded marks for each message posted by the student. None took account of the student’s final level of understanding” (p. 11). This approach neglects student learning outcomes and creates a mismatch between the assessment and the intended learning objectives, thus failing to accurately reflect students’ true achievements. However, more often than not, assessment of online discussion involves assessing discussion postings, which neglects intended learning outcomes. In effect, students are assessed while they are still in the process of learning rather than at the end of the learning episode when they could demonstrate better learning achievements. Elliott’s (2010) review of contemporary online discussion assessment paradigms noted: “most awarded marks for each message posted by the student. None took account of the student’s final level of understanding” (p. 11) and argued that neglecting student learning outcomes leads to a fidelity mismatch between the assessment and the learning objectives, that is, an approach does not truly reflect student achievement. Thus, assessment of learning directly examines students’ learning products to decide whether they have achieved the expected learning through online discussions. Learning products include research projects, class presentations, essays, and reflective learning blogs. The assignment, rather than student discussion contributions, is evaluated. Therefore, online discussion should be designed in a way that participation leads to a better science project or a better essay, and minimal or limited participation of online discussion means students would face difficulties in completing the assignment. For example, when students in our course are exploring how to integrate computers in the curriculum, they are asked to form a group, choose an issue, conduct research, formulate their arguments, and discuss the issue online with their classmates. What students glean through online discussion prepares them to complete the final learning product—a class presentation on infusing technologies in the K-12 curriculum. In this case, class presentations are assessed instead of discussion contributions. If assessment of learning measures the learning outcomes rather than student discussion postings, there are worries that students might choose not to participate in online discussions and miss the learning opportunities. To address those concerns, a sample of assessment of learning is presented below. The assignment is completed through four stages with online discussion infused into each phase.

166

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

To facilitate student engagement, they are required to deliver a tangible product at each stage and, these, rather than the postings, are assessed on the principle that the deliverables directly reflect the quality of student discussions. This assessment approach helps to develop student awareness of the value of participation in discussions and the impact it has on their final assessment. Research Assignment: Exploring a Contemporary Issue in Education

Issue Research Assignment Statement This assignment requires that your group conduct research on a contemporary issue in education and present your findings to the class. Choose an issue that you most care about and are interested in exploring. It could be any issue related to education. You can choose your own topic or refer to the list of topics provided in the attached file. The premise of this assignment is to familiarize you with various issues in the field of education and to seek solutions through your research. A dedicated discussion board has been established to support your research at each stage of this assignment. Active participation in the discussion is highly encouraged as it provides a valuable opportunity to collect your peers’ insights and perspectives about your research, which will enrich your research process and improve the overall quality of your work.

Research Assignment: Exploring a Contemporary Issue in Education

(Phase l) 1. Summary of references • You are required to locate a minimum of 12 references on the issue your group is to research. You are allowed to use two web resources. All other references must be refereed journal articles. • Complete your readings and write a summary for each reference. Each summary should not exceed 150 words. 2. Group discussion • Evaluate references. • Select the most relevant references for your research. • Discuss how to summarize each reference. • Develop a list of elements to be included in a paper summary. • Follow the list to construct a summary for each reference. 3. Class discussion • Each group should post the list of summary elements as well as a summary sample on the class discussion board.

Assessment of Learning

167

• The class will engage in across-group critiques on the summary elements as well as summary samples. 4. Submission • Each group revises the summaries of references following the critiques from other groups. • The final version must highlight changes incorporated from feedback on the class discussion board. • Each group is required to submit the initial version of summary of references and a final version.

Research Assignment: Exploring a Contemporary Issue in Education

(Phase lI) Research Findings In this part, each group is tasked with conducting an analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the research findings. The group must address how to contribute to the resolution of the issue as future teachers. Group discussion • Analysis—Compare and contrast research findings to identify patterns and connections of the findings in the papers: How similar or different are the findings presented in the research papers? • Synthesis—Prioritize the major points in the research findings: What are the key findings that will significantly impact the development of the issue? • Evaluation—Examine the validity of research findings: Are the research methodologies in the studies appropriate and robust? • Resolution—Develop an action plan on how, as future teachers, you can contribute to the resolution of the issue. Discuss strategies, interventions, or approaches that can be implemented in educational settings. • Class Discussion Each group should post their draft of research findings on the class discussion board for across group critiques. Across group critiques should focus on how to improve each other’s research by providing insights, perspectives, and resources.

168

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

Research Assignment: Exploring a Contemporary Issue in Education

(Phase III) Please follow the guidelines below to prepare your final project presentation: • Revise the draft: You must integrate the feedback from your peers into the final project presentation. • Highlight peer feedback: Clearly indicate changes and improvements you have made in your final version of the project by highlighting peer feedback incorporated. • Present research findings: Each group presents its research project. All group members need to participate in the presentation, interacting with audience and answering questions. • Submit the final version: After the presentation, each group is required to submit a copy of their presentation. • Peer evaluation: Each group member completes and submits a peer evaluation form, expressing their satisfaction with their peers’ performance at each stage of the research assignment.

The samples above provided effective strategies for applying the assessment of learning method in online discussions. These strategies include: 1. Aligning online discussion, course objectives, and assessment Instructors should always ask these questions: What learning objective is online discussion supposed to achieve? What assignment could online discussion best support? How could online discussion be designed to best scaffold student learning? What assessment best reveals whether students have learned what they are expected to learn? Online discussion, course objectives, and assessment should support and reinforce one another. Misalignment leads to student confusion and negatively affects student participation in online discussion. In the following sample, the learning objectives of the assignment are to: (a) familiarize students with various issues in the field of education; (b) enhance student information literacy skills such as searching for, selecting, and evaluating relevant information; (c) practice student critical thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation; (d) sharpen student argumentative skills. As noted previously, online discussion is infused into this research project to facilitate acquiring the learning objectives through dynamic peer interactions. The assignment is to be completed through phases with each phase delivering a tangible product. Instead of student discussion postings, the end products are assessed. The quality of deliverable products should reflect the success or failure of online discussion as a means to an end.

Assessment of Learning

169

2. Communicating the purpose of online discussions The purpose of the online discussion needs to be communicated clearly to students and instructors need to emphasize the consequences of not participating in the discussions (especially losing out on the benefits). By effectively communicating the purpose of online discussions and highlighting the potential advantages, instructors can motivate students to actively participate and engage in the discussions. Communicating with Students

Research Assignment: Exploring a Contemporary Issue in Education This research project is designed to be completed in phases. Online discussion is integrated into each phase to help you complete the assignment. It is important for you to participate in online discussion. There are many benefits for your participation. First, the discussion will expose you to new ideas and perspectives on your research. Secondly, the discussion will broaden your understandings of the topic, allowing you to view the issue from various angles. Thirdly, the discussion provides a platform where your peers share resources to enrich your research. Your peers can contribute research evidence, web links, and other relevant materials to your research. By participating in the discussion, you have opportunities to present your ideas, even if they may be premature. Your peers will interact with you to sharpen your focus in the development of your research. Failing to participate in the online discussion will make it challenging to complete your assignment. 3. Student learning through online discussion into the end assignment To motivate student participation in the online discussion, students should be encouraged to weave the learning they have obtained through online discussions into their learning product. When I ask students to conduct a research project and post their projects online for peer reviews and critique, one of the requirements of the assignment is that they must address and integrate peer feedback into their class presentations. To fulfill this requirement, students need to take an active role in the online discussion. This strategy has worked well in all courses, and students usually take the initiative in seeking peer feedback (e.g., “I have not received any feedback for my project, could anyone please give me some feedback?”) and often post appreciative replies to feedback (e.g., “Thank you very much for pointing out the ambiguity and blind spots that we have. Maybe that’s why there was ‘no business’ for our thread and I am beginning to get worried”). The consensus from students is that this requirement not only helps them improve their assignments, but also helps them learn how to offer

170

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

constructive critiques (e.g., “I feel that being able to critique is important in teaching because I should have the courage to observe my fellow teachers and give them advice that would help their improve their teaching”). 4. Promoting interdependence in the assignment According to Sawyer (2017), significant innovations tend to arise from teams that exhibit a high level of interdependence, rather than from teams with low interdependence. In order to foster collaborative critical inquiry through online discussions, it is important to incorporate interdependence into the assignment design. Interdependence is present when participants bring diverse expertise and perspectives to the task. For instance, as Sawyer (2017) illustrates, a basketball team exemplifies high interdependence, as each team member must work closely with others to accomplish goals. Success in interdependent teams relies on the collective efforts of all members, as the task is challenging and cannot be achieved by a single individual alone. Interdependency serves as a motivation for students to actively participate in the task in a web-based e-learning community (Chen et al. 2009; Hung & Chen 2001; Wang & Chen, 2008). This participation contributes to the enhancement of assignment quality through collaborative efforts. Each student holds a significant stake in the discussion activity, as highlighted by a former student’s reflection at the end of the class, emphasizing that their individual achievements depended on the collective contributions of all participants: I have learned the best way to ensure my own success in this class was by giving my group members good, useful feedback and collaborating with them to make the best posts that we thought possible. The end result was always a collaborative effort that provided many thoughts from my peers. Everybody brought something different to the discussion board and we all use each other’s ideas and opinions and created a great end result. The best way to ensure your success is to be a contributing group member and treat group member’s grades as your own. If you give other people good advice and suggestions, then they will be willing to do the same to you.

Assessment for Learning Assessment for learning is to provide students continuous descriptive feedback to help them see how they could improve the quality of their work while they are still in the learning process and there is still time for them to improve their learning performance (Earl & Katz, 2006; Stiggins, 2005, 2006). Elliott (2010) emphasized that outcome fidelity in assessment is important. However, it is worth noting that the process of fidelity in assessment is equally important. The assessment for learning must reflect students’ learning processes and suggest ways to improve student performance as learning involves both the process and the outcome. Assessment for learning is to provide students continuous

Assessment for Learning

171

feedback to improve the quality of their work. This assessment approach occurs while learning is still going on, and feedback is provided in a timely manner. Many students are inexperienced in online discussions and do not know what constitutes a good discussion posting. Therefore, it is important to provide ongoing formative assessment about student performances and help students gain a thorough understanding of what they are expected to achieve so that they could take advantage of feedback to move forward. Numerous studies have shown the benefits of assessment for learning. Stiggins (2005) argued that “the consistent application of principles of assessment for learning could give rise to unprecedented gains in student achievement, especially for perennial low achievers” (p. 1). When applied to online discussions, assessment for learning aims to enhance student performance. Dennen (2005) observed that "instructor feedback played an important part in students’ motivation to participate... It was provided in different ways, but the courses in which instructor feedback was timely and substantive achieved a higher level of student dialogue" (p. 139). Assessment for learning in online discussions requires students know clearly what counts for successful learning. Online discussion makes the discussion process observable, which is conducive to the approach of assessment for learning. Application of assessment for learning provides great opportunities for instructors to enhance student performance in online discussion through monitoring and regulating on-going student online performance.

Using Rubrics in Assessment for Learning Instructors can use rubrics as an assessment for learning tool. A rubric, by nature, is facilitative, rather than being punitive, which is conducive to fostering a positive learning environment. The purpose of the rubric is to provide a comprehensive assessment of learners’ performance. It serves as a two-dimensional grading tool. On one axis, the rubric outlines criteria that define the expected learning performances students should demonstrate and achieve, indicating what is to be assessed. On the other axis, the rubric delineates varying levels of performance that align with the criteria, providing guidance on how to assess Fig. 1. Assessment for learning monitors student progress towards the expected learning outcome and provides on-going feedback to let students know where they are standing currently and how to progress towards the goal. Therefore, a rubric has numerous advantages in assessing on-going student performances in online discussions. • A rubric is criterion-referenced. A rubric consists of clear criteria for instructors to follow in assessing student work. Student performance is assessed based on criteria outlined in the rubric, rather than through arbitrary judgment of an instructor. Therefore, a

172

Criteria

Performance Levels

Content Aspects

Fig. 9.1 Two dimensions of an evaluation Rubric

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

rubric promotes more consistent and objective assessment of student on-going performance. • A rubric is communicative A rubric with detailed descriptions effectively communicates the expectations that students must meet throughout the learning process. Clear criteria help students gain a better understanding of what is expected and know what they need to do to meet expectations at various levels. In addition, rubrics serve as a basis for instructors to engage in meaningful discussions with students about their performance. • A rubric is developmental Rubrics are developmental and progressive, providing feedback to students across various performance levels. Rubrics help students to understand what milestones they have achieved (or not achieved) and how to achieve a targeted goal. • A rubric is metacognitive Rubrics can serve as a self-assessment tool. In conducting self-assessment, students learn to critically examine their work, identifying areas of strengths and areas that require improvement. Therefore, rubrics encourage a process where students consciously monitor their own performances for improvement. In following criteria and tracking their own progress, students learn how to perform well to accomplish learning goals—a process where students learn how to learn.

Rubric Design Rubric design for student learning involves several key steps. Firstly, the instructor should clearly define the learning objectives associated with the assignment. This

Assessment for Learning

173

includes identifying the specific knowledge and skills that students are expected to demonstrate in completing the assignment. Secondly, the instructor needs to establish performance criteria that align with the learning objectives. The criteria should include the essential elements such as those required to successfully complete the assignment. This step addresses the “what” aspect of assessment in the rubric. Thirdly, the instructor must determine performance levels for each criterion and provide clear descriptions outlining the expectations for each level of performance. This step addresses the “how” aspect of assessment in the rubric. The following section will describe the process of designing a rubric step-by-step specifically for online discussions.

Performance Criteria To illustrate the process of designing an assessment rubric, I’ll start from scratch, then build the rubric step by step. First, when I am pondering what should be assessed, I list things I am looking for in student performance in online discussion. For example, student postings should center on the topic of the discussion since off-topic postings detract from the focus and development of a discussion. The following list outlines the specific criteria I consider when evaluating student performance in online discussion. • Relevance Postings center on the theme of the discussion. • Timing Postings are submitted on time. • Quantity Students contribute an appropriate number of postings. • Distribution Postings are spread out evenly throughout the discussion. • Interaction – Postings are built on previous contributions by peers. – Postings trigger active dialogues among peers. – Postings lead discussion in new directions. • Responsiveness – Postings respond to peer inquiries. – Postings respond to peer comments. What qualities do I seek in student postings? Good quality student postings should reflect one or more of the features listed below: Quality of Student Postings: • • • • •

Thoughtful Reflective Connective (e.g., connect to required readings or course materials) Evidence-based (e.g., research, scholarly web resources, or real-life examples) Analytical

174

• • • • • • • •

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

Persuasive Substantive Insightful Elaborative Provocative Logical Stimulating Unique

A common question is whether the quality of writing should be evaluated in student postings. I would argue that it should—but not too much. I require students to express their thoughts clearly, but too many requirements can undermine student willingness to articulate their thoughts freely. I assess student writing skills in formal essay assignments. Please refer to Chapter Six for the comprehensive guidelines for regulating student discussion behavior. These rules should serve as a foundation for designing an effective rubric.

Performance Levels The next step involves determining the number of performance levels for the rubric. It is recommended to have between 3 and 5 levels (a maximum of five). A rubric should be no more complicated than is necessary to achieve the pedagogical outcomes of the class. I have reviewed multiple rubrics and collected the following labeling scales (modified into three levels) presented in the table below. I can add more scales either to the right or left of the scales, if necessary. I assign three points to the highest performance and one point to the lowest performance to make it as simplest as possible. Performance scales can be expressed numerically (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4), alphabetically (e.g., such as A, B, C, D), or descriptively (e.g., excellent, good, satisfactory, needs improvement) (Table 9.1). Table 9.1 Performance scales Good

Average

Minimal

Above average

Average

Flawed

Good

Acceptable

Needs improvement

Superb

Satisfactory

Limited

Outstanding

Good

Unsatisfactory

Exemplary

Accomplished

Developing

Excellent

Good

Needs work

Excellent

Competent

Beginning

Advanced

Proficient

Novice

Exceeding

Meeting expectations

Not meeting expectations

Assessment for Learning

175

Table 9.2 Working on both ends Criteria

Level 3 (3 points)

Relevance

Postings center on the theme of the discussion

Level 2 (2 points)

Level 1 (1 point)

Postings deviate significantly from the theme of the discussion

Table 9.3 Fitting in the middle Criteria

Level 3 (3 points)

Level 2 (2 points)

Level 1 (1 point)

Relevance

Postings center on the theme of the discussion

Postings relate to the theme of the discussion

Postings deviate significantly from the theme of the discussion

After I have determined the row and column matrix of the rubric table, my next task is to match the criteria to differing performance levels in the rubric. Two approaches are suggested: I can take the top-down approach—starting from the top performance level and moving down to the lower levels; or the bottomup approach—starting with the lowest level and moving to the top level. I use the mixed method: I work both top-down and bottom-up simultaneously. I create a table with labeled rows and columns. When I write down the criteria for the highest performance, I do the same for the lowest performance level. For example, when I write the criterion for topic relevance, I work on the highest performance level first: “Postings center on the theme of the discussion” (Table 9.2). Then I move to the lowest performance level: “Postings significantly deviate from the theme of the discussion” (Table 9.2). Lastly, I decide what fits in between the two extremes. The job is made easier when completed with direct comparison and contrast (Table 9.3). A complete assessment rubric is presented in Table 9.4. It can be modified to apply to various discussion contexts. The following three samples show how the rubric is applied to evaluate the quality of student discussion postings, using criterion #1, #2, and #3. Evaluation of Student Posting (Level 3)

There are several different social constructivist approaches to organizing student learning. Many of them will most certainly include some of the same ideas/activities, such as allowing groups of students to explore, experiment, observe, predict, question, hypothesize, test, and theorize. Teachers design learning activities and facilitate student inquires. To teach a topic like magnets, I would do one of two things. I might present a broad question, such as “What do magnets/does magnetism do?”, which initially seems to have a simple answer, but as one learns more about the topic, he or she will realize that such a question has endless and increasingly complex responses. Then, I

176

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

Table 9.4 F rubric for online discussion Criteria

Level 3 (3 points)

Level 2 (2 points)

Level 1 (1 point)

Relevance

Postings center on the theme of the discussion

Postings relate to the theme of the discussion

Postings deviate significantly from the theme of the discussion

Timing

All postings are made on time

One posting was made late

More than one posting are made late

Quantity

Required number of postings are made

One posting is missing

More than one posting are missing

Interaction

Postings are built on peer contributions and stimulate multiple responses from peers or lead the discussion in a new direction

Postings somewhat relate to peer postings and fail to bring new perspectives from peers

Postings are monologues, limiting, rather than facilitating interactions among peers

Course content

Postings show a thorough understanding of course content/ required readings. Concepts in the required readings are integrated into postings, for example, applying the concepts in new scenarios and contexts

Postings show a sufficient understanding of course content/required reading. There is clear explanation about and elaboration on the concepts in postings

Postings show an inadequate understanding of course content/required reading. Texts in required readings are quoted without further elaboration and application

Evidence-based Arguments/points are supported by research evidence, or real-life examples, or personal experiences

Arguments are mostly based on personal opinions or paraphrased from the textbook

Arguments are presented without support from any evidence

Critical thinking

Postings are substantive, thoughtful, and reflective, bringing in new perspectives and insights. There is strong evidence that critical thinking skills are performed including analysis, synthesis, and evaluation

Postings are thoughtful and elaborative. Thinking skills center on comprehension and application. Higher thinking skills are emerging, but not fully developed in postings

Postings are shallow and generic, citing facts and long quotations. Critical thinking skills are not displayed

Writing style

Thoughts are expressed clearly and concisely

Thoughts are expressed clearly

Thoughts are expressed in a confusing and incoherent way

Assessment for Learning

177

would allow students to get into groups to experiment with magnets and formulate some ideas and questions about magnets/magnetism. The other option would be to simply let students jump right into exploring without first posing a question. As students explore and experiment, they can formulate their own questions to further investigate. After students have initially explored, I would allow groups to share their observations and questions with other groups and/or the class. As students explored and experimented, they would surely begin to notice that magnets both attract and repel other magnets. Also, they’d notice how magnets attract other objects, but not all objects. Questions such as, “Why do magnets attract each other?” “Why do magnets repel each other?” “Why are magnets attracted to some objects, but not to others?” “How do magnets work?” “What can magnets be used for?” may surface as possible topics of further exploration. From here, I would allow each group of students to come up with or choose a question to further research and to predict what they think they’ll find upon researching. With necessary materials provided, groups would continue to research and experiment. Eventually, groups of students will share their results with the class, and the class as a whole will have (hopefully) gained a great deal of knowledge about magnets/magnetism and perhaps, a continued curiosity toward the subject.

Rubrics Criteria—Level 3:

Criterion #1—Postings show a thorough understanding of course content/ required readings. Concepts in the required readings are integrated into postings, for example, applying the concepts in new scenarios and contexts. Criterion #2—Arguments/Points are supported by research evidence, or reallife examples, or personal experiences. Criterion #3—Postings are substantive, thoughtful, and reflective, bringing in new perspectives and insights. There is strong evidence that critical thinking skills are performed including analysis, synthesis, and evaluation

178

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

Evaluation of Student Posting (Level 2)

One of the articles writes that using “schema” closely related to the cognitivism learning theory. I have heard this term often at several of the schools I have visited. Schema relates/connects new knowledge to background/previous knowledge. I have seen this used often in reading because our teachers try to relate the topic to background knowledge the students already have. They also encourage students to make “connections” with the text. Because of the belief that learning occurs within the mind of the learner, new knowledge will be retained or converted from short term memory to long term memory much faster when it is related to something the learner already knows. Behaviorism focuses on the stimulus–response theory. Everything we do is based on external stimuli, which results in a desired response. This is different from cognitivism because this theory focuses on our minds as being “information possessors” and building our schema. We take in all the information that is given to us, store it in “short-term memory,” and then through practice (repetitive drills, fluency activities, mini lessons) we eventually transfer the information into “long-term memory.” The student also needs immediate feedback in order to correct his/her mistakes. According to the cognitivism theory, learning is more internal, unlike behaviorism theory based, where learning is based on external conditions. Instead of the teacher only giving external stimuli to provoke a response (behaviorism), the cognitivism approach is based on the teacher being more of a facilitator, transferring their knowledge from short term to long term memory.

Rubrics Criteria—Level 2:

Criterion #1—Postings show a sufficient understanding of course content/ required reading. There is clear explanation about and elaboration on the concepts in postings Criterion #2—Arguments are mostly based on personal opinions or paraphrased from the textbook Criterion #3—Postings are thoughtful and elaborative. Thinking skills center on comprehension and application. Higher thinking skills are emerging, but not fully developed in postings.

Assessment for Learning

179

Evaluation of Student Posting (Level 1)

I agree with all of those great points! I think that using the computer allows many different opportunities for students to work together and socially construct their learning. Whether students are working on a PowerPoint project, or they are creating a concept map they are able to work together and possibly hear new viewpoints on a topic that they might not have thought about on their own. Their learning is going to be more meaningful because they had the opportunity to learn it socially from a peer in the classroom.

Rubrics Criteria—Level 1:

Criterion #1—Postings show an inadequate understanding of course content/required reading. Texts in required readings are quoted without further elaboration and application. Criterion #2—Arguments are presented without support from any evidence. Criterion #3—Postings are shallow and generic. Critical thinking skills are not displayed.

Promoting the Students’ Role in Assessment for Learning It is crucial to get students involved in the assessment for learning process. Often, students perceive assessment as solely the responsibility of the instructor. Inviting students to participate in designing rubrics can inspire a sense of ownership. This collaborative approach fosters a deeper understanding of assessment criteria and encourages students to take ownership of their learning. Here are several strategies for engaging students in the design of rubrics for online discussions: (1) Divide students into groups and facilitate online group discussions. Each group should select one discussion posting that they perceive as good or from which they have learned the most. The group should analyze the chosen posting and identify its positive aspects. Next, the groups should select a posting that they find unhelpful and from which they have learned little, discussing reasons for why they believe the posting does not contribute to the discussion or their learning. Once each group has completed their lists, they should post their analyses on the class discussion board to initiate a cross-group discussion. Groups can interact with one another, comparing and contrasting the lists generated by each group. Finally, the entire class collaboratively writes a descriptive narrative that outlines what constitutes a good or poor posting to be included in the rubric.

180

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

(2) Instructors can design an exercise to help students learn how to use the rubric as a guide for their performance. The chosen topic for the exercise should not be overly challenging to ensure students do not feel intimidated. For example, the topic could be related to personal experiences but still tied to the course objectives and subsequent discussions. For example, when exploring learning theories, I have students make an initial post about their personal learning theory and illustrate their learning theory using a recent incident in their life. Students are reminded to follow the rubric in making their post. I provide feedback about how well they have followed the rubric. After the trial run, students are asked to write a reflection on their experiences in applying the rubric as guide for their performance in online discussion. (3) Examples are helpful in illustrating criteria in a rubric. Instructors can create their own examples or collect examples from past student postings. When student postings are used as examples, instructors need to exercise caution to protect student identity. Examples can include good postings that meet criteria as well as poor ones that fail to meet criteria. Analysis of the examples should be provided, explaining why the postings meet or fail to meet criteria so that students learn from positive as well as negative examples. To help students learn to align their postings with rubric criteria, one strategy is to have students discuss, analyze, and revise poor examples to meet the requirements for a higher level in the rubric. Students should be divided into groups with each group required to revise and share their revised examples so that all students can benefit from the diversity of revised versions.

Points for Consideration Rubric needs to be shared with students before discussion starts. In addition to the rubric being attached to the assignment, it should also be posted on the discussion board so that students can easily access it in the process of discussion. This will facilitate student understanding and adherence to the established criteria during the course of discussion. Assessment for learning in online discussion should occur on two planes— collective and individual. The unique affordance of online discussion makes it feasible to carry on assessment for learning at the collective level. I can follow and assess student progress in an entire discussion forum. When I notice that an issue is universal across the discussion board, affecting overall student interactions, I address the issue to the class as a whole. For example, students have the tendency to be too polite to challenge one another. In this case, I would discuss the issue with the entire class, reminding all that they should follow the criteria in making their postings, analyzing, elaborating, reflecting, and bringing new perspectives and insights into the discussion. Agreeing with each other too quickly does not really help develop an in-depth understanding of the topic. According to the rubric, thoughtful postings are ones to challenge current assumptions, present counter

Assessment as Learning

181

examples or identify blind spots in order to help one another to sharpen their thoughts and arguments. I would also alternate my facilitation strategies based on the assessment to guide student progress in the desired direction. If a situation involves a particular student, I handle the case at the individual level. A private e-mail message is sent to the student, providing descriptive feedback of his/her performance, and suggesting ways to become more productive and aligned with criteria in the rubric. Stiggins (2006) states: “Assessments must provide rich descriptions of the current state of student achievement” (p. 4). I attend to details in my feedback by including the student’s original posting, providing descriptive analysis, and attaching good examples that the student could use as models. More importantly, I often make suggestions on how the student could improve (e.g., use examples to illustrate his/her points, provide research evidence to support arguments, and elaborate on previous peer postings). In implementing assessment for learning method, the instructor should keep in mind that online discussion differs from other assignments in that it is dynamic and developmental. Instructors must closely monitor the online discussion process and provide feedback in a timely manner so that students have adequate time to improve their learning performance. When instructors notice that a posting does not meet a criterion, they should intervene immediately and discuss the student’s performance within the framework of the rubric. It is worth noting that student behavior in online discussion can be contagious and an off-the-task posting can be quickly followed by a train of subsequent postings that further divert the focus of the discussion.

Assessment as Learning Assessment as learning is “the process through which students are able to learn about themselves as learners and become aware of how they learn—become metacognitive” (knowledge of one’s own thought processes). Metacognition is thinking about thinking or knowing about knowing (Dawson, 2008, p. 7). Assessment as learning means that learners take more responsibility for their own learning and monitor their progress in the learning process. “Within this view of learning, students are the critical connectors between assessment and learning” (Earl & Katz, 2006, p. 41). Assessment as learning engages students in the assessment process and develops the students’ capabilities to be critical assessors of their own learning. Students exercise critical thinking and reflective judgment in assessing their own work. In the process, students learn to regulate their own learning and improve their learning performance. To apply assessment as learning in online discussions, I have introduced discussion portfolios into the repertoire of assessment. Each student is required to prepare a portfolio that contains his/her best discussion contributions and to submit the portfolios after each discussion for credit. More crucially, students are required to justify why their contributions are worthy of credit. Students can refer

182

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

to the assessment criteria in justifying the quality of their postings. In addition, a checklist is provided for students in preparation of their portfolios. The checklist below was presented in Chap. 6 and can assist students in selecting the postings to be included in their portfolios. • • • • • •

You contribute new ideas or perspectives to the discussion. You expand the idea/perspective of the previous posting. You evaluate the previous posting and make your own point. You make references to course materials. You provide evidence-based contribution. You ask questions that lead to more in-depth discussions of the topic/that bring out different perspectives. • You summarize previous postings on the topic (not simply compile). • You provide constructive criticism on previous postings. • You respond to questions (not factual questions). Student discussion portfolios share the following features: (1) Student postings in their portfolios are self-nominated. Students are the ones to choose which postings to include in their portfolios and are held accountable for their selection. In the process of selection, students revisit all of their postings to compare and contrast the quality of the postings so that they could select the best contributions to include in their portfolios. Students take identifying their selections very seriously because they understand that they are presenting evidence of their learning achievements. They often select postings that are substantially insightful and have triggered meaningful responses from peers. (2) Students conduct self-assessment and are the judges of their own learning. I require students to write justifications for why their contributions warrant credit (e.g., I contributed a new idea to the discussion). The process of writing a justification helps students critically assess their learning. Writing justifications is challenging because students need to evaluate their postings and judge the value of each one. Through the process, students learn to be critical assessors of their postings. (3) I have students share each other’s portfolios to learn from each other. Additionally, I am not the only one who has access to submitted portfolios; students post their portfolios online for everyone to view. The existence of an authentic audience helps motivate students to prepare high-quality portfolios. This sharing process provides another opportunity for students to be engaged in self-assessment. Students always express great interests in viewing each other’s portfolios. As mentioned earlier, the ultimate goal of assessment is to enhance student learning. Assessment as learning plays a vital role in improving student learning by fostering metacognition among students. It enables students to develop awareness

Assessment as Learning

183

of what they need to learn and how they can effectively approach their learning process. Below are samples of student portfolios in which students provided justifications for why their postings deserve credit. Sample of Discussion Portfolio (Thread #1)

There are many discussions about social constructivism and how it promotes student learning. However, I believe some voices are missing in the discussion. I would like to fire the first shot and eager to know my peers’ thoughts. I have questions about some statements after I have done my readings. Some terms are quite confusing and never clearly defined or explained. One example is that “truth is relevant”. If “truth” is relevant, is there real “truth”? Another example is that “everyone interprets truth in a different way”. If we view truth in a different way, how can we expect students find or discover “truth”? One more last example: “Knowledge is constructed in social contexts.” How about individual’ role in constructing knowledge. Don’t we learn from reading a book or listening to a lecture? Discussions rarely cover these questions. The voices completely disappear from our radar. Justification In this posting, I raised thought-provoking questions to stimulate the discussion. My posting led discussion to new directions and triggered numerous responses from my peers, contributing to a productive online discussion.

Sample of Discussion Portfolio (Thread #2)

I would like to respond to your question about individual role in social constructivism. Vygotsky considers that learning occurs on two planes: First on the social plane, then on the individual plane: “Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological) (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57). Therefore, individual does play an essential role constructing knowledge. That means individuals must be willing to learning and actively participate in social interaction. In social interaction, children get to know the world through language exchanges. Then children must internalize the knowledge through individual cognitive activities: analysis and reflection. Only then can we say that a child is successful in making meanings of the knowledge construction and knowledge becomes his/hers. He/she now owns that piece of knowledge. I too agree that we have placed too much emphasis on the social aspect of knowledge construction since it separates social constructivism from other learning theories. Individual’s role in learning gets drowned in the heat.

184

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

Justification My posting is built upon my peers’ contributions. I responded to my peer’s question in this posting, explaining and elaborating on how children learn following Vygotsky’s social constructivist learning theory. This posting contributed new insights to the discussion.

Sample of Discussion Portfolio (Thread #3)

Wow, you have raised so many good questions. I would like to respond to your question about whether we learn through listening to lectures or reading a book. I think we do learn from listening to a lecture or read a book. However, it does not contradict the social aspect of learning. When you are reading a book, you are interacting with the author, although not face-toface one. You are still learning in a social context. You may appreciate what the author says, or you may disagree with the author. Later on, you may have real time interaction with the author on his/her Facebook or Twitter. You do the same thing while listening to a lecture. You are interacting with the lecturer. You may have questions and take notes of them. The notes are the result of you interacting with the lecturer cognitively and later on serve as a basis for you to discuss your questions with the lecturer face-to-face or online. In addition, when an author writes a book, he/she must conduct research by others and seek feedback from peers or colleagues. In a sense, a book is not merely a product of an individual intelligence, it is a product of social cognition. We can say the same with preparing a lecture. Justification M posting expands my peers’ contributions. By explaining the interactions between readers and authors as well as audience and lecturers, I provide my perceptions about the social aspect of learning. My posting adds to the understanding of what is considered as social contexts.

Sample of Discussion Portfolio (Thread #4)

I believe there is “truth” to be discovered. “Truth” exists over there whether you recognize it or not. I agree that truth is only relevant to how people perceive it. There are many such examples. Some scientific findings are truths such as gravity and DNA. However, in another sense, we can never claim we have uncovered truth. We can only say we are getting closer and closer to truth. With continuing research, we can always uncover more. It is the same even with historical facts. We may think it is a fact. Years later, the fact may

Assessment as Learning

185

not be what we used to think. It is good that people perceive “truth” in different ways. We will stop exploring if everyone agrees that it is a truth. We continue to uncover truth because people have disagreements and doubts. Justification This is a posting in the thread of social constructivism. In my posting, I use examples to illustrate whether “truth” exists and what it means by “truth is relevant”. By illustrating different perspectives on the nature of truth, I provide a different lens to view how truth is constructed and perceived.

Sample of Discussion Portfolio (Thread #5)

I agree that teachers’ role is often missing in the discussion of constructivism and social constructivism. Teachers play an important role in the process of knowledge construction. Knowledge construction cannot be completed without teachers’ facilitation and intervention. When students are placed in groups to work together, it does not mean that students have the freedom to go to whatever directions they want. The teacher must set a perimeter and intervene when students go astray. Otherwise, it creates chaos. Students may be able to complete wonderful science projects, for example, to wire batteries and bulbs to make the light. However, they may not be able to explain why it works/does not work and understand the underpinning theories for their work. I believe it is where teachers come in. Justification My posting contributes to the discussion by emphasizing the teachers’ role in knowledge construction, which is often overlooked in the discussion of constructivism and social constructivism. By emphasizing the importance of teacher role to guide students in meaningful knowledge construction, I offer new insights that expand the understanding of how teachers contribute to the learning process. Assessment as learning helps students become aware of their strengths and weaknesses in learning through online discussion. In preparing for their discussion portfolios, students constantly refer to the assessment criteria and gain good understanding of the discussion requirements, which helps students understand the quality of discussion contributions they are expected to maintain. The criteria are the yardstick students apply in monitoring and regulating their own learning. They become more conscientious about the quality of their postings. There is always obvious and continuous improvement in postings as students go through rounds of self-assessment. When I poll students for their perceptions about discussion portfolios, an overwhelming majority of them note that the discussion portfolios

186

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

helped them improve their discussion performance throughout the semester and they agree that writing justifications requires them to reflect upon the quality of their postings. They consider the discussion portfolio an excellent way to assess their discussion contributions. In utilizing discussion portfolios, I would like to emphasize the following points: (1) It is important to distinguish self-assessment from self-grading. Assessment as learning involves self-assessment, which is qualitatively different from selfgrading. There have been concerns about student self-grading because it is believed that students tend to be highly subjective and issue themselves higher grades than they truly deserve (Buckelew et al. 2013). In assessment as learning, students do not issue grades to themselves. Instead, self-assessment is based on providing a rationale supporting the quality of their original posting. The focus is not on the grade. Rather, it is on student metacognition. For example, one student argued that he did not do well in some initial postings due to inexperience. He nominated these posts and provided his reflection on why they were not contributing to the discussion. At the end of the assignment, he received full marks for his discussion portfolio. (2) Assessment as learning differs from conventional assessment and students might not be used to this assessment method. In my courses, students often experience high anxiety at the beginning of online discussion projects. I have received numerous e-mail messages from students expressing their worries and nervousness, especially among high achievers. They often ask what I, as the instructor, want and expect of them. They seem more concerned about matching their assessment with that of the instructor. Thus, at the beginning, they are more concerned with grades than learning. To help relieve these anxieties, instructors need to be patient and supportive, and to make the purpose of assessment explicit so that students can shift their attention to learning. (3) Reflection is essential for metacognition, thus is an important part of assessment as learning. Students reflect to learn. Reflection allows students to stand back and critically view their experiences. What have I done right? What needs to improve? Through reflection, students learn to monitor their learning process, learning how to learn and thinking how to think. I require students write weekly reflections on their experiences in online discussions. Over the semester, they write ten weekly reflections in total and share their reflections on the class blog page. Students are instructed to use the sentence starter: “I feel (add an adjective) because…” to reflect upon the online discussion. Their reflections can focus on anything about the discussions. For example, students could let out their frustrations: “I feel annoyed because other students said what I wanted to say. I do not have more to say in the discussion. Maybe I should have posted as early as possible”. Students have also expressed the joy in learning: “I feel enlightened because I get to see so many different interpretations of what learning is. These perspectives have made me to challenge my assumptions of what learning is”. Students do not hesitate to celebrate their

A Holistic Approach to Assess Online Discussions

187

progress: “I feel more comfortable to write justifications because I am getting more familiar with discussion rules”. For each reflection, students gain one mark. A weekly reflection encourages students to monitor their own learning at the metacognitive level. At the end of the semester, students use the weekly reflection as raw data to analyze their own learning path and write a 500 word reflection paper on the learning journey for the entire semester. Students have commented that the reflection paper helped them see how far they have gone and how their perspectives have changed along the way.

Student Reflection on Discussion Portfolios

I personally think that the discussion portfolios were a great idea for keeping up with discussions. As I was creating my portfolio I sat down and thought and analyzed my work. Through doing that I was able to think more analytically about each post as I had to provide a justification for what I had written. I don’t have any other ways to evaluate discussion that I believe would work much better than the portfolios. I think that they worked great because having to justify my postings lead to lots of learning for me—Aiden. Discussion portfolios are a great tool for evaluation of the student. I think it is crucial for instructors to have this means of evaluation. I loved how the instructor allowed us to choose our own discussion posts to add to our portfolio. This helped me to see which posts were my strongest and gave me ways to improve on future posts as well. I am not sure about another way to evaluate discussion posts and participation; I think the discussion portfolio is a great tool for this—Emma. I also like the discussion portfolio for all students. It made me think more about the comments I was making and how they were helping the other students. I put more thought into my ideas and contributions. It was also good to look back at all the comments I had made to see if there were any kinds of trends throughout all the discussions—Michelle.

A Holistic Approach to Assess Online Discussions Online discussion assessment is a complex issue and needs a systematic approach to ensure accuracy, impartiality, and efficacy. This chapter has proposed a holistic approach to assessing online discussions out of concern that the existing stepwise approaches fail to address the complexity of the issue. Online discussion assessment should cover multiple aspects of student learning, for example, final learning outcomes, student discussion performances, and student reflections upon the learning. Current piece-meal approaches result in inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and confusion. This holistic approach is intended to be a comprehensive framework for the design and implementation of online discussion assessment.

188

9 Assessing Online Discussion: A Holistic Approach

The proposed approach tackles three critical components in assessing student learning in online discussions. Firstly, it acknowledges the fidelity issue in assessing online discussions. The ultimate purpose of online discussion, as an instructional intervention, is to promote student learning. To accurately interpret its efficacy, student final learning products need to be assessed to determine whether the online discussion was a successful instructional intervention in enhancing student learning. For instructors, this is an iterative process in that they can glean insightful feedback from each class for designing/re-designing online discussions. Secondly, the proposed holistic approach embraces the importance of assessing the learning process. There is an intimate interplay between the learning outcome and learning process, that is, the quality of student discussion postings impacts student learning outcomes. Clearly defined guidelines motivate students to engage in meaningful discourse. Rigorous assessment of discussion contributions encourages students to produce high quality postings. The successful discussion process, as a result, helps yield better learning products. Thirdly, the proposed holistic approach honors student roles in assessment. Students are included in the assessment process by preparing discussion portfolios and writing justifications for credit. They take responsibility for their own learning in making judgments about the quality of their work. In the process of participating in assessment, students develop metacognition skills—gaining understanding of learning about learning. Online discussion is a valuable tool with the potential to benefit student learning. Nevertheless, its success is not guaranteed, and its potential is impacted by numerous factors. Specifically, assessment serves as a key catalyst in its success. Hopefully, this chapter has stimulated readers to reconsider their approach to assessing online discussions. Past efforts have primarily focused on designing assessment rubrics of the discussions per se; rarely is a holistic approach to assessment methods explored. This chapter shows the need to modernize online discussions assessment to fulfill its potential for promoting student academic learning. Assessment matters and deserves our full attention.

Summary • Fidelity is an important factor to consider in designing assessment for online discussion. • A holistic approach in assessing online discussion includes assessment of learning, assessment for learning, and assessment as learning. • Assessment of online discussion should attend to its process as well as its product. • In assessing student ongoing performance in online discussion, instructors should provide detailed descriptive analyses and examples that students should follow for improvement. • Assessment of discussion portfolios enhances the quality of student posting.

References

189

References Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcome, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249–257. Buckelew, S. P., Byrd, N., Key, C. W., Thornton, J., & Merwin, M. M. (2013). Illusions of a good grade: Effort or luck? Teaching of Psychology, 40(2), 134–138. Cann, A. J., Calvert, J. E., Masse, K. L., & Moffat, K. G. (2006). Assessed online discussion groups in biology education. Bioscience Education, 8(1), 1–11. Chen, D. T., Wang, Y. M., & Hung, D. (2009). A journey on refining rules for online discussion: Implications for the design of learning management systems. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(2), 157-173. Dawson, T. L. (2008). Metacognition and learning in adulthood: A literature review. Developmental Testing Service Inc. Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. Earl, L. & Katz, S. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind. Winnipeg: Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth. Elliott, B. (2010). A review of rubrics for assessing online discussions. The 13th International Computer Assisted Assessment (CAA) Conference. Southampton, United Kingdom. Fleming, D. L. (2008). Using best practices in online discussion and assessment to enhance collaborative learning. College Teaching Methods & Styles, 4(10), 21–39. Hung, D. W., & Chen, D. T. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of web-based e-learning. Educational Media International, 38(1), 3–12. Klisc, C., McGill, T., & Hobbs, V. (2009). The effect of assessment on the outcomes of asynchronous online discussion as perceived by instructors. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 666–682. Klisc, C., McGill, T., & Hobbs, V. (2012). The effect of instructor information provision on critical thinking in students using asynchronous online discussion. e-Learning, 11(3), 247–266. Matheson, R., Wilkinson, S. C., & Gilhooly, E. (2012). Promoting critical thinking and collaborative working through assessment: Combining patchwork text and online discussion boards. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(3), 257–267. Sawyer, K. (2017). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Basic books. Stiggins, R. J. (2005). In Assessment for learning defined. ETS Assessment Training Institute’s International Conference: Promoting Sound Assessment in Every Classroom. Portland OR. http:// ati.pearson.com/about-ati/rick-stiggins.html Stiggins, R. J. (2006). Assessment for learning: A key to motivation and achievement. Edge, 2(2), 3–19. Swan, K., Schenker, J., Arnold, S., & Kuo, C.-L. (2007). Shaping online discussion: Assessment matters. E-Mentor, 1(18), 78–82. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. V. (2008). Essential elements in designing online discussions to promote cognitive presence—A Practical experience. Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 157– 177. Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. T. (2017). Assessing online discussions: A holistic approach. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(2), 178–190.

Index

A Accountability, 46 Activity Theory, 96, 113 Affordance analysis, 99, 100 Analysis, 7, 12, 13, 30, 32, 39, 45, 80, 86, 100, 141, 142, 149, 176, 177 Application, 3, 7, 12, 13, 43, 96, 142, 171, 176, 178, 179 Artificial Intelligence, 17 Assessment, 163, 164, 179, 182 Assessment as learning, 181, 185 Assessment for learning, 179 Assessment of learning, 164 Authenticity, 38–40 Authoritarian figure, 125 Autonomy, 26, 67, 86, 87

B Benefits, 85, 130, 139, 171 Bloom’s taxonomy, 26, 142 Bond, 67 Broken voice, 127

C Case analysis, 11, 13–15 Challenging tasks, 81 Claims, 143 Class space, 55 Close-ended, 141 Cognitive construction, 109, 114 Cognitive development, 7, 8, 10, 11 Cognitive levels of questions, 142 Cognitive skills, 7, 12–14, 26 Collaboration, 2, 11, 66, 77, 82, 87 Collaborative argument, 74 Collective experiences, 146

Commonality, 64–68, 74 Community, 2, 6, 16, 19, 49, 54, 65, 74, 104, 129, 154 Complementary motives, 83, 84 Complex task, 117 Compliments and humor, 107 Comprehension, 7, 12, 13, 111, 142, 176, 178 Conflicts, 26 Confucius, 4, 36, 138 Connection, 38 Construct, 2, 9, 10, 12, 142 Constructing knowledge, 7, 25, 40, 100 Constructive criticism, 111 Constructive disagreement, 107 Constructivism, 8, 11 Covid-19, 69 Critical thinking, 4, 7, 33, 45, 52, 141, 176, 177, 181 Curriculum, 3, 6, 7, 11, 26, 29, 38, 40, 66, 127, 156

D Debate, 33, 37 Deep learning, 141 Dependence, 120 Design, 21, 55, 78, 110, 119, 124, 138 Dewey, 7, 35, 37, 131, 138, 146 Dialogue, 4, 5, 25, 139, 141, 171, 173 Disagreeing professionally, 111 Discourse community, 49, 50, 54, 57, 61, 96, 113, 117 Discussion prompts, 22

E Easy agreement, 144 Emotion, 38

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y.-M. Wang, Online Discussion in Secondary and Higher Education, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41038-3

191

192 Engagement, 13, 15, 21, 22, 26, 37, 147 Environment, 129, 140, 148 Environmental print, 68 Evaluate, 12 Evaluation, 7, 12, 13, 15, 32, 39, 56, 79, 100, 137, 141, 142, 149, 163, 175–179 Examples, 37, 128, 154 Experiences, 7, 38, 41, 57, 131, 132, 186 Explicit mandatory participation, 101 Externalization, 9, 25, 105

F Facilitating, 157 Facilitating questioning, 143 Facilitating questions, 149 Facilitation, 117–119, 141 Facilitator, 117 Feedback, 13, 15, 46, 56, 66, 84, 102, 118, 119, 123, 124, 126, 167, 170, 171, 178, 181, 188 Forming groups, 50 Free expressions, 124

G Generic postings, 145 Giving and receiving, 111 Going in depth and breadth, 110 Greek mythology, 126 Grounding in reason, 110 Group adjustment, 54 Group cohesion, 52, 78 Group size, 52 Group space, 55 Group work, 77

H History, 4, 6 Holistic approach, 163, 187 Honeyed voice, 128 Hypothetical question, 146

I Icebreaker, 57, 59, 60 Impact, 19 Implicit integrated participation, 102 Independence, 122, 124 Inducting, 57 Industrial age, 6 Initiating inquiries, 111 Instructor feedback, 121

Index Instructor participation, 121, 122 Interaction, 8, 104, 108, 113, 173, 176 Interdependence, 77, 78, 83, 170 Internalization, 9, 25, 105, 151

K Knowledge construction, 38

L Late participation, 103 Leadership roles, 123, 124 Learning community, 16, 49, 54–56, 63, 64, 82, 95–97, 103, 113, 126 Learning environment, 4, 9, 11, 22, 38, 57, 98, 119, 140 Learning spaces, 54 Learning theories, 7, 41, 65, 120, 121 Lurking, 103

M Making connections, 110 Making it explicit, 130 Math, 6, 13, 45, 145, 147 Mediation, 8 Memorization, 6, 7, 12 Mentality, 119 Merry chorus, 129 Metacognition, 13, 45, 181, 186, 188 Micro versus macro, 53 Motivation, 38, 66, 79, 88, 119, 147, 171 Multiple voices, 25 Multi-voiced, 9 Mutual needs, 83, 84

N News, 31 Non-participation, 101

O Observations, 51 One-plus-two approach, 29 Open-ended, 4, 25, 66, 141, 142 Out-of-tune voice, 127

P Paradigm shifts, 7 Participation, 101, 103, 104 Peer feedback, 53, 84

Index Peers, 8, 11, 13, 23, 29, 36, 57, 59, 60, 66, 74, 84, 98, 99, 102, 104–108, 121, 122, 143, 182 Perceptions, 120, 122, 124 Performance scales, 174 Perplexing postings, 144 Personal experiences, 176 Personal space, 56 Piaget, 7, 40 Playing devil’s advocate, 107 Polling students, 50 Portfolios, 181 Power, 55, 122, 125, 126, 148 Procrastination, 103 Purpose, 23 Purposes of questioning, 146

Q Quality, 110, 173 Quality of student postings, 109 Question, 7, 28, 66, 77, 86, 87, 114, 159 Questioning, 6, 7, 77, 111, 137, 139, 140, 143, 146, 149, 152, 154 Questioning to facilitate critical inquiry, 149 Questioning to make connections, 146 Questioning to open student minds, 152 Questioning to promote actions, 154 Quote, 30

R Rationale, 56, 67, 79, 186 Reading materials, 30 Reciprocal relationship, 10 Reference to peer postings, 105 Reflect, 7, 10 Reflection, 35, 186 Relevance, 31 Research, 37 Research projects, 32 Resource, 38, 88 Responding to peers, 106 Role interdependence, 85 Role play, 34, 37, 53, 85 Role playing, 88 Roles, 37, 87, 91, 92, 122, 125 Rubrics, 171, 178 Rules, 55, 95, 98, 100, 110, 112–114

193 S Scenario, 24, 30, 37, 86, 87, 139 Shared interests, 64 Social constructivism, 7–9, 26, 121 Social interaction, 8, 9, 105, 149 Socrates, 5–7, 138, 141 Structures, 37 Student engagement, 22, 40, 42, 120, 143, 163 Student experiences, 37, 40 Student interaction with text, 108 Student interests, 28–30, 60 Student roles, 188 Student to student interaction, 104 Student voice, 117, 124, 126 Subject expert, 35 Summarizing, 106, 111 Summarizing the discussion, 130 Surface learning, 141 Sustaining, 67 Synthesis, 7, 12, 13, 15, 32, 100, 141, 142, 149, 176, 177

T Tangible product, 42, 45, 46 Teacher presence, 120, 129 Teacher space, 56 Teacher-student roles, 125 Toolbox, 159 Transform, 2, 10

U Unit plan, 14

V Variation, 28 Virtual learning environment, 107 Vygotsky, 8–11, 96, 149

W Writing style, 108, 176

Z Zone of Proximal Development, 8, 11