Literature

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE USE
OF ONLINE DISCUSSION IN LEARNING

CONTENT

Introduction
Can synchronous and asynchronous discussion do the same things?
What are the advantages / disadvantages of asynchronous discussion?
What are the advantages / disadvantages of synchronous discussion?
So is it online discussion worth it?
What do I have to think about before I start?
How many students should be in a discussion group?
How do I engage the students?
What makes a good online discussion?
What is an effective moderator?
How can I evaluate my online discussions?
But this will take all my time...
References
URL listing

1. INTRODUCTION

Flexible learning has been through four generations. In its first iteration, distance learning, hardcopy course packs and black box videos were physically posted out to off campus students. Over time the concept of the open university developed with the use of images and text sent out over broadcast television. The fourth generation has been termed computer mediated communication (CMC) and has been a `quiet revolution' in education (Meeks, 1987). In its early days text based CMC was provided by a asynchronous information transfer (ie. computer conferencing, special interest groups, electronic mail, list servers, bulletin boards). In more recent times CMC has developed a more real time interactive format termed synchronous communication (ie chat). Over time both synchronous and asynchronous forms of CMC have developed into useful student centred learning tools and are now generically called online discussion. A list of the learning activities that can be achieved using online discussion is given below.

TABLE 1: Learning activities that can be performed using online discussions
(Gallupe, 1991; ÿstbye, 1989; Masys, 1991; ÿstbye, 1991; Dirksen, 1989).

2. CAN SYNCHRONOUS AND ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION DO THE SAME THINGS?
No. Each form of online discussion is more suitable to particular tasks. Synchronous discussions are more useful for informal chats and sharing information. The asynchronous discussion is more suited for longer and deeper interactive learning where reflection is required. A list of the different uses of both types of online discussion is given in Table 2.

TABLE 2: Target uses for the two major types of online discussion

2. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES OF ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION?
Asynchronous discussion has been widely used in learning communities to foster social interactive learning. It is however important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of this method. A reasonable summary is given in Tables 3 and 4.

TABLE 3: Learning advantages of asynchronous discussions

TABLE 4: Learning disadvantages of asynchronous discussions
(Harasim, 1989: Bates, 1995; Harasim et al., 1995: Mason & Weller, 2000:
Levin, Kim & Riel, 1990; Collings & Walker, 2000; Morgan, 2001)

3. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES OF SYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION?
Synchronous discussion is a more recent development. The advantages and disadvantages of this method are given in Tables 5 and 6.

TABLE 5: Learning advantages of synchronous discussions

TABLE 6: Learning disadvantages of synchronous discussions
(Aoki, 1995; Reid, 1991).

4. SO IS ONLINE DISCUSSION WORTH IT?
Yes. A quote from a lecturer summarises a lot of the personal feedback concerning online discussions.

'Frankly, the quality of the discussion and the level of understanding among my students in my Web Board groups are far superior than in my in class sessions...the outcomes of my asynchronous discussions exceed my expectations...With peer and mentor led study, anyone at any moment may find themselves in the role of 'teacher'
(Terry Dugas, Florida Gulf Coast University).

5. WHAT DO I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT BEFORE I START?

i. GROUP BUILDING
Online discussion is a group activity and plagued with all the problems of group dynamics. See the excellent discussion on surviving the group project at www.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/teams/ovrvw2.htm#effect

ii. STUDENT ACCESS
You eill need to consider how your students will access the online discussion. Some questions to answer are given below;

TABLE 7: Access questions

6. HOW MANY STUDENTS SHOULD BE IN A DISCUSSION GROUP?

8 - 20 seems to be the answer...

"A critical mass of about twelve students is necessary to maintain an interesting on- line discussion. If the course drops below eight participants, all that happens in the VC conference is usually related to a direct input of the lecturer. On the other end of the spectrum, I do not believe that a course with more than twenty students can be conducted at the level of quality we would like to see. Such a course would have to be split into sections and a "coach" should be assigned to each section in addition to the lecturer who is responsible for the complete course." (Hiltz R, 1997)

7. HOW DO I ENGAGE THE STUDENTS?

(the following is mostly taken from "Eight Ways to Get Students More Engaged in Online Conferences" William Klemm 1998)

a. FORCE THEM TO LOG ON
As a mean of 'attendance' verification and to increase interaction, students were required to submit a weekly 'class participation' assignment. This assignment consisted of the student posting a conference comment critiquing the subject matter discussed in the video and weekly reading. Students were encouraged to comment on the discussions submitted by fellow students and to encourage this communication the instructor commented on each student's weekly discussion. This requirement proved very successful. Students rarely 'missed' classes, and when they did the work was made up with class participation.

Don't let it be optional. Set aside a portion of the grade allocation for participation in the online discussions. Tell the students that they must post x-number of items each week or for each topic. Critics will say that this approach does nothing to ensure quality of input. But it at least gets the students engaged, and hopefully, once they get caught up in the activity, they will strive to improve the relevance and quality of their work, because now they are on display. No longer can they hide. For many students, it is more embarrassing to make public postings that have no value. As another incentive for quality work, the teacher should grade on quality of the postings. That is highly subjective, but no more so than grading of term papers or essays.

b. REPLY FAST
Timely responses to student questions is important. One of the main objectives of the instructor in a virtual class is to keep the students' interest alive at all times if possible. It is easy for someone to lose interest in something when they feel ignored. When a student poses a question to the instructor it is because they seek an explanation or clarification on some idea. But the student's interest may not be the same and will in fact diminish if the instructor's response is not prompt, say within 24 hours.

c. GET THE QUIET ONES TO TALK
Instructors should take note of everyone's participation. In particular, an instructor should look for any passive students who may be logging in regularly but not participating actively in the discussions (Lurkers). A lack of participation can be an indication that the student is slowly losing interest in the course. This may be due to personal factors, unrelated to the course, or it may be a consequence of lack of interest in the subject matter of the course or perhaps the topic being discussed in a given week. The role of the instructor is to interact with the student and encourage them to participate. The use of a tutor to prod discussion is useful.

d. FORM LEARNING TEAMS
It is good to ask for an initial comment asking everyone in the course to post a message introducing themselves and sharing any appropriate information with their classmates. The idea is not only to find out if anybody is having difficulty with using the system but also to develop a feeling among students that they know who is in the classroom and to bring people closer together. In some ways this may allow the students to know about each other more than in a traditional classroom, as little interaction often taking place among student in a regular class. Familiarity with members of the class and developed friendships can mirror the same effects that influence how groups are formed in a face to face class.

e. MAKE THE ACTIVITY INTERESTING.
If it is a discussion topic, make it one that students have a reason to get engaged in. Appeal to their life experiences, vested interests and ambitions. It might even be a good idea to let the students create some of the topics, especially if you provide an overall academic framework to guide them where you want them to go. If it is a group-created paper or project, let the students pick the subject within the bounds of the academic objectives.

f. DON'T SETTLE FOR OPINIONS.
Everybody has opinions… It is not surprising that many classroom discussion groups online are dominated by opinion messages, rather than rigorous analysis and creative thought. Teachers should insist that opinions alone are not sufficient. They must be supported with data and rational discourse and even re-examined in light of what others in the online group are thinking.

g. STRUCTURE THE ACTIVITY.
Give students guideposts to help them think of things to say that are academically meaningful. Topics should be organized around an academic theme that serves course objectives. Topics should not be so open-ended that students digress. Debates can be structured by requiring students to post a position, to which others respond with pro or con supporting arguments, followed by critique of the arguments. Brainstorming can be structured by having students first generate a list of alternatives; re-think the list by creating new ordering, structure, or relationships, systematically evaluating each item to produce a "short list" of viable alternatives; and then reaching consensus decision on the best choices, followed by prioritization.

h. REQUIRE A HAND-IN ASSIGNMENT (DELIVERABLES).
To extend structuring to its logical conclusion, you should require students to do something besides just express ideas and opinions. They should produce a deliverable from the conference. This kind of activity capitalises on all the advantages of constructivist theory, which holds that students learn best when they have to integrate, synthesise and apply information by creating a deliverable piece of work. Such a deliverable can include idea generation and analysis, decisions, plans and designs, proposals, case studies, problem solution, research projects, term papers or reports, portfolios or role playing.

i. ENSURE QUALITY WORK
Irrespective of the specific learning activity, the teacher should know what quality work is and should intervete as the work is being developed to steer students in the right direction. When the teacher participates in a conference, providing extensive critique, feedback, and encouragement, students cannot help but become more involved.

j. PEER GRADING.
Tell students at the beginning of the conference that at the end of the activity they will be asked to rate each other on the value of each person's contribution. This can be a powerful incentive for students to do quality work in the conference. However, most students do not like to grade each other. This is especially a problem if they have bonded as a result of operating in a learning team. One possible solution is to have students grade the contributions of another group, which also gives them added learning experiences. Another possibility is to structure the ratings so that they don't translate directly into A, B, C, etc. The ratings might be in the form of "superior, good, fair, poor," or some equivalent. Another possibility is to have each student name the one student in the group who helped them the most. Students who are named more than once might get bonus points on the final grade. A similar approach could be used with a ranking scheme. Students with the best ranks get the most bonus points on the final grade.

8. WHAT MAKES A GOOD ONLINE DISCUSSION?

An effective online discussion enables students to create knowledge in a social environment. A summary of the characteristics of a good online discussion is given in Table 8.

TABLE 8: Characteristics of a good online discussion

9. WHAT IS AN EFFECTIVE MODERATOR?
The moderator drives the discussion like s/he would drive a car. S/he accelerates it when it is going too slow, brakes it when it is going too fast and steers it into interesting places. What are the characteristics of a good moderator? A summary of these characteristics is given in Table 9.

TABLE 9: Characteristics of a good moderator

10. HOW CAN I EVALUATE MY ONLINE DISCUSSIONS?

a. ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOURAL DATA
In this method individual speech transactions between teachers and students are coded into defined behaviours and counted. It is not widely used today and is considered prescriptive, narrowly defined and not sufficiently able to assess a dynamic group environment (eg Flanders, 1970; Nastasi & Clements, 1992).

b. COGNITIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS
Discussion transcripts can be analysed according to cognitive characteristics. One commonly cited method (Henri, 1992) codes discussions into five dimensions; these being participative, interactive, social, cognitive and metacognitive. Henri's approach is grounded in a cognitive view of learning, focusing on the level of knowledge and skills evident in the learners' communications. Aspects of this model have been taken up and expanded upon by others interested in comparing the level of critical thinking in face to face seminars and computer conferences (eg. Henri 1992 and 1993: Newman, Johnson, Webb, & Cochrane, 1997). This method has a lot of intuitive appeal but can be quite clumsy to apply, is focussed on individual knowledge and is very subjective.

c. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
Social constructivism theories based on the work of Vygotsky (1978, 1986) are widely accepted in education, including the application of technology to teaching and learning. The emphasis on learning as socially grounded is particularly relevant to online discussions where learning has a large social quality. ( eg. McLoughlin C, Luca www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane99/papers/mcloughlinluca.pdf). The cognitive model developed by Henri (1992) has been used as the basis of a recent widely cited social constructionism assessment tool (Gundwardena et al, 1997 and 1998). In this method the text of the discussion is analysed in a five phase analytic model which proposes that knowledge construction moves through five levels from sharing & comparing, discovery & exploration, negotiation & co-construction, testing & revision and awareness of constructed knowledge. This analysis method overcomes some of the concerns with Henri's cognitive model iby being particularly designed for evaluation of the social and collaborative aspects of student centred online discussions.

11. BUT THIS WILL TAKE ALL MY TIME...
The most commonly encountered problem with online discussion is time mamangement. How do I read all that stuff? Two possible answers to this question are given below.

a. MONITORING MESSAGE BOARDS
Monitoring and moderating Bulletin Boards may appear time consuming, but visiting the site once a day and responding to all messages in one sitting can be more efficient than being frequently interrupted by phone calls or emails. Alternatively, you can also assign responsibility to part-time staff or tutors to do BB 'site visits'.Tutors or part-time staff can act as 'duty officers' monitoring the BB and responding to queries.

b. POST ONLINE OFFICE HOURS
Scheduling online office hours can be a very efficient way of meeting with students and being available for consultation. A time can be nominated when either the Subject Coordinator or tutor/s will be in the Chatroom to respond synchronously to student questions. This allows both you and your students to be less office bound, and can minimise travel time (particularly for students). Students can also schedule one-to-one appointments with you at other times (an online booking diary is useful).

c. HOW DO I MANAGE A CLASS OF 200?

d. ARE THERE ANY DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC ONLINE DISCUSSIONS OUT THERE?

REFERENCES

Aoki, K. (1995). Synchronous multi-user textual communication in international tele-collaboration. Electronic Journal of Communication (EJC/REC) 5(4) - np. [Online] http://www.cios.org/getfile\AOKI_V5N495
Bates, A. T. (1995). Technology, Open Learning and Distance Education. London: Routledge
Collings P, Walker D (2000). Applications to Support Student Group Work. www-cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/collings.html
Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.
Dirksen, C.J. & ÿstbye, T. (1989) Effective computer conferencing in university education. Journal of Education for Business, 64(8), 348-351.
Flanders, N. (1970). Analysing teaching behaviour. Reading. Mass: Addison Wesley.
Gallupe, R.B., Bastianutti, L.M. & Cooper, W.H. (1991). Unblocking brainstorms. J Appl Psych, 76(1), 137-142.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1998). Transcript analysis of computer-mediated conferences as a tool for testing constructivist and social-constructivist learning theories. In Distance Learning 1998: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, (pp. 139-145). August 5-7, Madison, WI.
Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global on-line debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining the social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational
Harasim, L. (1989). Online education: A new domain. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education, 50-57. Oxford: Pergamon Press. http://www-icdl.open.ac.uk/mindweave/chap4.html [verified 11 Nov 2000]
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden Papers, 117-136. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Henri, F. (1993). The Virtual University: Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. Workshop, Monash University, July, 1993.
Hiltz R (1997) Impacts of college-level courses via Asynchronous Learning Networks: Some Preliminary Results. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks.
Klemm W (1998). Eight Ways to Get Students More Engaged in Online Conferences. www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A1997.cfm
Levin, J. A., Kim, H., & Riel, M. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online Education: Perspectives on a new environment, 185-213. New York: Praeger.
Mason , R. & Weller, M. (2000). Factors affecting students' satisfaction on a web course. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2), 173-200. http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet16/mason.html
Masys, D.R.(1991) The national research and education network. Acad Med, 66(7), 397-8.
Meeks, B.N. (1987) The quiet revolution. Byte, 12, 183-190.
Morgan MS (2001) Online Discussion in the FY Writing Classroom. cal.bemidji.msus.edu/english/morgan/onlinediscussion/discussInFYW.html
Nastasi, B. K., & Clements, D. H. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviours and higher order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction, 2, 215-238.
Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported cooperative learning. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 48, 484-495.
Reid, E. M. (1994). Cultural formations in text-based virtual realities. MA Thesis, University of Melbourne. [Online]. http://www.ee.mu.oz.au/papers/emr/cult-form.html
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. (Original material published in 1930, 1933 and 1935).
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
ÿstbye, T., Boj·n, F., Rennert, G., Hurlen, P. & Garner, B. (1991). Establishing an international computer network for research and teaching in public health and epidemiology. European Journal of Epidemiology, 7, 34-38.

URL LISTINGS

WHY DO ON LINE DISCUSSIONS?
W McKenzie & D Murphy "I hope this goes somewhere": Evaluation of an online discussion group. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 2000, 16(3), 239-257. cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet16/mckenzie.html
JC Taylor Distance education technologies: The fourth generation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 1995, 11(2), 1-7. cleo.murdoch.edu.au/gen/aset/ajet/ajet11/su95p1.html
An analysis of text based conferencing as a tool to support learning. www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane99/papers/mcloughlinluca.pdf
Overview of web-based teaching and learning
Discussion Patterns for Interactive Electronic Communication
onlinelearning.tc.cc.va.us/resource/discpatt.htm

WORKING IN TEAMS
Surviving the Group Project: A Note on Working in Teams
www.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/teams/ovrvw2.htm

ASYNCHRONOUS ROLE PLAY
MA. Freeman & JM. Capper . Exploiting the web for education: An anonymous asynchronous role simulation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 1999, 15(1), 95-116.
cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet15/freeman.html

FACILITATING ONLINE DISCUSSIONS
A point list of good ideas.
www.plymouth.edu/psc/infotech/webct/facilitate.shtml
Facilitating Online Discussions
interwork.sdsu.edu/courses/distance/facilitator/lessons/online_facilitation.html

ENGAGING STUDENTS
Eight Ways to Get Students More Engaged in Online Conferences
minerva.stkate.edu/ithelpguides.nsf/bf25ab0f47ba5dd785256499006b15a4/2a100d58a1cd672c86256a1c00728ae3?OpenDocument

ACCESS
Audio online chats www.aln.org/alnweb/onlinediscussions.htm

VIDEO CONFERENCING
J Tennant .Teleteaching with large groups: A case study from the Monash experience. Australian Journal of Educational Technology1999, 15(1), 80-94. cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet15/tennant.html

OTHER RESOURCES
Asynchronous Learning Network www.aln.org/index.htm
Online Tutoring e-book otis.scotcit.ac.uk/onlinebook/
Australian Journal of Educational Technology cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet.html

WHY DO ON LINE DISCUSSIONS?
W McKenzie & D Murphy "I hope this goes somewhere": Evaluation of an online discussion group. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 2000, 16(3), 239-257.
cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet16/mckenzie.html

JC Taylor Distance education technologies: The fourth generation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 1995, 11(2), 1-7. cleo.murdoch.edu.au/gen/aset/ajet/ajet11/su95p1.html

IS IT ANY GOOD?
An analysis of text based conferencing as a tool to support learning. www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane99/papers/mcloughlinluca.pdf

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Overview of web-based teaching and learning
www.com.unisa.edu.au/online/

Discussion Patterns for Interactive Electronic Communication
onlinelearning.tc.cc.va.us/resource/discpatt.htm

Online Discussion in the FY Writing Classroom
cal.bemidji.msus.edu/english/morgan/onlinediscussion/discussInFYW.html

Guidelines for Online Discussions
onlinelearning.tc.cc.va.us/faculty/tcmoorj/general/discuss.htm

Online Moderator Guidelines and Community-Building Tips
www.well.com/confteam/hosting.html

WORKING IN TEAMS
Working in Small Groups.
www.mdfaconline.org/mdfaconline/Presentations/Giles-groupwork.html

Surviving the Group Project: A Note on Working in Teams
www.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/teams/ovrvw2.htm

SYNCHRONOUS versus ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSIONS
Development of Communication Conventions in Instructional Electronic Chats
disted.tamu.edu/aera97a.htm

Successful Online Teaching Using An Asynchronous Learner Discussion Forum
www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol3_issue2/Rossman.htm

Computer-Mediated Cooperative Learning: Synchronous and Asynchronous
Communication Between Students
www.cybercorp.net/rhiggins/thesis/higlitb.html

Synchronous activities
www.com.unisa.edu.au/online/Interactive.htm#Synchronous%20and%20asynchronous%20interactions

MA. Freeman & JM. Capper . Exploiting the web for education: An anonymous asynchronous role simulation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 1999, 15(1), 95-116.
cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet15/freeman.html

FACILITATING ONLINE DISCUSSIONS

A point list of good ideas.
www.plymouth.edu/psc/infotech/webct/facilitate.shtml

Facilitating Online Discussions
interwork.sdsu.edu/courses/distance/facilitator/lessons/online_facilitation.html

Keys to Facilitating Successful Online Discussions
www.uwsa.edu/olit/ttt/raleigh.htm

ENGAGING STUDENTS
Eight Ways to Get Students More Engaged in Online Conferences
minerva.stkate.edu/ithelpguides.nsf/bf25ab0f47ba5dd785256499006b15a4/2a100d58a1cd672c86256a1c00728ae3?OpenDocument

GUIDING ONLINE DISCUSSIONS
Guiding Online Discussions: A Social Argument Framework
cal.bemidji.msus.edu/english/morgan/docs/TOHE/tohePresentation.html

Guiding Online Discussions
as1.ipfw.edu/2000tohe/papers/morgan.htm

ONLINE ASSESSMENT
Tracking online assessmenr
www.com.unisa.edu.au/online/trackprogress.htm

ACCESS
Audio online chats
www.aln.org/alnweb/onlinediscussions.htm

VIDEO CONFERENCING
Interactive Videoconferencing in Distance Education
www.uidaho.edu/evo/dist10.html

J Tennant .Teleteaching with large groups: A case study from the Monash experience. Australian Journal of Educational Technology1999, 15(1), 80-94.
cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet15/tennant.html

J Schiller & J Mitchell. Interacting at a distance: Staff and student perceptions of teaching and learning via video conferencing Australian Journal of Educational Technology 1993, 9(1), 41-58.

OTHER RESOURCES
Asynchronous Learning Network
www.aln.org/index.htm

Online Tutoring e-book
otis.scotcit.ac.uk/onlinebook/

Australian Journal of Educational Technology
cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet.html