Three C’s of Online Discussion

Community, Construction & Coaching

Lolita Paff, Ph.D.Penn State BerksThe Teaching Professor Technology Conference, Oct. 10-12, 2014

Online Discussion is at its….

Best when… Worst when…

“The key to development of effective critical thinking lies within the interactivity level of the instructor and the instructor’s ability to facilitate course interactions in a manner that prompts higher-order thought.”

~ Mandernach, et al., 2009, p. 54

Session Objectives

Community: Explore online class climate, opportunities for connection, and netiquette.

Construction: Identify practical issues and propose solutions associated with developing and managing online discussions.

Coaching: Investigate techniques to foster development of students’ online discussion skills.

CommunityExplore online class climate, opportunities for connection, and netiquette.

COMMUNITY- First Impressions

Learning begins from the very first click What are students’ impressions of the

course materials, structure, appearance? What are students’ impressions of you as

you welcome them to the class? What are students learning about your

priorities for the class during those first interactions?

What can students infer about participation and engagement expectations from your first interactions?

COMMUNITY- Online Presence

A.V.A.I.L. Model (Penn State World Campus):

ACTIVE: Regular participation in course activities

VISIBLE: Leaving evidence of engagement & participation

ACCESSIBLE: Demonstrate availability & commitment to student success

INVOLVED: Create a social environment for learning; include human elements (Pallof & Pratt, 2007)

LEADER: Model behaviors expected of students

Pallof & Pratt (2007): Check discussions frequently; respond on topic One subject per message; use pertinent titles Avoid SHOUTING (no “flaming” / personal attacks);

be professional in your online interaction Cite all sources, references, quotes Warn reader up front if a post is very long It’s rude to forward someone else’s message

without permission Use humor carefully; emoticons signal you are

being humorous

COMMUNITY- Netiquette

Community in action: Case Studies

Missing in Action :Student silence can be interpreted as non-participation, confusion, marginalization or thoughtful reflection. (Zembylas & Vrasidas, 2007)

Which of these is most challenging for you?

Formulate a response.

What are some strategies to identify the cause(s) of student silence?

Brainstorm alternative delivery methods.

The Flamethrower: A student responds in a rude manner to another student’s post, focusing on the cultural and world views expressed as they related to a topic in the assignment. Before you are able to respond, two other students contribute negatively, and a third posts a complaint about the “out of control” and “distracting” threads.

What would be the content of your response?

What method would you use to respond?

Construction Identify issues & propose solutions for developing & managing online discussions.

Construction- Role & Purpose

Formative learning?

Summative evaluation?

Voluntary or required participation?

Student or Teacher Driven

Open-ended / Exploratory

Require understanding of core concepts & application of knowledge

Construction: Questioning

Alexander, Commander, Greenberg & Ward (2010): Four Question Technique Identify one important concept, research finding, theory, or

idea in psychology that you learned while completing this activity. (Analyzing)

Why do you believe that this concept, research finding, theory, or idea in psychology is important?” (Reflecting)

Apply what you have learned from this activity to some aspect of your life. (Relating)

What question(s) has the activity raised for you? What are you still wondering about? (Questioning)

Construction- Practical Decisions

How many: Discussions? Posts? Comments?

Group size? Large F2F class with online discussion component:

20-25 (Bryant, 2005) Groups of 5-7 provide for sufficient diversity to

maintain interest while minimizing social loafing and free-riding (Baker, 2011)

Group composition?

Discussion format?

Construction- Groups

Mandernach, Forrest, Babutzke & Manker (2009) Learning community based on interests

or experiences Role plays with assigned positions,

rotated Buzz groups, short-term specific topic Debate teams Jigsaw Mock trial

Construction- Format

Boettcher & Conrad (2010) Stump the expert: student generated

scenarios or questions Student generated data gathering about

videos, news clips, provocative statements Expert interview: What three questions

would you ask? Three-part post: What? Why? Wish I Knew…? Case studies What-if Scenarios

Construction- Instructions

Do not assume… Familiarity with discussion boards Prior experience

SHOW them examples of deep online discussion, nested threads

Provide opportunities to PRACTICE in low-stakes situations first Mechanics of posting Appropriately commenting Feedback mechanisms

Construction- Quality Control

To ensure you are contributing a quality post, ask yourself the following questions (Cooper, 2009):

Is the information accurate?

Is your post relevant to the topic under discussion?

Does your post answer the question(s) required?

Does your post teach something new? Apply a concept in a new way?

Have you added to the academic atmosphere of the course?

Construction- Assessment

Comer & Lenaghan (2013): Original Examples (OEs) & Value-Added Comments (VACs)

Bliss & Lawrence (2009): Educationally Valuable Talk Al-Shalchi (2009)

Criteria- Meet the deadline; Quality of Work; Mechanics Performance levels: Excellent (5); Acceptable (3); Poor (1)

Pallof & Pratt (2007) Synthesis (3) – critical thinking, well written, references the

reading Analysis (2) – adequate at analysis level, may have some

writing issues, some critical thinking is present Summary (1) – little response to discussion question, no

responses to other learners, may have some writing issues, little evidence of critical thinking

coachingInvestigate techniques to foster development of students’ online discussion skills.

Coaching- Advancing Discussion

Facilitating Online Learning. Collison, Elbaum & Haavind (2000) Probing questions

To whom is this of concern or relevance? To what constituency is this addressed? What audience is assumed? Is this issue compelling or only of tangential benefit? Is this issue of intellectual merit?

Appropriate action? Question the notion of the quick fix Who should be the ones acting here? Should they work alone? Or, with whom? Consider the use of role play

Consider quoting or rephrasing a student comment Explore assumptions Ponder uncertainty

Coaching- Timely Feedback

Recognize good work Provide specific suggestions for

improvement Acknowledge differences in opinion Diagnose misconceptions promptly Provide resources for further study Deliver gentle reminders to redirect and

advance discussion Encourage students’ use of real examples

or literature to support their view

Coaching: Weak Discussions

Postings by students indicate a pattern of sparse and very basic postings that do not reflect engagement. They appear to be doing the minimum to get by.

What would you communicate?

How would you deliver the message?

A discussion is going off track with incorrect information being posted by students.

What would you communicate?

How would you deliver the message?

Indicators Examples

Identifying areas of agreement/disagreement

"Joe, Mary has provided a compelling counter-example to your hypothesis. Would you care to respond?"

Seeking to reach consensus/understanding

"I think Joe and Mary are saying essentially the same thing."

Encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions

"Thank you for your insightful comments."

Setting climate for learning"Don't feel self-conscious about 'thinking out loud' on the forum. After all, this is a place to try out ideas."

Drawing in participants, prompting discussion

"Any thoughts on this issue?" "Anyone care to comment?"

Assess the efficacy of the process "I think we're getting a little off track here."

Source: Anderson, et al., 2001.

Coaching: Student Facilitators

Baran & Correia (2009): Instructor as participant, student as facilitator who will:

Plan: objectives, guiding questions, scenarios

Clarify purpose: what is the expected outcome?

Manage over- and under-participators

Maintain discussion focus

Encourage multiple views

Summarize at the conclusion

“To those readers who were hoping to that we would provide more specific recommendations on what tools or techniques to use (and not use) for online teaching, the response should be clear by now. Whenever teachers are considering a tool/technique/strategy/approach (regardless of delivery mode), they would be best served to ask how that choice will impact student engagement, intellectual development, and personal connections. That is one of the most important challenges facing teachers who aspire to develop their students into life-long learners.”

~ Brinthaupt, et al., 2011, p.522

Thank you!

Additional comments?Questions?

Lolita PaffLAP21@psu.edu@1313lolita on

Twitter

References -1

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. 2001. Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2): 1-17.

Alexander, M E., Commander, N., Greenberg, D. and Ward, T. 2010. Using the Four-Questions Technique to Enhance Critical Thinking in Online Discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6 (2): 409-415.

Al-Shalchi, O., and lla Najah N.2009. The Effectiveness and Development of Online Discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. (5)1: 104-108.

Baker, David L. 2011. Designing and Orchestrating Online Discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7 (3): 401-411.

Baran, E. and Correia, A. 2009. Student-led Facilitation Strategies in Online Discussions. Distance Education, 30 (3): 339-361.

Bliss, C.A. and Lawrence, B.2009. From Posts to Patterns: A Metric to Characterize Discussion Board Activity in Online Courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 13(2): 15- 32.

Boettcher, J.V. and. Conrad, R. M..2010.The Online Teaching Survival Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

References -2Brinthaupt, T.M., Fisher,L.S., Gardner, J.G., Raffo, D.M., & Woodard, J.B.. 2011. What the Best Online Teachers Should Do. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4):515-524.

Bryant, B. K. 2005. Electronic Discussion Sections: A Useful Tool in Teaching Large University Classes. Teaching of Psychology. 32 (4): 271-275.

Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. 2000. Facilitating Online Learning. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Comer,D.R. & Lenaghan, J.A. 2013. Enhancing Discussions in the Asynchronous Online Classroom: The Lack of Face-to-Face Interaction Does Not Lessen the Lesson. Journal of Management Education, 37(2): 261-294.

Cooper, T, E. 2009. Promoting Collaboration in Courses with Perceived Single Correct Solutions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2): 35-363.

Mandernach, B. , Krista, J., Forrest, D., Babutzke, J. L., & Manker, L. R. 2009. The Role of Instructor Interactivity in Promoting Critical Thinking in Online and Face-to-face Classrooms. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1): 49-62.

Pallof, R. M. and. Pratt, K. 2007. Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zembylas, M. & Vrasidas, C. 2007. Listening for silence in text-based, online encounters. Distance Education, 28(1): 5-24.