Facilitating Online Discussions at a Manic Pace: A New Strategy for an Old Problem Free

Whether an instructor is new to teaching online or experienced in teaching Internetbased courses, one of the most difficult things to do is to integrate discussion boards or forums in a meaningful way. To assess participation, some instructors count words while others count forum postings. But are these meaningful assessments? Do they truly provide the instructor an opportunity to assess how well the students know the content? This article will review the research literature on discussion boards and propose an alternative method of integrating discussion boards in an online classroom.

Online discussion forums and boards are as ubiquitous as discussions themselves. Their development has evolved as has the format by which they are accessed, but their underlying function remains—as interaction to enhance the development of perspective and critical thinking skills in an online asynchronous discussion format (Cole & Kritzer, 2009; Huang, 2002; Reese-Durham, 2014; Yang, 2008; Yang, Newby, & Bill, 2005).

There are a number of methods by which instructors can effectively develop environments to achieve the goals of these discussions. “Some universities offer strong technology support services that provide training workshops on the use of the platform programs or other technology resources, but few offer training on how to actually teach an online or hybrid course with strong pedagogy” (Cole & Kritzer, 2009, p. 36). As a result, success “depends a great deal on the quality of the communication between learners and teachers, as well as among learners” (Naidu, 2013, p. 2).

Instructors wishing to engage students in online discussions must establish and monitor etiquette and effectively train students on how the instructors desire the course to actuate (Buckley, 2011; Chang, Chen, & Hsu, 2011). Instructors must create clear expectations through examples and explanations (MacDonald & Caverly, 2001; MacKnight, 2000); they must avoid insufficient guidelines for discussions (Beckett, Amaro-Jiménez, & Beckett, 2010). Without a format, “even graduate students may need detailed and repeated instructions for [online asynchronous discussion] assignments and tasks, and intentions as well as expectations for academic discourse” (Beckett et al., 2010, p. 331). Providing expectations establishes guidelines for issues, such as how to prevent or respond to harassment and intimidation (Buckley, 2011). Without adequate and continuing guidance, there is no assurance of continued depth or quality of discussion content (Yang, 2008). There is also no guarantee of accuracy of postings (Huang, 2002; Westera, 1999).

Even with the investment of training, there is still a substantial investment of time and effort on the part of the instructor to create a meaningful, well-run online course that uses online asynchronous discussions effectively (Markel, 1999). Instructors must remain engaged and “concerned about communicating and connecting with students and supporting their learning achievement” (Naidu, 2013, p. 2).

Student interaction in online discussions has been an ongoing concern (Bullen, 1998; Buckley, 2011; Chang et al., 2011; MacDonald & Caverly, 2001; Meyer, 2003; Naidu, 2013; & Yang, Newby, & Bill, 2005). With expectations set, students need to take responsibility for their own learning (Comer & Lennsghan, 2013). However, working independently can also be a “double-edged sword: it facilitated their (students) participation and critical thinking but exacerbated their difficulty in managing their time effectively” (Bullen, 1998, section 14).

Online asynchronous discussions do have advantages: They “promote student-centered learning, encourage wider student participation, allow students to interpret and draw their own conclusions about theoretical questions, and can produce more in-depth and reasoned discussion” (Buckley, 2011, p. 403). Allowing students to select their own contributions and commentary to online discussions encourages more diverse learner opportunity to engage in a meaningful way (Cole & Kritzer, 2009; Breault, 2003). Individual choice allows multiple topics for discussion, rather than all participants restating similar content, which further promotes discussion when students are expected to respond to peers’ discussions (MacDonald & Caverly, 2001; Yang et al., 2005). According to Breault (2003), broader, self-reflective, and self-selected response provides students with opportunities to identify problems that interest them and then leads them to see their connection to the larger society. To build an even broader context, students work as co-investigators in order to respond to the problem, resulting in an understanding of the connectedness of their own ideas and those in the larger society (Breault, 2003).

Chou (2012) emphasizes the further development of student perspective through active interaction between the students. Students who actively participate in online discussions gain context for their own perspective, as well as new information and context based on the experiences and backgrounds of the other participants. This exposure to diverse points of view builds understanding and fosters the capability for respecting the perspective of community members from diverse backgrounds (MacKnight, 2000). The instructor can aid in the development of student community by promoting active interaction among various groupings of the learners in the course community (Cole & Kritzer, 2009; Henderson & Bradey, 2008).

It is this community that can carry the discussion and promote interaction (McDonald & Gibson, 1998). “Interaction among students … must be considered essential elements of the university education experience” (Buckley, 2011, p. 403). Interaction provides the foundation for the community and integrates an expanded learning environment with an opportunity to participate more fully in class discussions (Meyer, 2003).

The instructor must work to fulfill his or her role in this community, as “the most important role of an online instructor is to ensure the participation of students online” (Chang, Chen, & Hsu, 2011, p. 193). One way instructors do this is by actively engaging in the conversation with their students. These extended conversations encourage dialogue and interaction among students and staff (Buckley, 2011), making each more engaged in the learning process. However, once the communication among students is established, students should “become more responsible and take ownership of their learning, while professors may need to become more facilitators and guides” (Beckett et al., 2010, p. 331). When students are able to take on this role, they function in an environment where students learn from one another, providing scrutiny and redirection for one another and often results in better retention of the material (Meyer, 2003; Westera, 1999). This allows the instructor to move to a facilitator role.

Much of the research advocates for the instructor or teaching assistant to fulfill a role as facilitator (Beckett et al., 2010; Bullen, 1998; Chang et al., 2011; Huang, 2002; MacKnight, 2000; Markel, 1999; Westera, 1999).The instructor’s role is one of guiding discussions and asking thought-provoking questions, rather than providing answers (MacKnight, 2000; Yang et al., 2005). The instructor as facilitator aids in redirecting conversations on discussion threads, as well as contacting students individually. This individual contact may be to privately discuss online performance or engagement, or it may be to remind students about course policies regarding appropriate tone and style in the discussions. Engaged instructors take “additional time to prepare a response [which] ensured a better answer for the student” (Meyer, 2003, p. 61) which can be shared with the entire class rather than to one student in an e-mail. Timely and well thought out replies from instructors serve as modeling behaviors that are expected of students engaging in the discussions (MacDonald & Caverly, 2001). This modeling guides learners to develop critical thinking skills.

Instructors can also use the asynchronous online discussions to facilitate other skills, such as better writing skills, in addition to developing critical thinking skills (Cole & Kritzer, 2009; Comer & Lenaghan, 2012; Greener, 2009; MacDonald & Caverly, 2001). Students gain skills in critically evaluating, judging, and placing information in context (Huang, 2002; MacKnight, 2000) in addition to establishing habits of “self-reflection, revision, social negotiation, and conceptual change of student misconceptions” (Yang et al., 2005, p. 164). Skills and habits in which students learn and actively engage, promote more effective arguments and discussions (Beckett et al., & Beckett, 2010). The asynchronous format provides the time for reflection before responding or continuing the discussion, which further builds the connections learners are able to make to other experiences, drawing conclusions based on those experiences (Buckley, 2011; MacDonald & Caverly, 2001; Meyer, 2003; Reese-Durham, 2014; Yang, 2008). This reflection time enhances students’ ability to be reflective and to compose thoughtful rather than spontaneous responses (Bullen, 1998).

Developing quality discussions takes time, as does developing responses. Moving class discussions to an online asynchronous format or continuing an in-class discussion via a discussion board allows students to continue down avenues of thought that would be lost after the end of a traditional course (Meyer, 2003). MacDonald and Caverly (2001), Beckett et al. (2010), and Buckley (2011) note the importance of this time for reflection for development of well-thought out responses and discussions, and further development of student perceptions. This time invested in discussion and developing higher order and critical thinking skills, coupled with the advantage of an asynchronous format further promote students’ ability to take on the role as facilitator themselves (Reese-Durham, 2014). Additionally, it allows for the development of engagement in students who may not participate in traditional classroom discussions.

Because use of online asynchronous discussions is largely socially constructed, individuals’ own experiences, knowledge, beliefs, and history become part of the learning experience (Bruner, 1996; Huang, 2002; Jonassen, 1991; McDonald & Gibson, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978). By sharing personal experiences and ideas, examining parallels and divergences in peers’ experiences and ideas, and assimilating that information into their own schema, students are engaged in the creation of a wider community of learners. This wide community of learners creates an environment where students learn from one another, expanding their ideas through experiences of others (Buckley, 2011; Henderson & Bradey, 2008; Westera, 1999; Yang et al., 2005). This environment further provides a place where “experienced individuals can help inexperienced learners by collaborative learning” (Huang, 2002, p. 32) and promotes language acquisition for an academic context (Beckett et al., 2010). This happens largely due to the diversity of the learners. The diversity of learners benefits all those involved because “adult learners always bring their unique learning characteristics to the learning situation” (Huang, 2002, p. 27), allowing those who engage in online asynchronous discussions to “bond on a different level” (Reese-Durham, 2014, p. 42).

Instructors should be trained on the use of online asynchronous discussions to enhance the benefit to the learning and engagement for their students. Through the betterment of instructor guidelines and participation, students will have more significant educational exchanges and enhanced thought processes due to the increased, quality interaction and extended time to develop the skills needed to engage in the academic setting. The following method is one that facilitates that participation and the accompanying cases illustrate its implementation and benefits.

Developed over the course of the researchers’ careers, the MANIC discussion strategy is one that is designed to promote a flurry of activity—meaningful activity—in online discussion forums. To follow the format, for each reading (or combination of readings depending on what the instructor chooses) students will answer the following questions:

• What was the Most important thing in the reading?

• What was something you Agree with in the reading?

• What was something you do Not agree with in the reading?

• What was something you found Interesting in the reading?

• What was something you found Confusing in the reading?

As they answer these questions, they are taught to quote directly from the text and follow it up with a detailed, well-thought-out explanation of why they feel the way they do. For example, something like this is expected:

For each week’s assigned readings, students are responsible for two things: (1) Their own MANIC responses (and they MUST answer all five questions to get credit), and (2) at least five meaningful responses to their classmates (this number can be changed at the instructor’s discretion). When students respond to a classmate, they do not have to respond to each of their classmate’s MANIC comments; they may select one thought only to comment on. However, as designed, students may only get credit for two responses to any one particular classmate. In other words, if they respond to all five thoughts of one classmate (all of their MANIC responses), they will only get credit for two responses. This encourages students to “spread the wealth” and read what each classmate responded.

To date, there have been no empirical studies on the effectiveness of the MANIC discussion strategy. The following three cases are examples of how this strategy has been implemented in online classes and the effects it has had on the course discussions. All data gathered is anecdotal. Any numbers reported below are purely descriptive statistics, and have not been subjected to any further statistical analysis.

ENGL 0123 is a remediation course for writing. The course covers basic writing structures and development, grammar, and cohesive content. As a remedial course, it is a noncredit course required only for students who do not achieve sufficient scores on the college’s entrance assessment. Students must attain a C or better in ENGL 0123 in order to proceed to the for-credit Composition I course.

The use of MANICs was not originally in the course structure. Students were asked to bring in syllabi from other courses to evaluate different writing requirements they would face in their college careers in an attempt to expose them to the need for the variety of writing styles that would be covered in the course. In the syllabus of one course, the instructor asked students to “evaluate an article.” No further instruction was provided as to the evaluation. The MANIC was introduced at this point as one method through which students could interact meaningfully with any given text. Students would be able to evaluate the article by searching for ways they connected to the reading. By connecting to the reading, they could create meaning and ways to remember the information, as well as change their perception of themselves and/or the world around them.

The MANIC remained a part of the Basic Composition unit following this experience. The students were provided an article and a MANIC was due the following class period. The use of the MANIC in this context allowed students to not only interact with the text, but create more reasoned arguments in the ensuing discussions. Many of the students returned to the assigned article and their annotations to provide reasoning for their statements in class discussions. When quizzed over the content, students who had completed the MANIC scored higher than their peers who had not, even if the quiz content was not used as one of the five MANIC points.

ENGL 1213 is a required course for all undergraduate degrees at the University. The course covers writing development, Modern Language Association and American Psychological Association citation, evaluation, and analysis of a variety of source materials, and builds upon content from the Composition I course. The course draws students from many different educational backgrounds, abilities, and interest levels. As an online course, students’ expectations are often to write papers only the instructor will see and evaluate. As a way to provide a discussion-like environment, weekly blogs were implemented. Students were provided a selection of themed writings from a variety of online sources, as there was no assigned textbook. For their blogs, students responded to an instructor-constructed question some weeks; other weeks students constructed MANICs in response to one of the readings or videos. Although a required word count total was noted for each original post, during weeks there were questions the average response was 10 to 25 words below the required count of 300 words. During MANIC weeks, the average response was in excess of the 300-word count. Students were not required to quote directly from the article, but it was encouraged as part of the citation training required for the course. Following the blog, students were required to respond to at least three peers’ blogs with commentary that was thoughtful and promoted discussion.

The use of MANICs promoted understanding among learners. One exchange notes:

Students who are not used to confrontation may find it difficult to argue topics. In one discussion on a spay/neuter and release program for feral cats, after a student made the statement, “I do not agree with letting the animals go back into the community after being vaccinated and spayed or neutered” (Student B blog response) five students agreed, escalating the point of the author. One student commented, “since they’re infertile after the vet students are finished with them, at least they aren’t adding to the population of feral cats anymore” (Student C blog response). The comment did not draw interaction at that time; however, students reflected in a later online live discussion as to the validity of the point, expanding on the potential value feral cats could provide in keeping rodent populations under control in areas where homes were vacant for long periods of time among other benefits.

Through the personal connections to points within readings, topics can be openly discussed, allowing students to question one another as to verification: “Maybe I misunderstood what you were attempting to say there, perhaps you could clarify?” (Student D blog response).

The use of MANICs allows students to build and expand on questions and thoughts. In a MANIC on the use of antiabuse messages, the originator of the MANIC notes the possibility of bigger kids not being able to view the message or having a way to contact authorities. The first responder continues the thoughts:

As do the subsequent three responses, the agreement and discussion that stem from deep, prescribed MANIC formats allows online communities of learners to build on their own ideas as well as question their assumptions.

Students report the positive value of this “new level of interaction with fellow students that most online classes do not offer” (Student F blog response 1), stating the use of MANICs made them think about why they agreed with a certain point in the article or video, be able to evaluate their stance, and be prepared to defend it. They also valued “seeing other people’s opinions” (Student G blog response) on topics and having someone other than the instructor reading their work. They also noted the “collaboration between other students truly helped … build confidence” (Student F blog response 2) in their writing. This was reported to further promote viewpoints and help them gather information from people who had experiences different from theirs. Finally, the use of deep discussion, promoted via MANICs made students feel that they were not alone in the course. Students with closely aligned feelings and reasonings were given leeway to continue their discussions privately and form friendships that continued beyond the course.

EDUC 685 is a graduate-level course taken by both master’s and doctoral students. The course covers the theory around distance education and how to design and implement online programs. In the two semesters compared, both used the same text and had the same assignments. Enrollment differences were negligible. The first section (that didn’t use the MANIC strategy) had an enrollment of 21 students. The second section (that used the MANIC strategy) had an enrollment of 23. Both sections required students to respond to each other, though the section that implemented the MANIC strategy was the only section that required a certain number of responses per module (2 responses each). The only real difference between the two sections of the class was a new instructor the second semester who implemented the MANIC discussion strategy in the class. The difference in the activity in the discussion boards between the two classes was marked. In the section that didn’t use the MANIC strategy, students were given traditional writing prompts designed to determine understanding of the chapter content. In that particular section, there were a total of 237 student posts over the course of the semester. Students responded to the prompts and nothing else. However, with the implementation of the MANIC discussion strategy, the volume of posts increased a staggering 694% (from 237 posts to 1,645 posts over the same content)! Obviously part of the increase in message count was due to the fact that students had a requirement to respond to classmates when they had not been before, but on an average, students responded beyond the required number of posts. It is also important to note that students went above and beyond the required number of answers to classmates’ posts, because what tends to happen is that one student’s AGREE comment is the same as another student’s DISAGREE comment (or some other combination). And what generally stems from there is a back-and-forth conversation on the topic between the students and their classmates.

As has been noted, one of the difficulties of effectively implementing discussion boards is that it is hard to replicate in-class or face-to-face discussions in an online format. However, the MANIC strategy allows for that interaction to take place. In this same course, while discussing the importance of interaction in distance courses, the following exchange took place. And while it was dealing specifically with the text, the discussion also reflects the impact of the MANIC discussion strategy that the students were then accustomed to using (it should be noted that only the representative parts of the complete MANIC post will be used for the original student).

Students pursuing degrees in our academic programs are now accustomed to the MANIC discussion forum strategy, and come to expect it and its format and benefits in their classes. They even complain when they are not implemented. They don’t want to go back to “the old way”!

Implementing the MANIC strategy is easy enough; however, there are some things that, if not monitored, could derail the strategy. The following are some things to consider that will make the implementation of the strategy go more smoothly.

• DON’T: Assume students understand the strategy. The first few times students use the strategy, it can seem confusing. They may not answer all the different questions, or they may not show exactly what quote they are responding to. Be willing to explain the strategy multiple times, and be forgiving when giving initial feedback. Remind them of the parts of the strategy they missed and be patient. Within a couple of weeks, with direction, they will understand and follow it completely. More importantly, if a pattern is established using the strategy in all of your classes, then students will learn the pattern and you’ll have to explain less and less.

• DO: Provide an example. In the above example, the explanation of the strategy is taken directly from our syllabus. The important thing is to model the behavior. Let the students see how to choose a quote, and how to respond correctly. Suggest to the students that they take notes in the margins or read all assignments with the five parts of the MANIC posts in mind. Doing so will make the task much easier for the students. One particular section that many students struggle with is the “Not Agree” quote. Students unaccustomed to the strategy will have a tendency to reply and say that they couldn’t find anything they didn’t agree with. To this it is suggested that the students be reminded that this is an academic exercise, and while they may not find something that they are diametrically opposed to, that doesn’t mean they can’t find something for that section. Should students have difficulty in this area, then providing an example on how to find something that they may not disagree with completely but they do disagree with somewhat. Explain to students that learning to look at any text critically and see both sides is a critical academic skill.

• DO: Explain Expectations. As discussed, one of the features of this strategy is how adaptable it is. Instructors implementing it can decide how many responses they want their students to have to their classmates. Instructors can decide whether or not they want a full quote before the student response. Should all the individual parts be labeled? These are all expectations that instructors decide upon, and they should communicate those expectations clearly to the students.

• DO: Participate Heavily—Especially Early On. Heavy early participation in the discussions—even with response requirements— will help drive the conversation. Again, students sometimes struggle initially with the strategy, and as instructors help drive the conversation initially, students will quickly acclimate. Once that happens, instructors will be able to choose more specifically what it is they choose to respond to and how.

• Help Students Explain “Why?” Another thing that we have seen students struggle with is the “why” follow up to the initial selection of a particular quote. Sometimes students will identify a quote, but they won’t take the time to clearly explain why that particular quote was selected. Helping students to be specific about why they chose the quotes they did will help them be successful more quickly.

• Guide Students Through Contradicting Examples. One of the powerful effects of the MANIC strategy is when one student’s “Agree” quote is another student’s “Not Agree” comment, and discussion ensues because of it. Some students will need to be guided to answering more than simply saying: “I agree … good point.” Providing guidance and an example of a respectful, contradictory response is helpful in this situation.

• Remind Students That This is an Academic Conversation. Often students forget such a simple concept: Discussion boards are there to foster just that—discussion. No one wants to talk with someone who only says, “Yes,” or “Good point.” It would get boring very fast and not much would be actually discussed. The occasional reminder of this simple point is often enough to keep students on track with the discussion.

Online discussions do not have to be a nuisance or busywork. They can become an effective part of any classroom. However, no discussion format is a panacea. Individual instructors have preferences and there are times when differing content call for different approaches. However, the MANIC approach to discussions is one way to facilitate online discussions that not only promote a flurry of activity among participants, but also provide a highly adaptable strategy instructors can modify to meet their needs. As has been illustrated, the MANICs have been successfully implemented with populations as diverse as developmental writers as well as doctoral students. In addition, MANICs provide discussion opportunities not only in distance classrooms, but they can be used to foster discussion in face-to-face classrooms as well. In addition, instructors are able to determine how many responses students must make to classmates. Implementation of the MANICs can be modified to cover multiple chapters instead of individual chapters. Another possibility is to use MANICs to respond to video or other presentations.

The MANIC online discussion format was designed to give students an opportunity and the means to interact at a deeper level with course content. By answering the five questions: “What is Most important?” “What do you Agree with?” “What do you Not agree with?” “What was most Interesting?” and” What is most Confusing?” students are given the opportunity to analyze course content in a non-threatening way that allows them the freedom to take a stand on course content and defend it as well as safely admit they don’t understand something. In addition, the ensuing peer-discussion fosters a group dynamic in which students begin to depend not only on the instructor on for content understanding, but also on each other. Experience has shown that the MANIC discussion strategy has been highly successful being implemented with a wide range of learners, and is adaptable to almost any classroom situation.