Online discussion in asynchronous learning networks is one of the most important tools to enhance interactions. However, conducting effective online discussions in an asynchronous learning network requires strategic planning and management. This article discusses effective designs, management tactics, and strategies to produce ideal asynchronous network discussions that allow contemplation and encourage the development of critical thinking. A model of an online collaborative learning community is then applied to implement the designs. These designs, management tactics, and strategies can be applied to asynchronous discussions for any instruction format, online courses, or as a supplement to face-to-face instruction.
Introduction
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is one of the most important tools to enhance interaction between instructor and students (Kearsley, 2000) and among students in an online learning environment. Many face-to-face courses and Web-based courses rely heavily on online discussions to enhance learning. Asynchronous communication is probably the most applied medium for online courses. The instructor structures the weekly discussions by posting questions and requiring students to discuss certain topics. Research indicates that online conferencing systems generate a more cognitive load in processing and responding to information (Eastmond, 1995). Positive outcomes are also attributed to the fact that students must compose messages, as composition requires more reflection than extemporaneous speech (Harasin, et. al., 1995; Hiltz, 1994).
The goal of online discussion is to promote constructive thinking and maximize interactions between and among instructors, students, contents, and interface. Constructive thinking subsumes and interconnects critical thinking, higher-order thinking, and distributed thinking (Berge, 1999). Through online asynchronous discussion, students can be engaged in opportunities to externalize their knowledge in a variety of contexts that allows them to be self reflective, i.e., “putting an interpretation on one's own actions” (von Wright, 1992, p. 61). This is what Vygotsky called “internalization.”
Asynchronous discussion designs may sound as easy as an instructor posting questions and the students responding, but an effective design, management, and strategy is required for students to internalize. Simply requiring students to post messages to address the instructor's questions may not result in effective learning. In addition, it may only generate limited interaction among instructors and students. For example, students compose two messages that address the instructor's discussion questions, visit the discussion board, post them, and leave. This simply generates a degree of learner-content interaction and limited interaction between instructor and students. Students do not engage in learner-learner interaction because they do not read and reflect on the postings of other students. If students are working adults and are taking courses in their spare time to earn a degree, they generally spend time during weekends working on their courses. If a new topic begins each Monday, this discussion pattern would mean that most posting occurs during the weekend or even late Sunday evening, denying the students numerous opportunities for learner-learner and instructor-learner interaction. Conducting asynchronous discussions requires structure through effective design, management, and strategies to produce ideal learning experiences.
This article discusses effective designs, management tactics, and strategies to produce effective asynchronous learning discussions that allow contemplation and encourage the development of critical thinking. A model of an online collaborative learning community (Tu & Corry, in press) is applied to implement the designs. These designs, management tactics, and strategies can be applied to asynchronous discussions for any instruction format, online courses, or as a supplement to face-to-face instruction.
Design and Structures
Conducting effective online discussions requires strategic planning and management (Mason, 1998). An online collaborative learning community (Tu & Corry, in press) is applied to asynchronous discussions to maximize interaction. This model contains three major concepts: online learning, collaborative learning, and learning community. Successful learning requires that students are involved in directing their own learning. This model requires that students are proactive as teams and as individuals to learn through asynchronous discussions using team moderation, evaluation of moderation efforts, etc. Instructors can encourage students to assume greater responsibility in their learning by making resources available, outlining expectations, establishing lines of communication, and providing opportunities for contribution and collaboration.
Structures of asynchronous discussions are design necessities and are critical to engage students in active learning. It has been suggested that one should minimize structure and increase dialogue to encourage online interaction (Mason, 1998; Saba & Shearer, 1994). Some structure is required (Rovai, 2002) to foster ideal asynchronous discussions, but when the structure is too rigid, dialogue and interaction are stifled. Students are likely to become confused or lose interest when the discussion is totally without structure. The instructor must provide a clear statement outlining the structure of discussions at the beginning of the course that is reinforced in the syllabus in both online and face-to-face formats, assuring that the students have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. The discussion structure statement should outline several important dimensions, discussion cycle, class size, depth of threads, discussion duration, number of postings, frequency of participations, expected courtesy, quality and evaluation criteria. If student moderation duty is assigned, moderation criteria and guidelines should be provided.
Discussion Cycles
Discussion cycle refers to the duration in days that each topic is discussed. Generally, online discussions are one week in length, beginning on Monday and ending on Sunday. This may work well in most situations, but if the participants are working adults it may be better to begin the cycle on Wednesday and end it on Tuesday because these students may only be able to devote evenings and weekends to their studies and post most of their discussion messages during the weekends. This phenomenon can create discussions that reach their most active point on Saturdays or Sunday evenings and then ends and denies the students an opportunity to read and respond to postings. The Wednesday to Tuesday cycle allows the adult participants to deal with technical difficulties or attend to personal and family obligations over the weekend and participate in the discussion on Monday or Tuesday.
Discussion Duration
Discussion duration is the time span occupied by each discussion. The most common designs allow either one-week or two-week durations for each discussion. Most of the online discussions have adopted a one-week duration, as it is similar to what is done in face-to-face instruction. However, some online instructors feel that a two-week discussion duration (Gunawardena & McIsaac, in press) will generate deeper discussions and promote higher levels of social interaction. Both durations potentially exhibit positive and negative impacts. Discussion durations are compared and contrasted in Table 1.
A one-week discussion duration is the most common design for online discussions; two-week durations are not as popular. Students who are accustomed to a one-week duration may demonstrate confusion, misunderstanding, and absence of participation when transitioned to a two-week schedule.
Students in an asynchronous discussion require more time to process interactions due to time delay attrition, and a one-week duration may be too short. Most of the interaction occurs later in the week and the students may not have enough time to reach a consensus or an agreement on the discussion topic. Therefore, the discussions may become shallow and the required depth of thinking is not attained. By contrast, a discussion that lasts two weeks may permit adequate time for a thorough dialogue.
Class Size
Class size plays a critical role in discussion (Rice, 1994). Large classes may negatively impact student learning because an enormous number of postings are generated and may overwhelm the students and the instructor and cause them to lose track. Dividing a large class into groups of 10 to 15 can help create a more manageable number of postings. A major advantage for these smaller discussion groups is the ability to assign them specific topics and require them to perform certain tasks.
Guidelines for Selection of Discussion Duration
| 1-week | 2-week | |
|---|---|---|
| Numbers of topics in the course | More topics to be covered | Fewer topics to be covered |
| Course Contents | More basic contents | More advanced contents, such as seminar courses |
| Breadth of topics | Topics are more specific | Topics are broader |
| Aspects of topics | Topics have fewer facets | Topics present multiple ramifications |
| Social presence | Require less social presence | Require more social presence |
| 1-week | 2-week | |
|---|---|---|
| Numbers of topics in the course | More topics to be covered | Fewer topics to be covered |
| Course Contents | More basic contents | More advanced contents, such as seminar courses |
| Breadth of topics | Topics are more specific | Topics are broader |
| Aspects of topics | Topics have fewer facets | Topics present multiple ramifications |
| Social presence | Require less social presence | Require more social presence |
Depth of Threads
The depth (number of levels) of discussion threads can have a tremendous impact on the interaction. For example, if the depth of threads is unlimited, you could end up with so many levels of postings that it would be almost impossible to follow and participate in a discussion. Teachers can control the depth through course delivery systems.
Frequency of Discussion
One dimension of online discussions that is frequently overlooked by most instructors is the frequency of participation. A good illustration of this is that most course syllabi/outlines do not specify the frequency of participation. Students may participate every day and feel overwhelmed by the amount of the work or information, or once a week, which is unlikely to produce an active learning experience. The course objectives must explain the necessity of participating in discussions and the instructor must reemphasize this necessity until it is crystal clear to the students. If the frequency of participations is not specified, it is very likely that some students will visit the discussion once and post the required number of messages, then leave and never return to the discussion. When this occurs, learner-learner and learner-instructor interactions are severely curtailed. The key point is that students should be required to actively participate in discussions, contributing insightful postings two to three times a week. For example, if two messages are required, one message can be posted early in the week (Monday to Thursday) and the other one can be posted later in the week (Friday to Sunday). The first message should respond to the original questions posted by the instructor and the moderator and the second message should address the comments posted by other students to maximize interaction. More than the required number of messages should be encouraged.
Although more frequent participation is encouraged, some may participate too frequently, potentially producing negative feelings among other students. Students who participate too frequently may feel overwhelmed and may discourage participation by their classmates. Either extreme, too active participation or too little participation is to be avoided. Remember, there are those who have something to say and those who have to say something.
Moderation Requirements
The two-week duration relies on moderation techniques that encourage participation, expand the thought processes, and allow the application of critical thinking. The two-week duration does not simply mean that participants have more time to participate less intensively in the discussion. This discussion duration is intended to allow participants to have more time to ponder the critical issues posed in the course. Time is allowed to delve into the discussion and examine the issues through the application of critical thinking. This process relies on effective guidance from online moderators to stimulate critical thinking in students who may be unfamiliar with the concept. If effective moderation is not available, the two-week discussion period may deteriorate into an unfocused, shallow discussion that wastes time and causes decreased motivation and a lack of interest among participants.
Social presence is critical in online learning environments because physical presence is lacking (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Fostering online social presence is generally a time-consuming process. It may be more difficult to generate an effective level of social presence in discussions that are one week in duration, while two weeks will allow participants to project and perceive online social presence.
Learner-Learner Interaction
Learner-learner interaction is extremely important and a unique interaction that occurs in online learning. Asynchronous discussions could potentially generate a higher level of learner-learner interaction than could face-to-face discussions. The shorter one-week discussion duration may not allow students enough time to interact with each other, while the two-week duration provides more time and opportunities for participation by responding to the original discussions and permits students the time to read and respond to the postings of other participants.
Both one-week and two-week durations have positive and negative impacts on online learning; therefore, the issue is not which design is best, but which design provides a better fit for the course. Here are a few guidelines to assist one in determining which duration provides a better fit for the planned course discussions.
Number of Postings
The number of postings is another important dimension in online discussions. Instructors must determine the number of postings that are appropriate for the topic. Regardless of whether the asynchronous discussion is part of a completely online course or supplements a face-to-face instruction, at least two postings should be required. A single posting does not typically result in the level of interaction desired. In fact, one posting simply generates learner-content interaction because students will post one message that responds to the instructor's discussion question and neither learner-learner or learner-instructor interaction is generated. Therefore, how many required postings are necessary? There is not a fixed number because the answer depends on the instructors' goals for the course, objectives, and ideal learning outcomes. Ideally, two to four messages per week are appropriate. More than four messages can be required, but the instructor must consider the students' other obligations. Students should be required to read the postings of the other participants. In a large class, the burden of reading, digesting, and responding to messages can be overwhelming. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the instructors to be aware of all of the students' obligations to determine the required extent of interaction. The students must be instructed to ensure that their contributions to the discussion are relevant and cogent to the comments of the other participants. They must strive to enhance the quality of the learning experience for themselves and their classmates by contributing facts that have received the benefit of critical thinking. The object is not to simply respond, but to make a definite contribution to their assembled conferees.
Instruction for Discussions
Discussion instructions must be presented to students, particularly when they have limited experience with asynchronous discussions. Discussion messages generally are permanent and participants cannot alter or withdraw a message that has been posted. Students must be aware of this characteristic of the technology before they post any message. There are a few common mistakes made by participants, including: postings are too long or too short, messages do not reflect knowledge of and interaction with other messages, and postings are too formal.
Students may post long messages that require scrolling through many screens; some may be as long as term papers. This type of posting may cause other students to defer reading and responding to the message. A message of this type is not appropriate for asynchronous discussions. Online messages should be free flowing, like thoughtfully considered “written conversation.”
The opposite extreme is found in participants that post short messages that contain one phrase or one sentence, such as “I like your idea” or “I agree.” Although asynchronous discussions should be free flowing, abbreviated responses are inappropriate because the messages should be thoughtful, reflect upon the discussion and the previous comments, and generate interaction. No general rule for the length of online messages exists, but most online participants agree that one screen is appropriate. In other words, no scrolling should be required.
Another common mistake is writing in a style that is too formal, similar to the vernacular used in writing a term paper or a research paper. Although asynchronous discussions tend to be more thoughtful, they need not be formal. Many students spend too much time composing messages. Conversing about scholarly subjects in a more casual tone is an important learning experience for students. The presentation should be slightly casual because most students perceive asynchronous discussion as less formal than written papers but more formal than verbal conversations and real-time discussions (Tu, 2002).
Generally, participants respond to the original discussion questions, and those posed by the instructor, but ignore the comments made in messages posted by other students. When this occurs, there is a severe restriction of learner-learner interactions and a severe limitation of critical thinking.
Instructors should post instructions outlining discussion guidelines before asynchronous discussions take place. When adequately prepared, students will appreciate ideal learning experiences through participation in asynchronous discussions (Watkins & Corry, 2003).
Flaming can be thought of as uninhibited behavior of CMC users that is revealed in the exchange of emotionally charged, hostile, and insulting messages (Thompsen, 1993). The absence of social context cues in CMC contributes to uninhibited behavior (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Walther, 1992). Humans are still immature in CMC (Bellamy & Hanewicz, 1999); therefore, students will intentionally or unintentionally post unacceptable messages. It is necessary that instructors should emphasize a posting policy in the syllabus. When unacceptable messages are posted, instructors must handle the situation with caution. It is important that instructors communicate privately with those involved in posting the unacceptable message. If the messages need to be removed, it is necessary to obtain permission from the students who posted them.
Quality and Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation is a critical process that impacts student participation (Warren and Rada, 1997). The course syllabus should contain an explicit explanation outlining what is expected of the student and the criteria by which he or she will be evaluated. These expectations and criteria should be emphasized by the instructor in the first class meeting and reemphasized at every reasonable opportunity. The declaration of these elements and a pronouncement of the instructor's teaching philosophy will arm the student with the guidelines necessary to relax and enjoy the course. When the limitations are known, the student can expend his or her energy pursuing an ideal learning experience. The instructor must be available to the student and be prepared to provide immediate and regular commentary regarding his or her online discussion participation. This is necessary throughout the course, but is particularly important at the beginning of the course and at the beginning of each online discussion.
Rubric for Asynchronous Discussion (Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, and Tinker, 2000)
| Point Value | Characterization of the response |
|---|---|
| 0 | No response |
| ½ | Single entry, no interaction with other participants' postings is evident. |
| 1 | The responses build on the ideas of another one or two participants and digs deeper into assignment questions or issues. |
| 2 | The response integrates multiple views and shows value as a seed for reflection by including other participants' views. |
| Point Value | Characterization of the response |
|---|---|
| 0 | No response |
| ½ | Single entry, no interaction with other participants' postings is evident. |
| 1 | The responses build on the ideas of another one or two participants and digs deeper into assignment questions or issues. |
| 2 | The response integrates multiple views and shows value as a seed for reflection by including other participants' views. |
Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, and Tinker (2000) suggested a rubric for the evaluation of asynchronous discussions (see Table 2).
Getting Started
Issues involved in building online social relationships, trust, and understandings of the characteristics of online students are critical. Online self-introduction is an effective way to familiarize students with each other at the beginning of the discussions. This is particularly important in courses that are completely online. These self-introductions also allow those who have no previous online discussion experience to get acquainted with how to participate in an online discussion. During this process, social conversations allow students to develop trust in classmates and instructors and resolve technical problems before beginning the actual online discussion.
Instructors and/or moderators should serve as models by sharing some level of personal information when they respond to the participants' self-introductions. Students generally will follow the lead of instructors and moderators in online discussions. Interactive self-introductions will create a level of comfort that will allow students to share more willingly and participate in discussions with greater confidence.
Self-introductions often can continue after the discussion begins; in fact, they can be transformed into social conversation corners or a cyber café for casual and non-course content-related topics. This process will provide continuous motivation for the students to maintain the community.
Discussion Method
Discussion method is not limited to having students read the assigned materials and responding to questions posted by the instructor. Discussion is widely used because it promotes critical thinking, higher-order thinking, distributed thinking, and constructive thinking (Berge & Muilenburg, 2000). The type of thinking to be stimulated determines the discussion method to be used. These include read and respond, scenarios, controversies, search and critique, case study (Rourke, & Anderson, 2002), debate (Paulsen, 1995), interview, panel discussions, role play (Paulsen, 1995), student publishing and defense (Tu & Corry, in press). Table 3 describes the application of ten major discussion methods to online learning. It can be used as a quick reference for comparing and contrasting functions.
Discussion Methods and Descriptions
| Methods | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Read and Response Scenarios | Students finish readings and respond to discussion questions. Instructors describe a scenario, a situation that illustrates a concept, and asks students to react or reflect on it |
| Controversies Search and Critique Case Study | The students are provoked to think about a controversial issue or situation Students research a specific topic, find relevant materials, and share a critique with their classmates A case is presented to students requiring them to identify, analyze, research, and discuss critical issues. |
| Interview Panel Discussions Role Play | Instructors or students ask questions of one or more resource persons in front of an audience. A group of three or more informed people presents a purposeful discussion of a topic or a theme. Roles in a dramatic situation are assigned to students where scenes are presented and each student utilizes his or her assigned role to analyze the problem and test possible solutions |
| Debating | A maneuver where students are assigned a particular stance in an issue and are ready to assume either the pro or con position regarding the issue. |
| Student Publishing and Defense | Students present their class work to peers and defend their presentation. |
| Methods | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Read and Response Scenarios | Students finish readings and respond to discussion questions. Instructors describe a scenario, a situation that illustrates a concept, and asks students to react or reflect on it |
| Controversies Search and Critique Case Study | The students are provoked to think about a controversial issue or situation Students research a specific topic, find relevant materials, and share a critique with their classmates A case is presented to students requiring them to identify, analyze, research, and discuss critical issues. |
| Interview Panel Discussions Role Play | Instructors or students ask questions of one or more resource persons in front of an audience. A group of three or more informed people presents a purposeful discussion of a topic or a theme. Roles in a dramatic situation are assigned to students where scenes are presented and each student utilizes his or her assigned role to analyze the problem and test possible solutions |
| Debating | A maneuver where students are assigned a particular stance in an issue and are ready to assume either the pro or con position regarding the issue. |
| Student Publishing and Defense | Students present their class work to peers and defend their presentation. |
Read and Respond
The most common discussion method is having the students read assigned texts and respond to questions posed by the instructor. Normally, when students finish course readings and respond to the instructor's discussion questions, they interact in a discussion with other students.
Scenarios
Instructors describe a scenario, a situation that illustrates a concept, and asks students to react, or reflect on it. For example, if you were an instructor or course designer, what will you do in a certain situation? This method provides a richer context for students to reflect upon, regarding certain issues.
Controversies
The students are provoked to think about a controversial issue or situation. Generally, the point is not straightforward and engages students in an enriched thinking exercise. Students need to think through various aspects, and debate in their minds before they post their responses.
Search and Critique
Search and critique is another method to engage students in a more relevant discussion environment. Rather than giving students material to critique, instructors can ask students to research a specific topic, find relevant materials, and critique them. This process engages students' multiple learning processes, searching for materials, determining the relevance of the material, and reflecting on it.
Case Study
A case study is a discussion of a prepared case situation in which students strive to delineate the problem, embark on decision-making procedures, and arrive at a solution for the problem (Knox 1987). Instructors can present a case to students and require students to identify, analyze, research, and discuss critical issues. Applying a case study method to asynchronous learning enhances the independence of the students and develops an investigative attitude. Case study design can be applied with collaborative learning to become a team case study.
Interview
Interview is a process that requires an interviewer to ask questions of one or more resource persons in front of an audience. This can be done in asynchronous discussion conjunction with e-mail, in which instructors function as the interviewer and the students are the audience. This method can be expanded to allow the students to be interviewers with appropriate preparation before the interview. The student's questions may be submitted for a review by the instructor prior to the interview and then posted to the class discussion site to ensure a quality learning experience. Interview discussion also can be combined with student publishing. Each student or group is required to write a report based on the interview and post it to the discussion area.
Panel Discussions
The panel discussion method refers to when a small group of three or more people enters into purposeful discussion of a topic or a theme. In an asynchronous learning environment discussion, instructors can invite several panelists to discuss a topic. Each panelist should present a presentation by PowerPoint, notes, or streaming media. Students are required to review the presentations and then enter into a bulletin board discussion. Instructors serve as moderators.
Role Play
Role-play method engages students in a dramatic situation in which they act out scenes like actors in a play. Although this method has been applied to a synchronous format, it can, potentially, be applied to an asynchronous learning format. Generally, the instructor assigns the roles as role descriptions. This method has the potential to enhance learning but it is difficult to organize and requires extensive instructor planning.
Debating
Debating refers to a maneuver in which students are divided onto opposite sides of an issue, generally as teams. Students are afforded the opportunity to improve their analytic and communication skills by formulating ideas, defending positions, and critiquing counter positions. Historically, debating has been a structured exercise and, in an online format, the instructor must provide rigid instruction for step-by-step presentation, debate, and defense.
Publishing and Defense
Using asynchronous discussion for publishing, presentation, and defense is an effective way to engage students in social learning. Owen (2000) argued that publishing the work of a student provides scaffolding for peers who share a similar stage of development within a knowledge domain. When students present their work to peers, and the world, through online publishing and are offered an opportunity to defend it publicly by answering questions and responding to comments, they are exposed to a broader arena of thought and the chance to learn above and beyond their initial vision. Instructors can ask students to provide an online presentation and then post their work to a discussion area. In other words, students are required to post/upload their projects, present them, and to justify them to their peers.
Discussion Questions
Questioning is a significant instructional design element for the promotion of effective discussion (Berge & Muilenburg, 2000). Research has shown that higher-level discussion questions stimulate higher cognitive processes (Batson 1981; McKenzie 1972), and that 80 percent to 85 percent of what students learn by such questioning is retained. Conversely, 80 percent to 90 percent of what students learn through factual questioning is forgotten. Posting discussions is the first step of initiating online discussions. Not all types of questions are suited for online discussions; therefore, it is important for instructors to take the time to compose effective discussion questions.
Hyman (1979) proposed a cognitive process framework of five categories, to assist one in composing discussion questions: Definitional, Empirical, Relational, Evaluative, and Justification (see Table 4). According to Hyman, relational questions and justification of opinions stimulate higher-order thinking because they requires students to make comparisons, explain causes, make predictions, and provide rationale to justifying arguments.
If the course contents tend toward more basic facts, discussion questions can be composed in with fundamental facts. This would ensure that students accomplish course objectives. If the course content covers more advanced topics, instructors can formulate discussion questions that challenge, stimulate, and deepen students' thinking.
Student moderators can participate in the formulation of discussion questions and an individual student or a group can function as discussion moderators to facilitate discussions and formulate discussion questions. Moderators can formulate discussion questions that are not covered by instructors' questions, to prevent an overlap with the with the instructor's questions. This design allows students to take responsibility for their own learning and engages them in more active interaction and higher-order thinking.
Five Categories of Composing Discussion Questions
| Categories | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Definitional | Ask students to define or explain certain topics, issues, or concepts. For example: What is your definition of distance education? |
| Empirical Relational | Ask students to discuss specific or general facts. Ask students make connection between and among various facts, such as comparisons, purposes explanations, causes, consequences, predictions, sequences, etc. For example: Please compare and contrast collaborative learning and cooperative learning. |
| Evaluative | Ask students to evaluate facts and express their opinions. For example: Please evaluate the impact that small group communication has on human learning. |
| Justification of opinions | An extension of evaluative questions. It proceeds one step further and asks students to justify their opinion of the facts. For example: Please evaluate the impacts of small group communication on human learning. Please justify your opinions. |
| Categories | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Definitional | Ask students to define or explain certain topics, issues, or concepts. For example: What is your definition of distance education? |
| Empirical Relational | Ask students to discuss specific or general facts. Ask students make connection between and among various facts, such as comparisons, purposes explanations, causes, consequences, predictions, sequences, etc. For example: Please compare and contrast collaborative learning and cooperative learning. |
| Evaluative | Ask students to evaluate facts and express their opinions. For example: Please evaluate the impact that small group communication has on human learning. |
| Justification of opinions | An extension of evaluative questions. It proceeds one step further and asks students to justify their opinion of the facts. For example: Please evaluate the impacts of small group communication on human learning. Please justify your opinions. |
Moderation
Recent publications have emphasized the importance of online moderation, a necessity that has often been ignored in online instruction. The purpose of online moderation is to enrich and deepen the dialogue and foster learning (Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, & Tinker, 2000). By deepening thinking, critical thinking emerges as the most important basic skill and a strategy that online moderators and participants should nurture to enhance their online learning. Without appropriate moderation, online discussions may not extend thinking to deeper levels and prevent the development of critical thinking. Moderation should be seen as an art rather than a mechanical process and, consequently, it may take time to conduct or craft interactive online learning and deeper critical thinking.
Generally, instructors or teaching assistants function as moderators. However, individual students or teams can assume moderation responsibilities. Instructors either can assign students or teams to moderate discussions or allow students to select certain topic to moderate. Individual students or teams will be responsible to facilitate online discussions, including the formulation of discussion questions, post discussion questions, invite/facilitate discussions, summarize the discussions, foster a social atmosphere, etc. (Oren, Mioduser, & Nachmias, 2002).
When students or student teams assume the responsibility for moderation, guidelines must be provided to assist them to accomplish ideal objectives. Lack of confidence or understanding (Shaw & Pieter, 2000), and poor or absent guidelines about online discussions may result in a lack of participation. Most of students do not have online moderation experience; therefore, it is critical that they are assisted in obtaining moderation skills. Moderation guidelines must state the purposes, processes, procedures, expectations, strategies of, and resources for online moderation. Table 5 is a sample of moderation guidelines.
Discussion Summaries
The summary of online discussions is the last important task to accomplish. Online discussions are more democratic and allow students to express their ideas, arguments, and points of view freely; therefore, messages are normally discursive, far-ranging and present difficulty for students to conclude a final point for the discussions. A summary will help the students to assimilate the content of the discussion. With this in mind, a summary of the weekly discussions is necessary for students to correlate what has been covered in the discussions and to grasp the gist of the discussion. If student moderations are applied, the task of summarizing can be assigned to them or to anyone in the class. If students are unfamiliar with summarizing discussions, effective guidelines should be provided to assist them to produce an adequate summary.
Sample of Online Collaborative Moderation Guidelines
Moderation Tasks Each student/team must moderate online discussion for one, or more, lessons. Students/Teams will select one lesson to moderate at the beginning of the semester. Team members will share the responsibility for moderating. Moderation duties include: (a) Post two or three discussion questions by Sunday midnight prior to the week they are to moderate.
(b) Moderate/facilitate the discussions including the instructor's questions, ensuring that the focus of the discussion is maintained, (c) Post a summary of the discussion at the end of the lesson (the following Monday after the due date). There are several useful resources that focus on how to moderate an online discussion. Students are advised to read these resources to become acquainted with the process of successful moderation of online discussions. Moderation Guidelines These moderation guidelines are for your reference. They were compiled from the experiences of previous students and reflect their recommendations. These guidelines must be applied within the appropriate context; they may not apply to al situations. Generally speaking, the responsibilities of moderators include stimulating discussion, adding pedagogical comment, offering critical thinking/discussion, and weaving and summarizing discussions. In other words, moderators should assis participants in sharpening the focus of the dialogue and help them dig deeper into the dialogue.
|
Moderation Tasks Each student/team must moderate online discussion for one, or more, lessons. Students/Teams will select one lesson to moderate at the beginning of the semester. Team members will share the responsibility for moderating. Moderation duties include: (a) Post two or three discussion questions by Sunday midnight prior to the week they are to moderate. • For example, if the lesson begins on 8/13 (Wednesday), the moderator must post the discussion question(s) by mid night 8/12 and post the discussion summary by the midnight of 8/27 (Wednesday). (b) Moderate/facilitate the discussions including the instructor's questions, ensuring that the focus of the discussion is maintained, (c) Post a summary of the discussion at the end of the lesson (the following Monday after the due date). There are several useful resources that focus on how to moderate an online discussion. Students are advised to read these resources to become acquainted with the process of successful moderation of online discussions. Moderation Guidelines These moderation guidelines are for your reference. They were compiled from the experiences of previous students and reflect their recommendations. These guidelines must be applied within the appropriate context; they may not apply to al situations. Generally speaking, the responsibilities of moderators include stimulating discussion, adding pedagogical comment, offering critical thinking/discussion, and weaving and summarizing discussions. In other words, moderators should assis participants in sharpening the focus of the dialogue and help them dig deeper into the dialogue. Discussion questions. Post the questions that are important and are not covered by the instructor's discussion questions. Use open-ended questions. Resource: Savage, L. B. (1998). Eliciting critical thinking skills through questioning. Clearing House, 71(5), 291 193. Moderating regularly. Check the discussions as frequently as possible during the time you are moderating. Point out questions or issues that have not received a response. Ask for more detail from students who submit incomplete or shallow comments, but do this in a constructive and supportive manner. Encouraging. Make sure that all students participate regularly in the discussions and publicly acknowledge them. I you find that someone is not participating, it is appropriate to e-mail the person individually with a warm message and invite him or her to become active discussion participants. Evolving. If certain questions have been well discussed, you can evolve and post new questions or advance the discussion to different levels in the second week of the lesson. Critical thinking is important, so you must challenge yourself and challenge all class members. Be clear, concise, and conversational. Generate a more social dialogue and a pragmatic dialogue. Avoid “academese,” colloquialisms, acronyms, slang, and abbreviations. Precise language and complete sentences provide good models and encourage appropriate participation. Argumentative dialogue should be discouraged. Clarify the messages if the postings are not clear to you. Do not assume! It may cause misunderstanding. It is necessary to think that people do not usually try to offend. Tones. Ensure that participants feel welcome and safe, and model the use of the virtual medium to minimize miscommunication. Appropriate tones are: nurturing, humorous, imaginative, neutral, curious, analytical, informal and whimsical. Be encouraging, supportive, timely, and constructive in all discussions and all evaluations of the products of discussions. Promote quality participation by publicly acknowledging it. Leadership: A system of multiple leaders who rotate in taking the lead can be useful strategy to conduct team moderations. Summarize and synthesize postings to draw together main themes. Healthy discussions ( If you are not sure of something, it is best to consult with the instructor. |
Conclusions
Effective planning and management of asynchronous learning discussions has the potential to enhance the learning experience dramatically. Ideally, asynchronous discussion is not simply posting questions and responding to questions. Instructors need to carefully design and manage effective learning activities to engage students in active learning such as involving the four types of interaction and critical thinking. Also, it is clear that the higher the level of interactivity and participation in a course, the more work involved for the teacher (Kearsley, 2000). Teachers need to develop strategies to successfully manage this increased workload while maintaining other obligations.
