Facilitating Student Interactions Through Discursive Moves: An Instructor’s Experience Teaching Online Graduate Courses in Educational Technology

Interaction, engagement, and communication are at the heart of any conception of good teaching and learning. Literature suggests the same is true for distance education. There is a strong relationship between student perceptions of learning, quality of instruction, and their participation or interaction in a course (Burnett, 2001; Jiang & Ting, 1999; Trentin, 2000).

Moore (1989, 1991) identified four kinds of interaction in an online course: learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-interface. While interaction has been studied in various online learning environments, there is still much to be explored about learning that results from different kinds of interaction, the role of the instructor in facilitating this learning, and the extent to which students might engage in these interactions to promote deeper, conceptual learning.

Some have reported on learner-instructor interactions in which the role of instructor is assumed to be static, taken (or held) exclusively by the instructor (Bannan-Ritland, 2002; Berge, 2002; Hirumi, 2002). But if we view these roles as dynamic and fluid, in which the role of instructor might be adopted or taken by anyone, even another student, in a thread or series of postings, this opens up the opportunity for a more complex perspective on these types of interactions.

For the instructor, possible roles might be: to make problematic simple explanations, to request that evidence be provided when claims are made, to ask for clarification or offer alternative points of view, and to model and encourage self questioning and reflection in the e-discourse. These roles reflect a perspective taken by an instructor, but also ways of thinking about issues that may be a goal for student learning as well. These roles are negotiated (or can be, depending on the instructor and the ethos of the e-discourse community) dynamically so that everyone has a chance to learn from everyone else by adopting them over time. If this is the case, the concept of interaction and the role of each participant can change over time and across threads of e-discourse. But in order for this to occur, the instructor needs to facilitate and support these kinds of interactions.

Parker and Gemino (2001) compared outcomes from an asynchronous learning network (ALN), defined as an interactive virtual seminar, and a traditional face-to-face course and found no significant difference in students’ overall scores on a final exam. However, they did find that students in the ALN course scored significantly higher in the conceptual contribution but significantly lower on the technique contribution on the exam. Parker and Gemino suggested that ALN courses may be a better environment for conceptual learning, while traditional courses may be superior for learning application of techniques.

King and Doerfert (1995) identified differences in students’ interaction needs as a critical factor in determining how successful they felt in an online course. They strongly urged instructors to have personal contact with all students, regardless of the delivery methods used, to ensure high quality interaction and better learning outcomes. They attributed high attrition levels with low interaction levels in some distance education courses.

Picciano (2002) explored the relationship between performance in an online course and student interaction, finding that discursive moves—like complementing students, using self-disclosure, and warmth—improved interaction quality and quantity. He also found a strong positive relationship between student perceptions of interaction and their perceptions of quality and quantity of learning. This is especially relevant as we look at the impact of interaction on student learning outcomes and the role of the instructor as facilitator.

Burton (1998) found that when instructors use facilitative discursive moves, defined as accidental or intentional methods for creating and sustaining an atmosphere of learning, it produced higher levels of student participation and more complex interactive patterns. Burton encouraged instructors to use patience when working online to encourage learner-learner interaction and interdependence that often precedes collaboration.

Ahern, Peck, and Laycock (1992) investigated the style of discourse used by instructors in online courses and found it to be the most important factor in determining the amount of student participation as well as improving the overall quality of student responses. They suggested that an informal, conversational style of discourse produces higher levels of student participation with a more complex interaction pattern and higher frequency of learner-learner interaction with more sophisticated responses.

The Ahern, Peck, and Laycock study (1992) provides guidance for this work by suggesting that the facilitative moves, or discursive actions, used by the instructor can promote a style of e-discourse that encourages and supports students taking on a variety of roles, including those modeled by and normally adopted by the instructor. Their results suggest that if instructors can structure the e-discourse in these ways, more learner-learner interactions may occur and the resulting discussion threads will be more thoughtful and reflective, thus providing more opportunities for conceptual learning.

Pawan, Paulus, Yalein, and Chang (2003) reported on patterns of interaction and engagement in three graduate-level teacher education courses. Their data came from online discussions held by these students without direct facilitation by an instructor. They found no evidence in their data of students challenging ideas and a lack of student awareness of purpose and structure to the discussions.

Christopher, Thomas, and Tallent-Runnels (2004) provided suggestions for facilitating higher-level thinking in online discussions, including prompts to stimulate this kind of thinking. This study reports on a discussion in which the instructor was passive, with the students engaging on their own, leading to questions about how a more active participation by faculty might help students attain these higher levels of thinking. “The professor might have guided and facilitated the discussion forum to add information or ask follow-up questions to ensure a depth of understanding or synthesis and evaluation of topics discussed” (p. 170).

MacKnight (2000) shared her experiences stimulating critical thinking through discussions online, beginning with thought-provoking questions asking students to use their knowledge and experience as they considered issues and ideas brought out in the discussion, as well as asking them to clarify or elaborate on ideas they shared. She also encouraged instructors to model ways of thinking and allow students to accept more of the responsibility for keeping the discussions going. “Unless the pedagogical role of faculty includes modeling, coaching, questioning, reflection and task structuring, it will be difficult for online discussions to escape the superficiality of classroom talk” (p. 41).

Lapadat (2003) provided a comprehensive analysis of the discourse in an online graduate course and its connection with changes in classroom practice. Students in this course read articles and discussed them online, as well as planned an empirical research project in their classroom. One exciting finding from this work was that some students’ points of view developed and changed over time, after reflecting on their assumptions about teaching and learning, which the author attributes directly to discussions in the course, and the emergence of a “critical stance” for some of the participants. Lapadat was careful to model this critical stance, post provocative questions, and refused to take the sole role as authority in the discussions. “[The] online course format was successful in fostering genuine, deep, and critical discussion” (p. 36).

After reviewing the literature on distance education, and use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) for learning, it is clear that there is a connection between students’ participation and their perceptions of learning. It is also clear that instructors, by using particular discursive moves, play a critical role in promoting and nurturing participation by structuring discussions in a conversational style. What remains unclear is how instructors, by making a conscious effort to increase the quality and quantity of student interactions in an online course, can nurture the kind of rich, deep, and reflective discussions that can lead to learning.

While there is a wealth of information online and in publication on general suggestions for facilitating online interactions, missing are any specific recommendations for instructors that grow out of their own experiences in this genre of e-discourse. This study attempts to explore and document, using a case study approach, one instructor’s experiences teaching graduate courses and drawing on the existing literature on face-to-face conversational techniques.

The following questions guided this work: How can online instruction be structured to facilitate learning? How can e-discourse be analyzed looking for evidence of student learning? How can instructors use discursive moves to facilitate learning and encourage high quantity and quality of interaction and participation?

The context for this study was four graduate courses taught using BlackBoard, a commercial Web-based learning environment. All were educational technology courses that met face-to-face only three times during the regular, 15-week term: once during the first week, once in the middle of the term, and once at the end of the term. All other interactions took place online, either in the threaded discussion forums, through e-mail or in synchronous chat sessions. Students in these courses were practicing teachers or educational professionals participating in these educational experiences voluntarily as part of a graduate program in educational technology at a regional teacher education institution.

As part of the course, students read articles (found online), discussed them in BlackBoard, participated in chat sessions, posted assignments to the Digital Dropbox, and developed and presented a course project that integrated technology into their professional life. A survey was distributed to students online to collect feedback and suggestions for improvement at the end of each term.

The participants in the fall 2002 term included 11 women and 2 men, and 77% of the students were enrolled in their first online course. Initially, the course included 15 students, but after the first week, two students dropped the class (n = 13). The topic for the course was integrating technology into K-12 settings.

In the winter 2003 term, 21 students participated in the online class, including 11 women and 10 men. Two students dropped the course, one after the first week and another about 5 weeks into the term. Of the remaining students (n = 19), 75% were enrolled in their first online course. The topic for the winter course was evaluating and selecting instructional software and Websites.

During the fall of 2003, another online course was offered focusing on technology integration; it included 11 women and 6 men (n = 17). For 40% of the students taking the course, it was their first online class.

In the Winter 2004 course, again focused on evaluating instructional media, there were 13 women and 9 men (n = 22). Given the large size of the course, it was split into two sections—one with 13 students and one with 9— with 55% of the students enrolled in their first online course.

The instructor approached teaching an online course in similar ways to teaching face-to-face graduate courses. That is, to encourage rich and reflective discussions of articles and issues, to encourage students to bring their professional experiences into the discussions, to model for students a critical perspective on educational technology, and to challenge students to align class activities and assignments with their professional needs and goals. This was accomplished using a variety of methods and techniques, some overt and some more subtle, which are described below.

Following the tenets of grounded theory development (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), the author analyzed qualitative data looking for patterns that emerged with the goal of identifying categories that helped to describe students’ experiences.

During the first online course, the instructor was unsatisfied with the quantity and quality of participation in the e-discourse. While there were instances in which students participated in rich, deep discussions, these were the exception rather than the rule. This led to an initial analysis and subsequent changes in the course materials and actions taken by the instructor in an attempt to nurture and stimulate discussion and participation.

One obvious challenge to this kind of work is the dual role of instructor as participant and observer, engaged in helping to shape the e-discourse while also studying it. To help reduce this potential bias, the author kept a regular journal of his observations during the term, but did not analyze the data until after the term was over. Analysis of first term data occurred before the instructor taught his second online course, and the results led to substantive changes in his approach to instruction.

Using a cyclical approach, the author used discourse analysis (Coulthard, 1985) to examine students’ participation in the e-discourse. This analysis revealed themes that the researcher triangulated with other sources (e.g., student journal entries, assignments, etc.) to ensure that they were genuine and evidence could be found across time and data points to ensure their reliability. Over time, the themes that emerged, and those that did not reappear, were discarded. Using this approach, a set of common themes grew out of an ongoing analysis that resulted in the work reported here.

During the first term, students reported being satisfied overall with the course—92% reported that they learned as much in the online class as they would have if they had taken it as a face-to-face class, and the overall quality of the course was indicated as “High” by 31% of the students, and “Average” by the remaining 69%.

These initial results were observed in subsequent online classes, with the majority of the students reporting the quality of the online course as “High” (average of 59.9%) or “Average” (40.1%). On average, over 90% of students reported that they learned as much in the online class as they might expect to in a face-to-face class.

When asked about how their level of participation in the online class compared with a traditional class, an average of 67.74% reported that they participated more in the online course. Almost 90% of the students indicated that they would be interested in taking another online course.

While the total number of postings to the discussion forums represents a gross measure of overall participation, they do not provide meaningful data on the nature of the postings or their possible impact on students (see Table 1). In an attempt to further examine the e-discourse with an eye towards more explanatory information, the instructor developed a measure of postings under each major heading using a tree branch metaphor. In the first course threads, the branches of postings were narrow but not deep.

One way to visualize this is to look at a screen capture of the BlackBoard discussion board for threads of discussion in the Readings forum in the fall class (see Figure 1). You can see from this screen that the postings for this reading are shallow, with students responding to the instructors’ questions but not reading or connecting what they write with what’s already been posted. The figure clearly shows that, for the threads displayed, the postings are shallow and disconnected. While this was not the case in all of the online threads, it was a pattern that emerged throughout the first term and across threads of discussion.

While the quantitative analysis above reveals that the first online class did not achieve a level of student participation expected, measured by the number of postings to the threaded discussion board, it did not help the instructor understand why students participated in such limited numbers or how their participation influenced their learning. There were qualitative indicators that suggested that students were not participating in expected ways that appear in the regular journal entries of the instructor (below) and in the lack of substantive multithreaded (deep) postings in the discussion board.

As a result of this preliminary analysis, the instructor made changes in the course structure trying to stimulate more meaningful participation in the e-discourse in subsequent terms. These changes included elaborating on expectations for students in the guidelines for online discussions, asking students who had taken previous online courses to talk in the first class about the nature of the online discussions and the time required to do so, and encouraging student-to-student collaborations and interactions throughout the term, using specific discursive actions.

Other changes included scheduling regular, once-a-month chat sessions, identified in the literature as a possible way to improve the online course (Roberson & Klotz, 2001) and suggested by the student survey results.

During the second online class, the number and quality of student postings in the Reading forum improved dramatically. This can be seen clearly in Table 1 where data are compared across the online courses. Notice how the postings in the Assignments forum are comparable but also how the postings from the winter 2003 online Readings forum are dramatically higher then those from the fall 2002 online course.

More evidence of the differences between levels of participation can be found by looking at the nature of student postings using the tree branch metaphor. Figure 2 shows a screen capture of a discussion board thread for the Readings forum during the winter 2003 term. Comparing this figure with the Figure 1 shows how different the posting patterns were in the second course. Again using the tree metaphor, the branches of the discourse tree in the second term are deeper and more complex than those in the first term, with students responding to each other and building on issues raised in other postings. This pattern of deeper, multi-leveled threads in the discussion board emerged and is an indicator of the improved quality of the e-discourse in subsequent courses. Ahern, Peck & Laycock refer to these kinds of postings as complex interaction patterns.

In addition to the examination of the number of postings to the discussion board, the instructor looked more closely at the content of the postings, along with other comments made by students in their journal entries, e-mail messages, assignments, survey results, and final projects. Based on this analysis, the following themes emerged from the data.

One theme that appeared in the e-discourse was the role of the instructor providing contrary or oppositional perspectives on issues discussed. The example cited below occurred as part of a larger thread of postings related to what evaluation criteria should be used for instructional software. A student posted a question with regard to one aspect of the criteria in the assignment—installation:

Another student replied to this posting with an affirmative response:

One student strongly supported the idea that teachers should be allowed to install their own software:

The instructor posted a response to this message, providing a counter argument to the one made by the student:

Notice the reference in the instructors’ posting to “play(ing) devil’s advocate.” This was done on purpose, in order to offer a position contrary to the one proposed by the student, and to indicate that there might be legitimate legal reasons for not allowing individual teachers to install software on school computers. This rhetorical pattern occurred on several other occasions including instances where students took on this role of devil’s advocate when considering an issue that arose in the readings or assignments. One student explicitly indicated taking on the role in her posting:

For the students in this online class, the experience of having someone play devil’s advocate arose in the public discourse as another way to look at an issue or argument from more than one perspective. The fact that at least one student chose to adopt this perspective, calling it by the same name, suggests that the discourse provides a space for experimenting with ways of thinking modeled by the instructor.

Another way in which the instructor facilitated deep discussion of an issue was to ensure that it was picked up by students, even if it had been raised by another student. This is called revoicing, by which the instructor can call attention to a point or issue raised by a student and ask others to respond. In another discussion thread, a student responded to a reading (by Mellor) in which the author suggested teachers should lead adoption of technology in their schools. A student responded with a posting suggesting that students should be competent with technology to be successful in our society:

The instructor wanted students to focus on this issue, to consider the implications for it, and what it might mean to teachers and students if implemented (i.e., how are students going to learn to use technology when they are already busy learning math, Science, etc? Whose responsibility is it to teach them this?). So, to stimulate discussion of these issues, the instructor replied:

Notice how the original author of the idea was given credit for raising the issue and the instructor supplemented the posting with another, related question, thus lending authority to the original posting. Even though the instructor posed a single question and asked for comments, most students picked up in the key issue—whether technology should be taught or simply learned when used to support other subjects—but did not seem to argue for one approach or the other. One student wrote:

The underlying question here is whether it is better to learn technology in the service of learning other subjects or if students should be taught technology as a separate subject, not unlike math or language arts. This is a difficult question, because on the one hand, students need to learn if they are to be successful using technology. But on the other, some would argue that learning technology as an isolated subject will result in inert knowledge that cannot be applied in the context of a real-world problem.

The discussion cited above also led to an instance in the e-discourse in which there was disagreement about an issue. Connected to the issue of whether technology should be taught explicitly isolated from the subject areas, is the issue of whether some non-technology skills and knowledge are required to successfully use technology for learning. Contrary to what others have reported, the instructor found clear evidence of disagreement in the following sequence of three student postings from a discussion thread:

For certain students, threaded online discussions may represent a more expressive and interactive medium than face-to-face discussions. Evidence for this claim can be found in a variety of sources, most notably in some of the journal entries of students who took the winter class:

There are a number of important findings in the results observed. The kind of e-discourse found reflects more learner-learner interaction, which is desirable in an online course and especially important for providing students with access to ideas and issues they can learn from. The fact that there was little evidence of this kind of participation in the e-discourse in the first term indicates that a conscious effort may be required on the part of the instructor to help create the kind of learning environment in which participation is more rich and potentially rewarding for student learning.

The discursive moves employed by the instructor, including playing devil’s advocate, revoicing issues raised by students for further examination, and promoting an environment in which ideas are questioned and challenged as a normal part of the discourse, probably contributed to the results observed. The fact that some students view the e-discourse as more expressive than face-to-face discussions is also promising, especially for those interested in promoting critical reflection through participation in e-discourse for adult learners.

In some instances, students adopted positions relative to ideas or issue taken previously by the instructor in threads of discussion, suggesting that they can engage in interactions taking on the role of an instructor, and showing reflective and critical thinking in the process. Seeing these kinds of discursive moves in the public discussion forum is promising, but more work needs to be done to explore how the findings of this work can be replicated and enhanced in the future.

What is less clear is whether the discursive moves of the instructor resulted in more rich participation in the e-discourse or whether this was a direct result of the modified guidelines and clearer expectations for students remains to be seen. The instructor also scheduled more chat sessions during the winter term and this may have helped some students. These opportunities may provide times for students to clarify and understand assignments, projects, and other course-related issues than they might otherwise via asynchronous forms of communication. This might also be dependent on individual student preferences and could be identified in the characteristics of particular students.

It also seems likely that when students are exposed to critical and thoughtful consideration of complex issues and ideas associated with technology use in the K-12 classroom, modeled by the instructor, some will appropriate these critical ways of thinking themselves as they anticipate how technology might impact their own teaching. The extent to which this kind of learning occurs across the students in a course is unknown, but the results presented here are encouraging in this regard.

While the results reported here are promising, they are not without drawbacks and limitations. As we know, self-report is a questionable form of gathering accurate data and it’s unclear whether the students in the two classes reported here actualized the comments shared in the course activities and assignments. Without following these teachers into the classroom, it would be impossible to judge the extent to which the findings reported contribute to actual changes in practice.

There are also questions about the limitations of the rhetorical space that constituted the course e-discourse and how this may have influenced students’ participation and subsequent learning. Studies of e-mail list servers may provide some additional insight into the nature of participation and learning in similar rhetorical spaces.

The themes and patterns found in this work do not reflect everyone in the classes, so the results should not be taken as evidence that online courses are equally rich and rewarding for all students. One student wrote in their final journal entry that they discovered through this experience that online classes are not a good way for them to learn, and they do not plan to take any future classes online.

Descriptive research suffers from the problems of context and generalization, and given the small sample sizes, it is not possible to generalize the results to different populations or groups of students. But this work is not designed to be an experimental study or show cause and effect of Web-based instruction; it is designed to explore how students learn through participation in e-discourse and what role the instructor can play to help facilitate this learning so future online instruction can be more effective. Balancing the roles of participant and observer, where instructors conduct research on their own teaching and their students’ learning, is not a new problem, but it is one that can be reduced with careful planning and data analysis that follows data collection, as exemplified in this study.

While there is much to be learned from the experiences of a single instructor, perhaps the greater benefit is realized when other instructors consider the issues and results found here and, using their own judgments, make informed choices about the structure of their online courses. There is no prescription for success in online instruction, as in face-to-face instruction. But this work is shared in hopes that others can see ideas and ways of structuring and assessing student interactions here and experiment with them in their own settings.