ELearning/Foundations/Learning communities
Introduction
“Much of what goes on in higher education takes the form of students hearing, seeing, or reading content that was structured by the instructor, followed by the instructor asking a question of students about the content, with the instructor then reacting to each student’s response” (Berge & Muilenburg, 2002).
This scenario is not a “bad” one. It can help students understand and process the content. But if the goal is to foster discussion and mutual learning among a community of learners, it fails outright. The essence of “learning community” is one of interest-centered learners learning from each other. Let’s look at two examples.
Online Statistics Course
Michelle Everson teaches a Statistics course. At the beginning of each semester, she assigns students to asynchronous discussion groups of five members each. Students work within their particular group all semester long, using their own discussion board. To assign members, she looks at the class roster and tries to include a mix of different majors or areas of study within each group. “I hope that students will bring unique perspectives to discussions and learn more from one another.”
Each group is required to work on eight small-group assignments during the course of the semester. For each assignment, they are given a particular topic to discuss, and questions to answer based on the topic. For example, student groups are given a description of an experiment and asked to critique it and to come up with a better design. For another assignment, after learning about a particular analysis technique, students are asked to come up with unique examples from their own fields of study in which that technique could be used.
Online Operations Management Course
Joel Mencena teaches Operations Management online. He uses specific case examples throughout the semester to bring course concepts to life. These cases might describe a company situation and the associated management decisions. Or they might present the situation, but leave the decisions to course students.
Joel creates discussion boards for each case example, asking students to critique the decisions in the case or post their own decisions. They also argue for their perspective, share their experiences from similar circumstances, and cite research findings that support their positions. There is generally no one right answer, but many workable ideas are generated. For this reason, Joel does not ask the students to come to consensus.
He has found, however, that the full group of 30 students makes for chaotic discourse and uneven participation. Since he began dividing the full group in half, each with its own discussion board, the process seems improved and he is better able to monitor the discussions. Since he wants full exposure to individual perspectives, Joel remixes the groups once or twice during the semester.
Learning community
Both Michelle and Joel have created online learning communities within their courses, using different approaches to fit the subject matter and their teaching goals.
As with most constructs, there are many definitions of learning community. For our purposes, a learning community is “a group of individuals who collaboratively engage in purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding.” (Garrison, 2007). As such, learning communities are based in constructivist principles.
What is it?
|
| 1. Learning community includes social, cognitive, and teaching presence |
The above diagram (from Garrison, et. al., 2000) attempts to describe the relationship between the three elements of learning community.
- Social presence is the ability of participants to identify with the group, communicate in a trusting environment, and develop mutually beneficial relationships.
- Teaching presence is the design, facilitation, and direction of learner cognitive and social processes toward the goal of meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes.
- Cognitive presence is the exploration, construction, resolution, and confirmation of understanding.
Each element of community can be further specified:
Social presence
Social presence can be understood in terms of social context, interactivity, trust and interdependency.
Social context can be seen in terms of perceptions by the individual about the experience:
| sociable | ⇔ | unsociable |
| sensitive | ⇔ | insensitive |
| personal | ⇔ | impersonal |
| warm | ⇔ | cold |
| humanizing | ⇔ | dehumanizing |
| informal | ⇔ | formal |
To appreciate social context, think about attending an unfamiliar party or professional gathering by yourself where (1) everyone stays within their chosen circle, and (2) people come up to you and introduce themselves and others nearby.
Interactivity is a sense of participation, dialogue, and reciprocity and of being a part of something beyond oneself. Interactivity can happen spontaneously in the classroom. It must be built in during course design for the online environment. Interactivity is built using a combination of these three avenues: Instructor – Student, Student – Student, and Content – Student.
An important contributing factor is awareness of others in the course. Learning management system (LMS) tools such as Class Roster, Who’s Online, Discussion, and Chat encourage interactivity by promoting awareness of others, among other purposes.
Trust issues center on privacy. Privacy and trust hold a symbiotic relationship – privacy builds trust, and trust eases privacy concerns. Privacy means we have the power to reveal information about ourselves selectively and to negotiate social relationships in a manner we feel comfortable. Trust involves the choice to expose oneself to risk before others, in the expectation that they will not disappoint your expectation. In the online learning environment, trust is built through positive experiences and familiarity – getting to know others in the course. To make past experiences positive, we live up to the privacy and security expectations of others in the present.
Interdependence is a sense of common purpose and common fate. Culnan (2005) identifies types of interdependence which together create a sense of group identity:
- Joint task that requires inputs from all members
- Common purpose; a goal that the group attains as a whole, not as individuals
- Common fate; members receive the same positive or negative outcomes
There is plenty of evidence to indicate that interdependence is the most serious challenge to social presence in the course setting, online or in the classroom, when group work is required. Nonparticipation and failure to meet commitments (slacking) by one or more group members are the most cited reasons for students disliking group work (Cann, 2006). Although they are acutely aware of inequities of contribution, students are also loathe to formally evaluate their peers.
Teaching presence
Teaching presence involves the elements we might normally think of when we consider teaching: design and organization, direct instruction, facilitating discourse, and providing feedback. Modeling of expected behavior and form, and their enforcement are integral to teaching presence. Direct instruction includes scaffolding – providing extra assistance – for individuals in need of help by the instructor and by other students. Thus, teaching presence is not the sole responsibility of the instructor within a learning community. Advanced courses may even involve students in their design and organization. The facilitation function, unsurprisingly, contributes the most to a sense of community and learning. Additional aspects of teaching presence are discussed later.
Cognitive presence
Cognitive presence can be thought of as the process of inquiry by the group – active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in terms of supporting evidence and the conclusions or consequences that follow (Garrison, 2007). Einstein’s theory of relativity, for example, leads to some hair-raising conclusions for the uninitiated.
Cognitive presence is carried out, ideally, in four phases:
A triggering event can be a question or the recognition of a problem; an expressed sense of confusion or uncertainty. Exploration involves divergent thinking where opinions are expressed, suggestions made; where brainstorming and intuitive leaps (connecting the dots) occur. Synthesis moves toward convergent thinking, where the integration and summarizing of ideas occur and solutions identified. Finally, resolution comes from arriving at consensus conclusions, or group commitment to and application of a solution.
Without the direction, commitment, and teaching presence of the instructor, discussions most frequently end at exploration or, more accurately, “serial monologues” devoid of true interaction. To achieve cognitive presence, faculty need to be more directive in their assignments for threaded discussions, charging the participants to resolve a particular problem, and pressing the group to integrate their ideas (Garrison, 2007). To move through integration and resolution, instructor and students alike must work to diagnose and correct misconceptions, ask probing questions, provide additional information, and model critical thinking. Progression requires direction. When learners are tasked with formulating and resolving a problem, the time spent on the four phases tends to even out or even favor the latter phases. The ability of groups to take full advantage of cognitive presence is directly related to group size, as we will see in a while.
Are they all equally important?
All three elements are very important to the learning community. Without all three, we have something less than “learning” + “community”. There is, however, a hierarchy of need, so to speak. Common sense tells us that social presence and teaching presence are more fundamental to successful learning outcomes than cognitive presence. We could say that cognitive presence takes learning beyond basic knowledge and into deeper understanding and appreciation. Because social presence addresses our most basic needs for security and belonging, we could well argue that social presence is the most fundamental to a functional learning community. Social presence is also fundamental in the sense that increased comfort levels create the conditions that allow for open expression of individual opinions, ideas, and positions. Social presence puts the “community” into learning community. Of special note is the finding that once social presence is established, as measured by the frequency of supportive messages, the group moves on toward higher expressions of group cohesion as supportive messages decrease in frequency (Garrison, 2007).
Met needs reinforce attention and learning whereas unmet needs distract us. When social presence is high, learners are more satisfied, perceive the instruction as more effective, and their achievement is improved. Lack of social presence can lead to high levels of frustration, disengagement, critical attitudes toward the instruction, and lower levels of learning. Further, instructor participation in discussions is critical to the development of social presence. More than anything, students desire instructor input, feedback, and recognition. They literally feel it when this is not the case. (Abeden, 2010; Albarracin, 2009; Berry, 2008; Bocchi, 2004; Bransford, 1999; Cann, 2006; Conrad, 2004; Everson, 2009; Gorsky & Blau, 2009; Jonnassen, 2003; Keeton, 2004; Miller, 2009; O’Hanlon et. al., 2010; Shea et. al., 2004; Witt, 2004)
Gorsky & Blau (2009) cite a number of studies attesting to the importance of teaching presence. “The consensus is that teaching presence is a significant determinant of perceived learning, student satisfaction and sense of community.” At the least, the instructor is first among equals. Students rank instructor modeling as the most important element in building online community (Vesely et. al., 2007).
Presence: a tale of two instructors
Two instructors, Paul Trenton and Ina Freed (not their real names), taught the same online course at the same university during the same semester (Gorsky & Blau, 2009). Ina received very high student ratings (4.3 overall, range 4.0-4.6) while Paul received quite low ratings (2.3 overall, range 1.7-3.0). Since both tended to receive similar ratings for classroom-based courses, they were very curious about the large discrepancy between the two for this online course.
What made the difference? Since both classes were of a single design, their pre-planned structure was identical. It included a voluntary discussion board with the intended purpose of “providing a haven wherein subject-matter issues could be criticized, reflected upon, discussed, and debated and personal experiences could be shared”. Both began the semester by describing the purpose of the discussion boards and their voluntary nature.
Pulling together data from student feedback forms and the tracking system within the learning management system, they identified some important differences in the way they had managed their respective discussion boards and resulting student participation. Keep in mind that participation was voluntary.
Active participation (posting original messages and responding to others)
Ina (4.3 overall student rating) posted 53 original messages over the semester and 52 responses for a total of 105 posts. Her students posted 72 original messages and 190 responses for a total of 262. The ratio (payoff) is roughly 1:2.5, or 2.5 student posts for every Ina post.
Paul (2.3 overall rating) posted 20 original messages and 19 responses (he failed to respond to six student messages) totaling 39 posts. His students posted 35 original messages and 80 responses, total 115. Paul’s ratio/payoff was nearly 1:3.2, or 3.2 student posts for every Paul post.
|
| |
Ina consistently posted throughout the semester while Paul dropped off after the second month. Ina was especially active during the third month. Both Ina’s and Paul’s students roughly followed their instructor patterns. There must have been a lot going on in Ina’s class during that third month, as demonstrated in the graphs below.
Passive participation (lurking; reading messages only)
They were unable to separate out instructor lurking from that of students, so this number includes both. There were 1,389 instances of lurking in Ina’s class over the semester, and 775 instances in Paul’s class. Lurking increased through the semester in Ina’s class. Paul’s class peaked early and fell for the remainder of the semester. Do you find it surprising that Ina’s class was so “actively” lurking?
|
| |
Number of discussion threads
There were a total of 38 discussion threads in Ina’s class and 18 in Paul’s class throughout the semester. The number of threads closely tracks the number of messages in both classes. In Ina’s class, the number of discussion threads increased significantly during the third month.
|
| |
Instructor response time (time interval between student postings and instructor responses)
Ina’s median response time was 3.25 hours over the semester, with a range from less than one hour (33% of total) to 90 hours (2%). Paul’s median response time was 26.3 hours, with a range from less than one hour (2% of total) to never responding (23%). Unanswered messages began to occur during the third month of class. One student posted “Why isn’t anyone answering? Is anyone here? Should I turn the lights off?”
|
| |
Content analysis (categorization of messages according to social, teaching, and cognitive presence)
Of Ina’s 105 posts, nearly 64% were social in nature, about 21% teaching, and 15% cognitive. Ina’s students posted 262 total messages and closely followed her lead, with 65% social, 19% teaching, and 16% cognitive messages. Of Paul’s 39 posts, 46% were social, 28% teaching, and 26% cognitive. Paul’s students posted 115 total messages, departing from Paul’s pattern, with 43% social, 23% teaching, and 34% cognitive.
Although we don’t know for sure, we may conjecture that teaching and cognitive presence were less in evidence than social presence due to the voluntary nature of the discussions, without specific directions from the instructors.
|
| |
| Check for Understanding
Take a few minutes to ponder the lessons we might extract from the research we have reviewed. What practices contribute to the development and sustainability of online discussions?
|
Building a Learning Community
|
| |
Given the verified importance of learning in a social environment, how does an instructor go about building a learning community online? The above diagram presents one conception of how it’s done.
During the design and building phases, the instructor/designer creates the structure and creates clear instructions that will promote the learning community.
Beginning the class, the instructor’s first job is orientation. An overview of the content is a given, but just as important is social orientation. Who’s in the class? What are they like? How will we interact? Are we in this together? How do I know I can trust the instructor and other students?
With social presence underway and growing, we establish our teaching presence and build cognitive presence through e-mail, discussion, chat rooms, and live audio-video sessions. If you’re fairly well along the techno-curve, you use other tools – both within and outside the LMS. Voice and video boards also allow for asynchronous communication.
Q&A
Using the cited research, we will answer and/or discuss the following questions for establishing and maintaining a learning community within your course.
- #Voluntary or mandatory participation?
- #Large or small groups?
- #Directed (assignments) or open discussion?
- #How many discussions are appropriate?
- #How to ask good discussion questions?
- #How should the instructor participate in discussions?
- #What’s the right instructor response time?
- #How might discussions play out over a semester?
- #What interaction guidelines do students need?
- #What does “managing discussions” entail?
- #What are the most significant barriers to cooperative learning?
It is a truism that students, especially undergraduates, participate in class to the extent they believe it impacts their final grade. Group assignments and discussions are no different. If you believe that a learning community adds an important dimension to learning, you should probably require participation and assign it a substantive portion of the final grade – 10-15% or more (Cann, et. al., 2006; Croxall, 2010).
When asked, students do not particularly like discussions (in one study, 72% rated it as their least liked course activity). However, they do acknowledge the value of discussions (same study, 62% agreed that discussions increased their awareness of the subject matter). This finding is in line with previous research indicating student negative attitudes toward group work (Bliss, 2009).
Voluntary participation is probably more appropriate for upper level and graduate courses. If you choose to make participation voluntary and still believe in its importance to learning, be sure to actively monitor and selectively participate, both in posting original messages and responding to others. Of course, the same holds true for mandatory participation.
In addition to content-focused discussions, you may want to include a “student lounge” discussion board or chat room where students are encouraged to post more social messages. Some instructors like to use “Ask the instructor” discussion boards.
Quite a bit of research has focused on the ideal group size (Berry, 2008; An, et.al. 2008, Bliss, 2009; Cann, et. al.; 2006, Caspi, et. al., 2003). The goal is to have a sufficient number of members to encourage ongoing interaction without having so many that individual voices are not heard. While there is no “perfect” number, the research appears to have settled on two answers. For general discussions that begin and end with exploration, the recommended group size is 10-15, where a sufficient diversity of views can be seen. Smaller groups of 3-5 are recommended for structured group assignments, encouraging higher-order thinking to take place. Merrill (2013) advises a group size of three to encourage full participation and avoid slacker bheavior.
As for research results, Bliss, et. al. (2009) studied discussion board postings in seventeen online courses, comparing full-group and small-group discussions. Their findings:
- Student participation in small groups was significantly higher (average 14 posts) than full group participation (6.7) p < .001
- Quantity of posts per student per discussion was significantly higher (7.3 vs. 2.9) p < .001
- Quality of posts (content-related vs. non-content related) per student per discussion (2.5 vs. 1.8) p < .05. Non-content related posts (dealing with group process and maintenance) were of a higher proportion in small groups than full groups – promoting social cohesion and group effectiveness.
Discussions centering on researching and solving real-life problems provide the richest return on investment. Directed discussions are much more likely to include cognitive presence in that discussions will progress from exploration to synthesis and resolution. As such, they are excellent means for measuring student learning. Otherwise, discussions will likely begin and end with exploration or “serial monologues”.
The quality and quantity of discussions need to be balanced. When you create discussions centered on assignments, you will gain greater results if you reduce the number of discussions. Michelle Everson used eight such discussions in her statistics course. You should also consider reducing the number of other assignments. Discussions should not be add-ons, but rather integral to the instruction. Another way to look at it is to include one discussion per module (learning unit), divided into small groups when appropriate.
There is evidence that students experience discussion fatigue toward the middle of the semester (3700 hits first week, 1500 the seventh week; Cann et. al., 2006).
First and foremost, instructors need to carefully craft initial questions and instructions (discussion starters). We have two perspectives that can help you find the right question format.
Bloom’s Taxonomy can help us target our questions to the level of application we’re seeking (Berge & Muilenburg, 2000).
Generally, the lowest three levels of Bloom focus on material that is either correct or incorrect:
- Remembering: “What is meant by the term “cultural relativism?”
- Understanding: “Describe the physical process of hearing.”
- Applying: How does the concept of price elasticity affect the price of oats?”
Note how these questions ask students to reiterate what they have learned, they confirm past learning – the questions are not part of learning. Imagine, too, how a discussion might proceed. One or two students would post original messages and others would pipe in with, “Yeah, that’s right,” or add to the original messages until the correct answer is reached. And that’s about it.
When we move into the higher levels, we enter the realm of creating meaning from knowledge; where meaning is not absolute, but explored, negotiated, and constructed.
- Analyzing: “What are the social implications of decreasing fresh water supplies in the Southwestern United States?”
- Evaluating: “You are an investor who is being asked to invest $5 million in WyCo. After reading the WyCo business plan, post your answer to the request, including the reasons for your decision. Read everyone’s answer and challenge the decisions, thought processes, and/or reasons of at least two.”
- Creating: “Based on the readings and your personal perspective, describe and explain one of the most critical skills for the 21st century. Once a skill has been posted, you may not duplicate it without adding substantially to or changing the ideas already expressed. Your dear instructor will be the judge.” A follow-up discussion assignment might be, “Working in your small groups, construct a list of the most critical five or six skills for the 21st century. Explain why these and not others.”
Another approach (Davis, 1993) is to vary questions according to typology:
- Exploratory questions probe facts and knowledge: “What research evidence do you find that supports or refutes the theory of cancer-prone personality?” Note how this type of question has the added requirement for students to conduct research.
- Challenge questions examine assumptions, conclusions and interpretations: “How else might we explain the results of this experiment?”
- Relational questions ask for comparisons of themes, ideas, and issues: “Compare and contrast how Shakespeare explores the theme of being a racial outsider in Othello and The Merchant of Venice.”
- Diagnostic questions probe motives or causes: “Why did regulators not foresee the collapse of AIG in 2008?”
- Action questions call for a conclusion or action: “In response to the motion for a vote of no confidence, what should the board president do?”
- Cause-and-effect questions ask about causal relationships between ideas, actions, or events: “If the government stopped farm subsidies for corn, what would happen to the market for ethanol?
- Hypothetical questions pose a change in the facts or issues: “Suppose that Greg had been rich instead of poor. Would the outcome have been the same?”
- Priority questions seek to identify the most important issue: “From all that has been said during this module, what is the most important cause of the decline of American competitiveness?”
- Summary questions elicit synthesis: “What themes or lessons have emerged from this discussion?”
Make it Personally Relevant
Focusing discussions exclusively on the subject matter can be a flat experience for learners. The key to maintaining interest and involvement is to make questions personally relevant. And by that, I don’t mean asking learners to share their feelings. Many subjects such as literature and the social sciences are easy to incorporate the personal by adding an invitation to apply the topic to oneself, family, friends, neighborhood, etc.
- “What are the social implications of decreasing fresh water supplies in the Southwestern United States? Think about your neighborhood being in a situation where water is rationed to the point of outlawing lawn sprinkling (it’s actually happening in New Mexico).”
- “After viewing the S. Klein video, list some of the ways his bipolar disorder interferes with his functioning. What if he were your brother? How would his illness affect your life? How would you help him manage these symptoms?”
Science, business, legal and other “hard” subjects become more personally relevant when we ask students to express their solution, evaluation, opinion, etc. for a described situation.
- “Why did regulators not foresee the collapse of AIG in 2008?” might be better phrased as “Why do you think regulators failed to foresee the collapse of AIG in 2008?” or “Place yourself into the regulators’ position. Why did they not foresee the collapse of AIG in 2008?”
- “How does the concept of price elasticity affect the price of grains?” could also be phrased as “How does the concept of price elasticity affect the price of your breakfast cereal?”
There are a number of noteworthy opportunities for the instructor to be involved in discussions, especially graded discussions:
- Monitor all discussions to ensure that students are observing netiquette (see below), focused on the topic, and refraining from TMI (too much personal information). * Also monitor participation, taking note of “air hogs” and nonparticipants. Whenever possible, intervene via e-mail or telephone. Do delete unacceptable posts.
- Correct incorrect information – diplomatically.
- Encourage students to delve deeper by asking probing questions.
- Redirect or move discussions forward by asking follow-up questions.
- Point out especially good ideas, responses, etc. “Eric G. has summarized the issues quite well – everyone please take a look.”
- Post important ideas, considerations, etc. after students have had sufficient opportunity.
- Post a summary to close out the discussion, or ask students to summarize.
We saw that Ina Freed answered the majority of messages within ten hours. This would seem an onerous target for instructors. There is no research that tells us the best response time, except perhaps “as soon as possible.” General practice has been to promise a response within 24 – 48 hours.
Rather than focus on response time, it is probably best to log into discussions at least once per day at least five days per week. Make it a point to post at least once per week in every discussion group.
Most important, state up front what your response practice will be, including days you will not be available (i.e., weekends). The syllabus is probably the best place to communicate this. Then keep your commitment, or communicate ahead of time when you will be unavailable. Communication is key. The announcements tool is the perfect avenue for communicating your updates.
|
| |
Student engagement develops over time. Interaction and collaboration are not intuitive for many adult learners who have been educated in a predominantly lecture-based environment. Initially, these students may be more comfortable in a passive role and will need guidance and opportunities to become involved. Conrad and Donaldson (2004) have developed a framework for understanding and applying phases of engagement. Here we see the phases of engagement and their approximate timelines, student and instructor roles, and useful strategies for the instructor during each phase.
| Phase | Weeks | Learner Role | Instructor Role | Strategies |
| 1 | 1 - 2 | Newcomer | Social Negotiator | Provide activities that are interactive and that help students get to know each other. Express expectations for participation in the course. Examples: icebreakers, individual introductions, netiquette rules. |
| 2 | 3 - 4 | Cooperator | Structural Engineer | Form pairs of learners and provide activities that require critical thinking, reflection, sharing of ideas, providing feedback. Examples: Peer reviews, activity critiques. |
| 3 | 5 - 6 | Collaborator | Facilitator | Provide activities that require small groups to collaborate and solve problems, reflect on experiences. Examples: content discussions, role playing, debates. |
| 4 | 7 - 14 | Initiator/ Partner | Community Member/ Challenger | Ask students to create activities. Discussions go not only where the instructor wishes, but also where the learners desire to go. Examples: Group presentations and projects, student- facilitated discussions. |
| 5 | 15 - 16 | Disengaging Contributor | Facilitator | Provide activities that require small groups to review course materials and arrive at a product or outcome. |
Here are examples for each phase of engagement from the Conrad and Donaldson text, Engaging the Online Learner.
Phase 1: Icebreakers Objective: Help students learn about their fellow classmates and their interests. Instructions to Students: During the first week of class, post a personal introduction, including at least your name, where you live, degree you’re pursuing, and 3 or 4 interesting facts about you and your life. Then read through all the other participants’ postings and respond to at least three other posts.
Phase 2: Peer Partnership Objective: Dyad Debate – To introduce students to the idea of exchanging oppositional thoughts online. Instructions to Students: Using your assigned discussion area, debate two of the following issues with your assigned discussion partner: (1) Should aliens [non-citizens] be included in any national health care solution? (2) Should Medicare be expanded to include all eligible people of all ages? (3) Should physician-assisted suicide be made legal in all states? (4) Should fetal tissue be used in research? (5) Is health care a right or an individual responsibility? When you have concluded your debate, each of you should post a summary of one debate in the “Debate Summary 1…5” discussion area. Read the summaries others have written and comment on at least two.
Phase 3: Authentic Problem Solving Objective: To provide an interactive approach to problem solving and encourage group discussion. Instructions to Students: You have been assigned to a four-member group and provided a private discussion area. Your problem assignment is described below. You have three weeks to solve the problem together. Your grade will be determined by (1) your participation in solving the problem, and (2) the accuracy and depth of the final answer.
Phase 4: Learner-Led Activities Objective: To provide learners with the opportunity to run their own discussion. Instructions to Students: Once you have read the assigned material, post any questions or comments you have to the Unit 8 discussion area. I do not run this discussion – you do! You are responsible for asking questions, answering others’ questions, generating discussion topics, for ensuring that the discussion stays on target and that it follows our netiquette rules.
Phase 5: Summarizing Activities Objective: To provide learners with a vehicle for reviewing major themes, issues, or concepts. Instructions to Students: In this graded assignment, your group will construct and submit a summary of the major literary movements we have explored in this course. You must include a description of the movements, inclusive dates in which they flourished, the major authors, and major works that exemplify them. The primary criteria will be completeness, brevity and originality in presentation. You may submit a paper, graphic, presentation, web page, or any electronic medium you choose, as long as it may be viewed within a web browser or commonly used office software.
We list a number of sources below that can help you create a useful set of discussion guidelines, or “rules of netiquette”. Here are some considerations you will want to include:
- Respect for others and what they have to say. It’s OK to disagree, but it must be done diplomatically and without resort to labeling (dumb, etc.).
- Timelines for posting original messages, and for responding to others’ messages (e.g., initial posts are due Wednesday at 11:59PM and responses are due by Friday at 11:59PM).
- College-level discourse: proper English (no texting language), spelling, and punctuation.
- Word limits. Especially with their original posts, many students are prone to write like they talk – without editing. Discuss and model appropriately worded messages.
- Content quality. What are the characteristics of a worthy post? Describe these and/or post a discussion rubric (best practice).
- Requiring students to end their initial posts with a question has been found to greatly facilitate the flow of discussions.
A few web resources:
- Top Five Rules of Netiquette in an Online Course
- 10 Best Rules of Netiquette
- Netiquette: Rules of Behavior on the Internet
Much has been discussed already. Here is a summary of discussion management issues:
- Providing complete initial instructions.
- Ongoing monitoring.
- Redirecting, providing additional instruction, clarifying as necessary.
- Privately prompting those who participate too much and those who don’t participate enough.
- Calling out and correcting netiquette offenders – privately.
- Deleting inappropriate messages.
- Managing conflict.
- Moving discussions through the cognitive phases.
- Moving the class through the phases of student engagement.
Resources
- Discussion Management Tips
- Dialogue-Intensive Learning
- Understanding Virtual Team
- Mitigating Conflict in Online Student Teams
- Non-participating students. This is why most instructors assign points to participation.
- Significant number of posts early on and towards the end of group projects in which students divided up the work and decided how to integrate their work into a single whole. There is little evidence of higher order reflection, critical analysis, and argumentation when groups use this strategy. Assigning or choosing roles (summarizer, moderator, theoretician, and source searcher) is one strategy for increasing process efficiency, thus less time spent addressing these concerns.
- More posts but not more threading (responding to others’ messages), signifying a lack of interaction.
- Lack of sufficient guidelines and structure for small group work. Outcomes are related to the quality of initial guidance provided by the instruction.
⇑ ⇑ Up to Home
