ELearning/Teaching online/Facilitation: Discussions

As was argued in the section on Learning communities, discussion forums can afford a rich dialogue between learners in which they share ideas, explore big ideas, learn from each other, solve problems, and arrive at new truths and understanding. However, this potential is rarely fully realized and many actual discussion boards remain shallow (Maurino et. al., 2008; Wise et. al., 2009). Without proper structure and facilitation, discussion boards are more likely to be “serial monologues” than actual conversations (Bliss & Lawrence, 2009a; Pawan et. al., 2003). To clarify, we do not here separate out group projects from general discussions. The same group factors are at work in both cases, except that projects require more detailed and complete instructions.

With an understanding of the potential of online learning communities, this section addresses a number of specific issues for the instructor as facilitator. As such, we will here assume that discussion questions (triggers) are already in place.

Expectations

A consistent theme in effective online education is clarity of expectations, and discussions and group work are no different. Expectations for students participating in online discussions center on interaction guidelines (netiquette), posting requirements (initial and follow-up), and evaluating student contributions.

Interaction guidelines

Interaction Guidelines are typically described as “netiquette” in the same sense as etiquette applies to a face to face setting. Your list can be long or short, but here are the most important:

• Respect for others (no flaming, name calling, or putdowns)
• Appropriate level of discourse. This expectation tells students the type of language you expect, “college level” or “business” being examples.
• Do you consider emoticons ( >: |) acceptable? How about abbreviated texting (OMG, CU LTR)? Are you a stickler for spelling and grammar, or is that less important?
• Timely responses. Provide a standard expectation for student discussion posts and responses.
• Quality responses. Describe the qualities of acceptable initial posts and responses. Rubrics are the simplest and most effective tool.

Message length

It is advisable to establish both floor and ceiling for message length, especially the initial post. There are no “best” limits, so it is up to the designer and instructor to determine based on the subject, the objective of the discussion, and the sophistication of the learners.

• A minimum length requirement helps assure that students are spending time to become engaged in the discussion (Wee & Abrizah, 2011).
• Word limits, or maximum length, set the outer boundaries for acceptable post length. Research tells us some of the reasons for setting an upper limit in discussion posts:

1. There is a tendency to scan lengthy messages, and students report wordy messages as one of their top three frustrations with online discussions, behind volume of messages and off-topic messages (Chen et. al. 2012).
2. As messages increase in size, students spend proportionally less time reading and responding to them (Peters & Hewitt, 2012).
3. Shorter messages tend to receive more responses than longer ones, and discussions characterized by shorter messages are more active than those dominated by longer messages (Hewitt et. al., 2007; Jones et. al., 2004).
4. Cognitive load theory suggests that individuals will be sensitive to both the length and complexity of messages. Longer messages that use more complex sentences and vocabulary impose a greater cost on readers, reducing the chances that the message will be read or responded to (Jones et. al., 2004).

• Writing concisely is a worthy exercise in mental discipline, organized thinking, effective communication, and respect for one’s readers.
• An important caveat here is that discussion triggers must also be more precise in describing desired responses.
• A rule of thumb you can begin with is 200-word minimum and 400-word maximum for the initial post, illustrated below. Follow-up posts can be further limited to 100-150 words (with exceptions).

A 400-word message divided into 100-word increments (noted in parentheses):

Cognitive load theory differs from many instructional theories in several respects. First, the theory places a heavy reliance on the cognitive implications of biological evolution. It divides knowledge into biologically primary and biologically secondary knowledge. Biologically secondary knowledge is a new, culturally important knowledge that we have not specifically evolved to acquire. Cognitive load theory is largely concerned with that biologically secondary knowledge that is taught in schools and other educational and training institutions. The theory is concerned with biologically primary knowledge only to the extent that primary knowledge is needed for and influences the acquisition of secondary knowledge. The (100) second way in which cognitive load theory differs from many other instructional theories is its emphasis on human cognitive architecture, which is also treated from an evolutionary perspective as discussed in Part II. We suggest that both human cognition and evolution by natural selection are closely analogous, natural information processing systems. The theory considers our knowledge of human cognitive architecture to be critical to instructional design. Human cognitive architecture, based on the distinction between working and long-term memory, is not merely relevant to cognitive load theory, it is integral. Our understanding of the role of working and long-term memory in (200) human cognitive architecture allows us to categorize sources of cognitive load. That categorization provides the third way in which cognitive load theory differs from most other theories. Working memory and long-term memory are central to human cognition when dealing with information that is the subject of instruction. Working memory load is determined by element interactivity while element interactivity in turn is determined by an interaction between the contents of long-term memory and instructional material. A large number of interacting elements will impose a heavy working memory load unless they are incorporated in schemas held in long-term memory. Those interacting (300) elements can constitute either an intrinsic or extraneous cognitive load depending on the purpose and nature of the instruction. If they are essential to learning, they are classed as imposing an intrinsic cognitive load. If they are unnecessary to learning and are merely a function of a particular instructional procedure, they are classed as imposing an extraneous cognitive load. In either case, they will be processed in an identical fashion by the cognitive system. To the extent that working memory is dealing largely with elements intrinsic to the task at hand, germane cognitive load is high. (400 words total)

Posting requirements

Posting requirements spell out the number and timing of expected discussion posts. The most typical requirements are something like, “Initial posts due by day 3, respond to at least three others by day 7.” On its face, this requirement seems entirely reasonable and, depending on your goal for discussions, may be. If we examine it from the perspective of learning community, however, it is lacking. Note that we’re asking for two rounds of responses – initial post and response. Not exactly a discussion or interaction. In fact, the average discussion thread length is between two and three messages (Guzdial, 1997; Hewitt & Teplovs, 1999). Consider a few alternative approaches:

• Initial posts due by day 3, respond to at least two others by day 5, AND answer all responses to your posts by day 7. Here we have three rounds of discourse, the beginnings of a dialogue.
• Using four rounds over a two-week period, round one initial posts are due by day 3, round two respond to three others by day 7, round three respond to at least two new people AND answer all responses to your posts by day 10, and summarize the discussion in 250 words or less by day 14.
• To take small groups of 4-6 through all phases of cognitive presence, establish a timeline for each phase: Initial exploration through day 4; summarizing and integrating ideas through day 7; consensus, conclusions, commitments by day 12.

Evaluating student contributions

Establishing specific criteria is of great value to students and instructor alike. Students know what is expected of them and instructors are able to evaluate contributions more even-handedly and consistently, making evaluation more objective. If we think back about how important clear expectations are to successful online learning, we can see how criteria do just that. They serve to remove ambiguity and add clarity. Evaluating student contribution begins with defining those elements that together constitute success. Typical elements include:

• Participation – the degree to which each student contributes thoughtful input to the discussion, acknowledges the contributions of others, and moves the discussion forward.
• Relevance of Posts – the degree to which responses are on-topic, add more depth, and/or take the discussion in a new direction by bringing relevant readings and other sources into the discussion.
• Clear Expression – the degree to which students express themselves clearly and concisely without irrelevant, confusing, repetitive, or wordy submissions.
• Initiative – the degree to which student posts demonstrate thought, effort, higher-order, and critical thinking.
• Promptness – the degree to which student responses are timely so that others will have time to read and respond, meeting established timelines at a minimum.

Note how “degree of accomplisment” is integral to defining success criteria. Understanding that subjectivity can never be completely removed, we can add additional objectivity by describing different degrees of accomplishment, using three or four levels signifying failure to meet the criteria, partial success, full success, and exemplary. Keep in mind that the more levels, the more difficult it becomes to differentiate between them – defeating their purpose (Stellmack et. al., 2009). Refer to the Rubrics section for more information.

It’s important to note how these additional requirements serve to deepen and extend conversations, with an increased probability of higher-order thinking and group process skill building. This is how we make discussions more central to the goals of the course, and allow us to use fewer exams to assess student learning.

Group Size

Group size was extensively addressed in the Learning communities section, so we will here summarize the conclusions.

• Group size should be determined by the instructional goals of the discussion. What are you trying to accomplish?
• If the objective is for students to share their opinions, perspectives, and experiences – interactivity - then a larger group of 10 to 15 will suffice.
• If the objective is for students to work together through a process – interdependence - to solve a problem, create a product, or arrive at conclusions, small groups of 4 to 6 are most appropriate. Refer to Facilitation: Group learning.
• If the goal includes teaching students to work in asynchronous groups, an evolving process is most helpful, beginning with paired tasks, then small and possibly large groups.

Group Structure

In the context of discussions, group structure centers on whether or not to assign roles and if so, the roles that can be useful to accomplishing discussion goals. By assigning particular roles to individual students, we are further clarifying the purpose and expectations of participation. Instructors do not typically assign roles and, depending on the goals of instruction, they may not be necessary or even useful. They can be very useful, however, and should be considered. DeWever et. al. (2010) examined social knowledge construction within assigned-role groups and groups without roles, and found significantly higher levels of knowledge construction in groups with assigned roles and groups including both assigned and unassigned members. Further, assigned-role group participants continued to demonstrate higher levels of knowledge construction in subsequent groups without roles.

From a constructivist perspective, learning involves constructing knowledge from one’s experiences (which includes instruction), current knowledge, expectations, and capacities; social knowledge construction constitutes learning from others’ as well as one’s own knowledge, experience, expectations, and capacities (Ormrod, 2008).

Here are three examples, intended as representative but not exhaustive.

Small group discussion roles

(from Carlton College)

• Facilitator/Encourager: This student gets discussion moving and keeps it moving, often by asking the other group members questions, sometimes about what they've just been saying.
• Timekeeper: Someone needs to make sure that the group stays on track and gets through a reasonable amount of material in the given time period.
• Summarizer: Every so often (perhaps once per question for a list of questions, or at the end for one question), this student provides a summary of the discussion for other students to approve or amend.
• Reflector: This student will listen to what others say and explain it back in his or her own words, asking the original speaker if the interpretation is correct.
• Elaborator: This person seeks connections between the current discussion and past topics or overall course themes.

Small group project roles

(from Carlton College)

• Leader/Editor: This student is in charge of organizing the final product of the project, be it a paper, a presentation, etc. That doesn't mean technical details, but of making sure that the project meets the standards set out by the instructor (often as a rubric), plus any extras stipulated by the group. These standards generally include punctuality and completeness.
• Recorder/Secretary: This person takes notes whenever the group meets and keeps track of group data/sources/etc. This person distributes these notes to the rest of the group highlighting sections relevant for their parts of the project.
• Checker: Someone needs to double-check data, bibliographic sources, or graphics for accuracy and correctness.
• Spokesperson/Press Secretary/Webmaster: This person would be responsible for the technical details of the final product and would be ready to summarize the group's progress and findings to the instructor and to other groups.

Large group discussion roles

• First Responders: One-third of the group is assigned to respond to the original discussion question/trigger, and ending with a question or trigger.
• Second Responders: One-third of the group is assigned to respond to at least one first responder by adding responding to the question, and adding additional information, providing a counter-point, or otherwise moving the discussion forward.
• Third Responders: One third of the group is assigned to summarize the points made by the first two responders, and add their own perspective, providing additional information, providing a counter-point, or otherwise moving the discussion forward.
• A final round would ensue, asking all participants to make any final comments.

Instructor Participation

Instructor participation was extensively addressed in the [Learning communities] article, so we will here summarize the conclusions. To illustrate the importance of instructor presence, Bliss & Lawrence (2009a) found significant correlations between it and increased student participation, higher quantities of messages, more extensive thread length (number of responses to an original post), and higher quality of student responses.

The instructor should concentrate on building social presence during the first two weeks of the course. Use students’ names, express thanks for messages, and otherwise make students feel welcome and included. Remember, online students often feel a greater sense of disconnect and so the instructor must work to counter this (Cobb, 2009).

Adopt a teacher-learner mindset that encourages all participants to teach as well as learn from others. This approach was found to be more common among experienced instructors, and to result in higher student participation (De Latt et. al., 2007). We note too that companies such as Google value employees who can, “at the appropriate time, step in and lead. And just as critically, ... step back and stop leading... Because what's critical to being an effective leader in this environment is you have to be willing to relinquish power” (Laszlo Bock of Google Inc., New York Times, February 23, 2014, p. SR11).

Responding to every student introduction at the beginning of the course promotes social presence and later participation in discussions. Monitor discussions, watching for nonparticipation, netiquette observation, incorrect information, and inappropriate messages. These problems should be corrected privately via e-mail or telephone.

Do participate in discussions, but at a relatively low rate (“restrained presence”). Antonacci (2011) reported an average of 17% of all messages posted by instructors, and Ko & Rossen (2010) recommend responding to approximately 25% of student initial posts. Dennen (2007) found high levels of instructor posts (over 50%) resulted in a preponderance of instructor-student interactions and a paucity of student-student communications.

Refrain from entering discussions too soon, allowing students to discuss among themselves first. Daley (2002) concluded that when instructors post early in discussions, students respond to the instructor as an authority figure, rather than a group member. Beyond maintaining a presence, increased instructor participation does not lead to increased student participation (An, Shin & Lim, 2009). Further, high frequencies of instructor posts in higher-level courses may lead to significantly lower discussion thread lengths, in essence stifling discussion (Mazzolini & Maddison, 2003).

Maintain your presence in discussions throughout the semester (Gorsky & Blau, 2009).

Instructor message classification

It may be helpful to consider the types of instructor posts identified in the literature and their impact on discussions. Anderson et. al. (2001) identified the following categories and subcategories:

Facilitating Discourse

• Encouraging, acknowledging, and reinforcing student contributions
• Seeking to reach consensus/common understanding
• Identifying areas of agreement/disagreement
• Drawing in participants, prompting discussion
• Assessing the quality and progress of the discussion

Direct Instruction

• Confirming student understanding*
• Focusing the discussion on a specific aspect or issue*
• Presenting content
• Diagnosing misconceptions
• Injecting knowledge and information from diverse sources
• Summarizing the discussion

We should note that individual messages often contain a combination of subcategories (e.g., seek-assess, confirm-focus, encourage-focus). *Antonacci (2011) examined direct instruction posts only and found significantly more students reading and responding to confirm, confirm-focus, and focus type messages than presenting content posts. The other types of direct instruction posts were not sufficiently in evidence to be tested.

Discussion management tips

From Macek (2009):

• Model the way. Demonstrate your expectations through your own original and response posts.
• Ground the learning in real experiences. Ask for personal and professional experiences that relate to the topic. Cull examples from current events and ask students to do the same.
• Save your good stuff. You may be tempted to frontload your interesting tidbits, but resist the urge. Instead, bring out your good stories and examples for when the discussion begins to fade.
• Recommend extra stuff. Recommend a web site, a book, movie, event, or professional organization.
• Use the book but don’t teach the book. Use the book as a stepping stone to other ideas and examples. Illustrate theories with information from the text, but provide additional insight and examples with your posts, lectures, and comments.
• Use paragraph spacing to add white space. Large expanses of text discourage reading, so break up your posts with frequent double-spacing between paragraphs.
• Change the message title when responding to student posts. This difference will make your messages more noticeable.
• Use tangents and inadequate responses as teachable moments. Whenever it’s possible, use tangential and inadequate messages as opportunities for asking additional questions or asking the student to relate what they have said to the subject.

Promoting Higher Order Thinking

• Point out and challenge unspoken assumptions
• Ask for clarification
• Ask for evidence
• Ask for implications
• Ask students to pose additional questions
• Ask for responses by others to a particularly cogent post
• Use the Socratic method (series of probing questions) to guide students as they explore complex ideas, get to the truth of things, uncover assumptions, analyze concepts, distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, or follow logical implications of thoughts (Boghossian, 2011).

Conclusion

Facilitation is an under-appreciated, yet critical skill for online instructors. It is a primary tool for maintaining social presence, for finding "teachable moments", and promoting higher-order thinking in learners.

---

#top

⇑ Up to Teaching Online

⇑ ⇑ Up to Home