Online Discussion Boards: Fostering Peer-to-Peer Interaction in Asynchronous Communication Jim Mischler Northwestern State University SCMLA 2011 Hot Springs, AR
Online Discussion Boards: Fostering Peer-to-Peer Interaction in
Asynchronous Communication
Jim MischlerNorthwestern State University
SCMLA 2011Hot Springs, AR
Participation “Participation” in an online class is difficult to define:
1. Some books on online teaching do not offer a clear definition or concept;
2. Teachers may communicate a clear expectation to students.
Result: Participation is not evaluated consistently and students aren't sure what the teacher expects.
Literature I Bender (2003): Perhaps not every student can answer every original question posed by the instructor and still contribute an original thought. My hope is...that every student will feel inspired to contribute to the discussion at some point (70-1).
Question: This is not the general expectation in face-to-face classes.
Literature II Conrad and Donaldson (2004): “Phases of Engagement”:
1. Newcomer—Instructor helps S “get to know each other.”
2. Cooperator—Instructor forms dyads; activities for critical thinking.
3. Collaborator—Instructor provides activities for small groups, including discussions of content.
4. Initiator/partner—activities are learner designed and led to meet student learning goals.
Classroom vs. Online DB Focus on comprehension
Synchronous communication
Participation not expected in all-class discussions (default)
Focus on production
Asynchronous communication
Participation expected in all-class discussions (default)
Online Participation Due to the focus on production in online classes, students must create participation, sometimes with negative results.
Due to asynchronous nature of DB, “sitting out” is impractical (deadline may pass).
Due to expectation of participating in all discussions concisely and economically, student may not reflect or elaborate.
Scenarios Teacher expectations: Teacher grades participation and gives zero points when a student does not participate in a particular discussion in a teaching unit.
Student needs: A student does not respond because she does not have anything substantive to say at the moment—still processing the discussion or has more to learn in order to offer substantive insights.
Analysis and a Strategy Analysis: Both the teacher and the student have valid goals and concerns.
Proposal: 1. Focus on peer-to-peer interaction as the primary means of discussion in an online class (meet teaching needs).
2. Allow students the space to determine their own level of participation in certain areas (meet learning needs).
3. Use Conrad and Donaldson's “Phases of Engagement” but add specific expectations for peer-to-peer interaction.
Content DB Procedure Students must send one “Answer Message” to answer the discussion questions for each Content DB.
Students must read the “Answer Message” of at least three different students.
Send a “Response Message” to each of the three students, making a comment about their answers and asking a question.
Students may respond to another student's response message, but not required.
DB never expires; students can add messages any time.
Content DB Grading Total of 15 points given for each DB (15 x 12 = 180 points; 18% of final course grade).
6 points given for Answer Message; 3 points given for each Response Message, up to 9 points total (first 3 messages sent).
Teacher reads all messages; uses to evaluate student comprehension of content.
An Example: Background The class: History of the English Language (online) at Northwestern State University
Undergraduate and graduate sections. Generally 20-30 students enrolled. Previous DB system: 1-3 messages from each student for each discussion.
New system: 4-16 messages from each student for each discussion.
Course Introduction DB Focus on personal introductions with a twist—knowledge of local cultural practices
Teacher models the basic form and content of a DB “Answer Message.”
DB is required but not graded; students who join class late are encouraged to do Intro. DB but no penalty for not doing so.
Intro. DB ExampleDirections: Read the discussion questions below and decide on your own
answers, based on your personal knowledge and experience. Then, listen to the “Local Words, Global Origins” video in the Week 1 activities. After you have watched the video, post your answers to the discussion questions on the Week 1 Forum.
What is your name and major?Where did you grow up (hometown or local area)?In the place where you grew up, what is the common
(non-technical) name of the edible, freshwater crustacean shown in the picture below? (It is NOT a “lobster”!)
Results The response to this question was substantive because most of the students are from LA and have direct experience with “crawfish.” Students from outside of LA knew of this shellfish. The video focused on the European origins of the word, something even the LA students did not know. The discussion was like a “jigsaw” activity.
Content DBsDB 5: What is grammatical inflection? How many noun cases did PIE have? (In contrast, Modern English has four noun cases, and only the genitive uses a grammatical inflection, -‘s.) What does this difference say to you about language in general and the relationship between PIE and English in particular?
Response Messages: Examples
Student 1 (Response Message to Student 2):I would have to agree with most your [Answer Message answers], since they are very similar to mine. But one thing you state, "The reduction in inflection in English speaks to how adaptive language is." brings up a question. How does this reduction demonstrate the adaptability of languages? And what example in English can you give for support of this? I concur with many of your responses; and I am not disagreeing, but just needing more clarification.
Responses: Examples 2Student 2 reply:That is a really good question. I think it is definitely possible. Changes are often subtle, but it can be seen with a word like "fish." Once the plural was considered to be "fishes," but now I mostly hear plural as "fish," much like "deer" functions. Although I wonder how much more English can reduce inflections, I do think that changes to noun forms are inevitable like changes to any other part of language.
Responses: Examples 3Student 2 elaboration:I think it is true to some extent of all modern languages. There are significant differences between classical and contemporary Greek, for example. I think it is the nature of language to adapt as needs of its speakers change. For dead languages, it is hard to say. Latin, I think, did adapt into the Romance languages, and they are the adapted form of Latin. Others, possibly died out due to invaders who conquered the speakers of that language, and thus there was no one left to speak it. Any language, like Latin, that serves as a "mother" language, shows its ability to adapt through its daughter languages. Others, may have been unable to adapt or no longer had a need to do so.
Responses: Examples 4Student 3 (Response Message to Student 2):My question goes back a couple of forums to when we discussed different kinds of language changes. You state that "the reduction in inflection in English speaks to how adaptive language is." Is this English specifically that is adaptive, or all currently spoken languages? Are the dead languages those that did not adapt--in this case simplify inflections--over time?
Student 2 reply: (None)
Conclusion Peer-to-peer interaction requires students to think deeply and discuss their ideas in detail w/o the teacher.
DB discussions are more like face-to-face discussions in content and social etiquette.
Grading the DB sessions does not take much more time than grading the old system.
Conclusion (Cont') Specific effects (#2 - #4 anecdotal):1. An increase in student messages sent.2. More substantive responses and sharing of personal knowledge and ideas;
3. More elaboration and reflection online;4. (Less pressure to “produce” and a greater emphasis on meeting the student's own learning needs)???