Post Session Reflection Part 2 -Discussions

In this second post I am going to consider the benefits of asynchronous discussions, which have been used to compliment my guest speaker session.  Although first you should ask yourself why should I incorporate discussions into my design?   I compare asynchronous discussions to classroom discussion , although what I see as key to online discussions is the opportunity you are give to think about the questions posed and reflect upon them as well as requiring them to provide either a written or audio response that will become part of the session itself.  There are many purposes for discussions and here is a list of them shared by  (Painter, et al., 2003; and Goodyear et al 2003, cited in Grogan, 2005)

• Provide an open question and answer forum

• Encourage critical or creative thinking

• Reinforcing domain or procedural processes

• Achieve social interaction and community building - have the students get to know each other personally and intellectually

• Validating experiences

• Supporting students in their own reflections and inquiries

I wanted to share the following statements with you, which in its  simplicity encapsulate what asynchronous discussions achieve: 

• Threaded discussions are conversations organized by topics (Swan, 2006). Because they are strictly text-based, students have time to think deeply about their writing before posting comments

What does it achieve :

• This creates a culture of reflection among the class members, and they become much more mindful of their thoughts (Hiltz, 1994; Poole, 2000; Garrison, 2003). 

With all this in mind I decided on a tool to support my asynchronous discussion and posted the questions on the discussion board on the Edinburgh Napier Education Exchange. Questions were posted and announced to the cohort and it was just a matter of waiting to see who would respond? Responses came into the questions posed and I knew the importance of providing a timely and meaningful reply. Why? Well I knew that this would contribute to educational experience of the participants.

Educational experience, this sounded familiar. Well it did not surprise me that the Community of Inquiry  Model Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000) had played a crucial role throughout decision process made and the decision to facilitate a Webinar, which included extensive interaction through questioning  and to support the session with an  asynchronous discussion.   Several words sprang to mind:

• Engagement 
• Reflection 
• Mutual understanding  
• Confirm mutual understanding 

The questions posed during the session required confirmation from the group and mutual agreement and also many of the question required the group to reflect, if only briefly and provide a reply. My interaction with the group during the session helped me to confirm that there was mutual understanding regarding the content being shared and has been apparent in the asynchronous discussion replies to date.  The responses clearly show evidence that there are no spontaneous replies, but well-considered replies, which pose further questions and outline concerns and challenges. Would I have been able to achieve this in a classroom discussion?   Sharing information prior to the session, my engagement during the session and my continued engagement during the discussion hit on the three core elements of the Community of Inquiry Model, which contribute to the overall education experience: 

I looked at this diagram again and could easily making associates to where my instructional design supports this. 

• Setting the Climate  - My blurb announcing my session , links to relevant videos 
• Supporting Discourse  - Questions and discussions and relevant reading, referencing 
• Selecting content   -  Select relevant content for the session relevant to my learning outcomes  

Though a small revelation that I had to share it is time to return to the topic threaded discussions. What I noticed is that the discussion board in Edinburgh Napier Education Exchange  supports flat discussions, although this has not stopped me from using the discussion board to encourage the group to engage and reflect upon the questions posed.  

The power of threaded discussions revisited

I wanted to revisit this topic again as I have seen the success of taking part in threaded discussions and how they seem to be an effective method of encouraging critical thinking (Meyer, 2003). These discussions  seem to be a  great a podium on which the facilitator like myself are able to use this platform to coach and develop deeper and more reflective learning. We are able to isolate  specific elements of content  and encourage the group to exchange ideas a view which is also shared by MacKnight (2000).  What I have now come to realise is that text based communication creates the opportunity for  critical thinking as it allows for reflective rather than just spontaneous discourse (Garrison&Anderson, 2003). 

Alternatives to threaded discussions

Are there alternatives to threaded discussions? With this question in mind I went in search alternatives and stumbled across VoiceThread. What is VoiceThread? Well, rather than me explaining what is it, take a look at the following link: VoiceThread Overview. This could certainly be an alternative to the threaded discussions I am used to.  I am always in search of ways that I can provide students with opportunities for interaction in the online courses I am designing, which not only create environment for learning, but contribute towards the growth of a learning community a view shared Richardson and Swan(2003). 

It seems that VoiceThread as been designed to promote a collaborative development of knowledge, which is achieved through the ability for students to make comments, doodles, recordings and much more and according to Dede (2008) this is an example of the influence that Web2.0 technologies are having on instructional practices. 

Clearly  VoiceThread, like many Web2.0 allows students to particpate in learning outside of the classroom, allowing them to engage in discussions on mutual topics (Yildiz, McNeal,& Salika, 2009) For the examples on the website it achieves the same outcomes as a threaded discussion. When I talk about outcomes, it engages the participants and promotes meaningful exploration of content (Hokanson & Hooper, 2000). I also saw some other benefits for learners that find visual learning more effective to spark interest and guide learning Friedman and Lee (2009) 

Resources :

• Dede, C. (2008). New Horizons: A seismic shift in epistemology. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(3), 80–81.
• Friedman, A. M., & Lee, J. K. (2009, June). Using VoiceThread as a debate tool. Paper presented at the James F. Ackerman Colloquium on Technology and Citizenship Education, West Lafayette, IN.
• Garrison, D.R. (2003). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Aschynchronous Learning Networks, (10)1, 25-34.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. pdf Full Text 
• Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Hiltz, S.R. (1994). The virtual classroom: learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Hokanson, B., & Hooper, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive media: Examining the potential of computers in education. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 537–552.
• Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A. J. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21^st century. Chicago, IL: The MacArthur Foundation.
• MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 4, 38-41.
• Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2005). Teaching students with learning problems (7^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.
• Poole, D.M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computng in Education, 33(2), 162-177.
• Smith, J., & Dobson, E. (2009). Beyond the book: Using VoiceThread in language arts instruction. Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Chesapeake, VA.
• Swan, K. (2006). Threaded Discussions. Paper presented at Conference of Ohio Learning Network (OLN). Retrieved from: http://www.oln.org/conferences/ODCE2006/papers/Swan_Threaded_Discussion.pdf
• Yildiz, M., McNeal, K., & Salika, L. (2009, July). The power of social interaction technologies in teacher education. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Washington, DC.
• Zorigian, K. A. (2009). The effects of webbased publishing on students’ reading motivation. Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.