What More Can They Say?
Encouraging Good Online
Discussion Without the
Workload
Dale Vidmar
Information Literacy and Instruction Coordinator/
Education, Communication, Health
and Physical Education Librarian
Southern Oregon University Library
vidmar@sou.edu
campus.sou.edu/~vidmar/pnw-wabug2007/vidmar.ppt
-
-------------
PNW/WABUG
Pacific Northwest/Washington Blackboard Users Group
Eugene, Oregon
October 19, 2007
Objectives:
What We are Learning
At the end of the workshop, IWBAT:
• Outline online discussion models
and conditions necessary for
student participation and learning.
• Distinguish qualities of responses in
discussion forums.
• Adapt the structure of studentmonitored discussion forums into
their own class using the rubric
as a guide to student selfassessment.
“. . . the virtual learning
space of an online forum
did not promote the
coherent and interactive
dialogue necessary to
conversational modes of
learning. . . .
incoherent structure. . . .”
“Learning within Incoherent Structures:
The Space of Online Discussion Forums”
Matthew J. W. Thomas
So How Do We Encourage
and Inspire Good Online
Discussion?
and
Do it Without the
Workload?
“99% of success is just
showing up. . . .”
Woody Allen
Intrinsic Motivation
“If students perceived
the online discussion as
valuable, interesting, and
enjoyable, they were
more likely to
participate.”
“Extending the Traditional Classroom Through Online
Discussion: The Role of Student Motivation”
Xie, DeBacker, and Ferguson
Conditions to Support Online
Discussion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create a Conducive Learning Environment
Establish Rules
Pose Meaningful Questions and Activities
Stimulate Participation
Be Sensitive to Nonparticipation
Encourage Reflection
Summarize Discussions and Key Ideas
Encourage More Reflection
“The Online Discussion Board”
S. Joseph Levine
“Grading student
discussions motivated
students to increase the
number of weekly
messages. . . .”
“Strategies for Grading Online Discussions”
Alfred P. Rovai
“Connectedness and learning
were also significantly higher
for courses in which
discussions were graded and
in which students posted on
average over three messages
per week. . . .”
“Strategies for Grading Online Discussions”
Alfred P. Rovai
Brief List of
Online Discussion Models
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introductions
Personal Goal Setting
Coffee House, Technology Bar, Water Cooler
General Discussion: Question – Response
Peer Evaluation and Feedback
Group Work – 3 to 1: Three students define
and discuss topic and post as one
• Starter/Wrapper – Initial Posting/Summary
• Self-Evaluation or Personal Reflections
Elements of Structure
to Guide Online Discussions
• Protocol for Posting Responses
• Participation
• Grammar Counts – Well-written, organized
• Builds and furthers discussion
• Moderator Guidelines
• Examples of questions
• How to facilitate discussions
• Evaluation (Rubrics)
• Criteria for assessing the discussion
What is a “Good”
Response?
What are the Qualities that
Make a “Good” Response?
What Criteria Can We Use
to Evaluate Responses?
“Instructor presence . . . is
important in moderation, and
that can be achieved in
different ways.”
“From Message Posting to Learning Dialogues:
Factors Affecting Learner Participation in
Asynchronous Discussion”
Vanessa Paz Dennen
Student Facilitated
Discussion Model
1. Students are grouped in diads or triads.
2. Each group moderates a discussion based
on their own question using the
starter/wrapper model.
3. All students will be evaluated based on a
rubric.
4. After all discussion forums are ended,
students choose their best hits based on
the rubric.
5. Students write reflection of why the
responses are their best hits by applying
the criteria in the rubric.
References and Resources
• Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning
dialogues: factors affecting learner participation in
asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26 (1), 127148.
• Edelstein, S. and J. Edwards (2002). If you build it, they will
come: building learning communities through threaded
discussions. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 5 (1), Retrieved on September 15, 2007,
from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring5/
edelstein51.html.
• Gilbert, P. K. and N. Dabbagh. (2005). How to structure online
discussions for meaningful discourse. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 36 (1), 5-18.
• Levine, S.J. (2007). The online discussion board. New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, 2007 (113), 67-74.
• Markel, S.L. (2001). Technology and education online discussion
forums: it's in the response. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration. 4, (2): Retrieved September 14,
2007, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/
markel42.html.
References and Resources
• Mazzolini, M. & S. Maddison. (2007). When to jump in: the role of
the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers in
Education, 49(2), 193-213.
• Rovai, A. P. (2003). Strategies for grading online discussions:
effects on discussions and classroom community in internetbased university courses. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 15(1), 89-107.
• Seo, K.K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderation in online discussions:
addressing the controversy between teacher moderation and
nonmoderation. American Journal of Distance Education, 21
(1), 21-36.
• Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures:
the space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 18, 351-366.
• Xie, K., DeBacker, T.K., & C. Ferguson. (2006). Extending the
traditional classroom through online discusion: the role of
student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 34 (1), 67-89.
What More Can They Say?
Encouraging Good Online
Discussion Without the
Workload
Dale Vidmar
Information Literacy and Instruction Coordinator/
Education, Communication, Health
and Physical Education Librarian
Southern Oregon University Library
vidmar@sou.edu
campus.sou.edu/~vidmar/pnw-wabug2007/vidmar.ppt
-
-------------
PNW/WABUG
Pacific Northwest/Washington Blackboard Users Group
Eugene, Oregon
October 19, 2007