24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
Asynchronous Discussions: Best Practices
Gary Berry, Ph.D.
Assistant Dean for Advanced Studies Development
American Public University System
Introduction
It is commonly accepted among online educators that asynchronous discussions enhance online learning
and should be used in most online classrooms due to the reflective time available and the collaborative
nature of the method (Brooks & Jeong, 2006; Kramarski & Mizrachi, 2006; Schellens and Valcke, 2006;
Dennen, 2005; Jin, 2005; Biesenbach-Lucas, 2004; Fry-Welch, 2004). Assuming that asynchronous
discussions contribute to online learning, educational leaders then need to find and implement the best
practices. A review of the literature suggests that such practices can be grouped into six areas: size of the
discussion groups, how the instructor implements the discussion in the classroom, whether or not it is
assessed, how many discussions should occur, use of rubrics and what faculty support is provided. Each
of those will be covered in the following sections.
Discussion Group Size
Barkley, Cross and Major (2005) recommend that the best in collaborative learning occurred in classes of
two to six students. Spokane Falls Community College (2005) suggests that online discussion groups be
limited to a maximum of five participants, regardless of the number registered in the class. Huang and
Law (2004) also encourage the use of smaller discussion groups. Levin, He and Robbins (2006)
recommend six to eight students per class. Du, Durrington and Mathews (2007) report that among those
students who expressed a preference, the preferred group size was four to six students. Fernandez (2007)
successfully used groups of three in a class of fifteen to create effective discussions groups. My own
findings from an earlier study suggested the range for discussion groups should be five students plus or
minus 2 students (Berry, 2007).
But two dissenting studies recommend larger class sizes. Fisher, Thompson and Silverberg (2005)
recommend 25 students as the optimal class size for an asynchronous discussion. Their study over two
years found that large group size seemed to produce the minimal number of acceptable messages in each
asynchronous discussion. Reonieri (2006) concluded that 10 – 15 students per class is optimal based on a
survey of both online faculty and online students. He concluded that smaller class sizes did not provide a
diversity of views and that a larger class size needed to be divided into the optimally sized groups so that
all voices could be heard.
In the most extensive study, Schellens and Valcke (2007) suggested that classes with less than ten
students provide higher order critical thinking opportunities for students. While agreeing that the
traditional literature suggested 10-12 students as the optimal class size for an appropriate number of
substantive postings, they insist that their findings, involving over 300 students and 38 different
asynchronous discussions, points to smaller groups as being the most effective in collaborative learning.
Taking all the studies into account, it appears that the best discussion group size is between four to nine
students. But this is only the first of several best practices. The next question becomes how to effectively
guide the discussion.
Copyright 2008 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
Duplication or redistribution prohibited without written permission of the
author(s) and the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
1
24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
Instructor Implementation and Leading of Discussions
Instructors in an online classroom should ensure that they do not dominate the asynchronous discussions.
As the authority figure in the class, students will often take clues from the instructor’s postings as to how
to approach their own postings. Swan (2004) suggested that instructors must consciously restrain their
willingness to post and must find ways to stimulate student-to-student learning collaboration. She
recommends that the instructor set the standards and tone of the classroom early and then participate less
and less in the discussions. To ensure that students know the instructor is still engaged and reviewing the
asynchronous posts, she suggests continued weekly contacts through individual feedback mechanisms or
email since those opportunities can be used to coach students on their postings. Biesenbach-Lucas (2004)
reinforces Swan’s point by noting that when instructors take over the discussions, students are less willing
to openly make their own suggestions because they perceive they are less of an expert than the instructor.
On the other hand, using Socratic Dialogue has long been a traditional classroom teaching style for
advanced studies seminars and has been readily recognized as enhancing critical thinking. Yang, Newby
and Bill (2005), using both quantitative and qualitative methods, conclude that Socratic questioning in
asynchronous discussions, with careful monitoring by the professor, can both enhance critical thinking
and help students maintain those skills. They further noted that timely placement of questions by the
professor is essential for Socratic Dialogue to function well.
As an administrator, I have visited a number of classrooms. Some professors tend to pontificate and
overwhelm the student responses. Other professors contribute nothing, not even in individual feedback,
leaving the students to wonder if instructors were even reading student postings. This illustrates the need
for guidelines and suggestions to faculty, which will be covered in the sixth section below.
Assessment of Discussions
Assessment or grading of asynchronous discussions appears to be common. Perhaps this is due in part to
an American educational culture that fosters the idea that students will not do an assignment unless it is
for credit. Biesenbach-Lucas (2004) requires a minimum number of postings and responses as well as
conducting an analytic review of each posting. Literacy skills were assessed by evaluating postings in
Buchanan’s (2002) study. Chabon (2001) required a minimum number postings and subsequent activity
submissions. Fry-Welch (2004) required students to do a formal critique of five journal articles and then
lead the subsequent discussion with classmates. Weicha (2003) did a qualitative assessment of postings to
determine if students had achieved an understanding of interviewing concepts.
What is not clear from the various studies is how much weight is given to asynchronous discussions. Was
it usually ten percent of the course grade or seventy percent? In my anecdotal experience as an online
teacher, assessment values (grades) must be given, no matter how small, to every aspect of the assignment
and fifty to seventy percent of the course grade is appropriate.
Number of Discussions per Class
If assessment of asynchronous discussions is valid, then it begs another question: how many
asynchronous discussions should occur in a course? For example, which would be better in an online
class: a question posed every week of a semester or only five questions posed throughout the semester?
While it may seem counter intuitive to the traditional professor accustomed to weekly lectures or
discussions, Biesenbach-Lucas (2004) concludes the latter. In her study over five semesters, the reduced
assignments actually increased the quality of contributions posted against the assignments. Student
quality requirements were increased which students perceived to have deepened their understanding of
the subject.
Copyright 2008 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
Duplication or redistribution prohibited without written permission of the
author(s) and the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
2
24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
Brooks and Jeong (2006) report that a large number of pre-structured discussions limited student
contribution time and their ability to effectively discuss the topics in appropriate analytical detail.
Students and instructors were often overwhelmed with the number of postings (Hewitt, 2005). They could,
for example, have read an extremely relevant and well-crafted posting and chose not to comment on it
because there were easier postings to respond to.
My experience as an administrator has provided the opportunity to visit classes with a wide range of
discussion groups, from one to 56. The former is invariably nothing more than a self-introduction group
and the latter excess by an enthusiastic professor who did not realize what he was doing to his students
and to himself. One discussion a week gets tiresome in a 16 week class. My personal standard, which has
met with some success, is seven discussion groups per class. Therefore, the recommended best number of
discussion groups per class should be restrained to five to seven per class.
Asynchronous Discussion Rubrics
Now that class size, faculty implementation, grading and total number of discussions have been covered;
how should standards be set for students to participate in the discussions? Little in the peer-reviewed
literature examined or even simply discussed the use of rubrics for asynchronous discussions.
Asynchronous discussion examples from reputable institutions are available through Internet sites. Loyola
University of Chicago provides a comprehensive seven-category, five-level rubric. It lists standards for
knowledge of the subject matter, research, word usage, applicability to the assigned topic, timeliness and
responses to others. The University of Delaware publishes a six category, four level rubric covering
frequency, initial posting, follow-up postings, content, references and word usage. Swan, Ou and Kuo
(2006) provide an excellent series of charts from a conference presentation that shows how to develop an
asynchronous discussion rubric for a particular class. Links are available to all in the reference list.
Some faculty members will argue against the use of discussion rubrics either for reasons of academic
freedom or the amount of time spent grading the rubrics. In my use of rubrics, neither seem to be a
problem. The clear pre-published expectation standards greatly reduce the student questions. And actual
grading is far easier when using a rubric and the feedback can be pointed and specific. Assessment or
grading of asynchronous discussion postings and replies is an essential best practice. The more weight
given to the discussions likely produces more substantive contributions from the students. Succinctly,
rubrics should be used to evaluate asynchronous discussions.
Faculty Guidelines and Suggestions
Again, little in the peer-reviewed literature discusses faculty guidelines or suggestions to improve
classroom asynchronous discussions. A few schools publish guides, goals or suggestions on how faculty
members could best teach online. One of the best is from Spokane Falls Community College in the state
of Washington. It publishes a very thorough faculty guide on how to effectively lead online classrooms
discussions, listing specific suggestions on how to encourage students to participate. Key points include
setting the proper tone early in the class discussion area, requiring student participation by grading both
their primary posting as well as their following interactivity with classmates, saving best posts by the
faculty for future use in responding and summarizing the discussion at the end of each assignment. This
school provides its faculty with a wealth of direction and suggestion on how to effectively use
asynchronous discussions.
Another faculty guide in use at the University of Minnesota highly encourages the use of asynchronous
discussions even in the traditional classes. The guide notes the great benefit to students and their learning
Copyright 2008 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
Duplication or redistribution prohibited without written permission of the
author(s) and the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
3
24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
environment. Though it did not direct specific methods, the site did suggest that each student must make a
primary posting and reply to another student.
Swan, Ou and Kuo (2006) provided an excellent series of charts from a conference presentation that
suggested specific tools for faculty use and subjects that should considered to optimize online discussion.
They justify assessment, goals for discussions, rubric development, and collaboration. They also provided
a list of the best practices when teaching those not from the American culture.
At American Public University System, the faculty is required to attend annual professional development
sessions, most of which are on the successful use of the classroom tools with the emphasis on
asynchronous discussion groups. The Center for Learning provides website resources. One of the eight
categories of the annual faculty performance evaluation covers how well the faculty member is
stimulating asynchronous discussions. In summary, faculty members need training and guidance on how
to effectively use asynchronous discussions.
Conclusion
The following summary lists the best practices in using asynchronous discussions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Asynchronous discussion group size should be limited to between four and nine students.
Assessment or grading of asynchronous discussion postings and replies is an essential
component.
Instructors need to be judicious about how they interact and avoid dominating the
classroom.
Number of discussion groups per class should be restrained to 5 -7.
Rubrics should be used to evaluate asynchronous discussions.
Faculty members need training and guidance on how to effectively use asynchronous
discussions.
References
Barkley, E., Cross, K., & Major, C. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college
faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berry, G.W. (2007) The impact of asynchronous discussion boards on student perceptions of course
outcomes in the online classroom. Unpublished dissertation available thru ProQuest.
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2004). Asynchronous web discussions in teacher training
courses: promoting collaborative learning - or not?. Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 12(2), 155.
Brooks, C. D., & Jeong, A. (2006). Effects of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and
group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Distance Education. 27,
371-390.
Buchanan, L. E., Luck, D. L., & Jones T. C. (2002). Integrating information literacy into
the virtual university: a course model. Library Trends, 51(2), 144-166.
Chabon, S. S., Cain, R. E., & Lee-Wilkerson D. (2001). Facilitating those dreaded
discussions on diversity, through threaded discussion: an inter-institutional,
internet based model. Distance Education, 22(1), 137-143.
Dennen, V. (2005).From Message Posting to Learning Dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation
in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education. 26, 127-148.
Du, J., Durrington, V. A., & Mathews, J. G. (2007). Online collaborative discussion: Myth or valuable
learning tool. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 3(2), 94-104.
Copyright 2008 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
Duplication or redistribution prohibited without written permission of the
author(s) and the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
4
24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
Fernandez, M. L. (2007) Communication and instruction in an online graduate education course.
Teaching Education 18(2), 137-150.
Fisher, M., Thompson, G. S., & Silverberg, D. A. (2005). Effective group dynamics in elearning: Case study. Journal of Educational Technology systems, 33(3), 205-222.
Fry-Welch, D. K. (2004). Use of threaded discussions to enhance classroom teaching of
critical evaluation of the professional literature. Journal of Physical Therapy
Education, 18(2), 48.
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 14(4), 567-589.
Huang, H. & Liaw, S. (2004). Guiding distance educators in building web-based instructions.
International Journal of Instructional Media. 31, 125-137.
Jin, S. H. (2005). Analyzing student-student and student-instructor interaction through multiple
communication tools in web-based learning. International Journal of Instuctional Media. 32, 59.
Kramarski, B., & Mizrachi, N. (2006). Online discussion and self-regulated learning:
effects of instructional methods on mathematical literacy. The Journal of Educational Research. 99, 218221.
Levin, B., He, Y., & Robbins, H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice teachers'
reflective thinking in synchronous versus asynchronous online case discussions.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 14, 439-460.
Loyola University Chicago (n.d.). Asynchronous formal class discussion rubric. Retrieved Apr. 18, 2008
from http://www.luc.edu/learningtech/pdfs/rubric_asynchronous.pdf
Reonieri, D. C. (2006). Optimizing the number of students for an effective online discussion board
learning experience. Unpublished masters thesis available thru ERIC.
Schellens, T. and Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through
asynchronous discussion groups. Computers and Education. 46, 349-370.
Spokane Falls Community College, (n.d.). Online Threaded Discussions. Retrieved Apr. 18,
2008, from http://www.spokanefalls.edu/Programs/OnlineThreadedDiscussion/Home.aspx
Swan, K. (2004). Instructor’s ‘restrained participation’ in threaded discussions gives students control,
ownership of learning. Online Cl@ssroom, Retrieved June 12, 2005, from
http://www.magnapubs.com/issues/magnapubs_oc/4_10/
Swan, K., Ou, J. and Kuo, C-L. (2006). Optimizing online discussion: Tools for faculty development.
Retrieved Apr 18, 2008 from
http://www.oln.org/conferences/ODCE2006/papers/Swan_Online_Discussion.ppt
University of Delware (n.d.). Rubric for asynchronous discussion participation. Retrieved Apr. 18, 2008
from http://www.udel.edu/janet/MARC2006/rubric.html
University of Minnesota (2006). Center for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from
the Syllabus Tutorial Web site:
http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tutorials/syllabus/technology/assignments.html
Wiecha, J. M., Gramling R., Joachim P., & Vanderschmidt, H. (2003). Collaborative
e-learning using streaming video and asynchronous discussion boards to teach
the cognitive foundation of medical interviewing: a case study. Journal of Medical Internet Research,
5(2), e13.
Yang, Y. C., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical
think skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163-181.
Copyright 2008 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
Duplication or redistribution prohibited without written permission of the
author(s) and the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
5
24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
About the Presenter
Gary Berry is the Assistant Dean for Advanced Studies Development at American Public University
System. He spent 26 years in the Army to include three tours in Germany and commanding four units. He
served in various staff positions, such as G1 of the 4th Infantry Division, Adjutant of DELTA Force, a
Protocol Officer for the Chief of Staff, Army and in two joint assignments. His PhD is from Touro
University International and his research field of interest is asynchronous discussion groups.
Address: 111 West Congress St.
Charles Town, WV 25414
E-mail: gberry@apus.edu
URL:
www.amu.apus.edu
Phone: 304.724.2817
Fax:
304.724.3786
Copyright 2008 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
Duplication or redistribution prohibited without written permission of the
author(s) and the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
6