A Center for Teaching and Learning faculty development workshop facilitiated by:
Donna Alvah , Department of History
Ernest Mohochi, Department of Modern Languages and Literatures
Sondra Smith, Director of Educational Technologies, Co-CIO of Information Technology

Defining the online dialogue environment:

• Asynchronous (discussion or journal) provides time and space for assimilation, reflection, and critical thinking; it has more potential to be transformative. Email is also asynchronous, although it is often not used for these purposes.

• Synchronous (chat or whiteboard) provides opportunity for immediate response or assistance, similar to phone or face to face interactions.

ANGEL online dialogue options:

• Discussion forum – unlimited threaded discussions for course/group/team
• Journal discussion format – one-on-one threaded discussion, exchange limited to faculty and individual student
• Chat -- instructor-moderated, real-time group chat and course-specific instant messaging
• Whiteboard – real-time communication with visuals and chat

ANGEL communication tools also include:

• Email – specific to ANGEL course/group and contained within ANGEL interface
• Calendar – specific course/group/team/individual
• Drop boxes – specific to individual or open to peer review

Please make an appointment for liaison hours to learn more about the ANGEL options, refer to the Faculty QuickStart Guide, or attend one of our upcoming events.

Successful online dialogue may include:

• Enhanced communication
• Improved class preparation
• Broadened perspectives
• Improved participation, particularly for students who might not otherwise "speak up"
• Active learning
• Increased learner control
• Instructors provide leadership, manage environment and process
• Students engage the environment, collaborate with others to construct knowledge

Learning theory implications for successful online dialogue:

• Constructivist theory and derivatives (Dewey, Bruner, Piaget, Vygotsky): processing stimuli from environment and resulting cognitive structures produces adaptive behavior
• Collaborative learning – control for group size (smaller is better), task (interactive tasks lend to collaboration), heterogeneity (geographic, cultural, ethnical, discipline)
• Communities of practice (Wenger and Lave)
  • “Learning involves a deepening process of participation in a community of practice”
  • A community of practice is more than a community of interest, it requires time and sustained interaction to develop sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary as part of shared repertoire

Suggestions for successful online discussion forum dialogue:

Participate purposefully!

• Do participate – if and when appropriate, given content and assignment
• Don't participate, except for the initial post and/or early in the semester.
  • Post initial question(s) and model discussion protocol early in semester; expect students to participate independently thereafter. Burden for success is placed on students; faculty are relieved of reading every word to assess.*
    • Faculty must develop a rubric for substantive participation and perform in-class forum evaluation to demonstrate
      • incorporating course theories or other content
      • drawing out others’ assumptions through probing follow up queries
      • provoking thought (distinct from emotion!) about new idea or issue
      • contributing to civil discourse of class
    • Students must assemble portfolio of five most substantive response(s) and/or post(s) from separate weeks, submit for credit

*Student discussion portfolio concept credited to J. Fritz and K Readel @ UMBC

Also...

• Provide motivation – assign enough credit to signify importance
• Organize topics clearly and in accordance with syllabus
• Establish clear expectations for participation
• Set limits for duration of each discussion
• Encourage use of emoticons to establish “social presence”; avoid sarcasm and dry humor which are easily misunderstood
• Start with a no-stakes discussion (no credit) to make sure everyone understands and has access to the technology; this may also be useful as an activity for classmates to become acquainted
• Allow anonymity, perhaps through use of prearranged pseudonyms, if and when appropriate
• Restrict dialogue access to course/group/team participants
• Limit number of discussions per course to focus on most meaningful topics
• Encourage collaboration through team discussions that flow into course discussions
• Be realistic – consider the amount of discussion the topic typically generates, consider community dynamics in class
• Utilize chat or whiteboard space for less formal interactions such as office hours or study groups with peers or TAs

Examples of successful online dialogue in use:

• On-line interview exercise – students study a political character and then formulate a question for this person. In addition to the interview question, the students submit justification for their question and how it relates to the course material.
• Guest facilitator – students read article early in semester, prepare questions for author, and then reread article just before this expert in the field is invited to participate in the discussion.
• Question content – students submit a question about the content via e-mail; top 5 questions per chapter posted to the threaded discussion area. The owner of the question becomes the moderator and is responsible for responding.
• Teams – three key issues for each section are posted, students work in teams to formulate discussion for the issues, then each team posts a summary of the issue for the rest of the class to review. Any questions for the summaries are the responsibility of the team who posted that summary.
• Polling & discussion – use ANGEL's polling area to start each new section of the course; post conflicting ideas that will be discussed to take the pulse of the class on these issues. At the end of the section, reissue poll and compare results. Faculty report that poll results generate much more meaningful discussion from the outset and throughout the course.

References and Resources:

• Academic Computing at Dartmouth College, www.dartmouth.edu/~webteach/articles/discussion.html
• Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT) University of Michigan, www.crlt.umich.edu/gsis/P4_3.htm
• Gohkale, A. ( 1995) ' Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking' Journal of Technology Education http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html
• Lave, Jean and E. Wenger (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge : University of Cambridge Press
• Project M3 Wichita State University http://education.wichita.edu/m3/dive/bb_discussion/bb_discussion.html
• Smith, M. K. (2003) 'Communities of practice', the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm.
• Teaching and Learning with Technology (TLT) Penn State University, http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/discuss/
• Wenger, E. ‘ Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction’, www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm