Learning through Asynchronous Discussions
In recent years, Web-based electronic discussion tools have become widely available, indeed almost commonplace—in educational and organizational contexts—both in schools and universities. These tools enable the support of activities such as brainstorming, idea organization, voting, group authoring, and matrix analysis. While these tools can be deployed in both face-to-face and online contexts, much of the literature describes applications in face-to-face settings involving synchronous (i.e. same time) communications. In large classes, however, such a set-up is impractical; seldom are 100 or more PCs available in a single room. Nevertheless, as we demonstrate in this article, the technology can enable significant learning when applied in an asynchronous, distributed setting, i.e. when participants access the tools at a time and place of their choosing.
The integration of IT into education and training to support an objectivist model of knowledge transmission and/or a constructivist model of learning is well documented [1]. Asynchronous learning networks promote student-instructor interaction, emphasize student-to-student collaboration, and generate active participation. However, "challenges remain in terms of software to adequately support relatively large learning communities" [2]. This is a particularly pressing problem in large undergraduate classes where opportunities for student-instructor interaction and for student-student collaboration are limited and it is difficult (if only for reasons of limited air time [3]) to obtain active participation. By supporting collaborative learning in large classes through asynchronous online discussions, constructivist learning is enabled, while lecture sessions facilitate objectivist learning. Using a discussion board in large classes can be quite a daunting task for instructors, due to difficulties associated with handling large numbers of messages and simultaneously ensuring that the discussion really does assist in the learning process.
Context
The specific context of this article is a large class (161 students) on "Enterprise-wide networking" offered as part of a BBA program over a single, 14-week semester, with most students majoring in Information Systems. The class has a two-hour lecture and a one-hour lab session, with the students split into six groups of 25-30 students. Outside class time, students are encouraged (and rewarded) to use a Web-based discussion board tool "WebBoard," which supports conferences (topics) and threads under each conference. They can access the WebBoard from any location with Internet access. The number of messages and new messages is evident. There are facilities for sending periodic email notifications to students, chat tools, etc. For this class, four general topics were created on the WebBoard, with twelve specific topics corresponding to different lecture sessions, and seven topics for lab sessions. We observed that the number of postings peaked during the middle of the course. The "questions and answers" conference (354 messages over the duration of the course) was by far the most popular one, representing a source of information for students concerned about exam questions.
Suggestions for Practice
Our suggestions and recommendations are based both on our own "instructor perspective" in designing and administrating the WebBoard tool in a number of courses, and on the "student perspective," as gleaned in feedback with respect to their motivation, extent of participation, role in using WebBoard, learning experiences, and overall satisfaction. These student perceptions were gathered in four focus-group sessions conducted using a group support system (cf. [3]). Our suggestions are organized according to the different phases in the lifecycle of using a WebBoard system: planning & organization, initiation, usage, and conclusion. We note that while these suggestions are derived from our experiences, and so primarily apply to an online learning environment that essentially exists over many weeks, many of them may also be considered relevant in the more temporally restricted, face-to-face, synchronous context—subject to customization for particular class settings. It is also important to consider the appropriateness of different types of tool. The examples presented here employ a Web-based conference facility with multiple threads that works well for idea-generation and question/answer formats. Other tools that encourage different communication styles may also be considered, depending on the nature of the interactions. These include tools that enable categorization of the materials, voting on items in an attempt to achieve consensus, group authoring of documents, matrix analysis, and electronic surveys of participants on a range of issues associated with both the content matter and the process of the interactions.
Planning & Organization Phase
- Horizontal segmentation: Segment the entire discussion board according to topics (e.g., for each lecture and tutorial session) with some special topics such as questions to instructors/tutors; messages; questions and answers; etc., so as to provide a natural structure and to minimize efforts required for administration.
- Vertical segmentation: Provide different conferences to separate (and possibly restrict access to) the discussions that could start at different times in a week among students attending different lab sessions. This type of segmentation will also minimize message overload and help address the specific concerns of individual groups.
Initiation Phase
- Guidance: Give illustrative guidelines on message structure (message subject, length of the body, contribution of the message) and on how to start new threads and append to existing threads. Most students do not bother to select an appropriate message title for their postings; they just use the default message title which happens to be the title of the message they are responding to. Selecting appropriate message titles for such messages helps other readers in understanding the substance of the discussion. Conducting a short practice session during the first week (for each lab class) can greatly help in this regard.
- Communication: Communicate expectations and rules of the game (frequency of instructors'/tutors' participation; expected number of postings from each student during the semester; how participation is rewarded; etc.)
- Initiate: Initiate a few threads (under the first couple of topics) to start the discussions. Despite all the guidance and communication, most students require further help, encouragement, and pressure. Destructive criticism of early postings will negatively affect participation. Therefore, it is essential that feedback is positive and constructive.
