And the Online Discussion Environment

 The teacher might assess the student’s online course work with:  Objective Tests;  Group Work;  Essays;  Discussion

 Many people say that discussion in Online courses is what makes online worth doing;  Others say that courses that seek discussion are best carried out Face-to-Face ;

PULLING TEETH? BARREN WASTELAND?

 Actively participate in discussion?  Agree to disagree?  Engage one another in ongoing, critical discussions?

 COURSES WITH LOTS OF FACTUAL INFORMATION  COURSES WITH LOTS OF CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS;  COURSES WITH LOTS OF PERSONALLY RELEVANT TOPICS;

 WHAT DO YOU WANT OUT OF DISCUSSION IN YOUR ONLINE COURSES?  TESTING STUDENT KNOWLEDGE FOR TEXTBOOK CONTENT?  STUDENT-to-STUDENT INTERACTION?  GENUINE GIVE AND TAKE OF IDEAS, DEBATE, CRITICAL THINKING?

 What motivates students to:  Actively participate in online discussion?  Engage one another in online discussion?

Whether labeled “discussion,” “dialogue” or “conversation,” the liveliest interactions are critical. When participants take a critical stance, they are committed to questioning and exploring even the most widely accepted ideas and beliefs. ( Brookfield and Preskill, p. 7 ).

According to an anonymous online survey conducted in 2008 Students were 100%: More likely to actively participate in those discussions that they found to be personally relevant and controversial AND Less likely to actively participate in those discussions that were factual.

Conversing critically implies an openness to rethinking cherished assumptions and to subjecting those assumptions to a continuous round of questioning, argument, and counterargument. One of the defining characteristics of critical discussion is that participants are willing to enter the conversation with open minds. (Brookfield and Preskill, p. 7).

This requires people to be flexible enough to adjust their views in the light of persuasive, well- supported arguments and confident enough to retain their original opinions when rebuttals fall short. Although agreement may sometimes be desirable, it is by no means a necessity (Brookfield and Preskill, p. 7).

 STUDENTS RARELY ENGAGE ONE ANOTHER IN MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION, DISAGREE OVER IDEAS, SUBSTANTIATE IDEAS, OR CONNECT TO OTHER STUDENTS’ IDEAS;  STUDENTS RARELY OFFER THEIR THOUGHTS EARLY IN THE WEEK OR RESPOND TO ONE ANOTHER;  STUDENTS WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE WEEK TO POST AND FLEE;

 Would the use of rubrics help to improve the level of student interaction?  Would the use of rubrics help to improve level of critical thinking in online discussion?

 IN THE 2008 COURSE, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT STUDENTS POST ACROSS THE WEEK AND THAT THEY SUPPORT THEIR POSTS WITH EVIDENCE;  IN THE 2009 COURSE, RUBRICS WERE PRESENTED TO THE STUDENTS AT THE OUTSET OF THE COURSE, AND  STUDENTS WERE GIVEN A TABLE SHOWING VARIOUS LEVELS OF QUALITY IN POSTS;

 STUDENTS IN THE 2009 CLASS WERE TOLD THAT THEIR POSTS WOULD BE GRADED WEEKLY BASED ON THE RUBRICS;  STUDENTS COULD VIEW THEIR GRADES IN THE ONLINE GRADE BOOK;

 TWO SECTIONS OF: THE SAME INTRODUCTORY COURSE IN COMMUNICATION, WITH THE SAME TEACHER WERE COMPARED FOR:  THE AMOUNT OF STUDENT-to-STUDENT INTERACTION  DAY OF THE WEEK FOR INITIAL POST AND DAY OF THE WEEK FOR INITIAL RESPONSE  THE QUALITY OF STUDENT-to-STUDENT POSTS;

 WITH RUBRICS, STUDENTS DID POST THEIR INITIAL POST FOR A FORUM EARLIER IN THE WEEK THAN WITHOUT RUBRICS;  WITH RUBRICS, STUDENTS DID POST THEIR INITIAL RESPONSE TO OTHER STUDENTS’ POSTS EARLIER IN THE WEEK THAN WITHOUT RUBRICS

 IN OTHER WORDS, MORE INTERACTION ;  WITH RUBRICS, STUDENTS USED SOMEWHAT HIGHER LEVELS OF CRITICAL THINKING THAN WITHOUT RUBRICS— THOUGH, IN PRACTICAL TERMS, THE INCREASE WAS VERY SMALL

 UNTIL THESE FINDINGS ARE REPLICATED AND TRIED OUT NUMEROUS TIMES, WE WANT TO BE CAUTIOUS IN COMING TO CONCLUSIONS, BUT IT DOES APPEAR THAT:  RUBRICS HELP;  SHOWING STUDENTS WHAT YOU MEAN BY QUALITY DISCUSSION HELPS;  MOTIVATING EARLY POSTING HELPS;  MOTIVATING EARLY RESPONSES HELPS;