1. SHIFTING FROM OBLIGATORY DISCOURSE TO RICH DIALOGUE: PROMOTING STUDENT INTERACTION IN ASYNCHRONOUS THREADED DISCUSSIONS Sheryne Southard, JD, Christie Burton, EdD, Mara Mooney, JD, Clayton State University, Morrow, GA

2. Significance of the Study  Institutional commitment  Personal commitment  Goals of our presentation

3. Asynchronous Threaded Discussions  Widely-recognized tool to enhance online environment  Offer opportunities for analysis, reflection, and synthesis  Transcending obligatory discourse, hasty postings, and repetitive content

4. The Suspense Model  Premise: Online discussions are an integral part of the online learning process (Brooks & Jeong, 2006; Carr-Chellman & Duchastel, 2004)  How do we maximize the utility and effectiveness of this online tool?  Build a sense of community  Controlled release of information pertaining to the exercise

5. Goals of the Suspense Model  To foster student participation in the group  To encourage interaction among the group members  To creatively disseminate instructional materials to promote improved student engagement

6. Research Question Would the structure and design of the Suspense Model positively influence student participation in the exercise and the quality of student work compared to participation in the conventional discussion exercise?

7. Grading Rubric

8. Dependent Variables  Promptness of responses  Student satisfaction  Utility in learning/usefulness of exercise  Quality of responses  Interactivity among group members

9. Results: Promptness  The earlier a student begins participating in the dialogue, the more opportunity for interaction with peers and for reflection upon their own interpretation of the exercise.  Participation by students occurred earlier (within the first 3 days of the exercise) in the Suspense Model

10. Promptness Suspense Discussion Model (N=48) 2 – Excellent 1.5 – Good1 – Fair.5 – Poor 0 None Promptness N=22 %=45.8 N=8 %=16.67 N=15 %=31.25 N=3 %=6.25 N=0 Conventional Discussion Model (N=42) 2 – Excellent 1.5 – Good1 – Fair.5 – Poor0 - None Promptness N=12 %=28.57 N=7 %=16.67 N=14 %=33.33 N=5 %=11.90 N=3 %=7.14

11. Student Feedback: Satisfaction Suspense Discussion Model (N=33) Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutralAgree Strongly Agree Satisfaction N=3 9% N=6 18% N=8 24% N=8 24% N=8 24% Conventional Discussion Model (N=38) Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutralAgree Strongly Agree Satisfaction N=2 5% N=3 8% N=13 34% N=12 32% N=8 21%

12. Student Feedback: Usefulness Suspense Discussion Model (N=33) Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutralAgree Strongly Agree Usefulness or utility N=3 9% N=0 N=12 36% N=11 33% N=7 21% Conventional Discussion Model (N=38) Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutralAgree Strongly Agree Usefulness or utility N=1 (2.6) 3% N=3 8% N=8 21% N=18 47% N=8 21%

13. Quality of Responses  Depth & Breadth  Substantiates Position

14. Depth and Breadth Suspense Discussion Model (N=48) 2 – Excellent1.5 – Good1 – Fair.5 – Poor 0 None Depth & Breadth N=19 %=39.58 N=23 %=47.92 N=5 %=10.42 N=1 %=2.08 N=0 %=0 Conventional Discussion Model (N=42) 2 – Excellent1.5 – Good1 – Fair.5 – Poor0 - None Depth & Breadth N=22 %=52.38 N=16 %=38.10 N=0 %=0 N=0 %=0 N=0

15. Substantiation Suspense Discussion Model (N=48) 2 – Excellent1.5 – Good1 – Fair.5 – Poor 0 None Substantiates Position N=27 %=56.25 N=14 %=29.17 N=6 %=12.50 N=1 %=2.08 N=0 Conventional Discussion Model (N=42) 2 – Excellent1.5 – Good1 – Fair.5 – Poor0 - None Substantiates Position N=33 %=78.57 N=5 %=11.90 N=0 %=0 N=0 %=0 N=0 %=0

16. Interactivity Suspense Discussion Model (N=48) 2 – Excellent1.5 – Good1 – Fair.5 – Poor 0 None Interactivity N=24 %=50 N=11 %=22.92 N=13 %=27.08 N=0 %=0 N=0 Conventional Discussion Model (N=42) 2 – Excellent1.5 – Good1 – Fair.5 – Poor0 - None Interactivity N=14 %=33.33 N=4 %=9.52 N=20 %=47.62 N=0 %=0 N=0 %=0

17. Conclusion and Q&A  Pacing of information bolsters student interaction in an asynchronous setting and motivates them to begin the exercise earlier  Other lessons learned: Gersick, 1991 on group work; Brooks & Jeong, 2006;