how to participate in discussion forums effectively
TRANSCRIPT
How to Participate in Discussion Forums
Effectively
Dr. Alireza Hejazi
Online Adjunct Faculty, City Vision University
http://goo.gl/ST6zbY
https://ir.linkedin.com/in/hejaziar
“The difference between the almost
right word and the right word is like
the difference between the lightning
bug and lightning.” ~ Mark Twain
To the Instructors
Why Discussions Fail
Unprepared Students
Unrealistic Expectations
No Ground Rules
Reward Systems Askew
No Teacher Modeling
Creating Ground Rules
Individuals reflect on features of best & worst
discussions they‟ve experienced.
Groups discuss commonly agreed features of
best & worst discussions.
Class creates ground rules with teacher‟s
assistance (the 3 person rule, building on others‟
contributions, providing evidence).
To the Students
3 Person Rule
Once you have spoken, you may not make another contribution until at least 3 others have spoken – unless someone asks you directly to expand on your comment.
Building on Others’ Contributions (I)
Ask a question or make a comment that shows you
are interested in another‟s comments.
Make a comment that underscores the link between 2
previous contributions.
Make a comment clearly building on what someone
else has said - make this link explicit.
Make a summary observation on a recurring theme in
the discussion.
Building on Others’ Contributions (II)
Express appreciation for how another‟s comments
have helped your understanding.
Disagree with someone in a respectful way.
Effective Participation (I)
Post a comment that summarizes our discussion or
suggests a new direction.
Make a comment about how you found another‟s
comments useful or interesting. Be as specific as
possible.
Contribute something that builds on what another has
said - be explicit about how you are understanding
this.
Effective Participation (II)
Make a comment on the forum topic that helps us
examine discussion dynamics.
Ask a cause and effect question.
Express appreciation for how the discussion has
helped you understand something better. Be specific
about exactly what was helpful.
Summarize several people‟s comments.
Dialogue as a Dynamic Process
Reading as the input
Dialogue as the processing
Assessment as the output
Dialogue as Challenge to Each Other
Be a provocateur:
◦Not to cause dissent or stir up trouble
◦But, one who raises issues causing us to think
through our points and support our position
Example of Provocative Post
The group decision-making process has two components, task and social (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). The social
dimension “refers to the relationships of group members with one another – how they feel toward one another
and about their membership in the group” (1994, p. 22). Structure refers to spatial relationships for example,
“a table can be composed of four legs and a top, but if these components parts are not arranged correctly, the
group legs and a top cannot be called a table” (1994, p. 8). Likewise, an organization‟s social structure
impacts the functionality and the cohesiveness of the group (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). The socioemotional
climate, a “merger of the individual into the social system” (Ellis & Fisher, 1004, p. 30), is important to
understand the group decision-making process. Ellis and Fisher explain that a group “reaches a decision as its
members achieve consensus on a proposal” (1994, p. 141).
Social structure impacts cohesiveness, thus cohesiveness impacts consensus, and consensus is needed for
group decision-making. Therefore, social structure impacts group decision-making. Perhaps this is the
rationale for God setting up the social structure found in “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew
22:30, New King James Version).
Ellis, D. G. & Fisher, B. A. (1994). Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the group process. (4th
ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Example of Non-provocative Post
Thank you for your post and its interesting points about learning design. Albers (2008) talks about the concept of
“action learning” which is described as being consistent with three sociological notions: the belief that “the whole is
greater than the sum of the parts”; the premise that all social reality is humanly constructed; and that knowledge is
collaboratively constructed. Individual knowledge co-emerges in the context of the collective understanding that
arise out of human interaction (Bourdieu, 1977). Albers notes that “as the structure for collaboration matures,
opportunities for influencing thought and action increase.” These new ways of thinking about pedagogical issues
have the potential to influence thought and action. Using a premise similar to action learning, Revans (1991)
provided four principles to improve college learning: using colleagues‟ experience as opposed to that of external
experts for specialized knowledge; sharing tacit knowledge with others in similar circumstances; using real life
problems and situations for genuine solution learning; and encouraging interaction among colleagues. The
components of action learning include reflection, collaboration, action, and feedback. Albers also states that the
action learning framework suggests that professors learn about their teaching by reflecting on their practice in a
community of colleagues and that improving practice can be a collaborative endeavor.
Albers, C.. (2008). Improving pedagogy through action learning and scholarship of teach and learning. Teaching
Sociology, 36(1), 79-86.
Dialogue as Testing Your Understanding
It is in dialogue that you present your insights
from the reading.
It is not „recitation‟ of what you read, but what
you now „see‟ as a result of your reading.
Dialogue as Preparing for Assessments
Dialogue can help prepare you for your
assessments.
Support Your Claims
Use in-sentence citations of your assigned textbooks.
◦But no need for references since the other students
have the works
Use in-sentence citations of your non-assigned
reading
◦And provide references so that others may look
things up.
Don‟t go overboard.
An Example of a Post That Is Overboard
Ideally, employees would follow Paul‟s admonition to the Corinthians that “Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others”, but it
seems that employees generally pursue the things that are in their own personal interest. That is why the concept of buy-in is critical to
success in implementing decisions and driving organizational change. Organizational change theorists use a number of different terms to
describe the idea of getting others to join the decision: gaining acceptance (Judson, 1991), establishing a sense of urgency (Kotter, 1996),
establishing the need to change (Galpin, 1996), discrepancy (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999), gaining commitment (Narine & Persaud,
2003), and contemplative (Prochaska, et al., 1994). Sanders and Eskridge (1993) advocate engaging the employees in the decision
making process so that they will be motivated to help implement the decision.
Just as giving an athlete more playing time in games improves their game, engaging employees in decision making processes helps them
develop their leadership abilities and develops a culture of learning and trust (Sanders & Eskridge, 1993). This leads to the continuous
cycle that Andrea mentioned in the previous post.
Armenakis, A., & Bedeian, A. (1999). Organizational Change: A Review of Theory and Research in the 1990s. Journal of Management , 25
(3), 293-315.
Ellis, D., & Fisher, B. (1994). Small Group Decision Making. Communication and the Group Process. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Galpin, T. (1996). The human side of change: A practical guide to organization redesign. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Judson, A. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Narine, L., & Persaud, D. (2003, Aug). Gaining and maintaining commitment to large-scale change in healthcare organization. Health
Services Management Research , 179-187.
Prochaska, J., Velicer, W., Rossi, J., Goldstein, M., Marcus, B., Rakowski, W., et al. (1994). Stages of change and decisional balance for 12
problem behaviors. Health Psychology , 13, 39-46.
Sanders, S.R., Eskridge, W. F. (Oct. 1993). Managing Implementation of Change. Journal of Management in Engineering 9.
Dialogue Style
Varies by course but typically:
◦Three posts in each forum
One initial post
Two reply posts
Dialogue Grading
The rubric allows instructors to evaluate:
◦Content knowledge – 25%
◦Critical Thinking – 25%
◦ Integration of the literature, including Scripture – 25%
◦ Interaction in the ongoing discussion, including frequency
of posts – 25%
If the dialogue topic fits CVU‟s perspective (Jesus, Justice,
Technology) then a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) focused
rubric would be used.
Dialogue Workload (I)
Most beginning students find that they can read a post in
one minute.
Most beginning students find that they can write a post in 45
minutes.
It seems that dialogue follows a 95% learning curve. Which
means that every „doubling‟ of attempts results in the time
being 95% of the prior phase. Thus, the second post is 95%
of the time, the fourth post is 95% of the second, the eighth
is 95% of the fourth, the sixteenth is 90% of the eight, and so
on.
Dialogue Workload (II)
The initial post should be done in week 1 of the two week
dialogue open time and the two replies should be done in
the second week – one by Wednesday and the other by
Friday.
Read and Post
Before reading required texts and articles –
internalize the forum topic.
Read with the forum in mind.
When you have some insight/‟ah-ha‟:
◦Stop reading.
◦Write the post.
Only sit down to write when you know what you want
to say.
Practice
Write a provocative post focusing on the forum topic
and base the post on the specified assignments.
Write one reply to another student.
The course instructor will post comments to students
and give advice on how to improve the posts.
References
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K.
(2010). How learning works. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bender, T. (2003). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student
learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishers.
Brookfield, S. D. & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching:
Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wilen, W. W. (1990). Teaching and learning through discussion: The theory,
research and practice of the discussion method. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.