High Wire Act: the Perils, Pitfalls and Possibilities of Online Discussions

Authors: Karen Armstrong

Abstract:

Online discussions are an important component of both blended and online courses. This paper examines the varieties of online discussions and the perils, pitfalls and possibilities of this rather new technological tool for enhanced learning. The discussion begins with possible perils and pitfalls inherent in this educational tool and moves to a consideration of the advantages of the varieties of online discussions feasible for use in teacher education programs.

Keywords: online discussions, computer-mediatedcommunication (CMC), computer-supported collaborative learning(CSCL), e-learning, teacher education

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1079330

References:

[1] J.C. Richardson and Ice, P. Investigating students- level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 2010, pp. 52-59. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009
[2] H.K. Kim and B. Bateman (2010). Student participation patterns in online discussion: Incorporating constructivist discussion into online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 9(1), 2010, pp. 79-98. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/28165
[3] M. Valcke, B. De Wever, C. Zhu, and C. Deed. Supporting active cognitive processing in collaborative groups: The potential of bloom's taxonomy as a labeling tool. Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 2009, pp. 165-172. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.003
[4] S. Vonderwell and S. Zachariah. Factors that influence participation in online learning.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (2), 2005, pp. 213-230.
[5] A.M. Bodzin and J.C. Park. Dialogue patterns of pre-service science teachers using asynchronous computer-mediated communications on the world-wide web. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19, 2, 2000, pp. 161-194
[6] K. Xie,T.K Debacker, C. Ferguson Extending the Traditional Classroom through Online Discussion: The Role of Student Motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 2006, pp. 67-8.
[7] Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, A., Campbell, J., & Bannan-Haag, (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), pp. 7-26.
[8] J. Blankson and L. Kyei-Blanckson. Nontraditional Students- Perception of a Blended Course: Integrating Synchronous Online Discussion and Face-to-Face Instruction Journal of Interactive Learning Research 19(3), 2008, pp. 421-438.
[9] Bodzin, A. M., and Park, J. C. (2000). Dialogue patterns of pre-service science teachers using asynchronous computer-mediated communications on the world-wide web. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19, 2, 2000, pp. 161-194.
[10] Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, A., Campbell, J., and Bannan- Haag, A. Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 1995, pp. 7-26.
[11] F. Henri. Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye, Ed.. Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers. New York: Springer, 1992, pp. 117-136.
[12] A. Kaye. (1992). Learning together apart. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers. New York: Springer, 1992, pp. 1-24.
[13] Armstrong, K and Manson, M. What is lost and what remains: an exploration of the pedagogical challenges of online discussions in two online teacher education learning communities. Language & Literacy: A Canadian eJournal 12, 2, forthcoming, paging not yet available at: http://www.langandlit.ualberta.ca/.
[14] Foucault, M. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison trans. from the French by A. Sheridan 1977 New York: Vintage Books 1995, pp. 195-228.
[15] Bentham, J. Panopticon (Preface). In Miran M. Bozovic, Ed. The Panopticon Writings, London: Verso, 1995.
[16] Lang, S. B. "The Impact of Video Systems on Architecture", dissertion, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 2004.
[17] Taylor, J. C. Teaching and learning online. The workers, the lurkers and the shirkers. Paper presented at the 2002 Conference on Research in Distance & Adult Learning in Asia.Available: http://www.ouhk.edu.hk/CRIDAL/cridala2002/speeches/taylor.pdf
[18] W. Archer. (2010). Beyond online discussions: Extending the community of inquiry framework to entire courses. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 2010, p. 69. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.005
[19] H.J. So. When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 25, 2009, pp. 143-160.
[20] W.S. Cheung and K.F. Hew. Examining facilitators' habits of mind in an asynchronous online discussion environment: A two cases study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 2010, pp. 123- 132. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/cheung.pdf
[21] K. Barkaoui, So, M., and Suzuki, W. Is it relevant? The role of off-task talk in collaborative learning. Paper currently under review for publication and originally presented at 2005 Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, New York.
[22] F.C. Chen and T.C. Wang. Social conversation and effective discussion in online group learning. Education Tech Research Dev 57, 2009, pp. 587-612
[23] Salmon, G. (2002). Online Learning Workshop. Paper presented at the ACEC 2002 conference proceedings, Hobart.
[24] S. Wade, J. Fauske, and A. Thompson. (2008). Prospective teachers- problem solving in on-line peer-led dialogues. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 2008, pp. 398-442
[25] J. Whipp. Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: helping prospective teachers think deeply about filed experiences in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 4, 2003, pp. 321-333.
[26] H. K. Kim and B. Bateman. Student Participation Patterns in Online Discussion: Incorporating Constructivist Discussion into Online Courses. International Journal on E-Learning 2010 9 (1), 2010, pp. 79- 98
[27] L. Sutherland, S. Howard, and L.Markauskaite. Professional identity creation: Examining the development of beginning preservice teachers- understanding of their work as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 26 2010, pp. 455-465.
[28] T. Gale and C. Jackson. (1997). Preparing professionals: student teachers and their supervisors at work. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25, 2, 1997, pp. 177-191.
[29] N. Hatton and D. Smith. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 1, 1995, pp. 33-49
[30] K. M. Zeichner and D.P. Liston. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1, 1987, pp. 23-48.
[31] M. L. Griffin. (2003). Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in preservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 4, 2, 2003, pp. 207-220.
[32] N. Hatton and D. Smith. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 1, 1995, pp. 33-49.
[33] P. M. A. Lyon and A. Brew. (2003). Reflection on learning in the operating theatre. Reflective Practice, 4, 1, 2003, pp. 53-66.
[34] E. G. Pultorak. (1993). Facilitating reflective thought in novice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 4, 1993, pp. 288-295.
[35] J. Richardson and P. Ice. Investigating students' level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education 13, 2010, pp. 52-59.
[36] J. C.C. Chan, K.F. Hew and W.S.Cheung. Asynchronous online discussion thread development: Examining growth patterns and peerfacilitation techniques. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 2009, pp. 438-452. Retrieved from http://www.blackwellsynergy. com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00321.x
[37] M. Valcke, B. De Wever, C. Zhu, and C, Deed. Supporting active cognitive processing in collaborative groups: The potential of bloom's taxonomy as a labeling tool. Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 2009, pp. 165-172. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.003