Faculty Gold and Online Quality
Assurance at CCCOnline

Chapter 4 Discussion [ Table of Contents ]

The discussion area in each course is where the majority of the faculty-student and student-student interaction occurs throughout the semester. CCCOnline requires that faculty include discussion topics for most course units or modules. Additional information on various types of discussions and the rubric used for evaluating faculty participation in threaded discussion is available on the QA rubric used for discussions (available later in this chapter).

Student evaluations and research into adult learning make it clear that discussion is one of the most valuable online learning tools we have at our disposal. As online educators, we are also learning that sense of community can be very important to online retention. As a result we are trying to understand and share best practices in Discussion. We have some material here, but a better place to gather information on developing and managing successful discussions is in the Managing Online Discussion workshop. See the training schedule for current dates and more information.

Some nuggets gleaned from the Managing Discussion workshops:

Basics:

• The discussion space is our classroom. We can draw from our campus-based questioning techniques and use them in discussion to engage a class online. For example, when a writing instructor begins a section on Argument, the discussion might begin with the basic knowledge questions as "What is Argument according to our book? What are the key elements? Can someone give an example of an argument that didn't work? What happened to make it fizzle?"
• In introducing any discussion session, letting students know that all are welcome to answer any questions can be helpful. This encourages multiple participation, rather than the sense that only one person at a time can be involved in a given exchange with the instructor.
• Creating a welcoming (safe) and courteous environment is vital!
• Faculty Presence online is important – presence and immediacy of response are important. We should all be in the courses at least three times a week and responding to posts so students know that we are present in the course. It is a best practice to respond to new posts within 24-48 hours. It is okay not to be in courses on the weekends, though many students may be active on the weekend, particularly Sunday evenings. Interacting Friday, then again Monday, is okay.

The point of presence is much more than the hours between responses. If you were a student, would you want to be in a course room posting in a thoughtful way, yet not get any reinforcement, nor a response from the faculty to you or the class for several days?

Tips:

• Questions at the end of the book chapter can be used to initiate/forward discussion.
• Acknowledging a group of responses by naming more than one person is a good way for the instructor to economize on being very present, yet economizing on answering every post. For example, " Joe, James, and Sally together provided us with a great summary of most key points! Would anyone else like to add to their list?"
• Using follow-up questions can also be used to move the discussion forward, as well as moving students to bring forth key points from the reading. Keeping a list of focus and follow-up questions is most helpful from term to term. Groups of faculty teaching the same course have the opportunity to build a large, shared, bank of questions.
• Compliments and acknowledgments are great motivators to the class's engagement with provocative or follow-up questions.
• Students can be invited to summarize the discussion or parts of it.
• Carefully select written language, tone, voice to establish a positive, supportive, and unambiguous exchange of information in email messages: Messages must avoid direct or subtle tones of anger, impatience, rejection, unfavorable comparison, sarcasm, etc.
• Instructor handles the following through other means of communication: academic censure, academic failure, discipline, student complaints.
• Respond frequently to students. It is a best practice to respond within 24 hours to student posts.
• If students do not initiate discussion the instructor must do so.

For Writing Classes:

Writing classes often use peer-review, which is not typically instructor-led. Letting students know you are reading the reviews and that they are on the right track is good practice. Summarizing the peer session with what seem to be common observations and writing tips indicate instructor guidance and interest. Writing classes are text, text, text intensive. As faculty, you may want to consider how homework assignments and parts of journals might become discussion activity or be used in small-group discussions so that students can learn from the shared content (and your grading tasks are rolled up inside of interaction time.) Remember that responsive communication is central to online learning.

If a peer-review is one discussion thread for a unit, consider adding an instructor-thread or a Q and A. See the discussion rubric developed specifically for peer-review types of discussions for more information.

Rubric:

Please see our Discussion Rubrics page.

What Does it Mean to Get an N in Discussions? Understanding your own Evaluation.

Managing discussion is a complex skill.  We strongly recommend the Managing Discussions Workshop if you have received an N (needs improvement) in discussions.  To clarify potential problem areas the N in discussions has been further defined as N1 through N6.

• N1:  The Instructor has little or no participation, is not visible or involved in the class discussion.  Instructor does not communicate with or respond to most students.
• N2: Very little Instructor response. Instructor does not respond to the required minimum number of students.
• N3:  Instructor does not facilitate T.D. The majority of instructor response contains only short complementary acknowledgements i.e. good job, keep up the good work etc.   Instructor response does not use examples, follow-up questions, or an exchange of information.
• N4:  Majority of TD discussion is student to student.  Instructor responses are not timely (24-72 hrs), and/or are input after majority of discussion is complete. 
• N5:  TD is not included in a minimum of 50% of course units
• N6:  TD remains locked although student schedule indicates prior date

N1 and N2 refer to the quantity of instructor responses.  The CCCOnline standard is that faculty respond to a minimum of 75% of student posts.  While some responses may be group responses,  students do need to know that the faculty is reading and responding to their work.

N3 refers to the quality of the student engagement in the discussion.  Managing discussions so that students are engaged and re-engaged in the subject is a critical teaching skill in the online environment.  To this end it is discussed in more detail below.

N4 refers to the timeliness of faculty responses. 

N5 refers to the CCCOnline requirement that discussions be included in most (more than 50%) units.

N6 is a housekeeping reference.  Discussions must be unlocked for students to participate. It is good practice to lock discussions after the time period for posting has ended.  This allows students to return to the discussion and re-read posts, but does not allow them to continue to post in that area.

Avoiding an N-3:  Developing Course Discussions through Re-engagement Techniques

Re-engagement is a skill most faculty use almost automatically in classroom settings, as we strive to help our students deepen and extend their thinking in face-to-face discussions by asking probing questions and by calling on students to encourage participation. Similarly, we also need to engage and then re-engage distance-education students in stimulating and thought-provoking discussions online - discussions designed to move them toward higher-level thinking or toward thinking about the subject at hand in new ways. The online environment, however, makes this more difficult because we have no cues except our words to guide students in the directions we hope they will go - no tone-of-voice, no facial expressions, no gestures, etc.  In fact, it's possible that our very intervention in discussions may cause them to cease (rather than continue and deepen) when students interpret our remarks as having signaled an end to the conversation. This effect of course is not what we want to convey, so how do we avoid it?

What follows are some how-to's for preventing such inadvertent ending of students' discussion remarks, and instead extending them - i.e., re-engaging students in a deepening conversation. As a side note, these techniques also help you avoid an N3 rating on your quality-assurance evaluation.  An N3 rating on your QA means the evaluator didn't see enough re-engagement posts used in your discussions. 

Why use re-engagement techniques?

Re-engagement as a questioning technique moves learners to further develop remarks they've made, or it invites others to add to the construction of knowledge. It can generate a higher level of thinking and dialogue, and can promote class synergy.

What's the opposite of Re-engagement? 

Statements that close the discussion.

For example, a summary of the discussion that ends without telling students where to go next.  Discussion summaries are wonderful tools for helping students organize material, but why not end with a further question or directions to the next discussion?

Negative statements to students can also be both good and bad.  Sometimes the solution to a student's incorrect answer might be to ask the rest of the class why this answer is not correct.  Tone becomes critical to generating more interaction, however.  If students feel put down, they will not continue to respond.

Too many "good job" sorts of statements without the addition of further directional information - additional questions, deeper questions, etc. - can also close off a discussion prematurely.

What techniques can we use to re-engage learners in discussion and build a deeper level of knowledge?

Learners do want to know they are on the right track in a discussion. Yet, when the faculty says "that's great," one effect is that the contribution/possibility of further exploration ends at that point (Barker & Barker, n.d.).

Here are some examples:

Instructor post without re-engagement:

Joe and Sally, you're right on the money!

Instructor's post using Re-engagement:

Joe and Sally brought up two very solid points about X-class, what other points would you add?

     OR

Joe, that is a good point.  Now if you were to consider X also, what additional issues would you need to consider?  (It's easy to use the word "but" after the compliment - try not to as that can be off-putting to students.)

     OR

 I'd like to invite you all to come up with some ways to implement Sally's solution to the problem.

     ALSO

That's correct, Sally-class members, if you have solved the problem a different way, we'd love to see your solution.

Cotton (1998) recommends asking students to draw from lower-level information or infer from sources an answer to a higher-level question that the faculty asks.  She also suggests "redirection and probing," drawing on the pertinent elements in the student posts. Holding back on effusive praise while using positive remarks can push the thinking level, interactions, and level of knowledge construction upward.

Additional Resources

Barker, C., & Barker, D. (n.d.) Managing online discussions. Retrieved June 4, 2004, from http://faculty.spokanefalls.edu/discussions/manage.htm#discussions

Cotton, K. (1998, May).  Close-Up #5: Classroom questioning.

Retrieved June 4, 2004, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu5.html