Discussion in a blended course: risks and rewards.

Abstract

Facilitating meaningful discussions in a blended, inquiry-based course is a challenge for instructors and learners alike. Little is known about the discussion process in blended courses, and learners often have difficulty adapting to inquiry-based instruction. One way to maximize learning through discussion in such a course is by using the Community of Inquiry framework, which assumes learning occurs through the interaction of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence.

Introduction

Blended learning is transforming higher education (Dziuban, Moskal, & Hartman, 2005). Characterized as a "sleeping giant," blended learning is a largely unrecognized trend with major implications for pedagogical practices and research (Mayadas, Bourne, & Moore, 2005, p. 1; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Blended courses typically combine face-to-face meetings with online discussions (Allen & Seaman, 2003), which can facilitate connections among students in learning communities or communities of inquiry (Aspden & Helm, 2004). Sutman (2000) defines inquiry as the process of asking relevant questions about issues for which there are no predetermined answers, and he regards discussion as a natural part of the inquiry process. The discussion technique is often used to help learners become critically informed about a topic or issue (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999). Much has been written about the discussion method in face-to-face environments (Ge & Land, 2003; Redfield & Rousseau, 1981). There is far less empirical research about discussion in online higher education environments (Bonk, & King, 1998; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998), particularly in blended courses (Heckman & Annabi, 2002; Schweizer, Paechter, & Weidenmann, 2003).

Despite the advantages of discussion in facilitating critical thinking and knowledge construction, inquiry approaches are not widely practiced (Duffey & Kirkley, 2004). Reasons range from the increased time it takes for instructors to facilitate discussions appropriately to the difficulty learners have in adapting to inquiry-based learning (Madill, Amort-Larson, Wilson, Brintnell, Taylor, & Esmail, 2001; Plowright & Watkins, 2004). If learners have difficulty adapting, why do instructors risk disengagement by using discussion postings and commentary as a primary instructional strategy; and how can discussions in a blended environment maximize the learning that takes place? For the past four years, we have talked to learners about their experiences in a blended course about the philosophical and historical roots of adult education in America. Focus group interviews and end-of-term questionnaires were the primary means of gathering information about learners' perceptions. In this article, we will share learner insights as well as our research findings and recommendations about how to help learners adapt to a blended, inquiry-based environment and to help make their discussions more meaningful.

An Adult Education Experience

The learners participating in a series of studies since 2003 were enrolled in a required graduate-level course on adult learning in society. The course provides a philosophical and historical view of the role of adult education in a changing American educational landscape. To reduce travel time for the learners--many of whom are part-time students and fully employed--the instructor moved the course from a weekly face-toface format to one that combined three face-to-face classroom meetings with weekly small-group discussions throughout the 10-week quarter. After the groups were formed (some years at random and other years according to learner preference), members decided whether to meet each week online or face to face. Each week a different group member served as the moderator, whose responsibility included posting the results of the discussion to the rest of the class. Requirements for successful completion of the course included weekly small-group discussions, subsequent discussion postings to the class, responses to other groups' postings, and regularly scheduled course time in the instructor's chat room. In the instructor's chat room, administrative concerns, questions about learning activities, and a summation of the week's readings were discussed. The instructor's chat was defined to facilitate thinking about the issues and ideas presented in the readings each week and to prepare learners for their small-group discussions.

In terms of transactional distance, this course would be described as having low structure and high dialogue (Moore, 1993). Dialogue was encouraged--indeed required--to support individual and collective participation with the instructor and other learners. Learners had the opportunity to create meaning from the course content through their dialogue and interactions with one another and the instructor. The evidence of learning was the posting to the discussion board.

Discussing questions of interest is a hallmark of adult education, and through discussion in this course we attempt to simulate an adult education experience. Letitia[1], a course participant, made the connection: "This approach to learning has actually put us in the text, the way adults [historically] would talk and learn." In addition to helping them connect with the text, most learners who have participated in focus group discussions during a four-year period have told us that discussion has exposed them to diverse viewpoints, helped them take responsibility for their learning, increased their comfort level with ambiguity, prompted them to question their assumptions, and given them more insight into themselves as learners. One way we explore how to maximize learning through discussion is by using the Community of Inquiry framework, which assumes learning occurs through the interaction of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000).

Discussion and Teaching Presence

Teaching presence involves course design, discourse facilitation, and direct instruction in text-based computer conferencing environments (Anderson, Rourke, Archer, & Garrison, 2001). Indicators of teaching presence include setting the curriculum, establishing time parameters, establishing netiquette, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement, encouraging student contributions, setting the climate for learning, assessing the efficacy of the process, summarizing the discussion, providing feedback, and responding to technical concerns (Anderson et al.). Any member of the learning community may promote teaching presence, which is seen as critical for learners to transition from social to cognitive presence (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005).

In the course under study, the design is flexible in that learners can choose their small-group discussion format: face to face at a location of their choice or online in chat rooms. Focus group interviews suggest that the ability to choose small-group format was a factor in satisfaction with course structure. One learner remarked, "When we were allowed to design our own group and our own way of meeting, that took every weight off my shoulders, and all of a sudden [the class] became a pleasurable experience." Recommendation. If you use discussion as a primary instructional strategy, offer different small-group discussion formats that foster more naturally occurring conversation.

Different group formats required using different technologies to provide teaching presence. Joining chats is an easy way for instructors to check in with online groups. Accommodating groups that meet face to face is more difficult. Calling in by phone, for example, interrupts ongoing discussion and changes the dynamics of the session. Personal visits are not always practical. This situation can translate into a weaker perception of teaching presence for members of face-to-face groups (Stein & Wanstreet, 2005). "We get very little in the way of interaction with the educator," said Ellen, whose group met off campus. Her group members missed "his management of the group [and] how he fields questions." Recommendation. For groups that meet face to face, consider compensating for your lack of physical presence by increasing your electronic presence through e-mail or discussion postings that acknowledge the group's input.

Discussion and Social Presence

Social presence is the ability of learners to project their personal characteristics to their group members and classmates and includes affective, interactive, and cohesive aspects (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). Indicators of social presence include expressing emotions, using repetitious punctuation or emoticons, teasing, expressing vulnerability, using humor, continuing a discussion thread, quoting from others' messages, asking questions, expressing appreciation, complimenting others or the contents of others' messages, addressing or referring to participants by name, expressing agreement with others or content of others' messages, and engaging in communication that serves a purely social function (Rourke et al.). Social presence is primarily important as a support for cognitive presence in the Community of Inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000).

One aspect of group cohesion involves developing norms. In the absence of guidelines from the instructor, groups relied on their work experience or took their lead from the moderator of their first session (Stein & Wanstreet, 2005). "It's a practice you acquire," said Lynne, whose group met face to face. "We all come from a business environment, and we understand how to work collaboratively." "Our first moderator was very organized, very precise, and kept the meeting moving," said John, whose group met in person. "She set the tone for the rest of the moderators." A member of one group that was not cohesive lamented not setting norms but reflected that there would be no real consequence for violating them. "I was worried that a couple of the members wouldn't do our posting on time, so in the back of my mind I was prepared to step in," said Jim, a member of an online group. "What else could I do?" Recommendation. Offer examples of norms for each group's consideration, such as these from our learners: respect one another, wait for everyone's input before moving to the next question, take time to clarify meaning, ask members to slow down if you don't understand something, be courteous, and be prepared for the discussion.

Discussion and Cognitive Presence

Cognitive presence is grounded in the critical thinking literature and involves the ability of learners to construct meaning through sustained communication (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001). Indicators of cognitive presence include triggering events that produce a sense of puzzlement, exploring solutions, information exchange, integrating ideas, and applying new ideas (Garrison et al.). Cognitive presence reflects higher-order knowledge acquisition and is associated with critical thinking as a process of acquiring deep and meaningful understanding as well as an outcome that is content-specific (Garrison et al.). Ginny, another course participant, found that chat and threaded discussion contributed to helping her construct her own knowledge:

   The dialogue caused us ... to really think through an issue because
   you weren't just making one-way communication.... You were being
   challenged daily by your classmates.... The single biggest thing
   I liked was the option to interact with other students.... We
   kind of learned from each other.... We would talk about something
   that I knew nothing about; and as I talked, it started to come to
   the surface, you know. You could almost see it."

Learners reported that their small-group discussions--whether online or face to face--helped most in understanding the subject matter (Stein & Wanstreet, 2005). Each week moderators posted the results of their discussions to the course bulletin board to engage others in the class in a broader discussion. This seemed to be the least helpful educational interaction because of the superficial nature of the ensuing discussion. Judy, whose group met in person, remarked, "I tend to wonder, are they responding because they have to, or do they really care?" Social presence may support cognitive presence within the small group because of the ability of learners to engage in sustained communication through which they can construct meaning. However, a high degree of social presence within the group may restrict the ability to learn from the class discussion board, where learners engaged in sporadic, perfunctory communication (Stein & Wanstreet, 2005).

Discussion needs time to develop momentum, to engage learners at deeper levels, and to result in a resolution. A course design in which members spend most of their time learning through small-group discussions may preclude them from contributing to meaningful discussion in the large group, which tends to be seen as a required chore. Recommendation. To promote a community of inquiry at the class level, assess the role of interaction in courses that call for small-group discussions. Be aware that a learner's identification with the class and contributions to class discussions may be diminished if he or she is part of a highly cohesive group, whether that group meets face to face or online. Therefore, consider requiring individual interactions with the class, such as responses by each learner to other groups' postings. To promote a community of inquiry at the group level, however, reassess the number and type of postings you require of every member of the class. Consider making responses to group postings voluntary.

Why Discussion Matters

Facilitating meaningful discussions in a blended, inquiry-based course is one way to promote interactions among teaching, social, and cognitive presence, which supports enhanced learning. In that way, discussions lead to the reward of a worthwhile educational experience. Judy summed up the value of discussion as an instructional strategy for her group this way:

   Education is a give and take of information and ideas. And to
   simply be talked to by a professor or to get the material from
   a book isn't education. Hearing about others' experiences and
   the exchange of communication--point and counterpoint--that's
   education to me.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Archer, W., & Garrison, R. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in computer conferencing transcripts. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). Available http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_anderson.

Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment. Educational Media International, 41 (3)., 245-252.

Bonk, C. J., & King, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Duffy, T. M., & Kirkley, J. R., (Eds.). (2004). Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning and the generations: Knowledge is power--no more. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities, Vol. 6 in the Sloan-C Series (pp. 63-78). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105.

Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (1), 21-38.

Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2002). A content analytic comparison of FTF and ALN case-study discussions. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Jan. 7-10. Waikoloa, HI.

Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.

Madill, H. M., Amort-Larson, G., Wilson, S. A., Brintnell, S. G., Taylor, E., & Esmail, S. (2001). Inquiry-based learning: An instructional alternative for occupational therapy education. Occupational Therapy International, 8(3), 198-209.

Mayadas, F., Bourne, J., & Moore, J. (2005). Blended learning: Sleeping giant. Sloan-C View, 4(5), p.1.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). New York: Routledge.

Plowright, D., & Watkins, M. (2004). There are no problems to be solved, only inquiries to be made, in social work education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41 (2), 185-206.

Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51 (2), 237-249.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based, computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70.

Schweizer, K., Paechter, M., & Weidenmann, B. (2003). Blended learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task performance. Journal of Educational Media, 28 (2-3), 211-224.

Stein, D. S., & Wanstreet, C. E. (2005, August). "Presence in a Blended Course: Implications for Communities of Inquiry." Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI.

Sutman, F. X. (2000, September-October). We need a better understanding of inquiry in instruction. Harvard Education Letter, 16(5), 8.

Endnote

[1] Pseudonyms are used to protect privacy.

David S. Stein, The Ohio State University

Constance E. Wanstreet, The Ohio State University

Stein, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Workforce Development and Education, and Wanstreet is a doctoral candidate in the College of Education.