Discussions: a student-centered approach.

Abstract

This article supports the view that online discussions should only be used for educational purposes. In the first half of the article, a heuristic for determining the educational viability of online discussions is offered. In the second half of this article, a model for determining viability is suggested. This model integrates the evaluation of online discussion into the discussion itself. In doing so, students are participating in determining whether or not the discussion has been educationally viable.

**********

Online discussion is often viewed as an educational novelty. Instructors sometimes require students to participate in online discussion simply to maintain students' interest and to increase their enjoyment of a course. While it is virtuous to keep students interested and make courses enjoyable, greater virtue can be found in educating students, which should stretch students' interests and expand the range of educational experiences that they enjoy. Online discussion should be more than novel; it should be educationally viable. To downplay educational viability is to ethically breach the implied contract that institutions of higher education have with society (Speck, 2000).

The purpose of this paper is to offer a model for evaluating the educational viability of online discussion. I begin by offering a heuristic for determining educational viability. Then, I delineate a student-centered procedure for applying the heuristic to an online discussion.

A Heuristic for Determining "Educational Viability"

What is educational viability? For some, a viable education should "teach people to think, to use their rational powers, to become better problems solvers" (Gagne, 1980, p. 85); for others, educational viability "has as much to do with the teachable heart as the teachable mind" (McLaren, 1999, p. 50). Narrowing to educational viability in online learning adds some focus. Hacker & Neiderhauser (2000), for example, discuss the educational viability of online learning in terms of "deep and durable learning" (p. 53). Specifically, they argue that active collaboration among students, the effective use of examples, and appropriate feedback will motivate students toward educational success. Knowlton (2001) approaches the educational viability of online discussion through a connection to Bloom's cognitive taxonomy. (See Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956, for a full discussion of this taxonomy.) In short, for online discussion to be viable, students must go beyond summarizing and paraphrasing; they must also apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate.

The variability in defining educational viability is important to academic freedom. Ultimately, instructors using online discussion must determine and defend their own educational rationales. Here, though, I suggest three heuristic questions for determining educational viability: Does the online discussion advance knowledge construction? Does the online discussion inspire personal narrative? Is online discussion a foundation for larger course assignments?

Does the Online Discussion Advance Knowledge Construction?

Philosophically, the notion of constructing knowledge is based on the view that knowledge and truth do not exist-or, at least, are not relevant-beyond a person's perception of that knowledge and truth (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). Even if an objective reality exists, students can only subjectively know that reality. Therefore, knowledge is not something that students can receive from professors (Jonassen, 1991); students must "create a personal view of the world" (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995, p. 11).

In an educationally-viable online discussion, students seek opportunities to learn (Canada, 2000) and share their opinions and perspectives about those opportunities. Because of the pluralism inherent to students' perspectives (Speck, 1998), conflicting viewpoints will emerge, and students will experience cognitive dissonance. The viable online discussion will inspire students to consciously and proactively work to alleviate this dissonance by revising their own ideas and sharing them with those participating in the discussion (Knowlton, Knowlton, & Davis, 2000). The process of experiencing dissonance, revising, and sharing the revised ideas creates more cognitively complex and intensely personal learning (Tam, 2000). In effect, students have engaged in knowledge construction and developed a personal and independent understanding of course content.

Does the Online Discussion Inspire Personal Narrative?

The "academic self" does not act apart from the "personal self" (Tompkins, 1987; Goodson, 1994; Gudmundsdottir, 1991). Therefore, personal narratives-once viewed as a form of "literacy practice with little merit" (Gannett, 1991, p. 99)-have become a valid academic writing style. Graham (1991) point to the validity of personal narratives by noting that autobiography elicits reflective thinking and leads to active knowledge generation. Indeed, personal narratives can serve as "powerful vehicles of the intellect, as engines that warm and drive the mind, capable of doubling back or going great distances, carrying with them the maps and memories of all previous trips, along with plans for the next" (Gannett, 1991, p. 99).

For online discussion to be viable, students should connect their own personal narratives with course content. Superficially, as students share personal experiences, they develop a stronger sense of classroom community. This classroom community helps humanize the technological environment. As a result, students feel less isolated throughout the educational process (Moller, 1998; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Weiss, 2000). More substantively, though, personal narratives serve as real-world examples of course concepts. Student-generated examples offer evidence that students are creating a personally-relevant and concrete understanding of detached and abstract course content.

Is the Online Discussion a Foundation for Other Course Assignments?

Face-to-face discussions held during class are not considered academic end-points. They simply provide opportunities for students to gain broader understandings of course content. These broader understandings allow students to more competently prepare for other course assignments. The same is true of online discussions. Online discussion is more akin to conversation than to formal writing (Kemp, 1998). So, instead of viewing online discussion as an educational product, instructors should view online discussion as a tool that helps students organize their own interpretations of course content so that they can more efficiently communicate those interpretations by completing more rigorous assignments-whether formal writings, presentations, or other creative endeavors.

This view of educational viability emerges from the Writing-Across-the-Curriculum movement. Viable online discussions help students begin the writing process. Discussion serves as a type of pre-writing for other course assignments. The assertion that online discussion among students enhances the writing process is consistent with Kemp (1998) who argues that invention-the first step of the writing process-is a social act. As students participate in online discussion, they learn what they are thinking. They are clarifying ideas in their own minds. Once the ideas are clarified, students are better able to inform others about their thoughts through more formal assignments (Lindemann, 1995).

An Integrative, Process-Based Model of Evaluation

In the previous section of this paper, I argued that online discussions must be educationally viable, and I offered a heuristic for determining educational Viability. In this section, I offer a four-phased model for applying the heuristic. Obviously, those responsible for designing the discussion guidelines and writing discussion questions should constantly refer to the heuristic for educational viability during the design of the discussion. All elements of design should promote educational viability. For example, the guidelines governing discussion should establish a clear expectation of interaction among students so that knowledge construction can occur (heuristic question #1). Similarly, effective discussion questions should provide an impetus for connections with both the events in their day-to-day lives (heuristic question #2) and other course projects (heuristic question #3).

My purpose here, though, is to offer a process for determining educational viability during the discussion itself. This integration allows the viability of online discussion to be determined based on discussion output-what students contribute-instead of the discussion input-what instructional designers produce. In proposing this type of integration, I appreciate Millar's (2001) point that assessment, which deals with student learning, and evaluation, which deals with whether or not a course meets its stated goals, are two different issues. Nevertheless, my experiences suggest that only the integration of assessment and evaluation can produce a clear picture of an online discussion's educational viability.

Phase #1: Establish "Educational Viability" as the Basis for Discussion

Students need to understand that participating in online discussion requires more than simply addressing a question from an assignment. Instructors must help students understand the transformative potential of an educationally-viable online discussion. If students don't understand educational viability and the potential for meaningful learning as a result of discussion, they will view online discussions as busywork and a distraction from the "important" aspects of the course.

Sometimes, instructors can help academically-savvy students understand educational viability by sharing the heuristic with them. But for students who are novices in academic discourse, the heuristic questions may be disconcerting, overwhelming, and counterproductive. Indeed, novice students are often so well indoctrinated into the teacher-as-stimulus/student-as-response view of education that they need more specific prompts to create educationally-viable interaction. For example, instructors can require a minimum number of contributions that a student must offer in response to each discussion question. Similarly, assignment guidelines can instruct students to refer to specific course readings and connect those readings to discussion contributions (Morrison & Ross, 1998).

Phase #2: Require Self-Evaluation through Metanarrative

Once students understand educational viability, they should offer perceptions of the online discussion's viability. Traditionally, at the end of a semester, students have opportunities to evaluate the degree to which they were able to meet a course's stated goals. These evaluations are useful, but students should have opportunities during a course to evaluate the contribution that online discussion-which is often only one part of a course-is making to their own learning. The primary function of phase two is to provide an opportunity for students to examine how (or if) the discussion has helped them learn.

To begin this self-evaluation of their own learning, students can complete Likert-scale and dichotomous checklists that are designed to measure students' perceptions of the online discussion's viability. For example, students can be asked to indicate their level of agreement to the following statement: "Online discussions helped me prepare for other course assignments." Similarly, students might be asked the degree to which online discussion has made them more aware of course concepts in their day-to-day lives.

Beyond simplistic checklists, though, students should engage in more substantive self-evaluation by identifying exact interchanges within a discussion that seemed educationally viable. Further, students should analyze the similarities among those interchanges to determine specific characteristics that contributed to viability. Students can also identify contributions that they have made to the discussion and explain their own attempts to contribute to the viability of the discussion. In essence, through these analyses and explanations, students are creating a metanarrative about the educational viability of an online discussion. Students' metanarratives are valuable in their own right because they help students continue to learn (Hacker, Dunlosky, & Graesser, 1998). More directly related to this paper, though, metanarratives can provide insights to instructors about students' perceptions of online discussion. Instructors can use these insights to improve the quality of online discussion as it progresses. Students' metanarratives initiate educational change.

Phase #3: Require Peer Evaluation Among Students

Whereas phase two of this model focused on students' introspective metanarratives, phase three offers an opportunity for students to serve as peer reviewers for each other. Informally, the interaction of the discussion is a form of continuous peer evaluation. When students engage in online discussion, they receive feedback on the quality of their ideas. Responses from classmates, for example, can help students understand how their contributions to a discussion were interpreted.

Instructors can formalize peer feedback by organizing small groups of three to five students. Each student should analyze discussion contributions of all group members. Simple questionnaires can help students initially organize their perceptions of classmates' contributions to an educationally-viable discussion. For example, students can be told to identify one contribution of each group member that seemed particularly viable and describe the characteristics that made it viable. But, ultimately, each group should go beyond completing questionnaires. Each student in the group should develop a clear understanding of the ways their contributions contributed to the perceived viability of the discussion. From this clear understanding, students can improve the quality of their own contributions.

Phase #4: Renegotiate Discussion Guidelines

Phases one through three of my proposal are designed to help students understand educational viability and determine the degree to which each student is contributing to viability. Phase four provides students with an opportunity to renegotiate both the scope of educational viability and the guidelines for discussion. Renegotiations are essential to student-centered online learning (Knowlton, 2000). More practically, by virtue of participating in discussion, students often have stronger insights into the essential characteristics of a viable online discussion than do instructors, who only serve as facilitators and observers.

Though renegotiations are presented as the final phase of the model, instructors can begin facilitating renegotiations much earlier. Often, for example, during phase two, a student will include comments about how a specific discussion question or an evaluation criterion influenced that student's perceptions of educational viability. In these cases, instructors can urge students to consider the implications of their comment and point out that students will have opportunities to share their comment and implications. By facilitating toward phase four during earlier phases, instructors can increase the efficiency of renegotiations.

To begin phase four, instructors can offer their own commentary about the strengths and weaknesses of the discussion as it has evolved over time. In this commentary, instructors can ask students to share their ideas for closing the gap between what actually did happen in a discussion and what the instructor wanted to happen within a discussion. Another method for beginning to renegotiate educational viability is to request each peer editing group (from phase #3) to write a summary of their "findings" for the larger group. Once these summaries are submitted to the entire class, students can identify similarities and differences in their own experiences and perceptions. The plenary discussion about peer editing can lead to new insights for establishing and maintaining an educationally-viable discussion.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper has been to establish a definition of an educationally-viable online discussion. A further purpose of this paper was to establish some strategies for involving students in the process of determining educational viability. Online learning should be student-centered (Knowlton, 2000). Even the determination of whether or not online discussions have met their goals should be driven by students. By involving students in the process, instructors have a stronger chance of meeting students' needs. As a result, discussion will be educationally viable.

References

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W, & Krathwohl, O. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook 1. The cognitive domain. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Canada, M. (2000). Students as seekers in online courses. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp. 35-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). New implications for instructional technology. Educational Technology, 31 (3), 7-12.

Gannett, C. (1991). Gender and the journal. New York: University Press.

Gagne, R. M. (1980). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Goodson, I. (1994). The teacher's life and work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 29-37.

Graham, R. J. (1991). Reading and writing the self. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991, April). The narrative nature of pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 991)

Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

Hacker D. J. & Neiderhauser, D. S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp. 53-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Journal of Educational Research, 39(3), 5-14.

Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.

Kemp, F. (1998). Computer-mediated communication: Making nets work for writing instruction. In J. R. Galin & J. Latchaw (Eds.), The dialogic classroom: Teachers integrating computer technology, pedagogy, and research (pp. 133-150). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

Knowlton, D. S. (2001). Promoting durable knowledge construction through online learning. In The Proceedings of the Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. Murfreesboro, TN: Middle Tennessee State University. <www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/11.html>

Knowlton, D. S. (2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom: A defense and delineation of a student-centered pedagogy. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp. 5-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knowlton, D. S., Knowlton, H. M., & Davis, C. (2000). The whys and hows of online discussion. Syllabus: New Directions in Educational Technology, 13(10), 54-58.

Lindemann, E. (1995). A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

McLaren, P. (1999). A pedagogy of possibility: Reflecting upon Pauol Freire's politics of education. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 49-54.

Millar, S. B. (2001). How do you measure success? Lessons on assessment and evaluation from the LEAD center. Syllabus: New Directions in Educational Technology, 14(7), 11-12.

Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 46(4), 115-122.

Morrison, G. R. & Ross, S. M. (1998). Evaluating technology-based processes and products. In R. S. Anderson & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Changing the way we grade student performance: Classroom assessment and the new learning paradigm (pp. 69-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Speck, B. W. (1998). The teacher's role in the pluralistic classroom. Perspectives, 28(1), 19-43.

Speck, B. W. (2000). The academy, online classes, and the breach in ethics. . In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp. 73-82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60.

Tompkins, J. (1987). Me and my shadow. New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation, 19, 169-178.

Weiss, R. E. (2000). Humanizing the online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp. 47-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dr. Knowlton is an Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology in the Department of Educational Leadership. He is a coeditor of Principles of Elective Teaching in the Online Classroom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000).