defining asynchronous discussion design and facilitation practices in brightspace
TRANSCRIPT
Brightspace Minnesota Connection
Defining asynchronous discussion design and facilitation practices in Brightspace
Kevin ForgardSenior Instructional DesignerUW Colleges Online
@kforgard [email protected]
April 15, 2016
Session Objectives
Unpack the framework
Brightspacediscussion designs
”Real Life” Example (Calc. I)
Establish discussion design principles Establish ideas based on principles Worked example
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Driving Questions• What sort of learning is occurring in discussions?• What is the level of engagement?• How are learners motivated within discussions?• How well do discussions align with learning objectives?
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
“Discussions” = “asynchronous discussions”/ “online discussions”Image credit: Christian Mehlführer, User:Chmehl
A question for the group
What is the typical overarching goal with online discussions:A: Build a communityB: Learning assessmentC: Lerner feedback opportunityD: Group work facilitationE: Check learner comprehension F: Place for learners to do analysis work
Image credit: Flickr cesar bojorquez
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
How would you like to improve online discussions?
A: Enhance student engagement B: Design better discussion promptsC: Utilize more group discussionsD: Motivate students participation
A question for the group
Image credit: Flickr cesar bojorquez
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Are online discussions really discussion?
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
”A group of people addressing a question in common, speaking and listening to one another.” (Dillon, 1994 in Becker, 2016)
Image credit: Man Scared Face Reference by Ahtibat CC 3.0
Online discussions ARE NOT FACE-TO-FACE DISCUSSIONS
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Computer based interactions…mostly text
Dear computer (who I assume is a student in this course)…
1001100101001
Dear classmate (who I assume is not a computer), In response to your post…
Becker (2016) labels this as “sped-‐up correspondence”
Defining asynchronous discussions: Select literature review
• Productive Online Discussion Model (Gao, Wang & Sun, 2009)
• Interaction Analysis Model (Gunawarden, Lowe, and Anderson, 1997)• Community of Inquiry (Garrison & Arbough, 2007)
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Teaching and Learning Design Intention
What is the main purpose of online discussions?A: Check to see if students did readings or completed homeworkB: Build communityC: Engage students with course materialsD: Assessment of student knowledgeE: Something for students to do to be active in the courseF: Learning support
Image credit: Flickr cesar bojorquez
Yes, it’s a repeat of the earlier question.Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Purpose and Intent Use
Is there a tension between intent and use?
Are discussion designs actually focused on learning?
Online Discussions
Image credit: Daraia Cybulska (WMUK) Image credit: Thegreenj
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Answer the following question:What are the three issues surrounding the use of emerging technologies in distance education course delivery?
Must post at least 300 wordsMust respond to two other students
What is the intent here?
Example Discussion Prompt
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Learning Outcome
Grade on Frequency
Do the design and intent align?
Assessment Design Considerations• Grading rubric• Course participation grade• Cognitive task assessment (e.g. quantitative literacy)
How deep is the discussion?
Online Discussions
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
A few principles of online discussion design and delivery
Gao & Puttman (2009); Gao, et. al. (2013)Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
A few principles of online discussion design and delivery
Discussion as social engagement
Discussions should foster the building of an online learning community
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Discussion as social engagement
• What social dynamics are taking place in an online discussion?
• How do we or our students listen in an online learning environment?
• How do we provide feedback and support as a community member?
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Icebreaker Discussion• Who are you?• Why do you study this?• What is your goal?• What will you do with this information?• How do you study?• Share a picture of your study space:
Discussion as social engagement
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
A few principles of online discussion design and delivery
Discussion as knowledge construction
Discussions should engage learners through social
interaction in negotiating meaning and building shared
understanding.
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Discussion as knowledge constructionInteraction Analysis Model (Phases)
Phase I Share and compare informationPhase II Discover and explore dissonance or inconsistencies among ideasPhase III Negotiate meaningPhase IVTest and modify proposed synthesis or co-constructionPhase VAgreement statements/application of newly constructed meaning
Gunawarden et. al., (1997) in Lucas et. al. (2014)Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
The fact that few discussions go beyond Phase I may be related to the learning design and/or facilitation strategies employed by moderators. Lucas et. al. , p. 579 (2014)
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Discussion as knowledge constructionWhat can we do to enhance student interactions and move beyond the “sharing information” phase?
A: Enhance gradeB: Provide more feedbackC: Model behaviorD: Highlight “good” discussions (rating system?)E: Redesign discussion questionsF: Scaffold the designG: Define guidelines
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Discussion as knowledge construction: Some practices
• Model discussion behavior during orientation or in first few discussions• Provide clear guidelines on helping students prepare responses• Assign role-play discussions• Use case study discussions• Student-led discussions with role assignments • Group discussion assignments• State specific engagement expectations and guidelines: facilitation,
rubric, protocols (length of post, citations, etc.)
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
A few principles of online discussion design and delivery
Discussion to enhance cognitive processes
Discussions should focus on guiding learners to utilize knowledge by assisting in developing organizational
strategies and applying knowledge to solving problems
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Discussion to enhance cognitive processesSome practices
• Use pre-defined discussion post labels• Incorporate an advanced organizer or mind-map into discussion activity• Guide students to move beyond the exploration phase• Activate student’s prior knowledge• Integrate meta-cognitive skill development in discussion• Explore your interactions in helping students build cognitive tools
uWhat’s your role in discussions?uHow purposeful are your interactions?
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Online discussion design and deliveryProductive Online Discussion Model
Gao, et. al. (2009); Gao, et. al. (2013)
• Elaborate and clarify• Make connections to prior knowledge, experience, and other ideas
Discuss to comprehend
• Examine each other’s view to build new ideas• Challenge differing views of classmates and materialsDiscuss to critique
• Negotiate meaning to refine and revise thinking• Raise questions, compare and contrast views
Discuss to construct knowledge
• Encourage support of thinking• Synthesize discussions and ask further questionsDiscuss to share
Image credit: Flickr Debbie RamoneForgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Constrained: “Pre-structured form…that guides learners to participate in a discussion in certain ways” (Gao, p. 3, 2014)
Using note starters
May also constrain through conditional release:- Must post first- Moderated discussion posts- Complete another task prior to discussion
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Visualized environment: Visual element prompts the discussion
Using a 3rd party tool to create visualMay also be documents in several discussion forums.Code topics by colorHave students code or tag discussions
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Anchored Environment: Artifact-centered
Linked from Films on Demand
Add media to center discussionLeaners may share imagesMay be a file to review
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Constrained: Example from a Calculus Course
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
Consider Brightspace Discussion SettingsPost first and moderated
Rating system
Conditional Release
Further Contextual Factors
• Space and time are not an issue in asynchronous environment• Conversations sometimes continue beyond assignment time• Text-based communications needs a body-language element• Threaded discussions are sometimes overly constraining• Be creative in utilizing other technologies to enhance discussions• Offer choices for discussion work• Scaffold design and assessment (build to high-level discussion
output)
Image credit: Flickr Amit Chattopadhyay
Community + social collaboration + cognitive supportForgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
THANK YOU!
Defining asynchronous discussion design and facilitation practices in Brightspace
Kevin ForgardSenior Instructional DesignerUW Colleges Online
@kforgard [email protected]
Reference ListBender, T. (2012). Discussion-‐Based Online Teaching to Enhance Student Learning (2nd Edition). Sterling, Va : Stylus Publishing.
Clarke, L. W., & Barholomew, A. (2014). Digging beneath the surface: Analyzing the complexity of instructors’ participation in asynchronous discussion. Online Learning, 18(3), 1-‐21.
Garrison, R. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157-‐172. DOI: http://10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Gao, F., Wang, C. X., Sun, Y. (2009). A new model of productive online discussion and its implication for research and instruction. Jrnl or Education Technology Development and Exchange, 2(1), 65-‐78.
Gao, F. (2011). Designing a discussion environment to promote connected and sustained online discussion. Jrnl of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(1), 43-‐59.
Gao, F., Zhang, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Jrnl of Education Technology, 44(3), 469-‐483. DOI: http://10.1111/j.1467-‐8535.2012.01330.x
Gao, F. (2014). Exploring the use of discussion strategies and labels in asynchronous online discussion. Online Learning, 18(3), 1-‐18.
Gao, F. & Puttman, R. T. (2009). Using research on learning from text to inform online discussion. Jrnl of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 1-‐37. DOI: http://10.2190/EC.41.1.a
Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. American Jrnl of Distance Education, 17(1), 25-‐43.
Lucas, M., Gunawardena, C., & Moreira, A. (2014). Assessing social construction of knowledge online: A critique of the interaction analysis model. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 574-‐582. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.050.
Xie, K., Yu, Chien, & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role and assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-‐level online classes. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10-‐19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft