Conversations With the World: Talk in an Electronic Classroom by
Kathleen Farkas
Bachelor‟s of Education, University of Victoria, 1991
A Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Education
In the Area of Middle Years Language and Literacy Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Kathleen Farkas, 2011 University of Victoria
All rights reserved. This Project may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author.
Abstract
My project considered the current research on asynchronous online discussions, along with the theoretical foundations of a dialogical pedagogy, in order to identify the elements needed for a successful online discussion forum. This project includes four chapters. Chapter One provides an introduction to the project and rationale for talk in the classroom. Chapter Two includes a review of the foundational literature and current research on a dialogical pedagogy and discussion formats, followed by an examination of the research on asynchronous online discussions. Chapter Three provides an overview of “Mrs. Farkas‟s Computer Talk,” details the connections between the project and the curriculum, and examines the quality of talk observed during three asynchronous online discussions. Finally, Chapter Four includes my reflections on the successes and the lessons learned from my project, as well as future directions of “Mrs. Farkas‟s Computer Talk.”
Table of Contents
Abstract ... ii
Table of Contents ... iii
List of Tables ... iv
Acknowledgments... v
Chapter One: Introduction ... 1
Mrs. Farkas‟s Computer Talk ... 3
The Millennial Generation ... 3
Classroom Conversations... 7
Summary ... 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review ... 11
Theoretical Foundations... 11
A Dialogic Pedagogy ... 17
Discussion Formats ... 22
Partner talk. ... 22
Literature circles. ... 26
New Literacies and Communication ... 29
Asynchronous Online Discussions ... 32
Advantages of participating in asynchronous online discussions. ... 33
Disadvantages of participating in asynchronous online discussions. ... 40
Conclusions ... 42
Chapter Three: The Electronic Classroom: Mrs. Farkas‟s Computer Talk ... 45
Overview of the Electronic Classroom ... 45
Getting started: The technology. ... 46
Classroom demographics and structure. ... 47
A snapshot of our reading and discussion format. ... 48
Assessment and monitoring. ... 52
Curricular connections. ... 54
Examining the “Talk” ... 61
First discussion forum. ... 61
Midway discussion forum. ... 64
Final forum discussion. ... 65
One student‟s journey. ... 66
Chapter Four: Reflections ... 68
Introduction ... 68
The Successes ... 69
Lessons Learned... 72
The Future of “Mrs. Farkas‟s Computer Talk” ... 74
The Last Word ... 76
References ... 78
Appendix A ... 86
Appendix B ... 88
List of Tables
Table 1: Discussion Guidelines for In-class Conversations………49 Table 2: Discussion Guidelines for Online Conversations………..50
Acknowledgments
Sylvia Pantaleo, my supervisor, I appreciate your patience, guidance, and knowledge. You have helped me in more ways than you know.
Deborah Begoray, our fearless program advisor, you have been there for us all throughout the entire process and I thank you.
Alison Preece, you inspired me 20 years ago as an undergraduate and your energy and enthusiasm inspires me today.
To my cohort ladies: The journey was full of laughter, love, and learning. The students of British Columbia are blessed to have you in their lives.
To my students: You are the reason I started this journey.
To my friends, family and colleagues: Thank you for your patience and support. David, Nicholas and Selina: You have sacrificed so much the last two years.
Chapter One Introduction
One day during the Spring of 2011, I was driving down the road on the way to a soccer practice with two adolescent boys in the back seat. Their conversations bounced quickly back and forth between music, video games, television, girls, sports and school. I asked them if they could identify a common theme or thread that linked all of their interests and they quickly responded with “girls.” After a bit of prodding, the boys seemed to think that the common thread among their topics was that they all were conversations with the world.
Music is a conversation with a beat shared all over the world because it can be felt in any language. Video and television are conversations with words and pictures that are also shared amongst many. People all over the world could see how the tsunami damaged Japan in 2011. Friends, sports and school are conversations with other people in a
specific situation. The way adolescents talk at soccer is different than how they talk at school. The way adolescents talk on Facebook or on their cell phones can be different than when they are talking directly to someone in class. Texting is much different than writing at school. With a laugh, the boys said that talking with girls is just different. Simply put by these 13 year old boys, life is all about talking with the world because teenagers like to talk.
As an experienced teacher I am very familiar with my students‟ desire to talk. Through classroom experience, scholarly reading and research I have come to understand more fully that adolescents are social beings by design and their talk can lead to authentic learning experiences. Studies about literacy should not just be about language; they
should also be about social practices in the 21st century. The boys seemed to instinctively know that talk has different purposes in different situations. They embraced the identity kit (Gee, 1989) that was necessary to function as a member of the particular group they were part of at a particular time. Gee (1989, 2001) refers to this “identity kit” as a
Discourse. According to Gee (1989), Discourses are “ways of being in the world: they are the forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social
identities as well as gestures, glance, body positions and clothes” (pp. 6-7). The boys were engaging in multiple Discourses as part of their daily lives and flowing seamlessly among them as needed. The boys used the language and engaged in the behaviours of many socially-situated communities of practice (Grisham & Wosley, 2006).
I also found it interesting that the boys viewed their interests as conversations with the world. They made the connection that some of their interests were locally situated and some were part of a much larger community of practice. Being members of close knit groups as well as being members of a larger whole, what Marshall McLuhan (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1960) first referred to as the global village, is second nature for many adolescents today. They have been talking to the world and the world has been talking back for quite some time. As a result, adolescents not only have different educational needs from younger students, but they also have different
expectations and needs from previous generations.
This chapter is an introduction to my project on the subject of integrating an online asynchronous discussion into an emerging dialogical classroom. I provide a brief examination of what it means to be part of the Millennial Generation and discuss the
merits of classroom conversation for this generation of students with a unique perspective.
Mrs. Farkas’s Computer Talk
I wanted to create an electronic community for my students, and those in similar learning situations in my school district, so that the students had another kind of
opportunity to participate in literature discussions about novels, poetry and even non-fiction texts. The electronic classroom, “Mrs. Farkas‟s Computer Talk,” is located on the Cariboo-Chilcotin School District eschool site and uses the Moodle format of
asynchronous online discussions. An asynchronous online discussion is a continuous chain of electronic postings among groups of participants that are collected over time (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006). Other forms of online discussions, like chatting, occur while two or more people are communicating at the exact same time. The electronic classroom was another place for the adolescents in my class during the 2010-2011 school year to talk to each other. I wanted to create a community of practice where my students could try out new ways of working and thinking together, using a technology that motivates and engages adolescents. I hoped that the support from our community of practice would help my students explore many possibilities and construct meaning together.
The Millennial Generation
The adolescents in the scenario above are part of what Howe and Strauss (2000) first referred to as the Millennial Generation (students born between the 80s and mid-2000s). These students may have a diverse skill set that needs to be nurtured, encouraged and expanded in order to be literate members of today‟s society. Some of these students have been raised in an environment where information, entertainment, and social
interactions are unlimited and at their fingertips (Roehling, Vander Kooi, Dykema, Quisenberry, & Vandlen, 2011). Adolescents deserve educational experiences that address their unique physical, intellectual, emotional/psychological, moral/ethical and social developmental characteristics and needs (National Middle School Association [NMSA], 2007; Perry 2006). They deserve classrooms and schools that are designed with their needs and interests in mind (Mills, 2011; National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2004; NMSA, 2007; Roehling & et al., 2011).
The importance of motivation cannot be overlooked when discussing adolescents. Motivation can determine whether adolescents engage with or disengage from literacy learning. Engagement is encouraged through meaningful connections (Atwell, 1998; Considine, Horton, & Moorman, 2009; Frey & Fisher, 2010; NCTE, 2006, 2007; Pirbhai-Illich, 2010; Read, 2006; Ryan 2008). “Providing student choice and responsive
classroom environments with connections to „real life‟ experiences helps adolescents build confidence and stay engaged” (NCTE, 2006, p. 4). Students need to build
confidence to meet new literacy challenges because confident learners are more likely to be engaged. Students need teachers who understand them and who provide them with opportunities, such as classroom discussion and technology, that will motivate and engage them.
In effective schools, classroom conversations play a significant role in engaging adolescents‟ interests and helping students make the connections among their lives, prior knowledge, and texts (NCTE, 2004). Encouraging students to talk about their learning, teaching students how to critically examine text and media, and working in collaborative
diverse environments are topics discussed in much of the literature about adolescents and about their schooling.
Understanding what knowledge students bring to school is another important shift in educating adolescents. Adolescent literacy is fundamentally social, drawing from various discourse communities both in and out of school (Considine, Horton, & Moorman, 2009; NCTE, 2006, 2007; Perry, 2006). The multiple identities that adolescents already possess need to be considered and incorporated into the learning environment. Hidden literacies or out-of-school literacies are valuable to the Millennial Generation and need to be acknowledged. “When students are not recognized for bringing valuable, multiple-literacy practices to school, they can become resistant to school-based literacy” (NCTE, 2007, p. 3). Teachers need to recognize and value the literacy skills that these students already have and use every day. “Adolescents need bridges between everyday literacy practices and classroom communities, including online, non-book-based communities” (NCTE, 2007, p. 3). Teachers need to bridge gaps and assist students make connections between their in-school and out-of-school literacy practices.
As technology has become increasingly prevalent in our society, the skills needed to function successfully have gone beyond the previous definitions of literacy. The NCTE in their 2006 policy brief Adolescent Literacy discuss that “(l)iteracy encompasses
reading, writing, and a variety of social and intellectual practices that call upon the voice as well as the eye and hand. It also extends to new media-including non-digitized
multimedia, digitalized multimedia, and hypertext or hypermedia” (p. 2). The B.C. English Language Arts K to 7 curriculum document (B.C. Ministry of Education, 2006)
discusses literacy as, “being able to understand and process oral, written, electronic, and multi-media forms of communication” (p. 3). A consistent message that permeates most definitions of literacy that are used today is the notion that adolescents require more from their school experience than the traditional reading, writing and numeracy. Adolescents need more from their teachers in regard to discussions than the traditional recitation pedagogy that still permeates most classrooms today (Alexander, 2001; Lyle, 2008; Mercer & Dawes, 2010; Skidmore, 2008). “As a civil society where citizens can play an active role in resolving political, social and professional controversies, we will only benefit from helping our students develop an ability to think dialogically” (Reznitskaya et al., 2009, p. 44).
Oracy is an integral part of the British Columbia English Language Arts curriculum (B.C. Ministry of Education, 2006, 2007) for Grades K-12. The two curriculum documents are organized into oral language, reading, and writing and representing. Booth (1994), quoted in the K-7 English Language Arts curriculum document states that, “oral language is the foundation of literacy learning. Talk is the bridge that helps students make connections between what they know and what they are coming to know” (cited in B.C. Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 4). Adolescents need to understand that oral language is a tool for learning, a way of constructing knowledge. The present British Columbia curriculum supports the notion that a dialogic pedagogy is what students need to be active constructors of meaning. Finding opportunities to participate in different types of conversations can be an integral part of a student‟s literacy
Classroom Conversations
The ability to communicate well and work collaboratively with others in diverse, ever-changing situations are skills that students need to master. Adolescents need to be able to communicate effectively in specific domains and the latter is an expectation of the curriculum. Indeed, adolescents need to be masters of many Discourses as they navigate their way in this world. We want our students to read, write, talk and think like scientist, historians, and mathematicians because, “no matter what the subject, the people who read it, write it, and talk it are the ones who learn it best” (NCTE, n.d. quoted in Carter & Dean, 2006, p. 128).
There are many appropriate and effective methods to teach authentic classroom discussion skills to adolescents. A multiliteracies curriculum has proven to be an
engaging and valuable way to meet the unique needs of many adolescents (Atwell, 1998; Mills 2011; NCTE, 2007; NMSA, 2009; New London Group, 1996; Zoss, 2009). The New London Group (1996) coined the term multiliteracies and began a conversation with the academic world about the future of the education system. “The multiliteracies
pedagogy is an innovative attempt to combine the strengths of past approaches to overcome their weaknesses while addressing the need for new, multimodal, digitally mediated, culturally diverse and dynamic multiliteracies for our changing times” (Mills, 2009a, p. 111).
A multiliteracies perspective is based on two key propositions. The first
proposition is the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity. The second proposition is the multiplicity of communication channels and media tied to the expansion of mass media, multimedia, and the Internet (New London Group, 1996). The New London
Group noted the importance of moving from a system of passive learners with a lingering industrial age mentality to active, multi-literate learners from globally and culturally diverse backgrounds. “Our job is not to produce docile, compliant workers. Students need to develop the capacity to speak up, to negotiate, and to be able to engage critically with the conditions of their working lives” (New London Group, 1996, p. 67). A
multiliteracies approach can provide opportunities for adolescents to engage in productive purposes, using a variety of skills and ways to create meaning from their many life worlds. DeBruin-Parecki and Klein (2003) state that, “activities that include multiple modes of literacy, take place in supportive environments and promote cultural understandings more easily allow students‟ personal voices to prevail” (p. 511).
Multiliteracies pedagogy can enable students, like the ones mentioned at the beginning, to have conversations with the world.
A multiliteracies classroom encourages and promotes conversations between students and teachers, as well as conversations between and among students, thus also supporting a dialogical pedagogy. The dialogic pedagogy, as described by Barnes (1976, 1992) and Lyle (2008), is an effective approach to promote and improve dialogue. The implications for collaboration and shared meaning-making in the classroom are vast. The traditional monologic practices (IRF method) still permeate most classrooms across North America, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Alexander, 2001; Mercer & Dawes, 2010) even though research indicates that a dialogic pedagogy can help the Millennial Generation become functioning members of today‟s society.
Through the use of a variety of discussion formats, ranging from partner talk, literature circles to online discussions, students can begin to develop the skills they need
to participate effectively in a dialogical classroom. Learning ways to communicate and collaborate with peers and teachers in authentic, purposeful and structured situations is providing the students of this generation with the education they want and need.
In summary, the abilities to talk effectively and work collaboratively are key qualities needed by adolescents of today and workers of tomorrow. Talking is a skill students already possess and use in multiple ways. With guidance and support, they can refine and extend these skills. Promoting the use of authentic talk in the classroom, whether face-to-face or in an electronic environment, is teaching our students a valuable and essential skill that will help them to be citizens of our global village. Students deserve to have conversations with the world.
Summary
In this chapter I introduced “Mrs. Farkas‟s Computer Talk,” discussed the needs of the Millennial Generation in relation to engagement and technology, and discussed the importance of classroom conversations.
The following chapter focuses on authentic classroom talk and the benefits of using an electronic environment as another means of engaging adolescents in such authentic conversations. After reviewing some of the theoretical frameworks surrounding talk and discussion, I briefly present some of the classroom discussion methods used in classrooms today and then focus on the use of online threaded discussions as another approach to motivate and engage this generation of students. The project discussed in Chapter Three includes an overview of the set up and functioning of an electronic classroom, including a snapshot of the discussion formats used during the 2010-2011 school year. Connections to the English Language Arts K-7 curriculum (B.C. Ministry of
Education, 2006) and the integration of technology are made. Finally, Chapter Three examines the types of talk observed in three of the online forums and the educational journey of one struggling student. Chapter Four includes my reflections on the successes and lessons learned from the asynchronous online discussion forum and the future direction of the electronic classroom. The chapter ends as I reflect on the journey I have taken that has changed my understanding of the use of talk in my classroom and how a change in pedagogy can benefit my students.
Chapter Two Literature Review
In Chapter Two I describe the theoretical foundations that informed the project and guided the design of the electronic classroom. Following a review of dialogic
pedagogy, which serves as a foundation for discussion in the classroom, I present some of the literature on different discussion formats, both face-to-face and electronic. A brief review of the new literacies and a discussion of research specifically related to
asynchronous online discussions are also included in this chapter. The discussion of these topics is necessary to a consideration of the role and value of asynchronous online
discussions as an effective discussion format in a dialogic pedagogy. Theoretical Foundations
This project was influenced by a social constructivist theory of learning. Learners are essentially social beings who are figuring out how to be part of cultural practices and see the world from the perspective of the groups to which they belong, much like the adolescent boys discussed in Chapter One. Learners „construct‟ their models of the world by manipulating what is already available to them as part of the group, often in
conjunction with other members from these groups. Creswell (2007) states that meaning is negotiated socially and historically with others, it is “not simply imprinted on
individuals” (p. 21). Learning and language development does not occur in a vacuum. Indeed, meaning is built through social interactions with others.
The Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky was one of the first psychologists to discuss the role of talk in organizing our understanding of the world. Vygotsky (1978) stressed that all learning is socially, culturally and historically situated. He insisted that
our ability to talk and think is a social act first and only later becomes individual.
Vygotsky (1978) was interested in the relationship between language and thought, as well as the relationship between children and others as they make sense of the world around them.
Vygotsky‟s research inspired his contemporaries, as well as following generations of educational researchers. His influence contributed to an increase in the body of
research within the social sciences and educational fields that relies on observation and reflection, and that explores the social construction of the individual. Because of
Vygotsky‟s focus on language in child development, research in the area of language and learning was also stimulated. According to Lyle (2008), Vygotsky‟s work still influences the “increasing body of research that supports the view that talk is the key to learning” (p. 233).
Jerome Bruner was one researcher who built on Vygotsky‟s ideas that learning takes place in an historical, social and cultural context. His research looked at the interaction between children and other members of their lives, such as family members, social groups, and community members. Bruner (1990, 1996) contends that educators have underestimated children‟s predisposition for these kinds of interactions. Bruner‟s work supported Vygotsky‟s premise that culture and history, as well as biology, impact the development of the child.
A contemporary of Vygotsky‟s, Mikhail Bakhtin also saw language as a social practice. He is best known for his work in the field of literacy theory. Bakhtin (1981) distinguished between dialogic and monologic discourse. Language and thought, as argued by Bakhtin, is dialogic, not monologic. Monologic discourse is often teacher
driven and concerned with the transmission of knowledge to students. Dialogic discourse is concerned with the promotion of communication through authentic exchanges in order to build meaning collaboratively. His work inspired the reemergence of the concept of dialogic engagement.
Researchers and educators from around the world have examined the concept of dialogic engagement in recent years. The work by Douglas Barnes on exploratory talk and the idea of interthinking by Neil Mercer have contributed to the development of a dialogic pedagogy. Research in these areas also influenced the framework for this project as it relates to authentic talk in classrooms.
Barnes‟s (1976, 1992, 2008) ideas of school knowledge and action knowledge, and transmission and interpretation views of teaching and learning, as well as his work with exploratory talk fits well into a constructivist and social constructivist perspective. Learners construct meaning, explore possibilities and together discover what can be done. According to Barnes (1976, 1992) school knowledge is knowledge that is transmitted from teacher to student. If students do not use the knowledge they will likely forget it. Once school knowledge is incorporated into students‟ views of the world and they use that knowledge for their own purposes and base their actions upon what they now understand, knowledge becomes what Barnes refers to as action knowledge.
According to Barnes (1976, 1992), a teacher who views the purpose of writing primarily as the acquisition or recording of information has a transmission view of teaching; a teacher who views writing in terms of cognitive development that can aid in a writer‟s personal development has an interpretation view of learning. Transmission teachers believe their job is to transmit knowledge and test students to see whether they
have received that knowledge (i.e. school knowledge). An Interpretation teacher understands that a student‟s ability to re-interpret knowledge for himself is crucial to learning. This teacher‟s role is to have productive dialogues between students and himself to interpret knowledge together. The school knowledge that is acquired is incorporated into what the student already knows. A Transmission teacher “gives to his pupils a much more passive role in learning than does an Interpretation teacher” (Barnes, 1992, p.142). Students need opportunities to work together to understand ideas before they can incorporate new knowledge into the knowledge they already possess. Barnes (2008) stated that,
at the centre of working on understanding is the idea of „trying out‟ new ways of thinking and understanding some aspect of the world: this trying out enables us to see how far a new idea will take us, what it will or will not explain, where it contradicts our other beliefs, and where it opens up new possibilities. (pp. 4-5) Barnes also believes that one effective way of working on understanding is often through talk and it is important to consider the kinds of discussions that contribute most to this working on understanding.
Barnes (1976, 1992, 2008) distinguished between exploratory and presentational talk. In “presentational talk the speaker‟s attention is primarily focused on adjusting language, content and manner to the needs of an audience and in exploratory talk the speaker is more concerned with sorting out his or her own thoughts” (Barnes, 2008, p. 5). According to Barnes, exploratory talk is hesitant and incomplete because students are trying out ideas, hearing how their ideas sound, seeing what others think of the ideas, and arranging information into experiences. Both exploratory and presentational talk are
important to learning and students need exposure to and scaffolding with both types of talk.
According to Mercer, whose work has been influenced heavily by the ideas of Barnes, people use language together in order to think together and solve problems through joint intellectual activity. Mercer (2000) refers to this dynamic process as interthinking. He suggests that people link their minds in three different social modes of thinking: disputational talk, cumulative talk, and exploratory talk. Mercer (1996)
describes disputational talk as disagreements and individualized decisions. Exchanges are short consisting of assertions and counter-assertions. Cumulative talk is often
characterized by repetitions, confirmations and elaborations and students build on what others have said but do not think critically about what is being said. Exploratory talk occurs when partners engage critically but constructively with each other‟s ideas. There are challenges and counter-challenges, but the challenges must be justified and
alternatives given. “Compared with the other two types, in exploratory talk knowledge is made more publicly accountable and reasoning is more visible in the talk” (Mercer, 1996, p. 369). Wegerif, Mercer and Dawes (1999) claim that, “exploratory talk is the closest to reasoning as a social practice” (p. 496).
Mercer has also echoed the ideas of Barnes (1976, 1992) in his discussions about how changing the patterns of teacher-pupil interaction from a transmission to an
interpretation style of interaction can improve students‟ active participation, motivation and academic achievement (Mercer & Dawes, 2010; Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2004). Further, the research by Mercer and others has indicated that classroom talk needs to have a clear set of ground rules established and used in order for collective reasoning or
thinking together to be effective (Alexander, 2006; Mercer, 2008; Mercer & Dawes, 2010; Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999). Mercer believes that students need guidance to get the most out of group discussion. “If left to their own devices, their talk in groups is likely to be unproductive, with some group members excluded from the discussions, others dominating the proceedings, and little genuinely collaborative thinking going on” (Mercer & Dawes, 2010, p. 19). The different types and uses of talk need to be explained, demonstrated, and practiced by the students before they can successfully use them
appropriately and effectively on their own.
Research conducted by Mercer with Sylvia Rojas-Drummond and other
colleagues in Mexico (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2004) was based on the premise that if dialogue was used to scaffold students‟ learning, then the students would achieve better results on cognitive tests. Using video-recordings of lessons, the researchers compared teacher-student interactions for two groups of teachers in state schools. One group of teachers worked in schools whose students achieved well in reading comprehension and mathematics problem-solving and the other group of teachers worked in similar schools whose students did not achieve well in these areas of reading and math. The teachers‟ questions, explanations and instructions were examined, as well as the extent to which the teachers encouraged the students to talk. The results indicated that the teachers of those students who used question-and-answer to test knowledge and guide development of understanding, taught not just content but also the procedures for solving problems and treated learning as a social, communicative process achieved better outcomes. The
teacher-student interactions observed by Mercer and Rojas-Drummond (2004) have been identified as productive and effective by other researchers, such as Alexander (2006).
Mercer believes strongly that language is a tool for learning and problem-solving and that it enables us to think together. His involvement with the Thinking Together
Project (see www.thinkingtogether.educ.cam.ac.uk) indicates his continued promotion of
a dialogue-based approach to the development of students‟ thinking and learning. A Dialogic Pedagogy
As discussed earlier, Bakhtin (1981) made a distinction between dialogic and monologic discourse. Monologic talk, which is teacher dominated and controlled, focuses power on the teacher, thus stifling interactions among students and their ideas. A
monologic teacher, much like a Transmission teacher, is concerned with the transmission of knowledge to the students and has firm control of the goals of talk. The goal of
dialogic talk is to promote communication through authentic exchanges. There is a place for many voices and discourses as an effort is made to help the students build meaning collaboratively. Lyle (2008) discusses the role of the teacher in a dialogic classroom as “the guide on the side rather than sage on the stage” (p. 229).
Recent research has shown that the transmission model or recitation model of learning is still the predominant method of sharing knowledge in numerous countries around the world (Alexander, 2001; Hardman & Abd-Kadir, 2010; Nystrand, 2006). Even though curriculum in many countries explicitly states that oral language and discussion formats are to be included in significant proportions compared to reading and writing, research indicates that teaching practices in the classroom are slow to change. The transmission model remains the most common form of “sharing” knowledge with students. According to some individuals such as Lyle (2008), Mercer and Dawes (2010), and Skidmore (2008), the environment of accountability and high stakes assessment often
influence the decisions that teachers make in their daily practice. Skidmore (2006) stated “structural conditions of schooling, combined with the prevailing methods of assessment, exercise a powerful constraining effect on the preferred mode of classroom discourse” (p. 511).
The ongoing call for fostering dialogue in the classroom is clear, but empirical studies of dialogic teaching in relation to educational outcomes are limited (Reznitskaya et al., 2009). The theoretical propositions made by scholars, such as Bakhtin and Barnes, along with the recent promising results from studies and reviews of classroom discourse research are beginning to provide teachers who wish to expand their discourse practices with some guidelines. Researchers are beginning to provide evidence to support a dialogic approach in relation to reading comprehension, individual reasoning and the development of individual argumentation (Lyle, 2008; Nystrand, 2006; Reznitskaya et al., 2009; Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999). Despite the constraints of the system itself and the various proposals regarding the relationship between dialogue and pedagogy, researchers supporting a dialogic pedagogy agree that improving the quality of classroom dialogue can make a significant contribution to improving student learning (Nystrand, 2006; Reznitskaya et al., 2009; Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2004; Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999).
Nystrand (2006) reviewed a substantial number of studies on classroom discourse as it relates to reading comprehension. The studies represented a range of perspectives and research methodologies. The dialogic research that he examined supported the claims that classroom talk, in small groups and whole-class situations, works as a supportive environment for literacy development. “Taken together, the results from all the studies
reviewed strongly support the potential of classroom discussion to enhance reading comprehension instruction” (Nystrand, 2006, p. 401). Nystrand‟s review of research revealed that classroom discussion can have positive effects on learning generally and reading comprehension specifically, but he noted that much remains to be done in studying the effects of classroom discourse.
Another older, but relevant study that was conducted by Wegerif, Mercer and Dawes (1999) explored the theory that individual reasoning ability can improve after participating in exploratory talk. In the U.K., 60 students, in Grades 4 and 5, in three local state middle schools were organized into target and control groups, both of mixed ability and mixed gender. The researchers used qualitative discourse analysis with quantitative measurement and controlled experiment. The children were taught to use exploratory talk and their ability to solve problems on a standardized psychological test of non-verbal reasoning (i.e. Raven‟s Progressive Matrices) was assessed. Overall, the scores of the target groups increased more than the scores of the control group, which supported one of the study‟s hypotheses that teaching exploratory talk can improve individual reasoning. The findings showed statistically significant improvements in the individual test results based on the language-based intervention. According to Wegerif, Mercer, and Dawes (1999) their research indicated that, “the kind of reasoning ability involved in individual non-verbal reasoning tests is mediated by social interaction” (p. 514). The authors cautioned that their study was not detailed enough to confirm or deny that using
dialogical reasoning is the origin of the process of general cognitive development. It can be safely said that reasoning is embedded in a social practice.
Further evidence to support a dialogic approach can be found in the review of empirical studies that evaluated the educational potential of dialogic interactions conducted by Reznitskaya and her colleagues (2009). The studies that were reviewed were conducted with Grades 4 and 5 students and the research investigated group processes during collaborative reasoning discussions and the development of individual argumentation. The four studies summarized in the article demonstrated a consistency of results that supported the “pedagogical potential of dialogic interaction for the
development of individual competency in argumentation” (Reznitskaya et al., 2009, p. 40). In other words, engagement in genuine dialogue with others helped the students develop their abilities to generate relevant propositions, consider alternatives, and merge opposing perspectives. The ability to engage in a rational argument is crucial for active and mindful participation by students in a democratic society.
Dialogic teaching emphasizes purposeful and productive dialogue between teacher and students, as well as student and student. In a dialogic classroom, this talk is complementary (Mercer & Dawes, 2010). Teachers and learners are active participants in the construction of knowledge based on the ideas and experiences contributed by students and the teacher. The guided co-construction of knowledge is central to the educational experience. A teacher talks with students in whole class, small group and individual situations to help guide student thinking. The teaching is collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative and purposeful (Alexander, 2006).
Mercer and Dawes (2010) emphasize that, in dialogic pedagogy “there is a balance between teacher-led discussion and talk in which students have more control, with the overall classroom dialogue linked through activities which demand discussion,
such as enquiry and problem-solving” (p. 24). A dialogic pedagogy does not exclude teacher-led discussion or recitation. Indeed, students need to experience a careful
combination of whole class, teacher-led activities and group work in order to try out ways of thinking together and use language to solve problems. Teachers who take an active, expert role to guide their students‟ thinking and use of language need to provide their students with a clear model of the sort of talk they should be using. A repertoire of different discussion or authentic talk formats can provide students with a variety of experiences with talk. A dialogic pedagogy supports talk for different purposes.
Dialogic talk can be supported and encouraged through discussion. Discussion, sometimes referred to as authentic classroom talk, is defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as “the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas” (accessed July 18, 2011). A discussion is an oral exploration of a topic, concept, experience or a selection of literature. The purpose of discussion is to help students make sense of the world, stimulate thought or explanation, expand on ideas, promote group interaction, and demonstrate questioning techniques. Authentic discussion is much more than a simple conversation; it is structured, collaborative and purposeful.
A variety of discussion formats can be used in classrooms, ranging from whole class teacher-led discussions, to small group discussions, to partner talk and even online chats that can be either informal or formal in nature. A dialogic classroom effectively uses a variety of discussion formats.
Discussion Formats
The research on dialogic pedagogy reveals that authentic, structured talk has benefits for engagement and purposeful learning. Although many different models exist, for the purpose of this literature review I focus on forms of partner talk, literature circles and the many variations, as well as online discussions. These formats are most often used in my teaching situation and are considered good practice in the literature helping to create communities of learners. Although it is generally accepted by educators that there are numerous advantages and some disadvantages to any of above mentioned discussion formats in the classroom, depending on the particular teaching situations and the goal of the use of discussion (Daniels, 1994; Evans, 2002; Long & Gove, 2003; Maloch, 2002; Pearson, 2010; Soter et al., 2008).
Partner talk.
Partner talk can take many forms and has a variety of uses. During partner talk, two or three students work collaboratively to complete a task, such as solve a problem, read a text, discuss literature or work on writing. A/B partner talk is a structured form of peer collaboration ensuring that both partners have a turn to share. Cue cards, designed as part of the SmartLearning© program (Close, 2006), can scaffold the kinds of questions that students ask each other. Partner talk, as it is used in many classrooms, is usually less formal with students talking and working through a task together.
Partner talk can be used to teach effective communication skills, develop active listening and questioning skills, support risk taking, and encourage independence. Another advantage of effective partner talk is building relationship among classmates. However, partner talk can have disadvantages if not monitored and scaffolded
effectively. Partner talk is more time consuming and often requires the teacher‟s presence to facilitate the process. The teacher‟s role is crucial in partner talk to ensure that student talk is encouraged, guidelines for effective discussions (i.e. discussion etiquette) are being followed, and that student talk is extended when necessary. As suggested by Wegerif, Mercer and Dawes (1999), ground rules for discussion are a necessity for purposeful exchanges to occur. Without guidelines in place, one member may dominate the discussion and shy learners may refuse to participate. Face-to-face conversation, even with a partner can be challenging for some students because of language barriers, gender issues and power imbalances in the classroom (Evans, 2002). Another disadvantage is the very social nature of students and their digression from the topic. Students require
instruction to develop the skills needed to redirect the discussion.
Some research surrounding partner talk has examined how ability grouping can influence outcomes, as well as the role talk plays in improving learning (Fawcett & Garton, 2005; Schmitz & Winskel, 2008). Though the dynamics of grouping can
influence results, in this literature review I focus specifically on whether talk between and among peers impacts the learning.
Fawcett and Garton (2005) investigated the effect of collaborative learning on children‟s problem-solving abilities in their study with 100 students, aged 6 and 7 year old, from five primary schools in West Australia. The aim was to find out if differences in knowledge status or the use of explanatory language contributed to problem solving abilities. To explore the effect of language, a comparison was made between partners where active talk was a requirement, and partners where active talk was prohibited during the sorting task with attribute blocks. The results showed that children in the talk
condition improved their problem-solving abilities more than those in the no talk condition by completing a relatively greater number of sorts. “Those children who were required to talk about the sort for their partner to carry out (M=2.1, SD=1.45) improved significantly from pre- to post-test compared with those children where verbal interaction was minimal (M=0.7, SD=0.82)” (Fawcett & Garton, 2005, p. 164). The study showed that the active exchange of ideas, rather than merely working together, was integral to improved outcomes. Active participation and reasoning seem to be critical underlying factors to improving problem-solving skills.
A study conducted by Schmitz and Winskel (2008) also examined the effects of partnering students of different abilities and how the quality of talk influenced the
mathematical problem-solving task using amoeboid patterns. Fifty-four students, aged 10 to 12 years old, from a Western Sydney government school were formed into dyads and the children worked together to complete a task that required them to talk to solve a mathematical problem. Student talk was analyzed using a language analysis framework developed by Mercer and his colleagues. The findings revealed that when both students were able to present their points of view and constructively question each other‟s ideas, in dyads consisting of low-middle ability students, significantly more exploratory talk transpired than in dyads consisting of the low-high ability groupings. Schmitz and Winskel (2008) suggested that more symmetrical partnerships can influence the amount of exploratory talk because meaning is being co-constructed in a joint activity.
Partner talk was also examined in a study conducted by Brown (2006). She explored student partner talk during reading in a suburban school in the United States in a classroom consisting of 23 students, aged 7 to 8 years old. Data were collected during the
six-week study by observing, videotaping, audio taping, taking field notes, and collecting student artifacts. It is important to clarify that partner reading was only one of the
components in the teacher‟s overall language arts program, but the students did engage in this activity at least twice a week. The five major kinds of talk that emerged from the analysis of data were organizational talk, word-solving strategies, meaning-making talk, disputational talk, and personal talk. The results of the analysis of talk indicated that peer talk functioned in numerous ways to help all the students successfully complete the reading of the text. The talk the students engaged in served to organize their thinking and move beyond their present understanding of the event. “Students used their socially constructed language to make sense of text” (Brown, 2006, p. 35). The findings from this study indicated that talk is an integral part of any literacy program and support the
findings of Fawcett and Garton (2005) and Schmitz and Winskel (2008). I chose to review these studies in particular on partner talk because the
demographics, age of the students and classroom practices were similar to my situation. Even though some of the studies also examined the influence of ability partnering, the results of peer talk were clear. These studies highlight the importance of language in effective collaborative interactions. Working together without active verbal interaction is statistically no better than working independently (Fawcett & Garton, 2005). The
requirement to explain and question with a partner can help students explore, clarify and elaborate ideas. If working with a partner collaboratively improves learning outcomes then it would seem logical that working in small peer groups, such as literature circles, would also influence learning outcomes in a similar positive way.
Literature circles.
Literature circles, book clubs, and other variations of literature circles, such as Socratic circles or the fishbowl technique, are commonly used discussion formats in countries all over the world. Literature circles were first implemented in the 1980s by two teachers who thought that incorporating adult book clubs into the classroom would
motivate reading interests. Harvey Daniels (1994) developed roles for students and a structure that has been used in thousands of classrooms. Daniels (1994) defined literature circles as small temporary groups of students who have chosen to read the same story. Each member of the group has specific responsibilities in the upcoming discussions and must come to the discussion with notes needed to complete the task. The circles have regular meetings and the roles rotate each session. Daniels stressed that after the students have successfully conduct discussions, the formal roles could be dropped. For a detailed example of literature circles based on Daniels‟s work see
http://readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/literate-circles-getting-started-19.html.
The advantages of traditional literature circles are student book choice, small groups, rotation of groups and roles, and teacher as a facilitator, not a group member or instructor. As with partner talk, effective communication, active listening and questioning can be improved after participation in student-led discussions (Brown, 2006; Reznitskaya et al., 2009; Soter et al., 2008). Literature discussion groups, whether partners, small group or whole class, can provide students with more leadership opportunities and with more time to talk and can improve discussion skills in general. However, studies have
shown that the transition from recitation to student-led discussions can take time as students need scaffolding and practice (Maloch, 2002).
Some of the disadvantages of literature circles include students not being ready at the scheduled time and letting down other group members, and the lack of participation from some students in the discussion or the dominance of the discussion by other students. Face-to-face conversations can be difficult for some students, especially with larger groups or whole class discussion, such as Socratic circles or the fishbowl
technique. Literature circles tend to take longer to complete than partner talk activities. Even though the teacher is not instructing or part of the group, which is an advantage, literature circles require teachers to continually circulate to facilitate and keep the process moving forward. As with partner talk, the teacher‟s role is crucial to ensure the discussion guidelines are being followed and purposeful talk is happening.
Although it is accepted that talk can enrich children‟s interpretations of texts during literature circles, a lack of research has examined how talk facilitates this process (Pearson, 2010). One of the few studies examining the quality of talk in student-led literature circles was conducted by Maloch (2002) in a third-grade classroom of 29 students in an elementary school in a mid-size U.S. city. Her five-month qualitative study examined the role of the teacher as she transitioned from teacher-led to student-led discussion formats. Data were collected by observation and interviews, and the collection of artifacts. Field notes, video- and audio-taping were also used to record data. The collected data were analyzed with the use of comparative method and techniques of discourse analysis suggested by Mercer (1995). The findings of Maloch‟s (2002) study indicated that the transition to student-led discussions was difficult for students and the
teacher had to work to support the students in their transition to new roles and responsibilities. Intervention techniques were necessary to scaffold student learning. However, as the students engaged in dialogue and learned conversational strategies from the teacher and their peers, their talk began to develop the characteristics of exploratory talk. Maloch‟s study (2002) revealed that the teaching of ground rules and conversational strategies becomes critical as “students make the transition from more traditional formats to student-led ones” (p. 110). Offering students guidance and strategies for discussion can help students understand the discussion process and their roles in it.
Pearson (2010) also explored students‟ talk during literature circles. He designed a project to record the kinds of exchanges and range of discourses children used when talking among themselves about selections of literature. Twenty-nine students, aged 9 and 10 years old, in a city in Scotland, were introduced to the concept of literature circles. Data were collected using audio-tapes, notes and post-discussion interviews. The
discussions were recorded and analyzed using Mercer‟s (1996) three categories of exploratory, cumulative and disputational talk. Pearson‟s case study revealed that the discussions were engaging, lively and enjoyed by the students, however, reasoned arguments with reference to the text to justify opinions were not exhibited. The discussions consisted of large amounts of cumulative talk, as well as connections to personal experiences and students acting out characters in a range of voices. Even though there was no enquiry, debate, or critical responses, the study revealed the children using language to share ideas and think together in an exploratory way. “Talk in the literature circles gave plenty of evidence of the children using language as a tool to think together” (Pearson, 2010, p. 9). Pearson (2010) suggested that for exploratory talk to play a more
dominate role in the literature circles more modeling, provided over a longer period, was necessary. It seems that children may not be aware of the types of talk they are engaging in and need to be introduced to ways to respond to text and each other.
The studies conducted by Maloch (2002) and Pearson (2010) were the only examples of research articles I located that discussed talk in relation to literature circles and exploratory talk. The studies, or lack there of, highlight the fact that more research is needed to examine literature circles and the types of talk that students use to
communicate with peers and teachers.
Both partner talk and literature circles involve face-to-face discussion. Some students thrive in these situations while others do not. Another avenue or outlet for students to engage in discussions is the newly emerging online discussion format. Online discussions, which can take many forms, such as chatting on social network sites,
emailing, and using discussion boards, which can be synchronous or asynchronous, can provide new opportunities for all students. Online discussions have emerged as a useful strategy in recent years and asynchronous online discussions are the focus of the final section of the literature review. However, before discussing the advantages and disadvantage of asynchronous online discussion, it is prudent to briefly examine the emergence of these types of discussion in relation to the concept of new literacies. New Literacies and Communication
The profound ways that new technologies are influencing our world has given way to what is called new literacies. These technologies include gaming software, video technologies, communication and establishing of communities on the Internet, search
engines, web pages, and technologies that have not even been realized yet (Larson, 2008; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Luce-Kapler, 2007).
The Internet has changed the ways students communicate and they have had to develop new literacy skills. The technology that the Millennial Generation has grown up with changes regularly, thus opening new possibilities for communication and
interaction. “A key feature of the new literacies is that they are situated, authentic forms of communication for real world audiences and purposes” (Mills, 2009b, p. 3).
Adolescents want real world opportunities for learning that are relevant to their lives that bridge the gap between in and out-of-school literacies. They want their education system to meet their developmental needs using the new literacies that most engage in during their daily lives.
Students want access to technology in the classroom. They want their schools to be providing them with the skills they need for the future. Martin (2008) suggests that integrating electronic technology and writing is essential in a language arts curriculum because “technology is central to how our students think and act in the world” (p. 19). A study completed by Spires, Lee, Turner, and Johnson (2008) found that middle school students want to use technology; indeed using the computer was one activity that the research participants liked best in school regardless of ethnic group, socio-economic background, gender, or age. Spires et al. (2008) surveyed 4,000 students in Grades 6, 7, and 8 who were members of a North Carolina after-school program. The aim of the questionnaires was to discover middle school students‟ perspectives about what they need to have in school to be engaged and to achieve. Additional information was gathered through focus group interviews with approximately 600 of the students. Student
perceptions of school, technologies and academic engagement were addressed. The findings of the study revealed that, “students want their schools to look more like the world in which they live” (Spires et al., 2008, p. 510). The results of the study showed that these students believe there is a clear link between the use of technologies in school and their academic engagement. Student comments showed that they wanted educators to understand their need for technology tools as part of their learning because it relates to future careers. The research conducted by Spires et al. (2008) suggested that students want to bring their technology experiences outside of school into school to improve academic engagement.
There are many ways to enhance learning with technology that go beyond word processing and PowerPoint presentations. Most students are eager to show their learning using threaded discussions, blogs, wikis and other such interactive communication technologies (Badke, 2009; Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Luce-Kapler, 2007; Mullen & Wedwick 2008; Read, 2006). Threaded or asynchronous discussions can provide a safe, closed network where students can create a community of practice (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006). Students can safely participate in online writing activities in classroom blogs using pseudonyms (Witte, 2007). These examples are only two of the many ways to integrate technology, literacy and discussions in a classroom. When teachers provide authentic learning opportunities, students can demonstrate their existing literacy skills in meaningful contexts.
“Communication in electronic environments is now central to participation in workplaces, recreational sites, and higher education” (Mills, 2009b, p. 2). Providing expert guidance by teachers is one of the key responsibilities of schooling, and it is
unreasonable to expect students to navigate the literacy practices of adults in social, recreational, and civic engagement by themselves (Mills, 2010). Many students are able to navigate and use certain literacy practices, such as social networking sites, better and more efficiently than their teachers. Even though they may have more experience with technology, the Millennials are “self taught but not well taught” (Considine, Horton, & Moorman, 2009, p. 475). Students need to be guided through these electronic
environments as they develop the skills necessary to safely navigate on their own. The Millennial Generation still requires guidance and support from understanding teachers who embrace what it means to be an adolescent in a world of change.
Understanding how new literacies influence our students and their learning and accepting that new literacies have a place in the classroom behooves educators to
consider how to use technology to enhance literacy programs. Online discussion formats are one such way to include new literacies in an already existing dialogic classroom. Asynchronous Online Discussions
Authentic classroom discussion cannot happen without a sense of community. Grisham and Wolsey (2006) eloquently state that, “community is the soul of learning” (p. 648). Creating a classroom community that engages in authentic online discussions can be a daunting task. A body of research suggests that asynchronous online discussions can have a positive effect on building a learning community, increase participation within the learning community, and improve critical thinking skills (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Kim, Anderson, Nguyen-Jahiel, & Archodidou, 2007; Miller & Benz, 2008).
The following section reviews the research findings regarding the advantages and disadvantages of participating in asynchronous online discussions compared to
synchronous online discussion and face-to-face discussion. The use of asynchronous online discussions, as part of a discussion format repertoire, can support a dialogic pedagogy.
As described in Chapter One, asynchronous online discussion is defined as a group of people who exchange messages electronically that accumulate over time. A thread or chain of postings is created on a single topic (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006). In contrast, synchronous online discussions, “occur in real time and requires the
simultaneous participation of students and teacher” (Johnson, 2006, p. 46). Asynchronous online discussions have been commonly used for online work in undergraduate and graduate courses, with the majority of the research being completed at this level. The literature reviewed below is presented in two major sections: advantages of participating in asynchronous discussions and disadvantages of participating in asynchronous
discussions.
Advantages of participating in asynchronous online discussions.
A large body of research on asynchronous discussion has been conducted over the past 10 years. The majority of the research has compared asynchronous discussion with synchronous and face-to-face discussions. One advantage discussed in many of the research studies and literature was time (Caswell, 2001; English, 2007; Jewell, 2005; Kassop, 2003; Larson & Keiper, 2002; Meyer, 2003; Miller & Benz, 2008: Wang & Woo, 2007; Yu, 2009). Time to participate when convenient, the length of time available for the discussions, and time to reflect before responding were the three major themes.
During face-to-face and synchronous discussions participants and teachers need to be available at the same time and often at the same place. Asynchronous discussions
enable students to access the discussion board at any time and from just about any location. An overview on threaded discussions by Rizopoulos and McCarthy (2009) described how they are used, provided suggestions for implementing threaded discussion across content areas, and discussed the advantages and limitations of using threaded discussions. One of the advantages Rizopoulos and McCarthy (2009) discussed was how having 24-hour access to their learning community is at the top of the list of student advantages for using threaded online discussions. The authors state that, “this is an especially convenient tool for students who work during the day and use the evening hours to complete course-related work” (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009, p. 376).
The 24-hour access to the threaded discussions was also a feature identified in the research conducted by Meyer (2003) that compared the experiences of graduate-level students in face-to-face discussions with threaded discussions. End-of-course evaluations were analyzed and themes were constructed based on students‟ comments. Expansion of time, experience of time, quality of discussion, needs of the students, and faculty
expertise were some of the themes identified through the analysis of the data.
Content analysis of the threaded discussion to determine evidence of higher-order thinking revealed mixed results providing evidence that some higher level thinking did occur, but not as much as the researcher had hoped for. Meyer‟s (2003) research also revealed that nearly all the participants identified time to reflect before speaking (i.e. responding) beyond the constraints of class time as an advantage.
The length of time used to complete online discussions can also be an advantage. Asynchronous discussions are not limited by time constraints to the same degree as university courses and high school and middle school classes. Larson and Keiper (2002)
conducted a study with undergraduate students who participated in threaded discussions and face-to-face discussions. Field notes were taken during the classroom discussions and the text for the threaded discussions were recorded. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative method. Expressing passion, the use of declarations and clarifications, and time demands were examples of some of the findings. Though interactions were different in the two formats, both forms of discussion provided students with opportunities to learn and interact with each other. Larson and Keiper (2002) concluded that the length of discussions were positive and said, “threaded discussions can last an entire semester because the Internet allows the interactions to transcend the time and place of the discussion” (np).
Other researchers, such as Miller and Benz (2008) and Wang and Woo (2007), have also noted the advantage of unlimited or extended time for discussion. Miller and Benz (2008) conducted a study to compare online threaded discussion and fishbowl interaction as a means for encouraging peer collaboration. Fifty-two undergraduate students at a Nebraska university participated in online discussions and the fishbowl discussion technique as part of their regular course routine. Questionnaires completed by the students were designed to assess level of student participation and motivation,
identify benefits to students, and explore if the collaboration process affected discussion of topics unrelated to the projects outside of the classroom. In general, both discussion formats had a positive effect on student collaboration and the students perceived both techniques as beneficial in completing their work. With respect to extended time, Miller and Benz‟s (2008) found that the online discussion provided “an avenue for students to
think further about a topic raised in class session since the communication process can be extended well beyond class time” (p. 93).
Wang and Woo‟s (2007) research on discussion was conducted in Singapore with 24 graduate students. The aim of the research was to compare perceived differences between asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions. Observational notes and student reflections were the two instruments used for collecting data.
Qualitative analysis of the data revealed both positive and negative points. The top five identified themes were atmosphere (comfort, equal access and dominance), responses (feedback), efficiency (use of time), interactivity (interactions between participants) and communication (verbal and non-verbal). The findings by Wang and Woo‟s (2007) regarding time were that “online discussion participants had more time to think, clarify and respond” (p. 281).
Many other individuals have mentioned that in order to improve responses, time to reflect before responding to or participating in this type of discussion is necessary (Caswell, 2001; English, 2007; Kim et al., 2007). In Caswell‟s case study (2001), his high school social studies students participated in threaded discussions as part of their course work for an entire school year. Participation in the forum was optional. Of the 41 students who used the forum and completed surveys responding to a variety of questions, 78% stated a desire to share their ideas with one another was the main reason for using the forum. Many students believed that their use of the forum aided their understanding of concepts in class. Caswell‟s study (2001) also revealed that 37 students, who used the forum, indicated that the forum allowed them to better express themselves.
In English‟s (2007) research, she used threaded discussions to add to the
discussion of literature in her high school English classes. Her examination of the quality of students‟ responses to literature revealed that, “the online response asks students to reflect a little more and not just give a spur-of-the-moment response (English, 2007, p. 59). English (2007) suggested that the formation of these statements was due to the time allowed to construct and reflect upon statements before posting them.
In the research by Kim et al. (2007), 10 groups of Grades 4 and 5 students participated in collaborative online discussions about two stories. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of observations, field notes, and interviews were used to evaluate participation, and types and frequency of arguments. Analysis of the data revealed that the participation rates increased during the study, that students were influenced by their peers‟ contributions, and that students took the time to construct responses that linked ideas. The “children generally managed to post messages that contained appropriate rhetorical strategies and were well grounded in the stories” (Kim et al., 2007, p. 367). Thus, the research indicates that time to reflect and respond to the discussion encourages for deeper-level responses, instead of “off the cuff” responses that can occur during face-to-face and synchronous discussions.
Other advantages to using the asynchronous discussion format include the provision of a context for students who do not participate well or at all in face-to-face discussions to express their ideas and contribute to discussions. Some research and commentaries have addressed how threaded discussions allow shy or quiet students a place to speak (English, 2007; Kassop, 2003; Larson & Keiper, 2002; Meyer, 2003; Wang & Woo, 2007). The non-interrupting style of these discussions provides students
with a format to contribute without being rushed or interrupted by peers. In English‟s study (2007), she found that some students who shared very little in class were quite verbose in asynchronous discussions. One student wrote at length about a topic, sharing knowledge and insight that was never demonstrated in class (English, 2007, p. 57). Many asynchronous discussions can have an anonymous response format where participants are assigned pseudonyms (Kassop, 2003; Yu, 2009). Not knowing the identity of respondents can provide students with the freedom to respond to the ideas and conversation without the influence of gender, race, or any other factor. In Yu‟s study (2009) that compared online discussion and face-to-face discussion with academic achievement, confidentiality was part of the research design; Yu knew who was posting the responses but the 18 public high school English students from Wisconsin did not have this information. Some participants reported that anonymity was helpful to those who were shy and others reported that they felt safe which allowed more freedom to express themselves (p. 15). Only two participants stated they did not like the anonymous nature of the discussion and one wrote that everyone should “man up and speak your mind” (Yu, 2009, p. 16).
Some researchers have commented that the threaded discussion format can provide those students whose first language is not the language of the discussion opportunities that do not and cannot occur in face-to-face discussions (Kassop, 2003; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009; Yu, 2009). Even though I could not find any research to support these comments, I believe time to construct a response in the appropriate
language allows non-native speaking students to be part of the conversation, and
