Defining Asynchronous Discussion Design And Facilitation Practices In Brightspace
2 likes1,250 views
This document discusses principles for designing effective asynchronous online discussions in the Brightspace learning management system. It outlines three key principles: 1) Discussion as social engagement to build an online learning community, 2) Discussion as knowledge construction through social interaction and negotiating meaning, and 3) Discussion as enhancing cognitive processes by guiding learners to apply knowledge. Specific strategies are provided under each principle, such as using icebreaker discussions to build social engagement. The document also provides an example discussion design from a Calculus course to illustrate how discussions can be constrained through note starters and conditional release of posts.
Defining Asynchronous Discussion Design And Facilitation Practices In Brightspace
- 1. Brightspace Minnesota Connection Defining asynchronous discussion design and facilitation practices in Brightspace Kevin Forgard Senior Instructional Designer UW Colleges Online @kforgard Kevin.forgard@uwc.edu April 15, 2016
- 2. Session Objectives Unpack the framework Brightspace discussion designs ”Real Life” Example (Calc. I) Establish discussion design principles Establish ideas based on principles Worked example Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 3. 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
- 4. A question for the group What is the typical overarching goal with online discussions: A: Build a community B: Learning assessment C: Lerner feedback opportunity D: Group work facilitation E: Check learner comprehension F: Place for learners to do analysis work Image credit: Flickr cesar bojorquez Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 5. How would you like to improve online discussions? A: Enhance student engagement B: Design better discussion prompts C: Utilize more group discussions D: Motivate students participation A question for the group Image credit: Flickr cesar bojorquez Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 6. 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
- 7. 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”
- 8. 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
- 9. Teaching and Learning Design Intention What is the main purpose of online discussions? A: Check to see if students did readings or completed homework B: Build community C: Engage students with course materials D: Assessment of student knowledge E: Something for students to do to be active in the course F: Learning support Image credit: Flickr cesar bojorquez Yes, it’s a repeat of the earlier question. Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 10. 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
- 11. 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 words Must respond to two other students What is the intent here? Example Discussion Prompt Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 12. 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
- 13. A few principles of online discussion design and delivery Gao & Puttman (2009); Gao, et. al. (2013)Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 14. 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
- 15. 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
- 16. 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
- 17. 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
- 18. Discussion as knowledge construction Interaction Analysis Model (Phases) Phase I Share and compare information Phase II Discover and explore dissonance or inconsistencies among ideas Phase III Negotiate meaning Phase IV Test and modify proposed synthesis or co-construction Phase V Agreement statements/application of newly constructed meaning Gunawarden et. al., (1997) in Lucas et. al. (2014)Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 19. 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
- 20. Discussion as knowledge construction What can we do to enhance student interactions and move beyond the “sharing information” phase? A: Enhance grade B: Provide more feedback C: Model behavior D: Highlight “good” discussions (rating system?) E: Redesign discussion questions F: Scaffold the design G: Define guidelines Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 21. 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
- 22. 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
- 23. Discussion to enhance cognitive processes Some 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
- 24. Online discussion design and delivery Productive 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
- 25. Image credit: Flickr Debbie Ramone Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 26. 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
- 27. Visualized environment: Visual element prompts the discussion Using a 3rd party tool to create visual May also be documents in several discussion forums. Code topics by color Have students code or tag discussions Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 28. Anchored Environment: Artifact-centered Linked from Films on Demand Add media to center discussion Leaners may share images May be a file to review Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 29. Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft Constrained: Example from a Calculus Course
- 30. Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 31. Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 32. Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 33. Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft Consider Brightspace Discussion Settings Post first and moderated Rating system Conditional Release
- 34. 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 support Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft
- 35. THANK YOU! Defining asynchronous discussion design and facilitation practices in Brightspace Kevin Forgard Senior Instructional Designer UW Colleges Online @kforgard Kevin.forgard@uwc.edu
- 36. Reference List Bender, 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.2013.09.003 Forgard (2016) -‐ not final draft