Facilitating online discussions effectively

Internet and Higher Education 10 (2007) 77–88

Facilitating online discussions effectively

Alfred P. Rovai ⁎

School of Education, Regent University, 1000 Regent University Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464-9800, USA

Abstract

This article presents a synthesis of the theoretical and research literature on facilitating asynchronous online discussionseffectively. Online courses need to be designed so that they provide motivation for students to engage in productive discussions andclearly describe what is expected, perhaps in the form of a discussion rubric. Additionally, instructors need to provide discussionforums for socio-emotional discussions that have the goal of nurturing a strong sense of community within the course as well asgroup discussion forums for content-and task-oriented discussions that center on authentic topics. In order to facilitate discussionseffectively, instructors should generate a social presence in the virtual classroom, avoid becoming the center of all discussions byemphasizing student–student interactions, and attend to issues of social equity arising from use of different communication patternsby culturally diverse students [e.g., Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, andcomputer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23; Rovai, A. P. (2003).Strategies for grading online discussions: Effects on discussions and classroom community in Internet-based university courses.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 89–107].© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Communication pattern; Computer-mediated communication; Distance education; Higher education; Social interaction; Social presence

1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose

Social learning theory focuses on learning that occurs within a social context and involves personal experiences,observations, and interactions with other individuals. This article addresses the roles of social interactions andcomputer-mediated communication (CMC) in learning and the barriers to fair and equitable discussions onlineinstructors are likely to encounter in virtual classrooms. It provides a synthesis of relevant distance education researchand the experiences of the author as an online instructor in higher education for over 10 years. It also provides readerswith culturally-responsive strategies for designing and facilitating online discussions using mostly asynchronous e-learning management systems that rely on threaded text-based discussions and e-mail for the majority ofcommunications between members of the learning community.

⁎ Tel.: +1 757 226 4861; fax: +1 757 226 4857.E-mail address: [email protected].

1096-7516/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001

78 A.P. Rovai / Internet and Higher Education 10 (2007) 77–88

1.2. Background

Social constructivists, such as Lev Vygotsky (2006), assert that students do not learn in isolation and cognitivepsychology maintains that people naturally learn and work collaboratively. In this vein, Laurillard (2000) argues thathigher education must go beyond access to information or content and include “engagement with others in the gradualdevelopment of their personal understanding” (p. 137). This engagement is developed through students interacting witheach other and with their instructor. Therefore, an important goal of distance education is the creation of learningcommunities where members feel connected to and assist each other in their efforts to learn. Effective schools providestudents with a supportive community (e.g., Tinto, 1993). Educators must re-conceptualize how sense of communitycan be stimulated in Internet-based virtual classrooms in order to promote social construction of knowledge andunderstanding via mostly written CMC.

CMC is the exchange of information between individuals by way of computer networks. E-learning managementsystems, e.g., Blackboard, WebCT, eCollege, and ANGEL, are used to deliver courses at a distance via the Internet.These systems include sub-systems that present content as well as facilitate student–student and student–instructorinteractions via interactive telecommunication technologies. Computer conferencing such as synchronous chat andasynchronous e-mail and discussion boards are typically used by these systems to support online discussions. CMC isthe primary mechanism through which community is built and sustained in online courses. The focus of this article ison the design and facilitation of asynchronous computer conferencing that makes use of e-mail and discussion boardsthat can be customized into multiple discussion forums.

The theoretical framework used in this article is that of creating and sustaining a constructivist online learningenvironment. Constructivism is a philosophy of learning based on the notion that individuals construct their ownunderstandings through experience, maturation, and interaction with the environment, especially active interactionwith other learners and the instructor (e.g., Bangert, 2004; Partlow & Gibbs, 2003; Rovai, 2004). Accordingly, thedefining characteristic of an online constructivist learning environment is discourse, typically in the form of onlinediscussions. Discussion provides learners with opportunities to write, and in doing so, reflect on course content andprevious postings by members of the learning community (MacKnight, 2000). Lebow (1993) suggests a constructivistlearning environment should possess the following minimum requirements:

• Provision for the knowledge construction process.• Encouragement of self-awareness of the knowledge construction process.• Provision for appreciation of multiple perspectives.• Use of learning tasks that are relevant and authentic.• Encouragement of ownership and voice in the learning process.• Learning embedded in social experience.• Encouragement of the development of multiple modes of representation.

Ashar and Skenes (1993) report learning needs are strong enough to attract adults to a higher education program, butnot to retain them. Building sense of community can enhance student persistence (e.g., Tinto, 1993). Gunawardena andZittle (1997) argue that one can build online communities using CMC by generating discussions and social presence.Moreover, Hirumi and Bermudez (1996) report that online courses can be more interactive than traditional courses,providing more personal and timely feedback to meet students' needs than is possible in many large face-to-faceclasses.

Although asynchronous CMC has its strengths, such as reflective versus spontaneous discussion, Mason andLockwood (1994) identify several potential weaknesses of these computer conferencing systems, such as anoverwhelming number of messages to read, frequent domination of discussions by a small number of students,increased chance of misunderstandings, and reduced student motivation to interact. However, skillful facilitation ofonline discussions by the instructor can minimize and even eliminate these weaknesses.

Walther (1996) suggests CMC may influence perceptions of one's online communication partners and thequality of his or her communication. Such perceptions can negatively influence trust and feelings of connectednessamong members of the learning community, particularly in a multicultural context where cultural differences arenot understood by all students and where cultural bias may exist. When teachers and majority culture students donot consider how students' cultural backgrounds affect their ways of communicating and working on a task, they

79A.P. Rovai / Internet and Higher Education 10 (2007) 77–88

tend to form false impressions about student abilities (Garcia & Pearson, 1991). Consequently instructors mustrespect the diverse talents of students and their ways of learning by such actions as incorporating diverse viewsinto courses, allowing students to participate in assorted types of assignments, and promoting appreciation ofmultiple perspectives.

Drawing on the professional literature and the experiences of the author as an online instructor, an effective strategyfor designing a framework for and facilitating online discussions proposed in this article is outlined below.

• Design.○ Generate motivation for students to engage in productive discussions, such as grading online discussions,allowing students to choose discussion topics, and contextualizing discussions by drawing on diverse learnerbackgrounds and perspectives of a topic.

○ Describe the ground rules for online discussions at the start of the course by clearly describing what is expected ofstudents, perhaps using a participation rubric.

○ Provide opportunities for socio-emotional discussions that have the goal of nurturing a strong sense of communitywithin the course.

○ Similarly, provide opportunities for authentic content-and task-oriented discussions. For large class enrollmentsuse group forums rather than class-wide forums.

• Facilitation.○ Develop social presence in the virtual classroom.○ Avoid becoming the center of all discussions, emphasize student-to-student interactions.○ Attend to issues of social equity based on different cultural communication patterns.○ Attend to issues of social equity based on different gender-related communication patterns.○ Increase the status of low status students in order to promote equitable collaborations.

The following sections elaborate this strategy, by addressing, in turn, course design and facilitation of discussions.

2. Designing effective online discussions

2.1. Motivation

The first element of the course design strategy proposed in this article is to create motivation for students to engagein productive discussions. Although some students will have the necessary intrinsic motivation (i.e., motivationspawned by personal interest and enjoyment) to do so at the start of the course, others will not. Consequently, theinstructor must provide a measure of extrinsic motivation (i.e., motivation induced by external factors) for students toparticipate in dialog. Rovai (2003) suggests grading strategies influence online discussions and can provide necessaryextrinsic motivation for students to interact. He reports a significant increase in the number of student messages perweek and a concurrent increase in sense of classroom community for courses in which discussions accounted for 10–20% of the course grade compared to courses in which discussions were not graded. He notes no additional benefitswhen this weight was increased to 25–35% of the course grade. These findings suggest grading course discussions canmotivate students to greater participation in online discussions and have the additional benefit of increasing sense ofcommunity.

The goal is to create a learning environment that motivates students to engage in positive social interaction andactive engagement in learning. Threlkeld and Brzoska (1994), in writing about distance education, note that “maturity,high motivation levels, and self-discipline have been shown to be necessary characteristics of successful, satisfiedstudents” (p. 53). A few studies (e.g., Oxford, Young, Ito, & Sumrall, 1993) report student motivation is the single mostimportant predictor of student success in distance education. Bandura (1997) provides a compelling argument thatperceptions of capability (i.e., self-efficacy) mediate the causal path from outcome expectancies to motivation. Thus,motivation is maximized when an agent (e.g., a student) expects specific outcomes from an activity (e.g., onlinelearning), these outcomes are highly valued, and activity is perceived as doable. In general, a person does not engage inself-perceived futile endeavors regardless of the relationship between a successful performance and resultant outcomes.The online instructor plays a crucial role in maintaining and sustaining students' motivational levels by planningstructures and facilitating interpersonal events.


2.2. Expectations

In addition to providing extrinsic motivation for students to engage in online discussions, such as makingparticipation in discussions a graded course requirement, the course should provide students with clear expectations ofwhat is required regarding their active participation in course discussions. By clearly conveying expectations, studentswill be able to better judge their own behavior and engage in self-reflection and self-regulation. According to PiagetianLearning Theory (e.g. Rieber, 1996), self-reflection involves a student's attempt at assessing and understanding a givenlearning situation. The student arrives at a solution and is able to construct new knowledge through the process of self-regulation in which the new knowledge is assimilated in an established mental structure or a new structure is formedthrough accommodation. Ultimately the result will be improvement in the confidence or self-efficacy of students intheir abilities to successfully accomplish social learning tasks (Bandura, 1997).

A discussion rubric can convey course expectations regarding interactions. According to Andrade (2000), a rubric isusually a one-or two-page document that describes varying levels of quality for a specific assignment or task. Shewrites that the purpose of a rubric is to inform students what is expected, to allow student to evaluate their own work,and to provide detailed evaluations of their final products. In other words, rubrics support a common understanding ofwhat is expected, set standards by defining quality, help students become more thoughtful judges of the quality of theirwork, and establish necessary social supports for learning. Schafer, Swanson, Bene, and Newberry (2001) provideempirical evidence that suggests enhanced knowledge of assessment rubrics by teachers and students results inimproved student achievement. The sample course discussion rubric in Table 1 below was developed for onlineeducation courses in order to inform students what was expected of them regarding online course discussions and howtheir participation will be evaluated. This analytic rubric consists of a scoring system that divides performance intological parts. It employs the concept of analytical trait scoring by judging performance several times along each part:quantitative, content, questions, collaboration, tone, and mechanics.

2.3. Provision for socio-emotional discussions

The next step in designing online discussions is to provide discussion forums for socio-emotional discussions thathave the goal of nurturing a strong sense of community within the virtual classroom. Walther (1996) writes that

Table 1Online discussion rubric

Below average Average Above average

Quantitative A lurker, reads messages in thegroup discussion forums on a weeklyor more frequent basis but does notpost messages.

Accesses group discussion forums atleast once each week. Reads messages.Posts at least one constructivemessage each week in group forums.

Accesses group discussion forums severaltimes each week. Reads all messages.Posts two or more constructive messageseach week in group forums.

Content Messages tend to address peripheralissues and/or ramble. Content isgenerally accurate, but with omissionsand/or errors. Tendency to recite factand provide opinions.

Messages tend to provide good generalanswers but may not always directlyaddress discussion topics. Assertionsare not always supported by evidence.Avoids unsupported opinions.

Messages are characterized by conciseness,clarity of argument, depth of insight intotheoretical issues, originality of treatment,relevancy, and sometimes include unusualinsights.

Questions Rarely includes questions thatpromote discussion. Rarely respondsto questions.

Sometimes includes questions thatstimulate discussion. Sometimesresponds to questions raised by others.

Often includes good questions thatstimulate discussion. Frequently respondsto questions from others.

Collaboration Shows little evidence of collaborativelearning. Most comments are directedto the instructor.

Collaborative learning is evidenced by comments directed primarily student-to-studentrather than student-to-instructor. Evidence of support and encouragement is exchangedbetween students, as well as willingness to critically evaluate the work of others withconstructive comments.

Tone Members are empathic rather than aggressive. Postings and e-mail reveal the ability of students to conduct themselvesappropriately in professional relationships by manifesting such qualities as sociability, sensitivity, discernment, concern,kindness, and gentleness. Self-control is also demonstrated in qualities that would include respectfulness, flexibility,temperateness, discreteness, humbleness, forgiveness, and confidence.

Mechanics Some messages contain numerouserrors in spelling and grammar.

Messages contain few if any errors in spelling and/or grammar (indicating proofreading).Messages are well-formatted with spacing and are easy to read.

Source: Adapted from Rovai (2004).


individuals are driven to interact with one another in any communication medium, including CMC, and desire totransact personal, rewarding, and complex relationships. Consequently, online course designers should provideopportunities for personal relationships to develop. Brown (2001) outlines three stages of building community usingCMC based on her research:

• Making online acquaintances. Students who sense common interests begin to make contact and form relationships.• Sensing community acceptance. Students who interact in a thoughtful way over time begin to accept each other.• Achieving camaraderie. Students feel a sense of rapport, trust, goodwill, and friendship for each other.

The strength of classroom community and the value of personal relationships are directly related to thefrequency and quality of social interactions among community members (e.g., Garrison, Anderson, & Archer,2001; Rovai, 2003). However, students enroll in educational programs to satisfy educational requirements and notto engage in social interactions. Moreover, as May (1993) points out, “increased learner interaction is not aninherently or self-evidently positive educational goal” (p. 47). Therefore, we must foster strong community throughthe quality and not exclusively the quantity of interactions. Consequently, a sense of community must be carefullyand skillfully nurtured by the online instructor for students to achieve the full benefits of community membershipin meeting their educational goals.

To promote community building and social presence, it is useful to have separate discussion forums available wherestudents can meet electronically and discuss topics of mutual interest so that more meaningful personal relationshipscan be developed. Moreover, by having such a forum dedicated to socio-emotional discussions, the course contentforums can be dedicated to task-oriented interactions. The name the instructor gives to these forums can vary. Manyinstructors label such forums as the “Water Cooler” or “Break Area.” Such a forum can be described as follows in thee-learning management system: “This break area is an informal place where we can introduce ourselves and becomeacquainted with each other. It is also a place where we can hang out and shoot the cyber-breeze about any topic wechoose by creating threads and posting messages.” The instructor should post the initial message of welcome in thisforum and elicit socio-emotional responses. According to Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000), the expression ofemotions, feelings, and moods is a characteristic of social presence and providing an opportunity for suchexpressions should promote both social presence and community building.

2.4. Provision for task-oriented discussions

The final element of the design strategy is to provide discussion forums for content-and task-oriented authenticdiscussions that support collaborative group activities and the construction of content knowledge. Authentic topicsaddress “real-life” challenges that adults can relate to and that provide a recognizable context for learning. According toLave and Wenger (1991), authentic topics involve settings and applications that would normally involve knowledge toenable students to better construct meaning in practical ways so that knowledge can be applied outside of the schoolenvironment. Learners, therefore, engage directly in discussions that reflect events in their lives and that they canintegrate with their own past experiences. Moreover, authentic topics have the potential to increase intrinsic motivationwhen they hold particular meaning and relevance to participants (Choi & Hannafin, 1995). Malcolm Knowles (1989)maintains that student resistance to learning does not occur if participants are learning what they believe they need. Thisapproach is in contrast to topics that involve knowledge and situations that are abstract and out of context and where theemphasis is on fact retention.

Discussion forums that support content-and task-oriented authentic discussions can be either class-wide forums,including all students enrolled in the course, or consist of group forums if class size is large. MacKnight (2000) listsseveral different ways to group students for task-oriented discussions, such as: small groups led by the instructor ordesignated student group leader, buzz groups (two people), case discussions, debating teams, jigsaw groups (membersof groups break into subgroups and then go back and take the information they learned to their groups), and mock trials.Rice (1994) reports community size in virtual classrooms strongly influences learning activities. Too few membersgenerate little interactions and too many members generate a sense of being overwhelmed. Rovai (2002) suggests exactnumbers to guide community size are difficult to determine since the chemistry of the community is situational andvaries with content area, instructor, and learners. Nonetheless, approximately ten students is a reasonable estimate forthe minimum critical mass needed to promote good interactions. At the opposite end of this continuum, 20–30 students


are the most for a single forum with active discussions. Multiple group discussion forums should be used for largerclass sizes.

As a final point, discussions need to be structured so that students understand expectations. Students becomeconfused or lose their interest when a discussion is ill-structured or there is no process designed to enhance theircritical thinking (MacKnight, 2000). One way to convey structure to students is to provide a course gateway in theform of a Web page that orients students to the structures and routines of the course. For example, the routine forcourse discussions could be that the instructor starts each weekly discussion forum with a focus question orproblem. Thereafter, the instructor raises questions that drive thinking, asking for clarification or elaboration(MacKnight, 2000). Different students can be appointed to facilitate weekly discussion forums and provide closureby summarizing the threaded discussions at the end of the week.

3. Facilitating online discussions

3.1. Social presence

The first strategy for facilitating online discussions is to develop and maintain a social presence in discussionforums. Researchers (e.g., Garrison et al., 2001; Morgan & Tam, 1999) suggest that students in distance learningprograms may more likely experience isolation and alienation from the institution because of their physical separationfrom the school and from other students. Development of feelings of social presence can help reduce or eliminate thesenegative outcomes. “Social presence in cyberspace takes on more of a complexion of reciprocal awareness by others ofan individual and the individual's awareness of others… to create a mutual sense of interaction that is essential to thefeeling that others are there” (Cutler, 1995, p. 18).

A complaint one sometimes hears from online students is that posting messages to discussion forums is like writinga message, placing it in a bottle, and dropping the bottle in the ocean. Without feedback, one can never be sure thatsomeone has ever read the message. There is little to no gratification for the time spent composing the message.Moreover, considerable research evidence exists to support the effectiveness of specific and timely feedback forenhancing task performance (e.g., Bangert, 2004). Additionally, research evidence suggests that social presence amongmembers of a learning community increases discourse, facilitates the critical thinking carried on by the community oflearners, strengthens sense of community, promotes learner satisfaction, facilitates collaborative learning, andcontributes directly to the success of the learning experience (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Gunawardena & Zittle,1997).

A challenge for the online instructor in establishing and maintaining social presence is to show that student postingsare read without the instructor becoming the center of all discussions. Meeting this challenge is more an art than ascience as instructor communication behavior is influenced by a number of factors, including how well the instructorand students are acquainted, level of classroom community, and the content area. Facilitating online discussionsrequires special skills; inspiring and managing group discussions are not easy, and the skills of the facilitator have atremendous impact on the construction of knowledge and community building. According to Knowles (1989), aneffective facilitator has unqualified positive regard for students and values their comments because of the substantialexperience adult students bring to class. He concludes that adult learners who sense a feeling of being valued for theircontributions gain a positive attitude toward learning. Consequently, students should be given positive feedback forcontributing to course discussions.

To promote social presence, online instructors should use strategies to increase familiarity among members of thelearning community and develop favorable social relationships (Aragon, 2003; Tu & McIsaac, 2002). The followinginstructor behaviors are also useful in promoting social presence:

• Access the discussion forums each day in order to keep up with the conversations.• Post at least one message per day in group discussion boards to suggest postings are being read. However, allowlearners time for reflection. Postings can be as simple as expressing appreciation, agreement, support, andencouragement. Avoid being sharp or overly critical.

• Maintain a focused discussion and periodically summarize what has or needs to be done (MacKnight, 2000).• Encourage student dialog by asking thought-provoking questions that stimulate in-depth, reflective discussions andhold students responsible for their thinking (MacKnight, 2000).


• Reply immediately after receiving a message via e-mail to acknowledge receipt; indicate when a complete responsewill be provided.

3.2. Emphasis on student-to-student interactions

The second strategy is to emphasize student-to-student interactions in course dialog. The instructor has animportant role to play in course discussions, but should avoid becoming the center of all discussions. Thediscussion rubric at Table 1 promotes student-to-student dialog. The purpose of this emphasis is to encourageconstruction of knowledge through discursive interactions among students as they reflect on the issues prior to theinstructor making a teaching point. Each student helps others learn and as well as getting help from other studentsso that all members of the learning community are actively involved in the teaching–learning process. Otherwise,there is the danger that discussion forums will become exclusively questions posed by students followed byanswers provided by the instructor.

Although quality interactions among members of the learning community are hallmarks of a constructivist learningenvironment, online instructors should also be sensitive to the learning style preferences of their students that mayinhibit postings. According to Gulati (2004), constructivist online learning practices need to allow learners to assumevarious roles. For example, Nonnecke and Preece (2003) conclude that

Lurking is not free-riding but a form of participation that is both acceptable and beneficial to most online groups.Public posting is only one way in which an online group can benefit from its members. All members of a groupare part of a large social milieu, and value derived from belonging to a group may have far-reachingconsequences. (p. 126)

Nonnecke and Preece (2003) conclude “lurking” as not a passive but active involvement in reading and applyingstrategies to “determine what to read, delete, or save” (p. 122). They suggest that the strategies used by lurkers are goal-driven and are related to management of information and participation in lurking is also dependent on other priorities inthe lives of online learners. For online learning experiences to enable constructivist learning, Gulati (2004) argues thatthere needs to an acknowledgement that some individuals may best learn informally and silently. He maintains thatinformality in online learning needs to be fostered and realized, to enable true constructivism in formal education.

Some principles for the online instructor to follow include:

• Do not respond too quickly to a posting in order to provide the opportunity for students to respond first.• Instead of mostly making statements or directly answering questions, which will likely terminate productivediscourse, ask probing questions and provide encouragement.

• Provide closure to discussion threads after discussion topics have run their course or assign specific studentsresponsibility for providing closure.

• Attend to problems that can disrupt student discussions, particularly aggressive communication that can silencesome students.

• Deal tactfully and privately with students who dominate discussions or who remain silent, perhaps by phoneconversation or e-mail, in order to create a more equitable communication environment.

3.3. Cultural communication patterns

The next strategy is to attend to issues of social equity based on different cultural communication patterns. Becausecommunication has both verbal and nonverbal components, some cultural groups show their feelings more readily thanother groups; and some individuals rely more on nonverbal messages to communicate, which are reduced and subjectto misinterpretation in an online environment (Ibarra, 2001). Such differences can have unintended negativeconsequences in cross-cultural interactions and isolate students not fully acculturated in the majority culture.

Cross-cultural differences result in individuals who communicate differently and even understand the same messagedifferently (Ibarra, 2001). Moreover, cyberspace itself has a culture and is not a neutral or value-free platform forcommunications. The greater the cultural differences between online communicators, the greater the potential formiscommunication. Table 2 identifies three cross-cultural communication patterns: degrees of context, directness, andface (i.e., the image one projects of oneself; Griffin, 2000).


Anthropologist Edward T. Hall's concept of high-and low-context cultures (Hall & Hall, 1990) differentiatescommunication along a continuum that helps us better understand the effect culture has on communication. At the lowcontext end of this continuum, low levels of programmed (i.e., mutually understood) information provide context,therefore communication requires a large amount of explicit information to convey meaning. At the other end of thiscontinuum is a high context culture in which high levels of programmed information provide context, whichconsequently requires a relatively small amount of explicit information to convey meaning. According to Hall and Hall(1990), in high-context communication, the listener is already contextualized and does not need to be given muchbackground information. Since CMC is text-based in asynchronous e-learning management systems, meaning ismostly carried by the written communication itself. Because of this situation, low context communication is oftenpresumed in CMC, possibly placing at a disadvantage those whose cultural background relies on high contextcommunication (Morse, 2003).

The white majority culture tends to be low-context, direct, assertive, and consider face less important, while manyminority cultures in the U.S., tend to be at different points along these continua, i.e., high-context, indirect, non-assertive, and consider face to be more important (e.g., Hall & Hall, 1990; Ibarra, 2001; Storti, 1999). Eachindividual is different based on his or her level of acculturation to the mainstream U.S. culture. Basiccommunication rules that may bring success in an intra-cultural context may not be sufficient for a successful inter-cultural interaction, particularly when communicators do not know each other very well and the communicationmedium contains reduced nonverbal cues. The discussion rubric at Table 1 helps define acceptable communicationpatterns.

Principles for the instructor to follow include:

• Get students to know each other and learn about their respective backgrounds and learning goals.• Create a variety of social learning activities that allow multiple opportunities for demonstrating knowledge and skillproficiencies designed to address the diverse range of learning preferences and communication patterns that studentsbring to instructional environments (Bangert, 2004).

• Recognize and respond to communication patterns that can silence some students. For example, recognize put-downs and alienating or competitive dialog and respond privately to offending students to encourage them to bemore inclusive.

• Encourage all students to participate in discussions; use the telephone or e-mail to privately confer with studentswho remain silent in order to determine the cause.

3.4. Gender-based communication patterns

The final strategy is to attend to issues of social equity based on different gender-based communication patterns.Numerous researchers provide evidence that the voice (i.e., the quality of one's communication that conveys his or herattitude, personality, and character) used by males and females tend to be different. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, andTarule (1986) theorize two paths of normal development in adult learning, which result in two different communicationpatterns: (a) independent voice — the independent, autonomous, or independent path, which is typical of the majorityof men (and some women); and (b) connected voice— the relational, connected, or interdependent path, which reflectsthe majority of women (and some men). This model suggests that many female students place emphasis on

Table 2Cross-cultural communication patterns

Degree of contextLow context — people tend to be individualistic and explicit; words carry most of the meaning.High context — people tend to be collectivist; there is less need to be explicit because of common understandings.Degree of directnessDirect — people are direct, they say exactly what they mean.Indirect — people do not always say what they mean, they may be implying something different from what they are saying.Degree of faceLess face — truth is more important than sparing feelings; confrontation is acceptable.More face — harmony is most important; truth can be adjusted in the interest of harmony.

Sources: adapted from Hall and Hall (1990), Ibarra (2001), and Storti (1999).


relationships and prefer to learn in an environment where cooperation is stressed over competition. The connectedvoice nurtures classroom community-building while the independent voice does not. In particular, females generallycommunicate using a connected voice that emphasizes socialization, caring, cooperation, consensus, and the indirectresolution of conflict. Males on the other hand, tend to have a more independent voice that emphasizes self-sufficiency,autonomy, and competition.

Tannen (1991) suggests that most women seek to establish intimacy in a relationship, whereas most men seek toestablish status in a hierarchy, measured in terms of independence. Consequently, she theorizes that males tend to askquestions in order to begin a verbal sparring match, whereas females ask questions to create connections. Given thesegender-related differences, it seems reasonable to conclude that facilitators of online discussion need to be attentive tocommunication patterns by some students that may silence other students.

Principles for the instructor to consider include:

• Encourage use of a connected voice and teamwork. For example, a grading rubric, such as shown in Table 1, can beused to describe instructor expectations for students to use a connected voice where cooperation andinterdependence are stressed over competition and independence.

• Discourage competition among students as competition creates both winners and losers. Competition andcomparisons can create hurt feelings and alienate and silence sensitive students. Encourage and reward groupactivities and collaborative efforts. Damon and Phelps (1989), for example, provide empirical evidence thatcollaborative peer learning activities are most likely to generate productive discussion and create close engagementwhen competition is discouraged and collective planning and discussion are encouraged.

3.5. Student status

Expectation States Theory (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1966) predicts that students with relatively low status withtheir peers will interact with classmates less frequently and will learn less than high status students. Minority students,in particular, may be considered low status by their majority white peers. Cohen (1994) reports that low status studentsengaged in group work “often don't have access to the task… and don't talk as much as other students. Often when theydo talk, their ideas are ignored by the rest of the group” (pp. 35–36). She concludes low status students participate lessin inquiry-based discussions than high status students, although some can make meaningful contributions. Cohensuggests instructors must pay particular attention to unequal participation of students in group work and employstrategies to address status problems based on her Theory of Complex Instruction. Complex instruction (Cohen, 1997)is a classroom management system where instructors delegate authority to students, through norms and roles, togenerate student interactions. The premise is that when status is equalized, all students in the group interact equitablyand all will learn. Cohen (1994) recommends that the instructor makes the case to students that everyone in a groupneeds each other for successful completion of the work and no one has all the abilities necessary for the assignment, buteach student possesses some.

Principles for the instructor to follow include:

• Intervene indirectly to equalize students' status in the classroom by raising the status of those students with lowerstatus by recognizing the importance of their roles and creating problems or discussion topics that requiremulticultural perspectives.

• Publicly recognize the work students have accomplished, paying particular attention to low status students, throughactions such as giving praise, citing student contributions, and assigning significant roles in group projects.

4. Conclusion

Fig. 1 is a conceptual model of the strategy presented in this article for facilitating online discussions effectively.This strategy consists of two components: (a) designing the course so as to create a constructivist learning environmentand (b) using this design to facilitate online discussions. The purpose of the design component is to create a frameworkwithin the e-learning system that clarifies the instructor's expectations for student dialog, defines quality studentinteractions, typically in the form of a course participation rubric, and generates student motivation to activelyparticipate in course discussions for the ultimate purpose of constructing new knowledge. Separate discussion forums

Fig. 1. Conceptual model for facilitating online discussions effectively.


are created for socio-emotional discussions that help community building and for task-related discussions that are usedto develop deeper knowledge and understanding. The instructor usually directs the learning activities and providessome choices for student learning activities and/or discussion topics. Moreover, the instructor offers contextualizesdiscussion topics so as to provide students from diverse cultural backgrounds with the ability to incorporaterepresentations from their own experiences, perspectives, interpretations, and knowledge.

The facilitation component provides direction for the instructor on how to use the course design to effectivelymoderate and facilitate online discussions and how to identify and cope with interpersonal communication issues, suchas differences in communication patterns, which could become barriers to learning if left unattended. Creating a safelearning environment where all members of the learning community feel valued is the foundation for equitable andeffective discourse. The emphasis is on student-to-student interactions and the development of social presence. Inaddition, it is important for instructors to highlight the task-specific competencies of low-status students. When otherstudents learn that low-status students have relevant competencies, it raises the participation level of low-statusstudents (Cohen, 1994).

A key element in effective cross-cultural and cross-gender communications is being aware of the influence ofculture and gender on communications and understanding. Different worldviews color perceptions, values, andcommunication patterns. Without an awareness of these differences, communication in the virtual classroom can resultin misunderstandings, prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination (Rogers & Steinfatt, 1999). Ineffective communica-tion prevents the exchange and exploration of diverse perspectives that can enrich our lives and promote a strong senseof community. Moreover, the communication patterns of some students can silence other students. Such silence canadversely influence the grades of silenced students when discussions are a graded component of the course. Sincelearning is largely a social undertaking, silenced students do not have the same opportunity to learn as students whofreely participate in discussions.


Good discussions require good discussion topics. The first message in each discussion forum should be a focuseddiscussion topic posted by the instructor. Angelo and Cross (1993) provide a good list of topics for instructors toinclude or adapt in their courses that have the added benefit of providing feedback to the instructor regarding learning.These topics include:

• One-sentence summaries — students select and articulate only the defining features of an idea.• Most important point— students describe the most important point of a reading assignment and why it is importantto them.

• Muddiest point — students identify the least understood point in a reading assignment.• Test questions and model answers— students write plausible test questions and model answers for specified topics.• Self-confidence surveys — students assess their self-confidence regarding specific skills.• Benefits analysis — students describe how the skills learned in the course relate to their goals and interests in life.

Although social construction of knowledge is at the heart of the constructivist philosophy of learning and thetheoretical basis of the strategies described in this article, the effects of CMC and computer conferencing on learninghas not been well researched (Garrison et al., 2000). Moreover, Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson (1997) concludethe use of computer conferencing and online discussions has “…outstripped the development of theory” creating a needto determine ways of evaluating the quality of interactions and of learning in such contexts (p. 397). Orlikowski andIacono (2001) suggest the dominant view in information systems literature treat technology as separable from socialand organizational contexts and thus as fixed, independent, and neutral. They conclude that this narrow view ofinformation systems falls short in providing adequate explanations for many issues in the design, implementation, anduse of technology in e-learning systems. Consequently research is needed to determine the relationship betweenlearning outcomes and the computer-based technologies used in e-learning. More broadly, the roles of technology andsocial influences in mediating student learning outcomes in distance education require development of a robusttheoretical framework.

References

Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57, 13−18.Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. K. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Aragon, S. R. (2003, Winter). Creating social presence in online environment. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57−68.Ashar, H., & Skenes, R. (1993). Can Tinto's student departure model be applied to nontraditional students? Adult Education Quarterly, 43(2),

90−100.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for evaluating on-line teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 7(3),

217−232.Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.Berger, J. B., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1966). Status characteristics and expectation states. In J. Berger, & M. ZelditchJr. (Eds.), Sociological

theories in progress, vol. I. (pp. 26−46)Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18−35.Choi, J., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53−69.Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom, 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.Cohen, E. G. (1997). Understanding status problems: Sources and consequences. In E. G. Cohen, & R. A. Lotan (Eds.), Working for equity in

heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice (pp. 61−76). New York: Teachers College Press.Cutler, R. H. (1995). Distributed presence and community in cyberspace.Interpersonal Communication and Technology: A Journal for the 21st

Century, 1(2) Retrieved August 7, 2006 from: http://www.helsinki.fi//science/optek/1995/n2/cutler.txtDamon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13,

1−119.Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). The role of assessment in a diverse society. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives,

practices, and policies (pp. 253−278). New York: Teachers College Press.Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge Falmer.Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education.

Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 1−19.Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education.

American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7−23.Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.) (pp. 406−419). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

http://www.helsinki.fi//science/optek/1995/n2/cutler.txt


Gulati, S. (2004, April). Constructivism and emerging online learning pedagogy: A discussion for formal to acknowledge and promote the informal.Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Universities Association for Continuing Education — Regional Futures: Formal and InformalLearning Perspectives, Centre for Lifelong Learning, University of Glamorgan, 5–7 April, 2004.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction model forexamining the social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397−431.

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment.American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8−26.

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. New York: Intercultural Press.Hirumi, A., & Bermudez, A. B. (1996). Interactivity, distance education, and instructional systems design converge on the information superhighway.

Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(1), 1−16.Ibarra, R. A. (2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher education. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Knowles, M. S. (1989). The making of an adult educator. An autobiographical journey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Laurillard, D. (2000). New technologies and the curriculum. In P. Scott (Ed.), Higher education re-formed (pp. 133−153). London: Falmer Press.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional system design: Five principles towards a new mindset. Educational Technology Research

and Development, 41(3), 4−16.Mason, R., & Lockwood, F. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning. London: Kogan Page.May, S. (1993). Collaborative learning: More is not necessarily better. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 39−50.MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussion. Educause Quarterly, 4, 38−41.Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education student attrition. Distance Education, 20(1), 96−108.Morse, K. (2003). Does one size fit all? Exploring asynchronous learning in a multicultural environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 7(1), 37−55.Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Silent participants: Getting to know lurkers better. In C. Leug, & D. Fisher (Eds.), From usenet to CoWebs:

Interacting with social information spaces (pp. 110−132). Amsterdam: Springer-Verlag.Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research — A call to theorizing the IT artifact.

Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121−134.Oxford, R., Young, P., Ito, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Factors affecting achievement in a satellite-delivered Japanese language program. American

Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 11−25.Partlow, K. M., & Gibbs, W. J. (2003). Indicators of constructivist principles in Internet-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,

14(2), 68−97.Rice, R. (1994). Network analysis and computer-mediated communication systems. In S. W. J. Galaskiewka (Ed.), Advances in social network

analysis (pp. 167−203). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and

games. Educational Technology research and Development, 44(2), 43−58.Rogers, E. M., & Steinfatt, T. M. (1999). Intercultural communication. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1−16.Rovai, A. P. (2003). Strategies for grading online discussions: Effects on discussions and classroom community in Internet-based university courses.

Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 89−107.Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79−93.Schafer, W. D., Swanson, G., Bene, N., & Newberry, G. (2001). Effects of teacher knowledge of rubrics on student achievement in four content areas.

Applied Measurement in Education, 14(2), 151−170.Storti, C. (1999). Figuring foreigners out: A practical guide. Yarmouth. ME: Intercultural Press.Tannen, D. (1991). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.Threlkeld, R., & Brzoska, K. (1994). Research in distance education. In B. Willis (Ed.), Distance education: Strategies and tools (pp. 41−66).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Tu, C. -H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16

(3), 131−150.Vygotsky, L. S. (2006). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes, New ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23

(1), 3−43.

Documents

Facilitating online discussions effectively