Accountable Talk Online:

The Use of Asynchronous Discussions as an Educational Tool

IP&T 620: Principles of Learning

Course Project

Lisa Rampton Halverson

1

Abstract

Critical, higher order thinking cannot be achieved in a vacuum. Such higher level

processing requires social negotiation – the comparison of one’s own way of thinking to the

ways that others conceive of the world. Michaels et al. have proposed the practices of

“Accountable Talk,” which will be explained later in this article. Using these practices of

“[s]ensemaking and scaffolded discussion, calling for particular forms of talk,” learners can

utilize dialogue and discussion “as the primary mechanism for promoting deep understanding of

complex concepts and robust reasoning” (Michaels et al., 2007). The theories of Accountable

Talk stem from a Vygotskian framework of social negotiation, wherein social interaction is

critical to the development of individual mental processes. Three broad dimensions are proposed

for productive discourse: accountability to the community, accountability to accepted standards

of reasoning, and accountability to knowledge. Where discussion is guided by such principles,

argue Michaels et al., learners are “socialized into communities of practice in which respectful

and grounded discussion, rather than noisy assertion or uncritical acceptance of the voice of

authority, are the norm” (Michaels et al., 2007).

This article will apply these dimensions of accountability to asynchronous online

discussions. I propose that asynchronous discussions, which more and more students will be

exposed to during their education, have the potential to actualize the very best of Accountable

Talk, by allowing the “time (and [if participants foster it] social safety) to formulate ideas,

challenge others, accept critique, and develop shared solutions” (Michaels et al., 2007). When

asynchronous discussions require accountability to the community, to reasoning, and to

knowledge, they promote effective communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), critical and

2

cognitively flexible thinking, and viable constructions of knowledge, all components of the

“knowledge economy” (Sawyer, 2006, p. 2) for which all educators must prepare their students.

Model of Learning

Learning Domain and Basic Assumptions:

Blogger. Jaiku. Plurk. Tumblr. Twitter. Wiki. Yammer. What do these terms have in

common, besides being near-nonsensical one- or two-syllable words of questionable spelling?

Each is the name of a different type of social media. Such media are proliferating in our time.

Our relationships to social media range from the happily addicted to the warily apprehensive to

the harshest of critics. Umair Hague, for example, recently wrote in the Harvard Business

Review that social media have led to relationship inflation (and thus debasement),

disempowerment, and exclusion (Hague, 2010). Zachary Cohen, in his blog “ZAC: Social

Media Cartography,” wrote of the mixed bag that social media comprises:

One of my biggest fears about social media is that it will become what so many other transformational technologies and cultural forces has become: an exemplar of the lowest common denominator in our society. And I fear this because I believe, to this day, and as I have for several years now, that social media is one of the most powerful “things” to happen to, and in, our society. I believe it is a democratizing force. And therein lies the rub, because as you democratize anything, a society, a company, the quality and character of whatever it is that is being democratized diminishes. At least initially. (Cohen, 2010)

Personally, I have viewed social media with a skeptical eye. I like keeping a web log (blog) for

my family, a way to share journal and photos with friends. But I dislike Facebook for much

more than touching base with an occasional “friend from the past.” Microblogging seemed even

more ridiculous to me: language cut down to such bite-sized pieces that no true meaning could

be shared.

3

And yet I would like to focus this article on using asynchronous discussions – including

the microblogging tool of Twitter – as an educational tool and a way to promote the sharing of

ideas in a classroom. Indeed, when combined with the principles of Accountable Talk proposed

by Michaels et al., asynchronous online discussions can promote “democratic education and

universal conditions for deliberative discourse” (Michaels et al., 20071), a democratizing force

which can promote not the “lowest common denominator” that Cohen so fears, but the higher

order critical thinking so necessary for success in the 21st century.

I have come to view asynchronous discussions as invaluable to deliberative discourse for

a variety of reasons, some more universal and some strictly personal, including:

1. Discussions are no longer limited to the hour or so one sits face-to-face with classmates.

Depending on the format and the “pull” of a question, students might return to a topic

again and again over several days, weeks, or even the duration of a course.

2. Students who are shy or perhaps just more reflective are not blocked from participation.

They are given the time to reflect on their thoughts and contribute them, without having

to shout down the louder and more gregarious students in the class. This actually fosters

a sense of community among students, who no longer feel they must compete for

“airtime” in the classroom. Taylor Halverson has found that when broaching subjects

that are close to the heart (his course was a secular approach to the Old Testament, taught

in the heartland of the USA), students preferred asynchronous discussions to face-to-face

ones, for the asynchronous nature gave them more time to mull over difficult questions

(Halverson, 2009).

1 I cannot cite page numbers to the Michaels et al. document, which I retrieved as an online pdf and which contains no page numbers.

4

3. Online and blended (mixed face-to-face and online) formats for instruction are on the

rise. “The U.S. Department of Education estimates that e-learning, or virtual school

instruction, is now offered by about 25 percent of all K-12 public schools.” (Tear Down

Those Walls, 2010). In Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the

Way the World Learns, Clayton Christensen has argued that within nine years, 50% of

high school courses will be delivered online. While online courses can also include

synchronous discussions, this will undoubtedly cause more of discussions to be held in

asynchronous formats. We need to learn how to make this most beneficial to student

learning.

4. I have a hearing loss. While I love discussions, I feared before teaching World

Civilization (History 201: History of World Civilization to A.D. 1500 taught for Brigham

Young University) that the acoustics of a lecture hall would prevent me from hearing

well during face-to-face discussions held in class. It turned out that I was able to hear

students just fine, and my intention of using Twitter during class, as a way for students to

pass forward comments, wasn’t necessary. However, written (asynchronous) discussions

are personally beneficial to me because my hearing no longer factors into whether I catch

all comments.

Thus far, I have used asynchronous discussions in an online 9th grade English course

taught for the Open High School of Utah (a charter online high school), and for World

Civilization taught for Brigham Young University. In both courses, we held asynchronous

discussions using the Learning Management System BrainHoney (comparable to Blackboard)

and using Twitter. Open High School, relied primarily on asynchronous instead of synchronous

5

discussion formats, so this was necessary as a way for students to engage with one another’s

ideas. For World Civilization, we did have lecture face-to-face. However, the course is quite

rushed, with much lecture time expected. Covering 5000 years of history in eight weeks is a

daunting task, both to the students and to a novice professor. (They say that Rome was not built

in a day…but we did attempt to cover it in a single day!) Asynchronous discussions were a way

for us to extend our discussion time beyond the limits of the lecture hall. Finally, I will continue

to use asynchronous discussions as I teach in the future, and hope to implement them when I

serve as a teaching assistant for Humanities 101 this fall. The “Blueprint” that follows will apply

asynchronous discussions to BYU’s World Civilization.

.

Assumptions:

Like Vygotsky and many constructivists, I assume that the higher mental processes in

humans develop through thoughtful, reflective social interactions. Vygotsky explains the social

nature of learning when he writes that “learning awakens a variety of internal developmental

processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his

environment and in cooperation with his peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90). Thus, as a learner

actively participates in a discussion group, in Vygotskian terms she is pushed to learn: her

original ideas form her “actual developmental level” and her introduction to the ideas of others

creates a “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 85), a way of thinking she would

not have reached without the social interaction and intellectual cooperation of others. The social

negotiation of meaning required in the sharing of ideas with others not only pushes forward

knowledge, but also develops the skills that Sawyer (2006) says the students of the 21st century

“knowledge economy” must have: cognitive flexibility allowing them to critically evaluate

6

information and clarity of reasoning allowing them to eloquently express themselves. If

developing these skills are among my goals as an instructor, I cannot then teach with a purely

“instructionist” methodology (though the subject matter and introductory nature of World

Civilization, for example, tend toward this). To promote higher level thinking, I must provide

my students with opportunities to evaluate the viability of their own and others’ understandings,

allowing their knowledge to evolve through social negotiation (see Savery & Duffy, 1996, p.

136). Asynchronous discussion is one method by which students can be exposed to and allowed

to reflect upon the understandings of others. In addition to the role that such discourse plays in

the negotiation of understanding, I also assume that it fulfills a basic human desire to share our

ideas with others. We find satisfaction in hearing and (especially) being heard, and

asynchronous discussions allow students to put forth their “best foot” – their most eloquent

thoughts or most Accountable Talk – before their classmates and peers.

In addition, I have assumptions about this domain of learning: discussions held online

and asynchronously. As I strive to engage my students, I must make the course meaningful and

relevant. I believe that meaning and relevance can be achieved by choosing content that is

applicable, and discussion questions that are provocative, probing, or universal in nature.

However, relevance can also be achieved when the technologies used resonate with the learners.

The internet in general and microblogging in particular are part of our students’ lives; applying it

to the classroom can bring relevance to the dusty tomes of ancient world history. For example,

the first student to post to Twitter after I explained that we would be using it for our class

enthused: “College class with twitter? Yes - History 201 at BYU.” Moreover, as I stated earlier,

asynchronous discussions and online learning are not going away, but only going to increase in

7

usage. We need to better understand how to mesh these media with students’ learning needs, and

we need to promote Accountable Talk in all forums of discourse (even microblogging! ).

Finally, let me clarify some of my assumptions about effective practice in asynchronous

discussions, assumptions which are drawn from my experience teaching high school English and

college-level History, as well as from the principles of Accountable Talk. (The connections to

the principles of accountability will be made in the following section.) For the formal

discussions boards held in BrainHoney, I suggest that a clear rubric be given to the students and

then modeled to them by providing examples from past student work. In the “Blueprint” section

that follows, you can see the exact rubric I propose for use in World Civilization. I’ll elaborate

here upon my assumptions about the components stressed in the rubric:

- Specificity: While some radical constructivists may seem nearly solipsistic (see Jonassen,

1991), most agree that “all views, or all construction, are not equally viable” (Savery &

Duffy, 1996, p. 137). Viability is improved when students base their arguments in the

texts being discussed. There may still be a variety of interpretations for a single text or

even passage, but the variety can be fruitful to learners; ego-centric thinking can be

challenged, Driscoll (2000) has noted, when students are given the opportunity to

understand points of view other than their own (see p. 385). When those viewpoints are

bound to specifics from the texts all learners have studied, their viability can better be

weighed as individuals compare their own ideas to those of others. This leads to a second

important component, that of

- Etiquette: I use this term to cover grammatical neatness and eloquence of language, but

more importantly in a setting where learning is defined as the development and defense

of individual perspectives while at the same time recognizing those of others (see

8

Driscoll, 2000, p. 385), polite engagement of ideas other than one’s own. Bruner has

defined learning as “a communal activity” (Driscoll, 2000, p. 385), and this activity

requires that proper “netiquette” be followed in online discussion boards (and even

Twitter posts). Since body language cannot be “read” in an asynchronous discussion,

word choice must be precise so that meaning can be properly conveyed. Asynchronous

discussion helps students to refine their knowledge economy skill of being able to

express themselves clearly. Even microblogging, with its limitations on permitted

characters, can promote clarity and precision in expression. (I labor over every word

when I am only allowed 140 characters!)

- Insight: In discussion boards, students will be encouraged to share discoveries that reveal

a higher understanding of the issues. Discussion board prompts (and those put forward

via Twitter, too), can ask them to make real world connections that are unique and

relevant. For example, as the summer semester ended, I asked World Civilization

students these questions via Twitter:

o “Which civilization studied this term has been most meaningful to you? most

intriguing? most surprising?”

o “Did any of you choose a focus for your Museum b/c of life experiences? For ex,

b/c you lived in an area? Tell us the connection!”

o “Which texts were most meaningful to you? Homer, Aesop, Virgil, legends of

chivalry, Dante, Chaucer? Why?”

Learning about the ancient past in World Civilization, for example, may seem irrelevant

to some students. By finding and then sharing connections to their own lives and to other

9

events in the real world, students increase the relevance they find in what they are

studying.

- Substance and Completion: These two components are partly to have a minimal

requirement in terms of amount posted, but also to remind students that their ideas should

be thorough, thoughtful, and well-developed. The quality of thinking that these

discussions should promote is best achieved when students write substantively and

thoroughly.

Core Concepts & Conceptual Framework

The rationale for prioritizing discussions in education stems from the conceptual

framework of Accountable Talk. Michaels et al. (2007) write that the concept “grows out of a

Vygotskian theoretical framework that emphasizes the ‘social formation of mind,’ that is, the

importance of social interaction in the development of individual mental processes. Students

who learn school subject matters in classroom guided by Accountable Talk standards are

socialized into communities of practice in which respectful and grounded discussion, rather than

noisy assertion or uncritical acceptance of the voice of authority, are the norm.” They further

explain that “[s]ensemaking and scaffolded discussion, calling for particular forms of talk, are

seen as the primary mechanism for promoting deep understanding of complex concepts and

robust reasoning. In the ideal discussion-based classroom community, students have the right to

speak and the obligation to explicate their reasoning, providing warranted evidence for their

claims so that others can understand and critique their arguments.”

Michaels et al. then go on to outline three types of accountability expected in

Accountable Talk: accountability to the learning community, accountability to standards of

10

reasoning, and accountability to knowledge. Each of these forms of accountability is important

in a vibrant and viable discussion, and each can be promoted in asynchronous discussions –

perhaps even more so than in face-to-face ones – because of the room for thinking and reflection

which asychronicity allows. Let me briefly summarize the concepts behind each type of

accountability:

1) Accountability to the Learning Community is “talk that attends seriously to and builds on

the ideas of others; participants listen carefully to one another, build on each other’s

ideas, and ask each other questions aimed at clarifying or expanding a proposition”

(Michaels et al., 2007). In this manner, participants become part of a community of

participation and are accountable to the ideas of one another, using others’ ideas to build

their own contributions and to construct and reconstruct their knowledge. Participants

should ground their contributions in the ideas of others. Such grounding can be

explained in a rubric, and should also be modeled by the instructor. Moreover, Michaels

et al. give this advice for the instructor hoping to engage learners in Accountable Talk: “it

is very important to note that in order for the students to begin using these forms of talk,

there have to be interesting and complex ideas to talk and argue about. Implicitly or

explicitly, teachers who have implemented these discourse strategies have shifted away

from simple questions and one-word answers and opened up the conversation to

problems that support multiple positions or solution paths” (Michaels et al., 2007). This

principle is reflected when students practice Etiquette in discussions and strive for

Substance in their discussion posts.

2) Accountability to Standards of Reasoning “is talk that emphasizes logical connections

and the drawing of reasonable conclusions. It is talk that involves explanation and self-

11

correction. It often involves searching for premises, rather than simply supporting or

attacking conclusions” (Michaels et al., 2007). When students are encouraged to be

accountable to logic, they further develop the skills requisite in the knowledge economy

they will operate in. This principle is reflected when students use Insight to make

connections between themselves and the materials, or to draw conclusions from the

material itself.

3) Accountability to Knowledge is talk that “is based explicitly on facts, written texts or

other publicly accessible information that all individuals can access.” Discourse is viable

when “[s]peakers make an effort to get their facts right and make explicit the evidence

behind their claims or explanations. They challenge each other when evidence is lacking

or unavailable. When the content under discussion involves new or incompletely

mastered knowledge, accountable discussion can uncover misunderstandings and

misconceptions. A knowledgeable and skilled teacher is required to provide authoritative

knowledge when necessary and to guide conversation toward academically correct

concepts” (Michaels et al., 2007). This principle is reflected when Specificity is achieved

in student discussions.

Michaels et al. propose that these three facets “must co-occur if discourse is to promote

academic learning” (Michaels et al., 2007). Knowledge alone cannot suffice, for disconnected

facts may offer only “a weak basis for a reasoned argument. What makes facts useable is their

connection to other facts, tools, and problem-solving situations, that is, the network of concepts,

relationships, and the norms of evidence characteristic of a reasoned argument taking place

within a coherent discipline or practice.” Accountability to community is “inextricably linked to

12

accountability to knowledge and reasoning” because “[i]deas must be explicated so that others

can interrogate them, challenge them, build upon them, or support them” (Michaels et al., 2007).

This important social negotiation can be carried out not only through face-to-face

interaction, which so many feel is the only “real” way to carry out interpersonal interaction, but

also asynchronously. Indeed, when a discussion is carried over a longer period of time, learners

have more time to display their accountability to knowledge and to reasoning, having space to

return to the discussion with new facts or arguments as they search them out or construct them.

Accountability to community takes a little training (though Michaels et al. claim that it is the

simplest and most straightforward facet to implement), but may actually be easier to reproduce in

writing than in speech. Students do not have only their memory to serve them when trying to

build upon the ideas of a peer, but the actual words recorded before them.

Blueprint of Instruction

Context

The ideas proposed here would be applicable in a variety of teaching settings. Because I

have just taught World Civilization and have been told that I will be asked to teach it again, the

blueprint here will apply to that course in particular. World Civilization is a “Foundations”

course which fulfills a university requirement. Many students are underclassmen and not history

majors. The course is designed to be primarily lecture format, but I will alter that to include

more discussion and dialogue. As I stated earlier, my hearing loss gives me an additional

incentive to avoid relying solely on in-class discussion in a large lecture room, although my

experience this past summer was favorable. More importantly, from the learners’ perspective,

13

asynchronous discussions aid in the construction of knowledge by encouraging students to use

the practices of Accountable Talk as they negotiate meaning and understanding in their learning

community.

Purpose and Learning Outcomes

This basic survey of World Civilization will introduce learners to the major ideas and

events which have shaped human society. My hope is that this understanding will help students

1) appreciate and evaluate their own life and culture, 2) understand how humanity has interpreted

its relationship with other cultures, with deity, and with the physical environment, and 3)

comprehend how social and political organizations emerged and why they underwent

transformation. These appreciations and comprehensions will be fostered when students learn of

their peers’ reactions to the materials.

World Civilization will also include the following learning outcomes. Students should:

1) gain a historical consciousness by demonstrating knowledge of and the ability to compare

a. major historical developments and societies, andb. key historical terms and theories

2) use the historical method of research effectively by reading, analyzing, and discussing primary and secondary source documents dealing with world history

3) think critically and write analytically, by skillfully integrating data into a coherent argument whether through clear writing or oral communication

4) nourish a lifelong appreciation of the study of world history

Learning Objective 1 asks students to be accountable to knowledge, and to master the content

specifics of the course. Learning Objective 2 requires accountability to knowledge as well as to

reasoning, and grounds learners in the craft of the historian. Learning Objective 3 combines

accountability to reasoning with accountability to community, with whom the writing or oral

communication is shared. Finally, Learning Objective 4 is fostered by the three facets of

14

accountability. The purposes of the course listed above are more likely to be met when a lifelong

appreciation develops among learners.

Course Activities

The activities of this course will be comprised of four main types. Course lectures and

readings will provide a common body of understanding shared by all students in the course, as

well as provide requisite historical information about the time periods we are covering. These

readings and lectures will also provide them with a common body of knowledge around which

the asynchronous discussions will be based, allowing for accountability to knowledge.

(Discussions will be held within the class, as well, based on questions I prepare ahead of time as

well as questions raised spontaneously by students.) The readings will include a textbook as well

as numerous primary source documents. In the formal asynchronous discussions held in

BrainHoney, students will be required to cite from either the textbook or the documents. In

addition, they will complete three “Primary Source Analyses” of the documents. Although those

will be done individually, the exercise will increase students’ familiarity with the texts and

encourage their specificity in subsequent discussions. Student analyses of primary source

documents will be one way to demonstrate both accountability to knowledge and to reasoning.

In addition, students will complete a final paper called the Museum Project for which they will

chose six or more items to include in their own private “Museum of Civilization.” They must

decide upon their own definition of civilization (a concept we problematized in the first week of

lecture and returned to repeatedly throughout the semester), and then not only give proper

historical information about each item showcased, but also defend its connection to the

15

definitional boundaries they have provided for civilization. Students will review the Museum

Projects of three other classmates, providing them with rubric-based feedback and the chance to

improve their work before submitting it for a final grade. Museum Projects will requires all

three facets of accountability to be displayed, and will utilize BrainHoney’s discussion board as a

means for sharing with peers (though otherwise the feedback will not mirror other discussion

boards).

Finally, the students will participate in asynchronous discussions. In World Civilization

these will take two formats:

1) In BrainHoney (formal, graded): Discussions held here will be in-depth, textually-based

analyses of and responses to the primary source documents and the textbook. In these

discussions, students will show their accountability to their community as they respond to

the ideas of others. Accountability to reasoning and knowledge will also be expected. I

will propose multiple topics for each discussion board, hoping that all are of an engaging

and relevant nature. In order to further ensure that students may respond to issues that

are meaningful to them, each discussion will include one open-ended topic, such as

“What was a passage on one of the primary source documents which stood out to you? 

Quote it, and then explain what was striking/intriguing/strange/etc. to you about the

passage.  What does it show us about the historical context of the document itself?”

Students will be encouraged to post at least three times, and to “enter” each discussion

board at least twice – once to post initially, then later to review classmates’ reactions to

their posts. (Google Wave is reportedly a better format for discussions, giving

participants notice when someone has responded to their own posts. With BrainHoney,

students do not know of others’ reactions to their posts unless they return to the

16

discussion board later. This is a weakness to the sense of accountability to community

that these discussions are meant to foster.) To facilitate in-depth understanding of the

course materials, students will be required to quote at least one passage from a text per

discussion board. Their comments will therefore be contextualized and substantiated as

they draw on the primary source documents and course textbook, demonstrating their

accountability to knowledge and to reasoning. Finally, I will join in the discussion board

too, though peripherally. My comments will be primarily to encourage students’

thinking, asking questions when assumptions were made or arguments not fully clarified.

This will further promote accountability to reasoning among my students.

2) In Twitter (informal, ungraded): As stated previously, my original purpose in using

Twitter in World Civilization stemmed from my concerns about my hearing loss. I saw

Twitter as an alternate way for students to send in questions or comments that they might

have during lecture. I had previously used Twitter while teaching online, but World

Civilization is taught face-to-face. However, when I asked that, after creating a Twitter

account, students immediately post a response to the first lecture, the comments were so

engaging I began to encourage additional participation via Twitter immediately. Since it

was not factored in to the course grading system, I offered extra credit to those who

reported their tweets each week. Some students rarely posted, but others would tweet

regularly, sometimes 8-10 times a week, about issues they found interesting. I also

posted all discussion questions that had been broached in lecture to Twitter. That way

anyone who had additional comments could continue the discussion asynchronously.

Over the course of seven weeks, nearly 800 were posted to the #hist201 hashtag.

17

When I teach the course again, I am uncertain whether to involve Twitter as a graded

or an ungraded assignment. I know that those students who used it really enjoyed it. The

following comments were made in the midcourse evaluation:

The Twitter discussion board is pretty cool and has a nice way of getting students to talk and express feelings without being put on the spot in a classroom.

I like the [in-class] discussions but I especially enjoy the [online] discussion boards and twitter etc... it makes me think about how I feel about varying subjects that I wouldn't think about otherwise.

The discussion boards are a nice addition and break from the routine. I am enjoying the lectures and the offline discussions are great. The online management with brainhoney and twitter make it easy to access help

from the teacher and other students. I love using twitter. It's so fun.

Those that participated in Twitter became a true “community of participation” in their

sharing of ideas and reactions to the course materials. When the History Department

chair observed my course, she felt this sense of community, saying that she could tell the

students liked each other. I believe this was at least in part because they were conversing

with one another in a variety of formats – in class, over BrainHoney, and via Twitter.

Making it a requirement could broaden the sense of community, and allow me to further

encourage the consolidation of learner understanding by, for example, requiring students

to tweet on new insights they gained each week. However, I also like leaving Twitter as

an optional, low-pressure way to discuss the course material and broader issues, while the

BrainHoney discussion boards provide a more formalized option. The feelings of

community and ownership may be diluted if Twitter becomes a requirement.

Assessment

Students will be assessed in a various means throughout the course. Reading Quizzes,

the Midterm, and the Final all assessed reading of course texts and understanding of lecture

18

materials, allowing students to demonstrate accountability to knowledge. Students will be asked

to submit a Museum Project at the end of the term, and will also receive some credit for simply

attending lecture. I feel the latter plays into the accountability not only to knowledge, but also in

accountability to community, since in-class discussions cannot be replicated outside the

classroom.

But the assessment that is pertinent here is their participation in the BrainHoney

asynchronous discussion boards. To my mind, discussion boards help students meet all four of

the course learning objectives, solidify their own understanding through social negotiation of

meaning, and allow students to learn as they practice the facets of Accountable Talk:

accountability to the community, accountability to reasoning, and accountability to knowledge.

Students’ postings will be graded according to the following rubric, which I have adapted

from my online teaching:

- Completion: student posts at least three times- Substantive: student’s posts are thorough and thoughtful, with well-developed ideas- Specific: student quotes at least one passage from the textbook or primary source

documents as evidence for ideas; posts are detailed and show historical awareness.- Insightful: student shares "discoveries" that reveal a higher understanding of the issues;

real world connections are unique and relevant- Etiquette: student engages others' ideas politely; student skillfully uses clear, forceful,

and precise language

Already we have seen how each component of the rubric reflects the ideas of Accountable Talk

as well as to other pertinent constructivist concepts. Please review pages 8-9 for further

information.

19

Conclusion:

Asynchronous discussions are typically written discussions (though media such as

VoiceThread allow students to record audio comments in a discussion forum as well). Studies

have shown that we write with more precision and greater eloquence than we speak. As

exercises in writing, asynchronous discussion promote higher level thinking skills. As that

writing is shared (“published” to classmates), meaning may be socially negotiated in meaningful

and academically purposeful ways as students follow the tenets of Accountable Talk, striving to

be accountable to their classroom community, to the standards of reasoning, and to the

knowledge they have gleaned from class or from their own exploration. These tenets can foster a

culture of deliberative discourse, a concept philosophically tied to Habermas’ notion of

“deliberative democracy” (see Michaels et al., 2007). Instead of lowest common denominator,

using asynchronous discussions we may hope to elevate the thinking and communication of all

involved.

20

Works Referenced

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting Class:

How Disruptive Innovations Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Cohen, Z. (2010). How Dumb Can Social Media Get? ZAC: Zachary Adam Cohen –

Social Media Cartography. Retrieved August 11, 2010 from

http://www.zacharyadamcohen.com/social-media/how-dumb-can-social-media-get/ .

Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Constructivism. Psychology of learning for instruction (pp. 373-396).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Halverson, T. D. (2009). Distance Education Innovations and New Learning Environments:

Combining Traditional Teaching Methods and Emerging Technologies. Amherst, NY: Cambria.

Haque, U. (2010). The Social Media Bubble. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved August 11,

2010 from http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2010/03/the_social_media_bubble.html#comments.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical

paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.

Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L.B. (2007). Deliberative discourse idealized and

realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and

Education. Retrieved from

21

http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/publications/pdfs/200807161458010.2007_Deliberative

%20Discourse.pdf.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its

constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments:

case students in instructional design (pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational

Technology Publications.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (ed.), The

Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Tear Down Those Walls: The Revolution is Underway. (2010). National Education Technology

Plan. Retrieved from August 11, 2010

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/theplan/edlite-

TearDownThoseWalls.html.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind in society: The

development of higher psychological processes. (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Education. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (pp.

263-277). New York: Cambridge University Press.

22