Monday, June 15, 2015

Downsizing Online Discussions

One of the great things about having teachers take courses where we are the students is how it pushes us to re-examine common teaching practices. That is happening for me and, I think I can safely say, for many in our cohort in BOLT 101 (Blended & Online Learning & Teaching).

The place where we're really feeling the pinch is in our online discussion forums. We've tried a variety of formats, including several of the standard threaded discussions in our Canvas learning management system, some discussions that are more like a physical mailroom bulletin board in Padlet, and some that are text/image-centered, audio/visual discussions, via VoiceThread.

Image by Richard G
We're learning at least two things.

1. Mode matters. Our discussions are shaped, in part, by our ability to post links and pictures, to change where we insert ourselves in the conversation, to hear the voices and see videos of our colleagues, to mark up a common whiteboard or shared image/text. We like the ability to be more socially present, so options like VoiceThread where we can point at texts, mark them up, and see and hear each other are helpful for asynchronous learning. (Though given the chance, I'd still opt for some real-time meetings too, as I love the flex of synchronous discussions. I'm so glad I have tools like Google Hangouts and Google Drive for real-time meetings with colleagues around the country!) In short, it's important for us to pay attention to the discussion tools we choose, and to keep tabs with students to find out how these tools help and how they hinder them.

2. Group size matters...more and more over the long haul. The second big takeaway from our online discussion is nothing earth-shaking: it's that group size matters. What's new is that we're finding group size matters not only in each smaller conversation, but also over time. It can be tough to be the 16th person to join a discussion already in progress and feel like you have something new to say, let alone to keep track of all of the different lines of thought in play within one conversation. It can be tougher yet to try hear others and feel heard (to know and be known?) when we are working with that larger group size over a series of weeks. We notice that we may hear/read shorter snippets from each individual, but if everyone in class is in the same conversation, we don't get a more in-depth or sustained perspective from any one person.

So....what to do about group size? Smaller groups seem like a promising solution. So far we've tried out these tools in whole-class discussions. But I've also experienced models where there are sub-groups within the class, with 4-5 people in a cluster chiming in more often (say 4 times per week) in order to draw out ideas, challenge each other, and explore some tangents. Members of the group then take turns reporting to an all-class forum, so that there are a limited number of posts in that "whole class" conversation, which makes following the threads more manageable.

This shouldn't be surprising....in face-to-face classes, we use small groups for some of the same reasons. If we see speaking as a mode of thinking, then it's important that students have opportunities to speak often and be challenged to improve their ideas along the way.

We're trying this on a small scale with our blogs (we have assigned sub-groups to read and comment on each other's pages), and I'm glad to know that at least a few of my colleagues are on the hook to have to read this and respond. I'll be curious to hear what you have to say, friends!

3 comments:

  1. You're so right about format; it matters. There were times in the discussion assignments where I was just frustrated and felt hand-tied. Other formats inspired me to participate more. I assume that different types of students may appreciate different tools. Using a variety is probably advisable.
    In F2F classes we do often have students meet in small groups, but then we often ask each small group to summarize their conclusions or questions. I wonder about adding this step in an online class.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a great point, Barb. I haven't been using small groups for the discussions in BOLT 101 for this cohort, and in retrospect, I probably should have modeled that. I have done this in several of the online M.Ed. courses I have taught. I usually structure it in such a way that the small groups have a specific task they are working on together, and then they share their findings with the whole class in another forum. It has worked quite well overall. And, honestly, it mirrors what I often do for group work in a f2f course: the small working groups wind up sharing with the whole group.

      Delete
  2. We just got a new Dordt library book that you both might enjoy because it includes a section on getting small groups to feed into large-group discussion without the tired system of having every group summarize. Look for Discussion as a Way of Thinking (Brookfield & Preskill) at our library!

    ReplyDelete