Improving participation in online discussion – group size and focus

group Size
Basically I’ve found the larger the group, the more non-active participants (i.e. those who log on to read but don’t actively post) there are. I usually have small group work with about 6 people if I want all people to actively participate. I also try not to have groups of more than about 20 for any activity – using a group reporting mechanism when working with larger numbers of students.

Focus
It’s also really important to have focussed tasks. Try to have specific things you want the students to do, rather than a broad open-ended question.
For example, rather than saying
“Discuss the use of colour in communication as it is portrayed on web pages”
I might say
“Select three colours that you know have differing meanings for different cultures. Investigate how these colours have been used in web pages, discussing this in terms of unambiguity of message, assumptions made about the understanding of the colour’s use, particularly in relation to culture and the guidelines for acceptable use of colour.”

Improving participation in online discussion - expectations and responsibilities.

Set expectations and responsibilities regarding participation in the online environment. This helps people understand what is a reasonable commitment to participation for that group.

Here is an activity to do early that sets the direction for online activity and helps generate the norms for these things.

Split the students up into groups of 6 - 8 students. Assign them randomly.

Activity One
Step One.
Set them the following activity for each group. The aim is for the group to come up with a group consensus, not for each student to just give his or her response. You might give them a few days to post a group reply to this activity. Specify a specific date by which the group should respond. Indicate that if they do not provide a group response, they must accept whatever is decided.

Step Two.
Post a message such as this shown below to the main forum for this activity.
In their small groups discuss their responsibility in terms of participation in the online discussion forums.
As a group, generate a list of what they see as their responsibility in terms of participation in the online discussion forums, addressing the following areas:
· How much time should they spend on average each week online in the discussion forums

· How often they should log on to read what has been posted.

· How many postings on average (or minimum) they should make for any particular topic. For this one you will need to give an indication of how long a discussion will run for and what is the nature of the activity (e.g. general discussion, specific activity, staged activity, etc.)

· What types of postings are considered acceptable?
o For example is it ok to just post a message saying "I agree" or "good point".
o Should there be a restriction on length of postings and if so what is acceptable
o Is any style OK (e.g. point form, essay style, one word comments)?
o What rules of netiquette apply (e.g. language used, abbreviations used, use of capitals and / or icons, comments about others in the class, criticism of points made)?

· Any other items?

Step Three.
Once a group consensus from these points has been achieved and posted by each group, the next step is to gain consensus across all groups.
You need to look at the responses.
Where there is disagreement, all variations need to be summarised and then discussed in open discussion. I suggest each group elects a spokesperson. Discussion amongst members can continue in their own groups. Some message indicating a consensus needs to be reached (perhaps a range or a number of viable options can be acceptable). This can be done by getting each group to give their reasoning behind their decision, then you suggesting a possible solution if the students can't come up with a consensus. Allow a couple for days for them to post their reasoning behind their decision. Once again set a specific deadline.

Step Four.
If you have other items to add, post these and ask the students to consider them to come to consensus.

Step Five.
Once agreement has been made, a summary of points agreed on is written up by you and posted as the agreed responsibilities for students in the unit.


Activity Two
List their expectations of the tutors and lecturer of the unit.
What do they see as the role of the tutor / lecturer in the online forums?
How much participation and what type of participation do they expect from tutors / lecturers?
Run this activity in a similar way to the first one, with discussion in small groups and a consensus outcome posted to the main forum for this discussion.
Once all have agreed on the roles and expectations, then you need to indicate if you think they are reasonable.
This information is then written up and posted as the agreed roles and responsibilities for tutors / lecturer in the unit.

Introduction to the Blog

Following on from the presentation and discussion of the HEPCIT presentation "That won't work in MY classroom" on July 23, I have set up this Blog so we can further explore and discuss the issues that were raised at the presentation, and any others that might arise through our discussion.
I hope people will actively contribute to this site with barriers, issues, examples, support, and anything else you think might be relevant.

To set the scene for those who weren't at the presentation and would like to contribute.
The presentation revolved around my presentation of a framework for student centred interactive learning in higher education, with particular emphasis on the online environment.
It is based on the work of two people, Peter Goodyear's model for learning space design and networked learning, and Kenneth Bruffee's approach to collaborative learning (references at the end of this information).

The pedagogy behind this type of learning environment is that is that interactivity and networking between the people involved are essential components as much as the technology component is also an integral part.

· Activity - that of the learner's activity, an essential part of the construction of knowledge - both individual and social constructivism

· Community - that learning is situated socially and physically and will be influenced by interaction with peers, tutors and lecturers. The emphasis is on dialogue and non-foundational collaborative learning. This collaboration is a process of reacculturation where students work in small transition groups (i.e. transition from their own known community of knowledge into the new community of knowledge of the discipline) to derive a consensus about aspects of the concepts they are learning, then to compare their consensus with that of the community of knowledge they are seeking to join. The academics are not the absolute authority, nor just the expert. They act as a representative of the disciplinary community and to help the students learn through a process of engaging in the language of that community.

· Place - that learning is influenced by the nature of both the physical and virtual world, and that the nature of the technology, tools and resources that are available will also influence learning

Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore, London, The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Goodyear, P. (2002). Psychological Foundations for Networked Learning. Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues. C. Steeples and C. Jones. London, Springer-Verlag: 49-75.