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 discussions effectively. Online courses need to be designed so that they provide motivation for students to engage in productive discussions and clearly describe what is expected, perhaps in the form of a discussion rubric. Additionally, instructors need to provide discussion forums for socio-emotional discussions that have the goal of nurturing a strong sense of community within the course as well as group discussion forums for content-and task-oriented discussions that center on authentic topics. In order to facilitate discussions effectively, instructors should generate a social presence in the virtual classroom, avoid becoming the center of all discussions by emphasizing student–student interactions, and attend to issues of social equity arising from use of different communication patterns by culturally diverse students [e.g., Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer 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 and computer-mediated communication (CMC) in learning and the barriers to fair and equitable discussions online instructors are likely to encounter in virtual classrooms. It provides a synthesis of relevant distance education research and the experiences of the author as an online instructor in higher education for over 10 years. It also provides readers with culturally-responsive strategies for designing and facilitating online discussions using mostly asynchronous elearning management systems that rely on threaded text-based discussions and e-mail for the majority of communications 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

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 cognitive psychology maintains that people naturally learn and work collaboratively. In this vein, Laurillard (2000) argues that higher education must go beyond access to information or content and include “engagement with others in the gradual development of their personal understanding” (p. 137). This engagement is developed through students interacting with each other and with their instructor. Therefore, an important goal of distance education is the creation of learning communities where members feel connected to and assist each other in their efforts to learn. Effective schools provide students with a supportive community (e.g., Tinto, 1993). Educators must re-conceptualize how sense of community can be stimulated in Internet-based virtual classrooms in order to promote social construction of knowledge and understanding via mostly written CMC. CMC is the exchange of information between individuals by way of computer networks. E-learning management systems, 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–instructor interactions via interactive telecommunication technologies. Computer conferencing such as synchronous chat and asynchronous e-mail and discussion boards are typically used by these systems to support online discussions. CMC is the primary mechanism through which community is built and sustained in online courses. The focus of this article is on the design and facilitation of asynchronous computer conferencing that makes use of e-mail and discussion boards that can be customized into multiple discussion forums. The theoretical framework used in this article is that of creating and sustaining a constructivist online learning environment. Constructivism is a philosophy of learning based on the notion that individuals construct their own understandings through experience, maturation, and interaction with the environment, especially active interaction with other learners and the instructor (e.g., Bangert, 2004; Partlow & Gibbs, 2003; Rovai, 2004). Accordingly, the defining characteristic of an online constructivist learning environment is discourse, typically in the form of online discussions. Discussion provides learners with opportunities to write, and in doing so, reflect on course content and previous postings by members of the learning community (MacKnight, 2000). Lebow (1993) suggests a constructivist learning 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, but not to retain them. Building sense of community can enhance student persistence (e.g., Tinto, 1993). Gunawardena and Zittle (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-face classes. Although asynchronous CMC has its strengths, such as reflective versus spontaneous discussion, Mason and Lockwood (1994) identify several potential weaknesses of these computer conferencing systems, such as an overwhelming 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 of online 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 the quality of his or her communication. Such perceptions can negatively influence trust and feelings of connectedness among members of the learning community, particularly in a multicultural context where cultural differences are not understood by all students and where cultural bias may exist. When teachers and majority culture students do not consider how students' cultural backgrounds affect their ways of communicating and working on a task, they

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

79

tend to form false impressions about student abilities (Garcia & Pearson, 1991). Consequently instructors must respect the diverse talents of students and their ways of learning by such actions as incorporating diverse views into courses, allowing students to participate in assorted types of assignments, and promoting appreciation of multiple perspectives. Drawing on the professional literature and the experiences of the author as an online instructor, an effective strategy for 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 learner backgrounds and perspectives of a topic. ○ Describe the ground rules for online discussions at the start of the course by clearly describing what is expected of students, perhaps using a participation rubric. ○ Provide opportunities for socio-emotional discussions that have the goal of nurturing a strong sense of community within the course. ○ Similarly, provide opportunities for authentic content-and task-oriented discussions. For large class enrollments use 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 engage in productive discussions. Although some students will have the necessary intrinsic motivation (i.e., motivation spawned by personal interest and enjoyment) to do so at the start of the course, others will not. Consequently, the instructor must provide a measure of extrinsic motivation (i.e., motivation induced by external factors) for students to participate in dialog. Rovai (2003) suggests grading strategies influence online discussions and can provide necessary extrinsic motivation for students to interact. He reports a significant increase in the number of student messages per week 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 benefits when this weight was increased to 25–35% of the course grade. These findings suggest grading course discussions can motivate students to greater participation in online discussions and have the additional benefit of increasing sense of community. The goal is to create a learning environment that motivates students to engage in positive social interaction and active 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, satisfied students” (p. 53). A few studies (e.g., Oxford, Young, Ito, & Sumrall, 1993) report student motivation is the single most important predictor of student success in distance education. Bandura (1997) provides a compelling argument that perceptions 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., online learning), these outcomes are highly valued, and activity is perceived as doable. In general, a person does not engage in self-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 planning structures and facilitating interpersonal events.

80

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

2.2. Expectations In addition to providing extrinsic motivation for students to engage in online discussions, such as making participation in discussions a graded course requirement, the course should provide students with clear expectations of what is required regarding their active participation in course discussions. By clearly conveying expectations, students will be able to better judge their own behavior and engage in self-reflection and self-regulation. According to Piagetian Learning Theory (e.g. Rieber, 1996), self-reflection involves a student's attempt at assessing and understanding a given learning situation. The student arrives at a solution and is able to construct new knowledge through the process of selfregulation in which the new knowledge is assimilated in an established mental structure or a new structure is formed through accommodation. Ultimately the result will be improvement in the confidence or self-efficacy of students in their abilities to successfully accomplish social learning tasks (Bandura, 1997). A discussion rubric can convey course expectations regarding interactions. According to Andrade (2000), a rubric is usually a one-or two-page document that describes varying levels of quality for a specific assignment or task. She writes 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 of what is expected, set standards by defining quality, help students become more thoughtful judges of the quality of their work, and establish necessary social supports for learning. Schafer, Swanson, Bene, and Newberry (2001) provide empirical evidence that suggests enhanced knowledge of assessment rubrics by teachers and students results in improved student achievement. The sample course discussion rubric in Table 1 below was developed for online education courses in order to inform students what was expected of them regarding online course discussions and how their participation will be evaluated. This analytic rubric consists of a scoring system that divides performance into logical 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 that have the goal of nurturing a strong sense of community within the virtual classroom. Walther (1996) writes that Table 1 Online discussion rubric Below average Quantitative

Content

Questions

Collaboration

Tone

Mechanics

Average

Above average

Accesses group discussion forums at Accesses group discussion forums several least once each week. Reads messages. times each week. Reads all messages. Posts at least one constructive Posts two or more constructive messages message each week in group forums. each week in group forums. Messages tend to provide good general Messages are characterized by conciseness, answers but may not always directly clarity of argument, depth of insight into address discussion topics. Assertions theoretical issues, originality of treatment, relevancy, and sometimes include unusual are not always supported by evidence. insights. Avoids unsupported opinions. Sometimes includes questions that Often includes good questions that stimulate discussion. Sometimes stimulate discussion. Frequently responds responds to questions raised by others. to questions from others. Collaborative learning is evidenced by comments directed primarily student-to-student rather than student-to-instructor. Evidence of support and encouragement is exchanged between students, as well as willingness to critically evaluate the work of others with constructive comments. Members are empathic rather than aggressive. Postings and e-mail reveal the ability of students to conduct themselves appropriately 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. Some messages contain numerous Messages contain few if any errors in spelling and/or grammar (indicating proofreading). errors in spelling and grammar. Messages are well-formatted with spacing and are easy to read.

A lurker, reads messages in the group discussion forums on a weekly or more frequent basis but does not post messages. Messages tend to address peripheral issues and/or ramble. Content is generally accurate, but with omissions and/or errors. Tendency to recite fact and provide opinions. Rarely includes questions that promote discussion. Rarely responds to questions. Shows little evidence of collaborative learning. Most comments are directed to the instructor.

Source: Adapted from Rovai (2004).

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

81

individuals are driven to interact with one another in any communication medium, including CMC, and desire to transact personal, rewarding, and complex relationships. Consequently, online course designers should provide opportunities for personal relationships to develop. Brown (2001) outlines three stages of building community using CMC 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 the frequency 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 not to engage in social interactions. Moreover, as May (1993) points out, “increased learner interaction is not an inherently or self-evidently positive educational goal” (p. 47). Therefore, we must foster strong community through the quality and not exclusively the quantity of interactions. Consequently, a sense of community must be carefully and skillfully nurtured by the online instructor for students to achieve the full benefits of community membership in meeting their educational goals. To promote community building and social presence, it is useful to have separate discussion forums available where students can meet electronically and discuss topics of mutual interest so that more meaningful personal relationships can be developed. Moreover, by having such a forum dedicated to socio-emotional discussions, the course content forums can be dedicated to task-oriented interactions. The name the instructor gives to these forums can vary. Many instructors label such forums as the “Water Cooler” or “Break Area.” Such a forum can be described as follows in the e-learning management system: “This break area is an informal place where we can introduce ourselves and become acquainted with each other. It is also a place where we can hang out and shoot the cyber-breeze about any topic we choose by creating threads and posting messages.” The instructor should post the initial message of welcome in this forum and elicit socio-emotional responses. According to Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000), the expression of emotions, feelings, and moods is a characteristic of social presence and providing an opportunity for such expressions 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 authentic discussions that support collaborative group activities and the construction of content knowledge. Authentic topics address “real-life” challenges that adults can relate to and that provide a recognizable context for learning. According to Lave and Wenger (1991), authentic topics involve settings and applications that would normally involve knowledge to enable students to better construct meaning in practical ways so that knowledge can be applied outside of the school environment. Learners, therefore, engage directly in discussions that reflect events in their lives and that they can integrate with their own past experiences. Moreover, authentic topics have the potential to increase intrinsic motivation when 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. This approach is in contrast to topics that involve knowledge and situations that are abstract and out of context and where the emphasis 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) lists several different ways to group students for task-oriented discussions, such as: small groups led by the instructor or designated student group leader, buzz groups (two people), case discussions, debating teams, jigsaw groups (members of 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 members generate little interactions and too many members generate a sense of being overwhelmed. Rovai (2002) suggests exact numbers to guide community size are difficult to determine since the chemistry of the community is situational and varies with content area, instructor, and learners. Nonetheless, approximately ten students is a reasonable estimate for the minimum critical mass needed to promote good interactions. At the opposite end of this continuum, 20–30 students

82

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

are the most for a single forum with active discussions. Multiple group discussion forums should be used for larger class sizes. As a final point, discussions need to be structured so that students understand expectations. Students become confused or lose their interest when a discussion is ill-structured or there is no process designed to enhance their critical thinking (MacKnight, 2000). One way to convey structure to students is to provide a course gateway in the form of a Web page that orients students to the structures and routines of the course. For example, the routine for course discussions could be that the instructor starts each weekly discussion forum with a focus question or problem. 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 closure by 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 discussion forums. Researchers (e.g., Garrison et al., 2001; Morgan & Tam, 1999) suggest that students in distance learning programs may more likely experience isolation and alienation from the institution because of their physical separation from the school and from other students. Development of feelings of social presence can help reduce or eliminate these negative outcomes. “Social presence in cyberspace takes on more of a complexion of reciprocal awareness by others of an individual and the individual's awareness of others… to create a mutual sense of interaction that is essential to the feeling 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 writing a message, placing it in a bottle, and dropping the bottle in the ocean. Without feedback, one can never be sure that someone 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 for enhancing task performance (e.g., Bangert, 2004). Additionally, research evidence suggests that social presence among members of a learning community increases discourse, facilitates the critical thinking carried on by the community of learners, strengthens sense of community, promotes learner satisfaction, facilitates collaborative learning, and contributes 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 postings are read without the instructor becoming the center of all discussions. Meeting this challenge is more an art than a science as instructor communication behavior is influenced by a number of factors, including how well the instructor and students are acquainted, level of classroom community, and the content area. Facilitating online discussions requires special skills; inspiring and managing group discussions are not easy, and the skills of the facilitator have a tremendous impact on the construction of knowledge and community building. According to Knowles (1989), an effective facilitator has unqualified positive regard for students and values their comments because of the substantial experience adult students bring to class. He concludes that adult learners who sense a feeling of being valued for their contributions gain a positive attitude toward learning. Consequently, students should be given positive feedback for contributing to course discussions. To promote social presence, online instructors should use strategies to increase familiarity among members of the learning community and develop favorable social relationships (Aragon, 2003; Tu & McIsaac, 2002). The following instructor 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, allow learners time for reflection. Postings can be as simple as expressing appreciation, agreement, support, and encouragement. 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 and hold students responsible for their thinking (MacKnight, 2000).

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

83

• Reply immediately after receiving a message via e-mail to acknowledge receipt; indicate when a complete response will 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 an important role to play in course discussions, but should avoid becoming the center of all discussions. The discussion rubric at Table 1 promotes student-to-student dialog. The purpose of this emphasis is to encourage construction of knowledge through discursive interactions among students as they reflect on the issues prior to the instructor making a teaching point. Each student helps others learn and as well as getting help from other students so 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 by answers provided by the instructor. Although quality interactions among members of the learning community are hallmarks of a constructivist learning environment, online instructors should also be sensitive to the learning style preferences of their students that may inhibit postings. According to Gulati (2004), constructivist online learning practices need to allow learners to assume various 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 group are part of a large social milieu, and value derived from belonging to a group may have far-reaching consequences. (p. 126) Nonnecke and Preece (2003) conclude “lurking” as not a passive but active involvement in reading and applying strategies to “determine what to read, delete, or save” (p. 122). They suggest that the strategies used by lurkers are goaldriven and are related to management of information and participation in lurking is also dependent on other priorities in the lives of online learners. For online learning experiences to enable constructivist learning, Gulati (2004) argues that there needs to an acknowledgement that some individuals may best learn informally and silently. He maintains that informality 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 productive discourse, ask probing questions and provide encouragement. • Provide closure to discussion threads after discussion topics have run their course or assign specific students responsibility for providing closure. • Attend to problems that can disrupt student discussions, particularly aggressive communication that can silence some students. • Deal tactfully and privately with students who dominate discussions or who remain silent, perhaps by phone conversation 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. Because communication has both verbal and nonverbal components, some cultural groups show their feelings more readily than other groups; and some individuals rely more on nonverbal messages to communicate, which are reduced and subject to misinterpretation in an online environment (Ibarra, 2001). Such differences can have unintended negative consequences 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 message differently (Ibarra, 2001). Moreover, cyberspace itself has a culture and is not a neutral or value-free platform for communications. The greater the cultural differences between online communicators, the greater the potential for miscommunication. Table 2 identifies three cross-cultural communication patterns: degrees of context, directness, and face (i.e., the image one projects of oneself; Griffin, 2000).

84

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

Anthropologist Edward T. Hall's concept of high-and low-context cultures (Hall & Hall, 1990) differentiates communication along a continuum that helps us better understand the effect culture has on communication. At the low context 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 this continuum is a high context culture in which high levels of programmed information provide context, which consequently 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 much background information. Since CMC is text-based in asynchronous e-learning management systems, meaning is mostly carried by the written communication itself. Because of this situation, low context communication is often presumed in CMC, possibly placing at a disadvantage those whose cultural background relies on high context communication (Morse, 2003). The white majority culture tends to be low-context, direct, assertive, and consider face less important, while many minority cultures in the U.S., tend to be at different points along these continua, i.e., high-context, indirect, nonassertive, and consider face to be more important (e.g., Hall & Hall, 1990; Ibarra, 2001; Storti, 1999). Each individual is different based on his or her level of acculturation to the mainstream U.S. culture. Basic communication rules that may bring success in an intra-cultural context may not be sufficient for a successful intercultural interaction, particularly when communicators do not know each other very well and the communication medium contains reduced nonverbal cues. The discussion rubric at Table 1 helps define acceptable communication patterns. 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 skill proficiencies designed to address the diverse range of learning preferences and communication patterns that students bring to instructional environments (Bangert, 2004). • Recognize and respond to communication patterns that can silence some students. For example, recognize putdowns and alienating or competitive dialog and respond privately to offending students to encourage them to be more inclusive. • Encourage all students to participate in discussions; use the telephone or e-mail to privately confer with students who 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 her attitude, personality, and character) used by males and females tend to be different. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) theorize two paths of normal development in adult learning, which result in two different communication patterns: (a) independent voice — the independent, autonomous, or independent path, which is typical of the majority of men (and some women); and (b) connected voice — the relational, connected, or interdependent path, which reflects the majority of women (and some men). This model suggests that many female students place emphasis on Table 2 Cross-cultural communication patterns Degree of context Low 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 directness Direct — 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 face Less 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).

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

85

relationships and prefer to learn in an environment where cooperation is stressed over competition. The connected voice nurtures classroom community-building while the independent voice does not. In particular, females generally communicate using a connected voice that emphasizes socialization, caring, cooperation, consensus, and the indirect resolution 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 to establish status in a hierarchy, measured in terms of independence. Consequently, she theorizes that males tend to ask questions in order to begin a verbal sparring match, whereas females ask questions to create connections. Given these gender-related differences, it seems reasonable to conclude that facilitators of online discussion need to be attentive to communication 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 be used to describe instructor expectations for students to use a connected voice where cooperation and interdependence are stressed over competition and independence. • Discourage competition among students as competition creates both winners and losers. Competition and comparisons can create hurt feelings and alienate and silence sensitive students. Encourage and reward group activities and collaborative efforts. Damon and Phelps (1989), for example, provide empirical evidence that collaborative peer learning activities are most likely to generate productive discussion and create close engagement when 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 with their 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 students engaged in group work “often don't have access to the task… and don't talk as much as other students. Often when they do talk, their ideas are ignored by the rest of the group” (pp. 35–36). She concludes low status students participate less in inquiry-based discussions than high status students, although some can make meaningful contributions. Cohen suggests instructors must pay particular attention to unequal participation of students in group work and employ strategies 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, to generate student interactions. The premise is that when status is equalized, all students in the group interact equitably and all will learn. Cohen (1994) recommends that the instructor makes the case to students that everyone in a group needs each other for successful completion of the work and no one has all the abilities necessary for the assignment, but each 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 lower status by recognizing the importance of their roles and creating problems or discussion topics that require multicultural perspectives. • Publicly recognize the work students have accomplished, paying particular attention to low status students, through actions 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 environment and (b) using this design to facilitate online discussions. The purpose of the design component is to create a framework within the e-learning system that clarifies the instructor's expectations for student dialog, defines quality student interactions, typically in the form of a course participation rubric, and generates student motivation to actively participate in course discussions for the ultimate purpose of constructing new knowledge. Separate discussion forums

86

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

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 used to develop deeper knowledge and understanding. The instructor usually directs the learning activities and provides some choices for student learning activities and/or discussion topics. Moreover, the instructor offers contextualizes discussion topics so as to provide students from diverse cultural backgrounds with the ability to incorporate representations from their own experiences, perspectives, interpretations, and knowledge. The facilitation component provides direction for the instructor on how to use the course design to effectively moderate and facilitate online discussions and how to identify and cope with interpersonal communication issues, such as differences in communication patterns, which could become barriers to learning if left unattended. Creating a safe learning environment where all members of the learning community feel valued is the foundation for equitable and effective discourse. The emphasis is on student-to-student interactions and the development of social presence. In addition, it is important for instructors to highlight the task-specific competencies of low-status students. When other students learn that low-status students have relevant competencies, it raises the participation level of low-status students (Cohen, 1994). A key element in effective cross-cultural and cross-gender communications is being aware of the influence of culture and gender on communications and understanding. Different worldviews color perceptions, values, and communication patterns. Without an awareness of these differences, communication in the virtual classroom can result in misunderstandings, prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination (Rogers & Steinfatt, 1999). Ineffective communication prevents the exchange and exploration of diverse perspectives that can enrich our lives and promote a strong sense of community. Moreover, the communication patterns of some students can silence other students. Such silence can adversely influence the grades of silenced students when discussions are a graded component of the course. Since learning is largely a social undertaking, silenced students do not have the same opportunity to learn as students who freely participate in discussions.

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

87

Good discussions require good discussion topics. The first message in each discussion forum should be a focused discussion topic posted by the instructor. Angelo and Cross (1993) provide a good list of topics for instructors to include 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 important to 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 the theoretical basis of the strategies described in this article, the effects of CMC and computer conferencing on learning has not been well researched (Garrison et al., 2000). Moreover, Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson (1997) conclude the use of computer conferencing and online discussions has “…outstripped the development of theory” creating a need to determine ways of evaluating the quality of interactions and of learning in such contexts (p. 397). Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) suggest the dominant view in information systems literature treat technology as separable from social and organizational contexts and thus as fixed, independent, and neutral. They conclude that this narrow view of information systems falls short in providing adequate explanations for many issues in the design, implementation, and use of technology in e-learning systems. Consequently research is needed to determine the relationship between learning outcomes and the computer-based technologies used in e-learning. More broadly, the roles of technology and social influences in mediating student learning outcomes in distance education require development of a robust theoretical 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.txt Damon, 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.

88

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

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 Informal Learning 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 for examining 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.