Online Discussion Groups
Planning and facilitating for good
quality discussion
@leonie_learning
Image based on ‘Life on the Wire’ by Karunakar Rayker (2007)

Online Discussion Groups
1 Why include a group discussion in a course?
2 What discussion format or task best suits your purpose?
3 How will you motivate your students to contribute?
4 How will you prepare your students?
5 How will you coach your students?

Leonie Sloman
Instructional Design Manager
King’s Online
Icons made by Freepik from www.flatiron.com
@leonie_learning
leonie.sloman@kcl.ac.uk
www.slideshare.net/LeonieSloman

Cognitive psychology
& physiology
HE textbook
publishing
Educational psychology
& learning technology
Instructional design
for online courses
About me

These slides were developed from
 2012 assessed MA assignment for ‘Technology beyond the classroom’
module led by Martin Oliver, London Knowledge Lab
(now Institute of Education, University College London)
 2016 discussion for M25 LearningTechnologists Reading Group
established by Leonard Houx and MiraVogel, and presentation to
M25 LearningTechnology Group
 2017-19 workshops for:
Learning at City Conference, City, University of London
King’s Academy of Educators, King’sCollege London
E-Pedagogy module, MA in Clinical Education, King’sCollege London

1. Why include group
discussion in a course?

Why are you interested in including discussion in
your teaching?
What benefits do you hope for?
1 Why include group discussion in a course?

Why include group discussion in a course?1
Learners may find it more motivating to work
with others.
Particularly on online-only courses, where they
might be feeling isolated.
But some dislike it – how to support introverts?
Motivation?

 articulation/explanation in own words
 exposure to different viewpoints
 theory applied to varied/personal contexts
 feedback - as well as direct feedback, can:
(a) witness peers’ feedback from teacher
(b) receive feedback from peers
Conceptual learning

 Valuable in their own right
 Support better quality discussions in future
But these skills may need to be taught directly –
don’t just expect them to emerge from group work
Communication & argumentation skills

1 Why include group discussion in a course?
Start with a clear idea of why to include
discussion in teaching and what benefits are a
Motivation?
Conceptual learning:
 articulation/explanation in own words
 exposure to different viewpoints
 theory applied to varied/personal contexts
 feedback
Communication & argumentation skills?
Asterhan, C.S., & Schwarz, B.B. (2016). Argumentation for Learning: Well-
Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories. Educational
Psychologist, 51(2), 164-187.

Robert
Heckman
Syracuse University,
Hala Annabi
University of Washington
Online vs face-to-face discussion
Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of
learning processes in online and face‐to‐face case study
discussions. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 10 (2), 00-
Case
Study

Robert taught a case-based Information Management course to 120 senior
undergraduates at Syracuse University.
He led facilitated discussions with four groups of about 30 students - each
group discussed two cases: one in a face-to-face (f2f) class and one in an
online discussion forum over a period of one week.
He tried to structure both the online and face-to-face discussions as similarly
as possible.
Hala then analysed and compared the discussion transcripts, coding them
according to a framework based partly on the ‘Practical Inquiry' model
(explained on Slide 20).
Case
Study
Heckman, R., &Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and
face‐to‐face case study discussions. Journal of Computer‐MediatedCommunication, 10 (2), 00-00.

Face-to-face
More contributions (av 5)
Shorter contributions (av 30
words)
Case
Study
Online
Fewer contributions (av 2)
Longer contributions (av 100
words)
i.e. more words overall (200)
Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in
online and face‐to‐face case study discussions. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, 10 (2), 00-00.

Face-to-face
Informal language
Safer environment to try out
formed ideas?
More exploration & factual
detail
Case
Study
Online
Formal, passive language
Space to try practice formal
language required in
assignments?
More analysis
Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in
online and face‐to‐face case study discussions. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, 10 (2), 00-00.

Face-to-face
Back and forth discussion
~50% teacher contributions
Online vs face-to-face discussionCase
Study
Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online
and face‐to‐face case study discussions. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 10 (2),
00-00.
Online
Students took on more ‘teacher processes,
e.g. direct instruction, confirming
understanding and asking questions.
Teacher able to withdraw to 15%
But many posts didn’t receive any responsesS
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
S SS
S S S
T S
T
S S
S S
S S

Online and face-to-face?
Better nonverbal
communication & group
cohesion
Time for preparation – more analysis,
reflection & critical thinking
Flexible time & place
No technology needed
Searchable archive
Teacher less dominant
Repeated exposure through the
week
Simpler time commitment
More informal / experimental?
Online and face-to-face discussions complement each other and
may suit different people.
Face-to-face
Dyslexia / English as second language
–quicker than reading & writing
Online
More equal participation – especially
shy/introverted students
Schindler, L. A., & Burkholder, G. J. (2014). Instructional design and facilitation approaches that promote critical
thinking in asynchronous online discussions: A review of the literature. Higher Learning Research
Communications, 4(4), 11.
Hammond, M. (2005). A review of recent papers on online discussion in teaching and learning in higher

Online and face-to-face
Mon: STARTERS
Identify important insights
Identify difficult / confusing /
"murky“ aspects
Identify questions raised
Tues:
SEMINAR
Fri: INTEGRATORS
Synthesize discussion
Raise own questions
Wed:
RESPONDERS
Respond to starter’s
ideas
Raise own questions
Persell, C. H. (2004). Focused online discussions, moments of difficulty, and student understanding.
Social Science Computer Review 22 (2), 197-209.
An example of how to combine both (based around weekly
readings):

Triggers
Exploration
Integration
Resolution
Practical Inquiry
model
What is good quality discussion?
A lot of the literature analyses discussion contributions
in terms of the Practical Inquiry model:
Learners consider or test out how well the solutions
apply in the real world.
Learners become aware of a problem or express
confusion over an idea.
Learners share personal opinions and examples; they
might draw conclusions, make suggestions or
contradict each other, all without substantial rationale.
Learners connect together some of the ideas and
examples explored before, and make justified
conclusions/critiques.
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..

exploration
integration
resolution
triggers
Practical Inquiry
model
Researchers were disappointed
when studies showed students
tended to spend around half their
time in the exploration phase and
often barely reach a resolution.
But that accepts the view that all
good discussions reach a
resolution.
You may choose to use a
discussion to explore ideas and a
different task to integrate them.
Triggers
Exploration
Integration
Resolution
Experimental
studies

Practical Inquiry
model
Triggers
Exploration
Integration
Resolution
Other possible models for good quality thinking:
apply
analyze
evaluate
create
Blooms
identify/summarise an issue
Washington State University
Critical & Integrative Thinking
understand
consider context & assumptions
develop own perspective
use sources & evidence
integrate diverse perspectives
identify
conclusions/consequences
communicate effectively

Which stages of discussion or types of thinking
would you like your learners to display?
What counts as good quality thinking in the
discipline or topic you’re teaching?

2. What discussion format or
tasks best suit your purpose?

problems / exercises
project
resolution
creation
Can use online forums to support small group collaboration on a
task, or allow learners to compare approaches to completing a
task
case study
What discussion tasks best suit your purpose?2
Possible tasks / structures
Outcome-focused discussions:
If your aim is for learners to reach the ‘resolution’ stage (see
Practical Inquiry model explained earlier):
Aims

FAQ Q&A
share information
build community sharing experiences
Simpler aims are also valid:
sharing
links/references
 to support each other as learners on this programme
 or to share different professional experiences from work/placements
Aims

case study
integration
summaries
role play
(generic)
questioning
apply
analyze/
evaluate
understand
see different
perspectives
challenge and
defend ideas
debate
role play
(by disciplines)
Cognitive-focused discussions:
Discussion directly driving learning – building conceptual
knowledge.
Aims

Role play
By discipline:
Assigning professional roles to help learners engage with a case
study from different perspectives.

Role play
Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2012). Towards more precise design guidance:
Specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 55-82.
starter
devil’s advocate
elaborator questioner
summariser
new ideas evidence
Generic:
Assigning conversational roles – typically swapping each week
Does every student benefit or just those with key responsibilities?
e.g. the summariser, or the one who brings in the evidence.
Eg.s
Alyssa Wise and colleagues reviewed the kind of roles used in 8 other
studies and came up with 10 roles which they assigned out to students on
an educational technology course. Students rotated through the different
roles, and found the starter and devil’s advocate roles most effective.

Role play
Claim
I think….
Idea
How
about…?
Explanation
Because…
Question
But what if…?
Comment
I agree…
Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A
review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 5(1), 43-102.
Could encourage students to play any conversational role . Some software
packages prompt learners to decide what kind of contribution they're making.
E.g. Digalo: shape represents role ,and colour represents
agreement/disagreement.
Information
But what
about
when…
Argument
Yes,
because…

Because putting an idea into your own words and explaining it to a
peer helps you understand and remember material.
understand
Cognitive-focus: building conceptual knowledge
summaries
explaining questioning
Why are these tasks recommended to build understanding?

Cognitive-focus: building conceptual knowledge
For more complex subject matter, it helps to compare and try to resolve different
viewpoints or theories. This requires a ‘juicy’ discussion topic or an open problem,
and learners may need some coaching and prompting to argue in a productive way.
Complex
conceptual
understanding
compare
challenge
resolve disagreement role play
(by disciplines)
dilemma
express ideas
in own words
Simple
conceptual
understanding
Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164-
187.
summaries
explaining questioning

Both deliberative and competitive discussions help promote critical thinking, but
deliberative (collaborative) tasks are better for building conceptual knowledge.
In competitive discussion, the aim is to prove the other side wrong. Learning is
limited if people are reluctant to express more tentative ideas, or ignore others’
critiques of their own ideas.
In deliberative discussion, the emphasis is on exploring the strengths and weaknesses
of all ideas, regardless of who put them forward.
Deliberative
argument
comparing
challenging
resolving disagreement
convincing
discrediting debate
role play
(by disciplines)
dilemma
Competitive
argument
Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164-

project
resolution creation
case study
FAQ Q&Ashare information
build community sharing experiences
integration
summaries
role play
(generic)
questioning
apply
analyze/ evaluate
understand
see different
perspectives
challenge and
defend ideas
debate
role play
(by disciplines)
Cognitive-
focus
problems / exercises
Aims
Outcome-focus

Which formats or tasks will you try?
Looking over the list of suggested formats,
how easy do you think each would be to try
out?
Pick out which would be a good…
Quick win Next step Long-term
investment

3. How will you motivate
your students to contribute?

How will you motivate students to contribute?3
Will you assess?
Mark for contribution quality?
Flat participation mark?

How will you motivate students to contribute?3
VALUE
Should I do this?
Assessment /
penalty
extrinsic
value
intrinsic
value
PURPOSE
e.g. practising
assessed skills or
assignments
Assessment : risk of strategic contributions? e.g.
aiming to make a point before others, or waiting to the
end to summarise and elaborate on others' ideas.
Participation mark: risk of superficial hoop-jumping
contributions?
Purpose that clearly relates to the course aims, e.g.
• practice task, skills or language expected in the course or
for an exam/marked assignment
• receive and share feedback on each other's project plans.
Which is the best incentive for your learners?

What would best motivate your students?
Will they participate without an assessment?
What is the intrinsic value of the task?
3 How will you motivate students to contribute?

Sue Stearns
Eastern Washington University
Motivating students to read online discussions
Stearns, S.A. (2017). Student responsible learning: Getting students to read
online discussions. College Teaching, 65(2), 69-78.
Case
Study

Stearns, S.A. (2017). Student responsible learning: Getting students to
read online discussions. College Teaching, 65(2), 69-78.
Case
Study
Sue teaches a senior undergraduate course in communication
studies with two face-to-face seminars and one online discussion
a week.
Online discussion task:
Read set article
Post
Respond to 2 other posts
 link article’s scenario to relevant theory
 predict or evaluate the outcome
 justify their thinking

Case
Study
Sue was impressed by the quality of students posts, but only 1 or
2 out of 25 read the majority of their classmates’ posts. Most just
read the two required.
Her solution was to set an extended, graded task instead of the 2
responses:Read all posts & identify 3 themes
1
2
2
label theme
explain theme
provide 2 example
quotes
X 3themes

Sue found her time reading and grading their posts (2 hrs) still took less
than facilitating one face-to-face seminar (3 hrs).
Stearns, S.A. (2017). Student responsible learning: Getting students to read online
discussions. CollegeTeaching, 65(2), 69-78.
Case
Study
Full task timetable
Article available
Post
Read all posts and identify 3 themes
Wed pm
Fri 5pm
Sun 11pm
Mon amThemes graded
Sue’s work
90 mins
30 mins

Case
Study
Student outcomes and perceptions:
Students read 75-85% of available posts
87% recommended continuing the task
Student survey asking what they'd learned from the
assignment – they commonly said it was helpful:
- to see different perspectives
- when other posts clarified their own confusions
- when peers applied the themes to additional
contexts

Motivation
VALUE CONFIDENCE
Should I do
this?
Can I do this?
X
Confidence or ‘self-efficacy’
comes from:
• good preparation
• opportunities to practice
• feedback/coaching…

4. How will you
prepare your students?

4 How will you prepare your student?
Set clear expectations :
How many posts/responses should they write?
How long should posts be?
By when should they post?
How long should they spend on
this?

Alyssa Friend Wise
Simon Fraser University, British
(now New York University)
Jennifer Speer
Simon Fraser University, British Columbia
(now Prophix Software, Ontario)
Time spent on discussion forums
Wise, A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y. T. (2013). Broadening the notion
of participation in online discussions: examining patterns in learners’ online
listening behaviors. Instructional Science, 41 (2), 323-343.
Farshid Marbouti
(now San Jose State University, California)
Ying-Ting (Tricia) Hsiao
(now Exosite, Taiwan)
Case
Study

Time spent on discussion forumsCase
Study
It’s typical to ask students to write one or two posts a week. What
does that mean in terms of their time?
Alyssa led a research team that analysed the behaviour of 95
undergraduates studying organisational behaviour. Students had
participate in 3 online discussions in groups of 10-12, discussing a
challenge that related to the theory covered that week. The
one week each and students were encouraged to post more than
While many other studies focus on analysing the posts that
Alyssa's team was interested in the students’ reading behaviour –
call online ‘listening’.
They found that student behaviour fell into 3 main clusters…
Wise, A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y. T. (2013). Broadening the notion of participation
in online discussions: examining patterns in learners’ online listening behaviors. Instructional
Science, 41 (2), 323-343.

Study
Typical students (50%)
 Spent 25 min writing 2 posts (x190
 Also spent 1hr40 reading 20 posts!
 And scanned 15 posts
They logged in maybe 3-6 times a
half hour sessions.
Note that group size is important –
10 to 12 students in a group could
overwhelming number of posts to
Wise, A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y. T. (2013). Broadening the notion of
participation in online discussions: examining patterns in learners’ online listening behaviors.
Instructional Science, 41 (2), 323-343.

Study
‘Superficial listeners ‘(30%)
 Spent 20 min writing 1 or 2 posts (x210
 Spent 1 hour reading 20 posts
 And scanned 25 posts
These students logged in more often, maybe
times a week, but only for 10-15 min
They wrote posts of a similar length to the
students, but didn’t always write two.
Is the ‘superficial’ label fair or are they more
strategic? They opened more posts than
typical students, and read as many – might
be faster readers? Their grades weren’t

Study
‘Broad listeners’ - or super-swots!
(20%)
 Spent 45 min writing 3 posts (x180
 Spent over 4 hrs reading 55 posts
 And scanned 55 posts – i.e. scanned
They'd often write an extra post.
They logged in daily, but tended to
at the end of the week, making sure
every post.
They also reviewed their own posts
times (others reviewed each once) – were
comparing their posts to others?

Study
Typical students (50%)
30 min writing 2 posts
2 hr reading 20 posts
‘Superficial listeners’ /
strategic students (30%)
20 min writing 1or2
posts
‘Broad listeners’ /
conscientious students
(20%)45 min writing 3 posts
If students have to write one or two posts a week, they may
spend 1 to 5 hours on the task if they read other students’
posts too.

How will you prepare your students?
How long should posts
be?
By when should they post? (early deadline allows for more
responses)
this?
What makes a good post?
4

Think back to your discussion aims and task
– what kind of posts would count as ‘good’?
What kind of writing is unacceptable, or not quite
good enough?
4

Good posts: example guidelines
1. Writing style:
• Keep to one point per message
• Keep messages short
• Keep the discussion informal
2. Quality of posts: Support your arguments with evidence, e.g. established theories,
empirical data, thought experiments, etc.
3. Interaction:
• Comment on at least two other groups' posting
• You must always reply to comments to your posts
• If no one answers your posting, you can send invitations to three students for responses
• Build on existing ideas by quoting and paraphrasing other people’s messages
• If you have nothing more to add, wrap it up nicely with a concise summary
4. Constructive discussion:
• Be generous with compliments and encouragement
• It's also OK to disagree; try playing devil's advocate sometimes.
• Questions can be valuable contributions.
5. Risk-taking: This is a space to try out new ideas and share any confusion, struggles or
ignorance.
Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. T. (2010). Promoting spontaneous facilitation in online
discussions: designing object and ground rules. Educational Media International, 47(3),

Good posts: example rubric
Criteria A (90-100%)
Outstanding
B (80-89%)
Proficient
C (70-79%)
Basic
D/F (0-69%)
Below expectations
Critical
thinking
Clear and logical statements
Shows insight, and engages
in analysis
Refutes bias
Substantial information
Thought, insight, and
analysis has taken place
Detects bias
Generally competent
Information is thin
and commonplace
Rudimentary and superficial
No analysis/insight displayed
Confusing
Lacks explanation of
reasoning
Evidence/
Argument
construction
Uses reliable evidence when
constructing arguments
Uses reliable evidence,
but may be out of
context or unrelated
Uses some evidence
although it may not
be sufficient to
support the argument
Uses no evidence or
unreliable, biased, or
misleading evidence
Uniqueness New ideas or examples
Connections made with
depth and detail
New ideas or
connections
Lacks depth and/or detail
Few, if any new ideas
or connections
Rehash or summarize
other postings no
new ideas
Simply stating “I agree with
…” without providing a solid
explanation that offers new
ideas
Timeliness See link below for full rubric
Grammar &
style
Regis University, Colorado: discussion board guidelines for Health Care Ethics course

Good posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Handouts:
 Explicit guidelines or rubrics (especially if assessing
contributions)
 Examples of good and ‘nearly good’ posts
 But beware overloading students with too much material to read
at the start of the course – a brief checklist might be enough

Good posts
Handouts: guidelines/rubrics/examples/checklist
Collaborative activity for students to create their own guidelines
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Good posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Handouts: guidelines/rubrics/examples/checklist
Collaborative activity to create own guidelines -
General skills training: critical thinking, constructive argument etc.
– May be worth investing in generic training if whole faculty plan to
use discussion throughout a course
Ongoing coaching & feedback – typically skills develop gradually
during the course with the facilitator’s help

How long should posts
be?
By when should they post? (early deadline allows for more
responses)
this?
What makes a good post?
 provide guidance and examples or get students to create
some
 provide training or coaching to help students develop
discussion skills
4

5. How will you coach
your students?

‘Restrained’
presence
How will you coach your students?
Students often look to the teacher for the ‘right
answer’.
Take a step back to allow students the space to
answer each others' questions and take intellectual
risks, without feeling too closely monitored.
5

Most advice is adapted from general small-group teaching:
5
 Use questions to prompt students to explain their thinking and
challenge each others' thinking, modelling how to do this politely.
 Try to direct their attention to the important aspects of the
problem or key concepts, rather than outright explaining or
summarising for them.
 Push for further detail in their explanations, and
clarifications.
Webb, N.M. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative
dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational
Facilitation skills

This is a systematic approach to promote critical thinking. There are
lots of resources available online that explain it.
Example questions are often grouped by the following purposes:
 clarify thinking
 probe underlying assumptions
 explore reasons/evidence
 explore alternative perspectives
 consider implications
 question the questions
5
Socratic questioning

Social presence
Social presence is a popular concept, but researchers often use it in
different ways.
1. Conveying your personality and mood via text
2. Interpreting others’ attempts to do the same
Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text‐based online learning
environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89-106.
Ben Kehrwald explains it as a student’s ability to demonstrate
that they are a real person with personality, feelings and
context – and engaged or available for discussion.
There are two skills involved in social presence:

Is social presence relevant?
The theory grew from concerns that the lack of social cues in online
discussion environments makes it hard to view other learners as real
people.
No eye contact, no body language, no tone of voice, maybe no photo.
MSN chat in 2005:

Facebook use in 2016: Approx 33 million Brits (half the population)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Monthly active users on Facebook & Twitter (in millions)
Facebook
Twitter
Sources: Statista.com/eMarketer

All school leavers and most older adults are used to expressing
themselves in email and text messages.
Source: Office for National Statistics
0
20
40
60
80
100
16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Daily computer use by age group (% UK)
2006 vs 2014
2006
2014
Internet use in 2018: 99% of Brits aged 16-44 (in previous 3
months)
80% of Brits aged 65-75 (in previous 3
months)

Social media is now very
widespread, so people know
how to demonstrate and
perceive social presence
Many discussion forums
support emoticons, images
and gifs .
Bullying and lack of authenticity
online suggest problems with
social presence
What is appropriate in social
media is not the same as in
educational settings
No! Yes!

Do your students already know each other?
Have they studied online before?
Are they all used to expressing themselves in
email and social media?
Do they use appropriate language?

How will you coach your students?5
Social presence
Students may need guidance and coaching to develop
these social skills in a similar way to the cognitive skills .
 Provide ice-breaker opportunities for students to find out more
about each other
 Model netiquette, incl. appropriate details to share about
oneself, and appropriate ways to express one’s personality and
mood online.

Netiquette
E.g. ‘Discussion Board Netiquette’ (2012) by byuicurdev
You could suggest a video for anyone who’s not taken an online course
before.

Ben Kehrwald
University of Southern Queenland
(now University of South Australia)
Social dynamics supporting collaborative learning
Kehrwald, B. (2010). Towards More Productive Online Discussions: Social
Presence and the Development of Interpersonal Relations. In L. Shedletsky &
J.E. Aitken (eds) Cases on Online Discussion and Interaction: Experiences and
Outcomes. New York: Information Science Reference (IGI Global), pp.159-174.
Case
Study

Social dynamics supporting collaborative learningCase
Study
Kehrwald, B. (2010). Towards More Productive Online Discussions: Social Presence and the
Development of Interpersonal Relations. In L. Shedletsky & J.E. Aitken (eds) Cases on Online
Discussion and Interaction: Experiences and Outcomes. New York: Information Science Reference
(IGI Global), pp.159-174.
Ben interviewed 20 postgraduates in Queensland who each had lots of
experience studying online in highly collaborative courses.
Based on these interviews, he identified six factors that help improve
online communication and critical discussion.
He argues that students need to establish good social presence for
these factors to emerge – and then these factors support good quality
discussion.

Study
NB Ben describes how the six factors are interconnected and
describes a progression between them in 5 stages, which I’ve
simplified into 3 stages:
Stage 1 / short term
commonality
respect
Stage 3 / longer term
interdependence
rapport /
group cohesion
Stage 2 / medium
term
safety
trust

Study
People feel more motivated to communicate with
group members they perceive as being similar to
themselves or who they admire.
 Similar background or interests sparks rapport.
 Shared aims for studying helped group cohesion.
 Similar professional/personal backgrounds made
people more confident interpreting others' posts or
sharing examples from their own context.
Respect is particularly important if there is nothing
obvious in common, and no natural rapport.
Stage 1 / short term
commonality
respect

Study
Stage 2 / medium
term
safety
trust
The ongoing social climate should make members
feel safe enough to take intellectual risks (ask
questions, admit confusion, test ideas) and engage
in more critical discussion – tolerating
disagreement.
Safety/trust also allows more open personal
disclosure – of anxieties about learning or of
personal context, helping build more commonality
and rapport.

Study
Stage 3/ long term Moving from discussion to collaboration (agreeing
shared meanings or creating a joint product).
This requires good rapport/group cohesion.
It also requires interdependence - relying on and
valuing each other's contributions.interdependence
rapport /
group cohesion

Ice-breakers
In light of Ben’s theory, an ice-breaker is an opportunity to help
students discover their points of commonality or explore their
differences.
You might ask them to share something about themselves
they're proud of to help spark respect.

Consider a trust-building exercise after a few weeks if tackling
difficult or controversial topics.
You might ask students to share what they’ve found most
difficult about the course so far and help another person with a
topic they’ve found difficult.
The aim is students feel safe to admit confusion and test out
semi- formed ideas, and comfortable disagreeing respectfully.
Building trust

Initial icebreaker to share personal context and find commonalities
Discuss, model and feedback on netiquette and appropriate ways
to show social presence - personality and mood
Restrained presence – allow them space to explain and summarise
Questioning – prompt them to explain / clarify / explore
ideas
Trust-building exercise if tacking difficult/controversial topic
Discuss , model and feedback on how to challenge ideas
respectfully

How will you prepare/coach your students?4 5
Intellectual
Preparation
Coaching
Marking rubric
General training in
discussion skills
Guidance
Clear task
instructions
Ice-breaker
Model appropriate
social presence
Model appropriate
constructive criticism
Trust-building exerciseRestrained presence
Social
Examples of posts
Checklist
Collaborative
activity
Questioning

What kind of support will you offer?
Looking over the list of possible student
support, which do you think are priorities?
How easy do you think each would be to offer?
Pick out which would be a good…
Quick win Next step Long-term
investment

Teacher’s roles?
intellectual
managerial technical
social
Too much to take on? Who else might
help?

Teacher’s roles?
intellectual
managerial technical
social
Too much to take on? Who else might
help?
Instructional designer
or learning technologist
help plan aims
and tasks?
Course administrator or
learning technologist
help with student’s
technical problems?

Marijke De Smet
Ghent University, Belgium
Student tutors
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2010). Studying thought
processes of online peer tutors through stimulated-recall interviews. Higher
Education, 59( 5), 645-661.
Hilde Van Keer
Bram De Wever
Martin Valcke
Case
Study
?

Student tutors
Education, 59( 5), 645-661.
Case
Study
Over 300 1st-year educational sciences students take the Instructional
Sciences course at Ghent University. The course leaders trained 4th-
year educational sciences students to facilitate online discussions for
the beginner students, for which they earn credit on their own course.
As part of her PhD, Marijke studied how the student tutors interacted
with the 1st year students and how they felt about their tutoring
experience.
Each tutor was interviewed about the two discussions they led, and
asked to keep a daily diary to reflect on their experiences and submit a
report at the end. Marijke and colleagues analysed diaries of 56 tutors
and 45 interviews transcripts.

Student tutors
Education, 59( 5), 645-661.
Case
Study
Support/training for the student tutors:
 previous experience learning in discussion groups
 3 hours initial training and a manual
 worked in pairs – took turns facilitating groups of 12-14 students
 supervision group every 2 weeks (4 in total)
The tutors found the training helpful – they felt that both the
preparatory workshop and the ongoing supervision groups were
vital.

Student tutors
Education, 59( 5), 645-661.
Case
Study
A lot of the tutors found the experience challenging despite all the
support provided, and their own interest in educational sciences or
teaching.
Typical concerns:
 Intervene or let discussion flow?
 Push more critical thinking? Or just be encouraging?
 Might their comments be misinterpreted?
 Uncomfortable in teacher role
 Unconfident in knowledge of the topic
These concerns are probably similar to any new tutor’s concerns. But
this may suggest peer tutoring is too challenging for typical
undergraduates.

@leonie_learning
Planning and facilitating for good quality discussion
1 Decide on the purpose of your discussion – it should feel useful/vital to the
students
2 Pick a format that suits your purpose
3 Decide on extra incentives to motivate students (if needed)
4 Prepare your students!
• clear expectations for how long to spend and how much to contribute
• guidance and examples on what makes a good post in this subject
• general netiquette
• longer-term: consider preparatory activity / sessions
• ice-breaker activity to support social presence/relations
5 Coach your students intellectually and socially
• model/praise/feedback to encourage high quality thinking & interactions
• longer-term: train others to help with the coaching!

Questions and feedback?
Please send your thoughts to leonie.sloman@kcl.ac.uk or tweet @leonie_learning
1 Do learners really need so much preparation and
support to discuss well?
2 Have you tried using undergraduates as peer
tutors?
3 Do you have any other strategies for very large
groups?

These slides were developed from
 2012 assessed MA assignment for ‘Technology beyond the
classroom’ module led by Martin Oliver, London Knowledge Lab
(now Institute of Education, University College London)
 2016 discussion for M25 Learning Technologists Reading
Group established by Leonard Houx and Mira Vogel, and
presentation to M25 Learning Technology Group
 2017-19 workshops for:
Learning at City Conference, City, University of London
King’s Academy of Educators, King’s College London
E-Pedagogy module, MA in Clinical Education, King’s College
London

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Último

Último (20)

Notas del editor