Do online discussions foster collaboration? Views from the Literature

Do online discussions foster collaboration? Views from the Literature Yvonne Bain, School of Education, University of Aberdeen. Email: y.c.bain@abdn.ac.uk Abstract Recent literature highlights the continued need for further research into the use of online environments to gain greater understanding of learners needs and to inform future developments ((Dennen, 2005), (Motteram and Forrester, 2005)). This paper provides a literature review that forms part of the initial phase of a PhD study. It highlights contradictions that are arising within the literature about the use of online discussion to support collaboration. At one extreme benefits of online discussion include enabling all participants to be heard online (Wade and Fauske, 2004) and that there is positive correlation between active online participation and achievement of the course objectives (Webb et al., 2004). At the other extreme it is noted that the majority of discussion postings did not lead to discussion at all (Thomas, 2002) or that engagement with the views of others is largely superficial (Hawkey, 2003). This paper explores emerging evidence from recent literature (within the last five years) to consider how online discussions might foster collaboration; what issues are identified for learners and tutors; and what recommendations are being made to support online collaboration through discussion. Introduction "As a generalisation, educational research suggests that discussion methods are superior to traditional methods for promoting thought" (Bligh, 2000, p13) Bligh writes about the use of discussion in face-to-face learning. He provides a justification for the use of discussion; considers skills developed through discussion; factors affecting group discussion; and discussion methods but all within contact class-based learning and teaching. Bligh notes that psychological research shows that groups are able to solve problems better than individuals although there is no conclusive explanation as to why this is found to be the case. He suggests that it just may be due to the fact that in discussion, you need to think before you speak. Discussion, and in particular collaborative discussion, can be a powerful means of developing thinking. Yvonne C. Bain Page 1 University of Aberdeen

What then are the differences when the discussion is text-based, without visual clues and asynchronous in nature? Can discussion still be considered superior for promoting thought? Salmon promotes the use of online asynchronous discussion. She notes that the time-lag in asynchronous discussion has perceived benefits such as allowing neutral participation with everyone being able to be themselves, everyone is able to have their say as there is no turn waiting and everyone gets a chance to think before responding (Salmon, 2000). Other benefits of computer supported cooperative learning (which involves online discussion) include unlimited contact between participants of the conference; high level of reflection; and increased depth of analysis (McConnell, 2000). In reading some of the literature, it might be tempting to conclude that online discussion, as with face-to-face discussion, will be effective in promoting thinking and in enabling collaboration. However, there are many contradictions and conflicting results that suggest that much greater attention needs to be given to online discussion. What insight can be gained from the research literature about the use of online discussion to support learning and collaboration? This paper presents pointers towards some of the issues that are emerging within the literature in relation to learning through online discussion. Methodology for Literature Review The literature review presented here is by no means a complete review of literature around online discussion. This paper represents work in progress. Online journals and paper-based academic journals have been searched using search terms as broad as online discussion or learning AND discussion AND education for example. Articles have been sourced through online databases linked through resources such as http://www.datastarweb.com/athens which enables searching of Australian Education Index (AUEI); British Education Index (BREI); and The Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) databases. More recently, a systematic meta-analysis of a few key ICT journals has been started in which BJET and ALT-j journals have been examined to see what focus has been given to Yvonne C. Bain Page 2 University of Aberdeen

discussion within the research literature. However, further work is required for this to provide a systematic analysis of the literature and to include non-uk based journals. Yvonne C. Bain Page 3 University of Aberdeen

Emerging Issues Mason and Weller highlight the tensions that exist in noting that for computer conferencing (online discussion) use its strengths are also its weaknesses: it doesn't require fixed times for study, but consequently other demands on one's time easily take precedence it maintains a record of all interactions - but this makes many people wary of committing their ideas to such a public forum it allows everyone to be 'heard', but this leads to an overload of messages which many find completely overwhelming (Mason and Weller, 2000) Issues emerging from the literature highlight tensions in the research findings. Approaches to learning; levels of participation; depth of learning in terms of engagement; knowledge acquisition; enabling reflection and student expectations for example, all feature in the research findings noted within the literature. Approaches to Learning within an Online Discussion Environment The main reason or assumption given for using online discussion is that it provides a social constructivist approach to learning (Salmon, 2000), (Huang, 2002), (Thomas, 2002), (Allen, 2005),(Jones et al., 2000). Online discussion forums provide students the chance to engage in asynchronous dialogue and allows students to interact with, and learn from, each others' experiences (Carr and Duchastel, 2000). However, this can be challenged on a number of aspects. Questions are raised about the extent to which students engaging in discussion actually shift their viewpoints (Hawkey, 2003). In addition, the depth of discussion is noted as being shallow or superficial (Gulati, 2004), (Ravenscroft and Matheson, 2002) and others note the low level of participation (Kapitzke, 2000), (Thomas, 2002). This is echoed by Motteram and Forrester who also highlight some of the controversy appearing within the literature in which claims support the belief that collaborative learning methods encourage dialogue and results in "deeper understanding" and yet other claims bring doubt to the benefits noting for example issues arising from "information overload, time-consuming nature of asynchronous communication, forced participation; and /or low levels of user involvement" (Motteram and Forrester, 2005: 284). Yvonne C. Bain Page 4 University of Aberdeen

The asynchronous nature of the discussions can cause issues in timing. Kapitzke quotes one student s summation of the discussion experience: "It was in effect debating in slow motion." Another student notes that one of the barriers to contributing was that: "I had moved onto a new topic, and then found it difficult to refocus on the old topic." This exemplifies problems in getting timing of interaction and feedback right so that momentum can be maintained in an online discussion. Activity and Attainment The study by Webb at al, reports on researching the access and postings made by students in a Blackboard online environment. The conclusion of the findings notes that where students were active participants in e-dialogue, they were more successful at achieving the learning outcomes of the course. Statistical analysis techniques were used to investigate a correlation between activity and success with the learning outcomes (Webb et al., 2004). Minasian et al found that the technology (which included discussion forums and chat spaces) was able to support "learning by discovery" through a process of discussion, discovery, interaction, adaptation and reflection. They noted that the students exhibited deep learning and that the graded passes increased from 84% to 94% (compared with the previous year) (Minasian et al., 2000). Davies and Graff s study compares the frequency of the online interaction with the year grades. The results did not show that greater interaction led to better grades but it did highlight that students who failed the course were less likely to interact. A particularly interesting finding is that the students who failed spent significantly less time in the group and communications areas (p 660) and students who achieved low passing grades were significantly more active than those who failed (Davies and Graff, 2005). Low levels of participation could therefore be an indicator of students at risk of failing. In analysing the dialogue in a discussion board, Hoskins and van Hoof examined items read and items posted. They found that as age increased, so did the number of items read and the number of messages posted. Their results also showed that 23% of the students were inactive in dialogue (neither read not posted) 66% were passive (only read) and 16% were "active in dialogue" (read and posted). They found that the active users were students who had higher grades in the previous Yvonne C. Bain Page 5 University of Aberdeen

academic year and the overall exam performance was the higher than others. Passive users showed the lowest mark (Hoskins and Hooff, 2005). This raises questions about which students benefit from engaging in online discussion. If successful confident learners are the most likely to participate, what can be done to encourage others to feel as though contribution is worthwhile and valuable? In contrast, Goodyear et al found that in their study there was no basis for assuming that only learners with deep approaches to learning or sophisticated approaches to learning would benefit from engaging in networked learning. They argue that all students should benefit provided the course is well-designed and well-managed (Goodyear et al., 2003). Gender Differences There is a suggestion that online discussion is likely to be favoured more by females than males (Bostock and Lizhi, 2005), (Gunn et al., 2002), (McSporran and Young, 2001). Baskin et al's study found that females engaged in online activities that hinged on building a greater "social presence". They were twice as likely as males to produce "collaborative reports" and attended 22% more virtual group meetings than males (Baskin et al., 2005). Holsbrink commented on differences in achievement: he noted that females performed better in the conversational model computer-based role-play and that females performed better in the knowledge test (Holsbrink, 2001). However, Wade s findings did not show significant differences in the interactions between male and female participants (Wade and Fauske, 2004). A notable point is made by Gunn et al who caution that gender issues should not be treated in isolation but should be considered along with other key factors such as learning styles, educational background and capability. As with any learning experience, surely the key factor is to provide a variety of learning approaches and specifically cater for different learning styles? Value of Discussion Forums The value that students have of online discussion is debatable. For example, some findings show that the students least value discussion (Blanchfield et al., 2000). Davies et al explored issues in designing a learning community to facilitate peer and independent learning, and identified "foundations for good practice". They had hoped that introducing student learning communities would encourage students to engage with each other as well as the resources. Although they did find that the learning communities provided students with the opportunity to improve their Yvonne C. Bain Page 6 University of Aberdeen

communication skills with their peers, it was also noted that some students did not initially value the use of e-learning to develop physiotherapy skills. Davies at al noted "some students not only failed to communicate sufficiently online, but also failed to encourage "equal" opportunities from their peers (Davies et al., 2005:623). They highlight that there was a need to introduce students to the 'culture' of this kind of course. The students in Davies et al study were able to meet face-to-face and therefore turned to familiar means of communicating with each other. McNaught and Lam noted that it was "interesting and somewhat depressing to see that online discussion comes in fairly well down the list" of ranking of perceived usefulness being rated 11th of 17 most useful web functions. A possible reason suggested for this is the heavy reliance on face-to-face classes and on-campus experiences, especially for undergraduate programmes which was the context of the vast majority of cases. Never-the-less, 27 of the 58 cases considered did have discussion forums as an integral part of the course but this clearly was not the most valuable web function as perceived by the students in their study (McNaught and Lam, 2005). In the study by Zhang et al, the online learning environment was used to provide a communication medium that would support collaboration. Part of the Likert-scale questionnaire sought students perceptions on using computers and the Internet. Results showed that 80% of students were comfortable with using computers to complete course assignments but only 50% were comfortable about using discussion boards and even less, 31.5%, were comfortable about using chat rooms. The authors note that there is a need for the students to feel that their contributions are valued and that "it ignites a spark for others to contribute as well" (Zhang et al., 2005: 795). Zhang et al conclude that students are not enthusiastic about making public online contributions. Student Expectations Hegarty et al note that a key point emphasised by the students is value placed on immediate response to email and fast feedback on assignments (Hegarty et al., 2000). Zhang et al (2005) also noted that students expected a fast response in their study 58% of the students expected a response from their tutor within one day. This Yvonne C. Bain Page 7 University of Aberdeen

highlights the need to set out clear guidelines about what will be responded to and in what time-scale. Advice from the Literature Motteram and Forrester (2005) note the need for carefully planned induction that gives consideration to the best mode of delivery, what information is required when and how to provide sufficient information without overwhelming the students. Dennen (2005) highlights that all aspects of class discussion need careful consideration when discussion is online and therefore tutors must consider how to initiate, facilitate and provide feedback in the asynchronous medium. Zhang, and Davies et al. raise the issue of the need to ensure that students are suitably prepared for an online culture and are able to realise the benefits of online collaboration. Do online discussions foster collaborations? Gilbert and Dabbagh cite Duffy & Cunnigham to provide a definition of 'meaningful discourse': "Meaningful discourse can be defined as a process of collaboration and social negotiation where the goal is to share different viewpoints and ideas and collaborate on problem solving and knowledge building activities (Gilbert and Dabbagh, 2005: 6) To what extent does online discussion enable meaningful discourse to take place and collaboration supported? The evidence within this review would have to be inconclusive. Clearly there is some support that students benefit from engaging in online discussion and having the opportunity to collaborate with other learners. However, how much collaboration actually takes place is or what depth of discussion occurs is brought into question when other studies show that the level of engagement in online discussion is less than desirable. Further Research Within the small range of literature reviewed, the need for further research into online discussion is evident. Further empirical evidence is required to gain a greater understanding of what best practice should be in terms of instructor presence, deadlines, frequency of feedback (Dennen, 2005). Gorsky and Caspi raise a number of possible research questions including: Yvonne C. Bain Page 8 University of Aberdeen

How do different discursive practices, such as inquiry, facilitate or hinder students' abilities to make conceptual changes? When, and for whom, is a certain interpersonal dialogue such as debate effective? What kinds of dialogue best support constructivist pedagogy and under what circumstances? (Gorsky and Caspi, 2005:143) Laurillard notes that it is one of the greatest untested assumptions that students learn through discussion. "This is a field of research that has yet to produce a practiceorientated consensus on how we should support student-student dialogue to engender successful learning" (Laurillard, 2002:158). Although the importance of discussion is often cited along with a social constructivist justification for using online discussion, there are not many articles with a particular focus on discussion. Much of the literature does not provide an analysis of discussion and there is very little empirical evidence to provide insight into how students engage with and learn through online discussion. There are still many questions to be answered and much more to learn about online discussion. Further, more systematic meta-analysis of the literature is required to gain greater knowledge of studies that have already been undertaken. However, this review has already indicated the need for more empirical studies to be undertaken studies that will provide a much greater depth of research into online discussion. References ALLEN, K. (2005) Online Learning: Constructivism and Conversation as an Approach to Learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42, 3, 247-256. BASKIN, C., BARKER, M. & WOODS, P. (2005) When group work leaves the classroom does group skills development also go out the window? British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 1, 19-31. BLANCHFIELD, L., PATRICK, I. & SIMPSON, O. (2000) Computer Conferencing for guidance support in the OU. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 4, 295-306. BLIGH, D. (2000) What's the Point in Discussion?, Exeter, Intellect Books. BOSTOCK, S. J. & LIZHI, W. (2005) Gender in Student Online Discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42, 1, 73-85. Yvonne C. Bain Page 9 University of Aberdeen

CARR, C., ALISON,A. & DUCHASTEL, P. (2000) The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 3, 229-241. DAVIES, A., RAMSAY, J., LINDFIELD, H. & COUPERTHWAITE, J. (2005) Building learning communities: foundations for good practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 4, 615-628. DAVIES, J. & GRAFF, M. (2005) Performance in E-Learning: Online Participation and Student Grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 4, 657-663. DENNEN, V. P. (2005) From message posting to learning dialogues : factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26, 1, 127-148. GILBERT, P. K. & DABBAGH, N. (2005) How to Structure Online Discussions for Meaningful Discourse: A Case Study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 1, 5-18. GOODYEAR, P., ASENSIO, M., JONES, C., HODGSON, V. & STEEPLES, C. (2003) Relationships between conceptions of learning, approaches to study and students' judgements about the value of their experiences of networked learning. Alt-J, 11, 1, 17-27. GORSKY, P. & CASPI, A. (2005) Dialogue: a theoretical framework for distance education instructional systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 2, 137-144. GULATI, S. (2004) Constructivism and emerging online learning pedagogy: a discussion for formal to acknowledge and promote the informal. England. GUNN, C., FRENCH, S., MCLEOD, H., MCSPORRAN, M. & CONOLE, G. (2002) Gender issues in computer-supported learning. Alt-J, 10, 1, 32-44. HAWKEY, K. (2003) Social Constructivism and Asynchronous Text-Based Discussion: A Case Study with Trainee Teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 8, 2, 165-177. HEGARTY, J., BOSTOCK, S. & COLLINS, D. (2000) Staff Development in Information Technology for Special Needs: A New, Distance-Learning Course at Keele University. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 3, 199-212. HOLSBRINK, E., GERALIEN,A. (2001) Using a computer learning environment for initial training in dealing with social-communicative problems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 1, 53-67. HOSKINS, S., L. & HOOFF, J., C,VAN (2005) Motivation and ability: which students use online learning and what influence does it have on their achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 2, 177-192. HUANG, H., MEI (2002) Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 1, 27-37. JONES, C., ASENSIO, M. & GOODYEAR, P. (2000) Networked Learning in Higher Education: Practitioners' Perspectives. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 8, 2, 18-28. KAPITZKE, C. (2000) Cyber Pedagogy as Critical Social Practice in a Teacher Education Program. Teaching Education, 11, 2, 211-229. LAURILLARD, D. (2002) Rethinking University Teaching a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies, London, RoutledgeFalmer. MASON, R. & WELLER, M. (2000) Factors affecting students' satisfaction on a web course. Yvonne C. Bain Page 10 University of Aberdeen

Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16, 2, 173-200. MCCONNELL, D. (2000) Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning (2nd Edition), London, Kogan Page. MCNAUGHT, C. & LAM, P. (2005) Building an evaluation culture and evidence base for e-learning in three Hong Kong universities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 4, 599-614. MCSPORRAN, M. & YOUNG, S. (2001) Does gender matter in online learning? Alt- J, 9, 2, 3-15. MINASIAN, B., LAURA,C., KOPPI, A., J. & PEARSON, E., J. (2000) Developing lifelong learners: a novel online problem-based ultrasonography subject. Alt-J, 8, 1, 50-61. MOTTERAM, G. & FORRESTER, G. (2005) Becoming an online distance learner : what can be learned from students' experiences of induction to distance programmes? Distance Education, 26, 3, 281-298. RAVENSCROFT, A. & MATHESON, M. P. (2002) Developing and evaluating dialogue games for collaborative e learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 93-101. SALMON, G. (2000) E-Moderating The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, London, Kogan Page Limited. THOMAS, M. J. W. (2002) Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351-366. WADE, S. E. & FAUSKE, J. R. (2004) Dialogue online: Prospective teachers' discourse strategies in computer-mediated discussions. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 2, 134-160. WEBB, E., JONES, A., BARKER, P. & VAN SCHAIK, P. (2004) Using e-learning dialogues in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 1, 93-103. ZHANG, W., YUAN, PERRIS, K. & YEUNG, L. (2005) Online tutorial support in open and distance learning: students' perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 5, 789-804. Yvonne C. Bain Page 11 University of Aberdeen