Week 9 : Asynchronous Discussions

Summary: The focus this week was on reflecting on how the structure and design of asynchronous discussions in an online learning environment can impact the resulting learning experience.

This week was really interesting because it highlighted the importance of careful design when creating cooperative or collaborative learning activities. The activity created by the facilitators for the week, in which half of the groups engaged in cooperative learning and the other half engaged in collaborative learning, really highlighted the impact that design choices can have on interdependence and the success of an activity. Activities with a high level of individual accountability can be less flexible and the success of these activities can be dependent on the equal and timely participation of each individual student. This means that the lack of participation from one student can “lead to groups with partial knowledge exchange” (Bliss and Lawrence, 2009, p. 26). The impact of non-participation or uncooperative group members can be even more detrimental in activities that have a high level of interdependence. For example, when an activity is broken down into sub-tasks that need to be completed in a certain sequence, one student failing to complete their task can impact the timeline of the entire activity.

If, on the other hand, the activity is created in such a way that there is group accountability, rather than individual accountability, there is a higher risk of students completing an inequitable amount of work.

Having worked on the design of a few group-based activities, there are some ways to offset the issue of unequal contributions to group activities. We’ve often used participation, if observable, as a metric for measuring students’ contributions to a task or activity. In activities where the engagement is less easily observed, peer assessment has proven to be a useful tool.

Having worked on the design of a few group-based activities, there are some ways to offset the issue of unequal contributions to group activities. We’ve often used participation, if observable, as a metric for measuring students’ contributions to a task or activity. In activities where the engagement is less easily observed, peer assessment has proven to be a useful tool.

However, I think by reconsidering the design of the activity, it may be easier to preempt possible issues of interdependence before they occur, while still using cooperative or collaborative activities in order to maximize opportunities for the co-construction of knowledge. 

REFERENCES

• Bliss, C. A. & Lawrence, B. (2009). Is the Whole Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts? A Comparison of Small Group and Whole Class Discussion Board Activity in Online Courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(4).
• Cho & Tobias (2016). Should Instructors Require Discussion in Online Courses? http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2342/3647