This document outlines strategies for effective online discussions, focusing on the three C's: Community, Construction, and Coaching. It discusses establishing a sense of community through first impressions, online presence, and netiquette. For construction, it addresses deciding the role, purpose, and practical elements like group size and format of discussions. For coaching, it provides techniques for advancing discussions through probing questions, timely feedback, and addressing weak participation. The overall message is that online instructors should focus on engaging students and fostering intellectual development through their discussion facilitation approaches.

1. Three C’s of Online Discussion
Community, Construction & Coaching

2. Lolita Paff, Ph.D.
Penn State Berks
ISETL Conference, Denver, Oct. 16-18, 2014

3. Online Discussion is at its….
Best when… Worst when…

4. “The key to development of effective
critical thinking lies within the
interactivity level of the instructor and
the instructor’s ability to facilitate
course interactions in a manner that
prompts higher-order thought.”
~ Mandernach, et al., 2009, p. 54

5. Session Objectives
 Community: Explore online class climate, opportunities
for connection, and netiquette.
 Construction: Identify practical issues and propose
solutions associated with developing and managing
online discussions.
 Coaching: Investigate techniques to foster
development of students’ online discussion skills.

6. Community
Explore online class climate, opportunities for connection, and netiquette.

7. COMMUNITY- First Impressions
Learning begins from the very first click
 What are students’ impressions of the course
materials, structure, appearance?
 What are students’ impressions of you as you
welcome them to the class?
 What are students learning about your priorities for
the class during those first interactions?
 What can students infer about participation and
engagement expectations from your first
interactions?

8. COMMUNITY- Online Presence
A.V.A.I.L. Model (Penn State World Campus):
 ACTIVE: Regular participation in course activities
 VISIBLE: Leaving evidence of engagement & participation
 ACCESSIBLE: Demonstrate availability & commitment to student
success
 INVOLVED: Create a social environment for learning; include
human elements (Pallof & Pratt, 2007)
 LEADER: Model behaviors expected of students

9. COMMUNITY- Netiquette
Pallof & Pratt (2007):
 Check discussions frequently; respond on topic
 One subject per message; use pertinent titles
 Avoid SHOUTING (no “flaming” / personal attacks); be
professional in your online interaction
 Cite all sources, references, quotes
 Warn reader up front if a post is very long
 It’s rude to forward someone else’s message without
permission
 Use humor carefully; emoticons signal you are being
humorous 

10. Community in action: Case Studies
Missing in Action :Student silence
can be interpreted as non-participation,
confusion,
marginalization or thoughtful
reflection. (Zembylas & Vrasidas,
2007)
 Which of these is most
challenging for you?
 Formulate a response.
 What are some strategies to
identify the cause(s) of student
silence?
 Brainstorm alternative delivery
methods.
The Flamethrower: A student
responds in a rude manner to
another student’s post, focusing
on the cultural and world views
expressed as they related to a
topic in the assignment. Before
you are able to respond, two other
students contribute negatively,
and a third posts a complaint
about the “out of control” and
“distracting” threads.
 What would be the content of
your response?
 What method would you use to
respond?

11. Construction
Identify issues & propose solutions for developing & managing online discussions.

12. Construction- Role & Purpose
 Formative learning?
 Summative evaluation?
 Voluntary or required participation?
 Student or Teacher Driven
 Open-ended / Exploratory
 Require understanding of core concepts & application of
knowledge

13. Construction- Practical Decisions
 How many: Discussions? Posts? Comments?
 Group size?
 Large F2F class with online discussion component: 20-25
(Bryant, 2005)
 Groups of 5-7 provide for sufficient diversity to maintain interest
while minimizing social loafing and free-riding (Baker, 2011)
 Group composition?
 Discussion format?

14. Construction- Groups
Mandernach, Forrest, Babutzke & Manker (2009)
 Learning community based on interests or
experiences
 Role plays with assigned positions, rotated
 Buzz groups, short-term specific topic
 Debate teams
 Jigsaw
Mock trial

15. Construction- Format
Boettcher & Conrad (2010)
 Stump the expert: student generated scenarios or
questions
 Student generated data gathering about videos,
news clips, provocative statements
 Expert interview: What three questions would you
ask?
 Three-part post: What? Why? Wish I Knew…?
 Case studies
 What-if Scenarios

16. Construction- Instructions
 Do not assume…
 Familiarity with discussion boards
 Prior experience
 SHOW them examples of deep online discussion, nested
threads
 Provide opportunities to PRACTICE in low-stakes situations
first
 Mechanics of posting
 Appropriately commenting
 Feedback mechanisms

17. Construction- Quality Control
To ensure you are contributing a quality post, ask yourself the
following questions (Cooper, 2009):
 Is the information accurate?
 Is your post relevant to the topic under discussion?
 Does your post answer the question(s) required?
 Does your post teach something new? Apply a concept in a
new way?
 Have you added to the academic atmosphere of the course?

18. Construction- Assessment
 Comer & Lenaghan (2013): Original Examples (OEs) & Value-Added
Comments (VACs)
 Bliss & Lawrence (2009): Educationally Valuable Talk
 Al-Shalchi (2009)
 Criteria- Meet the deadline; Quality of Work; Mechanics
 Performance levels: Excellent (5); Acceptable (3); Poor (1)
 Pallof & Pratt (2007)
 Synthesis (3) – critical thinking, well written, references the reading
 Analysis (2) – adequate at analysis level, may have some writing issues,
some critical thinking is present
 Summary (1) – little response to discussion question, no responses to other
learners, may have some writing issues, little evidence of critical thinking

19. coaching
Investigate techniques to foster development of students’ online discussion skills.

20. Coaching- Advancing Discussion
Facilitating Online Learning. Collison, Elbaum & Haavind (2000)
 Probing questions
 To whom is this of concern or relevance?
 What audience is assumed?
 Is this issue compelling or only of tangential benefit?
 Is this issue of intellectual merit?
 Appropriate action?
 Question the notion of the quick fix
 Who should be the ones acting here?
 Consider quoting or rephrasing a student comment
 Explore assumptions
 Ponder uncertainty

21. Coaching- Timely Feedback
 Recognize good work
 Provide specific suggestions for improvement
 Acknowledge differences in opinion
 Diagnose misconceptions promptly
 Provide resources for further study
 Deliver gentle reminders to redirect and advance
discussion
 Encourage students’ use of real examples or
literature to support their view

22. Coaching: Weak Discussions
Postings by students
indicate a pattern of
sparse and very basic
postings that do not
reflect engagement.
They appear to be
doing the minimum to
get by.
 What would you
communicate?
 How would you deliver
the message?
A discussion is going off
track with incorrect
information being
posted by students.
 What would you
communicate?
 How would you deliver
the message?

23. Indicators Examples
Identifying areas of
agreement/disagreement
"Joe, Mary has provided a compelling counter-example
to your hypothesis. Would you care to
respond?"
Seeking to reach
consensus/understanding
"I think Joe and Mary are saying essentially the
same thing."
Encouraging, acknowledging, or
reinforcing student contributions
"Thank you for your insightful comments."
Setting climate for learning
"Don't feel self-conscious about 'thinking out
loud' on the forum. After all, this is a place to
try out ideas."
Drawing in participants, prompting
discussion
"Any thoughts on this issue?" "Anyone care to
comment?"
Assess the efficacy of the process "I think we're getting a little off track here."
Source: Anderson, et al., 2001.

24. Coaching: Student Facilitators
Baran & Correia (2009): Instructor as participant,
student as facilitator who will:
 Plan: objectives, guiding questions, scenarios
 Clarify purpose: what is the expected outcome?
 Manage over- and under-participators
 Maintain discussion focus
 Encourage multiple views
 Summarize at the conclusion

25. “To those readers who were hoping to that we would
provide more specific recommendations on what tools
or techniques to use (and not use) for online teaching,
the response should be clear by now. Whenever
teachers are considering a
tool/technique/strategy/approach (regardless of
delivery mode), they would be best served to ask how
that choice will impact student engagement,
intellectual development, and personal connections.
That is one of the most important challenges facing
teachers who aspire to develop their students into life-long
learners.”
~ Brinthaupt, et al., 2011, p.522

26. Thank you!
Additional comments?
Questions?
Lolita Paff
LAP21@psu.edu
@1313lolita on Twitter

27. References -1
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. 2001. Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing
context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2): 1-17.
Al-Shalchi, O., and lla Najah N.2009. The Effectiveness and Development of Online Discussions. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching. (5)1: 104-108.
Baker, David L. 2011. Designing and Orchestrating Online Discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7
(3): 401-411.
Baran, E. and Correia, A. 2009. Student-led Facilitation Strategies in Online Discussions. Distance Education, 30
(3): 339-361.
Bliss, C.A. and Lawrence, B.2009. From Posts to Patterns: A Metric to Characterize Discussion Board Activity in
Online Courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 13(2): 15- 32.
Boettcher, J.V. and. Conrad, R. M..2010.The Online Teaching Survival Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

28. References -2
Brinthaupt, T.M., Fisher,L.S., Gardner, J.G., Raffo, D.M., & Woodard, J.B.. 2011. What the Best Online Teachers
Should Do. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4):515-524.
Bryant, B. K. 2005. Electronic Discussion Sections: A Useful Tool in Teaching Large University Classes. Teaching of
Psychology. 32 (4): 271-275.
Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. 2000. Facilitating Online Learning. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Comer,D.R. & Lenaghan, J.A. 2013. Enhancing Discussions in the Asynchronous Online Classroom: The Lack of Face-to-
Face Interaction Does Not Lessen the Lesson. Journal of Management Education, 37(2): 261-294.
Cooper, T, E. 2009. Promoting Collaboration in Courses with Perceived Single Correct Solutions. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 5(2): 35-363.
Mandernach, B. , Krista, J., Forrest, D., Babutzke, J. L., & Manker, L. R. 2009. The Role of Instructor Interactivity in
Promoting Critical Thinking in Online and Face-to-face Classrooms. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1): 49-
62.
Pallof, R. M. and. Pratt, K. 2007. Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zembylas, M. & Vrasidas, C. 2007. Listening for silence in text-based, online encounters. Distance Education, 28(1): 5-
24.