Encouraging Quality Participation
Online Faculty Development Course
In many class discussions, there may not be a single right answer, or way to state an answer. But some answers are clearly better than others. State explicitly your expectations. Here's some examples:
Stay on topic.
Be original. Simple yes, no, or verbatim agreement with a previous post, are insufficient answers.
Go beyond "cut-and-paste" recitation. Consider the question and compose a thoughtful answer, beyond simply retelling what the source said.
Avoid speculation or unsupported arguments, and incorporate evidence from course content or other reputable sources.
Make heretofore unnoticed or unstated connections between course concepts, or between course concepts and media outside the course.
Bringing in outside material, including things you've read or engaged with in another class, is fine. But make it relevant to the topic or concepts at hand.
Perhaps pose an intelligent question, rather than a statement, based on a critical reading of course content. If you can describe how close analysis of our subject leaves you with a good question (that we may not be able to answer in the context of our course), that's a potentially good "answer," too.
In Mark Gallimore's HIS124 Hybrid course, he spent a few minutes recording a screencast to convey his discussion guidelines to students.
Here again, "Digital Natives" is not a helpful stereotype. Students may be more comfortable with participating in online discussions than previous generations. On the other hand, they may have learned online social behaviors in a variety of internet locations. At best, conversations on the web can meander from topic or be little more than speculation.
Worse, digital shouting matches, cyberbullying, "flaming" and "trolling" are frequent. Reflective of this dark side of the internet, in 2013 Popular Science Magazine shut off the message boards (comment sections) attached to articles, for fear of the damage that vitriolic messaging was doing to science education and support.
Conversational toolsets such as social media and comments have allowed dubious or misleading information to spread "virally," and have become rallying points for anti-intellectual or intolerant groups.
If we use discussion spaces that are only available to our enrolled students, we keep those harmful forces out of our courses. But this is the environment at least some of our students have grown up in.
Students, especially undergraduates, may need a new model for how to be collegial in a class discussion. Post your rules for netiquette, provide rubrics that frame instruction, and model appropriate ways of posting.
Provide an explicit introduction to netiquette for a diverse learning community. (see below for COLI's Asynchronous Discussion Resource
Ask students to introduce themselves to each other in an introduction board during the first week. Post the first introduction to model the tone and level of information to be included.
Make clear that personal attacks, bigotry, and other damaging behaviors will not be tolerated.
Follow up: do not let potentially harmful comments go unchecked.
If a conversation becomes heated, or threatens to devolve from spirited-but-on-topic debate, impose a "cooling off" period of a day or two.
Tell students not to post (and possible enforce it with locking limits) within that time, but instead to re-read other students' posts and reconsider their own position.
All students should then reengage after that time by posting brief summaries of the debate.
It might be necessary to edit or delete some students' posts if, for example, they engaged in ad hominem attacks or made hurtful comments. But to the extent it's possible, do not delete student writing, so on-topic students making attempts at reasoned arguments feel that they will be heard.
Years ago, the comic XKCD captured the futility of arguments on the open web.
A Famous New Yorker Cartoon.
An Emphasis on Reflection
Broadly speaking, most classroom discussions in F2F courses privilege those with skills, confidence, and preference for impromptu public speaking. You know how it goes: you prompt students. Several in the room are eager or willing to reply, having given the matter a few seconds' thought. These can be students who prepared by reading assigned text, or those just relying on intuition and quick thinking to get a participation credit! Students have a tendency to respond to the professor, rather than consider or respond to comments by other students, and many F2F discussions become a "turn-taking" exercise. Unless you enact a system to compel others to participate, many students are content to remain silent, although perhaps interjecting one or two comments for participation points. We might assume the last type of student may be inattentive or lazy. But they may simply prefer to think carefully about a matter before offering a perspective on it.
By contrast online, asynchronous discussions favor reflection, that key element of Jesuit IPP. All students have much more time to compose an initial reply to a post, and those students who favor careful reflection before commenting have plenty of time to do so. They can even save a draft, and post it the next day after reviewing and revising! With one or more rounds of replies, responding to other students' inputs can be an explicit feature of asynchronous discussions.
Reminders
Asynchronous discussions require student participation to be most effective. So it is okay to occasionally remind students to participate. In fact, you might wish to make regular reminders in the News Feed or synchronous discussions telling students they must do things such as visit the course space, read and respond to discussion posts, or check grade scores posted in the gradebook/report.
If a student seems to be having difficulty meeting discussion expectations, contact him or her directly. Repeat the instructions, and ask how you may clarify or otherwise help. Suggest to them an appropriate schedule tactic to meet participation deadlines.
COLI Resource: Instructions for Guiding Asynchronous Discussions
You should craft guidelines for your online asynchronous discussions, that include Netiquette and perhaps also some general directions for what you expect to see in discussion participation. COLI has some generic language that can be copy/pasted directly into your course, or modified to suit your particular needs. This even includes generic rubric criteria and levels as well.