Asynchronous
discussion forums (ADFs) are text-based, online forums that individuals can
access at a time and place of their choosing. In this post I will discuss how ADFs
can be conceptualised for learning at all levels of the SAMR model developed by
Dr Reuben Puentedura. The SAMR model offers a way to consider the different levels at which technology may be integrated into teaching and learning: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, or Redefinition.
Substitution
The
obvious case to make here is that ADFs can facilitate an online debate that acts
as a substitute for a more traditional classroom debate. There are similarities
between the two approaches in that the debate would generally involve a topic
that generates a certain amount of controversy, for example embryonic stem cell
research, and learners would be expected to employ critical thinking skills and
evidence-based arguments. The key differences are that in an ADF-mediated
debate, learners would be practicing written rather than oral language skills,
and they would have more time to gather evidence and make their case.
Augmentation
Although
ADFs could be substituted for a classroom debate, they need not replace it
entirely. They could be used as a pre-debate activity, providing learners with
an opportunity to gather evidence and refine their arguments. Alternatively,
the classroom debate could be used as a lead-in activity to generate interest
for the subsequent online debate. In either case, the ADF augments the
classroom debate by affording learners a space in which to engage in dialogue over
a longer time frame.
Modification
This
brings us to the modification aspect of ADFs, where learners can engage in a
debate for longer, and potentially more deeply, as well as providing direct links
to evidence that supports their case. They and their peers have more
opportunity to evaluate these evidence bases, and thus they are moving away
from what is offered by a traditional classroom debate.
Redefinition
ADFs
can redefine the traditional classroom debate by extending learner agency, for
example by providing opportunities for knowledge creation as opposed to
knowledge acquisition (McCormick and Scrimshaw, 2008). By posting to an ADF
students are able to synthesise what they have learned, express it in their own
words, and negotiate meaning with their peers. ADFs thus enable learners to
engage “in the dialogues through which knowledge is constantly being
constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed” (Wegerif, 2006a). This would not
be possible in quite the same way during a classroom debate because of the more
fleeting nature of verbal interactions.
An
additional agentive feature of ADFs is that they look both forwards and
backwards, pedagogically speaking (Lankshear and Knobel, 2008). That is to say,
they provide learners with an opportunity to explore new understanding, whilst
also demonstrating existing knowledge and skills. Consequently, there are more opportunities
for students to learn from their peers, rather than from their teacher.
A
further important affordance of ADFs is the increased opportunity for learners to
engage in higher-level thinking. When I analysed the forum statistics following
an ADF debate I assigned to my Grade 10 students, the number of views far exceeded
the number of posts, supporting the notion that many students were reading the
existing discussion before posting, i.e. engaging in higher-level thinking
before participating, rather than simply posting for the sake of it. This is
consistent with Saade and Huang’s (2009) findings from their university-based
study of learners using an ADF, and is arguably an advantage ADFs have over
traditional classroom debates, where learners don’t necessarily have the time
for higher-level thinking before making a contribution.
ADFs
also clearly demonstrate how technology can facilitate social learning, i.e.
computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) (Stahl et al., 2006; Wegerif,
2006b). They are computer-mediated
communication environments that “turn communication into substance” (Dillenbourg,
2005, in Stahl et al, 2006, p.12). Or, put another way, ADFs reify learners’
participation in a discussion, leading to the negotiation of meaning (Wenger,
2008).
ADFs
can record learner activity as well as being a product of their thinking. These
records of interaction and collaboration have been identified as potentially
important resources for improving intersubjective learning (Stahl et al, 2006).
Intersubjective learning considers that individual meaning making comes about
through social interactions with others, and is partly constituted by those interactions
(Suthers, 2006). It could be argued that traditional classroom debates afford
this as well, but again the asynchronous nature of ADFs allows more time over
which these interactions may occur.
A
final point about ADFs is that they provide a great opportunity for
metacognition, or making learners’ thinking more visible. For example, the
forum software I use has a peer-grading facility. As learners grade the
contributions from their peers, it helps them to focus on what they could do to
improve their own contributions, and thus they are thinking about how to
improve their own learning. I
feel that ADFs can be conceptualised at each level of the SAMR criteria,
including the key levels of modification and redefinition, for the reasons
outlined above. In a future post I will return to ADFs and discuss how they may
be used to enhance both general and subject literacy.
References
Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2008). New ways
of knowing: Learning at the margins, in Hall, K., Murphy, P., and Soler, J.
(eds.). Pedagogy and Practice, London, Sage in association with The Open
University
McCormick, R. and Scrimshaw, P. (2008).
Information and communications technology, knowledge and pedagogy, in Murphy,
P. and McCormick, R. (eds.). Knowledge and Practice, London, Sage in
association with The Open University
Saade, R.G. and Huang, Q. (2009). Meaningful
learning in discussion forums: Towards discourse analysis. Issues in
Informing Science and Information Technology, 6, pp.87-99
Stahl, G., Koschmann,
T., and Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An
historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the
learning sciences (pp.409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Available at http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf last accessed 01/02/2015
Suthers, D.D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 3. Available at http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/papers/2006/Suthers-ijCSCL-2006.pdf; last accessed 01/02/2015
Wegerif, R. (2006a). Dialogic education: what
is it and why do we need it? Education Review, 19, 2, pp.58-66
Wegerif, R. (2006b). A dialogic understanding
of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 1, pp.143-157
Wenger, E. (2008). Meaning, in Murphy, P. and
Hall, K. (eds.). Learning and Practice, London, Sage in association with
The Open University
