Jamila Jacques 1

Discussion Groups

Jamila Jacques

OMDE 603 Section 9040

October 16, 2013

Assignment 1

Word Count: 836

Jamila Jacques 2

Introduction

Distance education (DE) dates as far back as the 1880s; during that time course

instructions were sent to the learner through the postal service (Peters, 2010, p. 44). As the years

passed, the need for two-way interactions between the teacher and learner became increasingly

important (Peters, 2004, p.138). The introduction of the Internet and computer technologies has

helped distance education become a sustainable form of learning. The central concern of

distance education is lack of “interaction, communication, and participation” (Al-Shalchi, 2009).

Discussion groups have become popular within the distance education environment. This

technology has increased student-to-student and student-to-teacher interactions, which leads to

improved critical thinking skills (Mokoena, 2013, p.97). Mokoena (2013) further indicates that

through an asynchronous learning environment, discussion groups can be used as a learning tool

to increase student participation (p.97). This paper addresses the effectiveness of discussion

groups and whether they satisfy the interaction need in distance education.

Considerations

Discussion groups allow students to share their ideas, views, and learnings with their

peers while receiving and providing feedback. A shortcoming of a discussion group is the

possibility of not living up to the expectations of providing effective interaction for the learner,

instead just being a platform that is filled with useless information (Wise, Saghafian, &

Padmanabhan, 2012, p.56). Wise, Saghafian, and Padmanabhan (2012) associate many factors

with the success of a discussion group, such as assigning a discussion topic that is

understandable and researchable. The discussion topics have to allow students to provide several

responses that will stimulate the conversation. A clear understanding of the requirements for the

discussion has to be provided, such as acceptable contributions and time length of discussion
Jamila Jacques 3

(p.56). The expectation of an online discussion is often compared to a face-to-face discussion,

which is why allowing students to facilitate the discussion will help increase their involvement

and knowledge (Wise et al., 2012, p.56). According to Du and Xu (2010) “interaction” is a

substantial factor of distance education; research show that discussion groups play a huge role to

the learning process (p.13). Nandi, Hamilton, and James (2012) include that there are three types

of student interactions in distance education: “student-student interaction, student-instructor

interaction, and student-content interaction. Discussion groups are one form of technology that

can facilitate these interactions (p.6).

Strengths

Discussion groups have many benefits within the asynchronous learning environment;

one benefit is that students have the opportunity to conduct additional research before responding

to a discussion question. Because of the extra research time, students often provide profound

responses, which leads to a better understanding of the course material (Al-Shalchi, 2009).

Discussion groups give shy students the opportunity to have an active voice and freely respond

to discussions unlike they would in the traditional classroom (Mokoena, 2012, p.97). The

content within the discussion groups can be archived and easily referred back to as a quick

reference of what was previously learned. This archived can also be used by students to assess

whether or not their point of views changed at the end of the course (Al-Shalchi, 2009).

Discussion groups also allow students to gain better understanding of the coursework and allow

students to see other perspectives of information learned (Hamilton, Chang, & Balbo, 2012,

p.684). Most importantly, collaborative communication in the discussion groups creates

closeness between the students and instructors. Discussion groups are comprised of students
Jamila Jacques 4

living in different areas of the world and the discussions allows the students and instructors to

socially co-exist (Al-Shalchi, 2009).

Weaknesses

One area of concern in online discussion groups is the discussion topic; certain topics do not

stimulate interaction. This concern can be address by choosing a question type regardless of the

uninteresting discussion topic that allows students to state their opinion, share their experiences,

and choose a side (Al-Shalchi, 2009). Another drawback to online discussion groups is the lack

of visual communication. Tone of voice, facial expression and hand gestures are all forms of

communication that facilitate a discussion in the face-to-face learning environment. Because of

this normal way of interaction Al-Shalchi (2009) indicates that the lack of visual communication

causes some students to be concerned that their discussion responses might be taken out of

context. The collaborative process can also be a weakness; the unsuccessfulness of this process

is contributed to the role of the instructor not being fulfilled, assessment framework not

identified, and poor quality of post from students (Hamilton et al, 2012).

Conclusion

Discussion groups within an asynchronous learning environment allow interactions that have

been proven to be effective despite the associated weaknesses. Discussion topics, lack of visual

communication, and the collaborative process are weaknesses that can be mitigated. Al-Shalchi

(2009) believes that clear direction, instructor feedback, promoting motivation, organization, and

question type are design factors that produce successful discussion groups. Wise, et al (2012)

says that “It is clear that simply putting students together in an online discussion forum does not

necessarily lead to learning” (p.56). Students have to actively participate to achieve desired
Jamila Jacques 5

learning results Mason (2011) maintains that “discussion groups increase student participation

and interaction” (p.258).

Jamila Jacques 6

References

Al-Shalchi, O. N., (2009). The effectiveness and development of online discussions. MERLOT

Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1). Retrieved from

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no1/al-shalchi_0309.htm

Du, J., & Xu, J. (2010). The quality of online discussion reported by graduate students. Quarterly

Review of Distance Education, 11(1), 13-24. Retrieved from

http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=50

Hamilton, D. M., Chang, S., & Balbo, S. (2012). Evaluating quality in online asynchronous

interactions between students and discussion facilitators. Australasian Journal of

Education Technology, 28(4), 684-702. Retrieved from

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/nandi.html

Mason, R. (2011). Students engagement with, and participation in, and e-forum. Educational

Technology & Society, 14(2), 258-268. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/others/

Mokoena, S. (2013). Engagement with and participation in online discussion forums. TOJET:

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 97-105.

Nandi D., Hamiltion, M., & Harland J. (2011). Evaluating the quality of interaction in

asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33(1), 5-30.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667957

Peters, O. (2010). Distance education in transition: Developments and issues. Retrieved from

http://www.box.com/s/ktx7ipccetotqrr11mct

Peters, O. (2004). Learning and Teaching in distance education. London: RoutledgeFalmer

Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2012). Towards more precise design guidance:

specifiying and testing the functions of assigned students roles in online discussions.
Jamila Jacques 7

Education Technology Research and Development, 60, 55-82. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7