See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309897329

Comparing face-to-face and asynchronous online communication as

mechanisms for critical reflective dialogue

Article  in  Educational Action Research · November 2016

DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2016.1245626

CITATIONS READS

27 1,212

3 authors, including:

Susan Salter Tracy Anne Douglas

University of Tasmania University of Tasmania
23 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   190 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Online or Face-to-Face Microbiology Laboratory Sessions View project

Assessment Task Taxonomy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tracy Anne Douglas on 03 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Comparing face-to-face and asynchronous online

communication as mechanisms for critical
reflective dialogue

Susan Salter, Tracy Douglas & David Kember

To cite this article: Susan Salter, Tracy Douglas & David Kember (2016): Comparing face-to-
face and asynchronous online communication as mechanisms for critical reflective dialogue,
Educational Action Research, DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2016.1245626

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2016.1245626

Published online: 09 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20

Download by: [University of Tasmania] Date: 20 November 2016, At: 21:00

Educational Action Research, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2016.1245626

Comparing face-to-face and asynchronous online

communication as mechanisms for critical reflective dialogue
Susan Saltera, Tracy Douglasa and David Kemberb
a
School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia; bDepartment of
Curriculum Method and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia

ABSTRACT
Two mechanisms for engaging in critical reflective dialogue are
discussed and compared: face-to-face meetings and asynchronous
online discussion. The context is an umbrella action research project, ARTICLE HISTORY
with over 20 participants, which aimed to improve practices in online Received 10 March 2016
teaching and contribute to the development of graduate attributes. Accepted 23 September 2016
The article compares discussion using the two modes (face-to-face
KEYWORDS
and online) of the nature of and development of problem-solving and Action research;
other graduate attributes. Face-to-face discussion was wide ranging asynchronous/synchronous;
and quite loosely structured, so divergent aspects of a topic were communication; critical
uncovered. The asynchronous nature of online discussion, however, reflective dialogue; university
permitted topics to be explored more thoroughly. The two modes
worked well in conjunction with one another, if aspects of face-to-
face discussion topics were posted online as discussion threads. The
asynchronous online discussions then allowed each thread to be
explored in depth, so that collective understanding of a given topic
could be enhanced.

Critical reflective discussion in action research

Action research has been depicted as consisting of four steps, phases or moments: planning,
action, observation and reflection (Lewin 1946, 1952; Kemmis and McTaggart 1988). However,
as Cook (1998) has observed, in practice the process is messier than the neat diagrammatic
representations. Nevertheless, the formulations are sufficient to establish that reflection is
an essential component of action research (Lee 2009).
It is also accepted that action research is a collaborative activity. Indeed, Kemmis and
McTaggart start their definition of action research by stating that ‘Action research is a form
of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations’ (1988, 5;
original emphasis). In action research, therefore, the groups of participants engage in critical
reflective discourse.
This article is a reflection on the mechanisms for engaging in critical reflective discourse
within a large project group. It compares the degree of engagement within the project by
the two employed mechanisms of face-to-face and online asynchronous critical reflective

CONTACT  Susan Salter  S.Salter@utas.edu.au

© 2016 Educational Action Research
2    S. Salter et al.

discussion. The article examines the outcomes of the discussions by the mechanisms to see
how they contributed to the aims of the group project, which were to better understand
how to develop graduate attributes through online teaching and learning. There is also an
examination of how face-to-face and online discussion can work in conjunction with each
other, because in practice this is what happened.
The issue is of considerable significance for action research because it is a form of research
which utilises collective self-reflective inquiry to improve practice with respect to the issue
being researched. It is therefore important that there is a good understanding of the practice
of reflective discussion. The desired outcome of sufficient understanding of a topic so that
improvement in practice can happen is more likely to take place if the reflective discussion
is relevant insightful and thorough.

Research questions
The project investigated the following two research questions:

(1)  To compare face-to-face and online asynchronous discussion for purposes of critical
reflective discussion in the context of a large action research project.
(2)  To examine how face-to-face and online asynchronous discussion could be effec-
tively used in conjunction for reflective inquiry.

Literature review
The use of asynchronous online discussions to engage in critical discussion and interaction
is well documented in the literature, especially in relation to student engagement and the
development of skills such as critical thinking (for example, Hew, Cheung, and Ng 2010; Kong
2014; Loncar, Barrett, and Liu 2014). The temporal separation aligned to asynchronous learn-
ing results in a lack of momentum and focus for online participants which can negate
engagement (Whiteley 2006). Online discussions, however, despite their asynchronous
nature, do provide a vehicle to promote a sense of community as well as enable the exchange
of ideas and sharing of information (Liu et al. 2007). This requires well-designed discussion
frameworks and effective facilitation of discussions. Often participants are shown to super-
ficially participate because they do not actively contribute to discussion posts (Mason 2011),
which can result in online interactions lacking depth and continuity, potentially fragmenting
the online community (Liu et al. 2007). These limiting parameters apply to both educators
and students collaborating in an online environment that involves discussion forum partic-
ipation. Consequently, online collaborations within a blended framework are often imple-
mented (Halverson et al. 2014). Hung et al. (2005) proposed a framework for fostering a
community of practice for tertiary educators which allowed for the developmental stages
of the participants, from novice peripheral participants to central members with a sense of
‘increasing task authenticity’ (2005, 161) and being involved in active participation.
Reflective practice in teaching involves a conscious analysis and critical evaluation of
current practices (Brookfield 2000; McKernan 2013) and is linked to learning and peer support
(Levine and Marcus 2010; Ross 2016). It is a process of experiential learning, and models for
this have been proposed by researchers including Kolb, Boyatzis, and Mainemelis (2001) and
Boud, Keogh, and Walker (2013). While there is voluminous literature about online
 Educational Action Research   3

communication forums or action research (Gibbs et al. 2016; Johnson 2012; Stringer 2008;
Waters-Adams 2006), there appears to be little which is specific to online discussion in action
research amongst tertiary educationalists. Thang et al. (2011) reported an attempt to use
online discussion to create a community of practice for Malaysian teachers. The framework
for their community of practice was based on the works of Wenger (1998). The authors were
disappointed with the low levels of participation. The teachers said there were some
Information and Communications Technology problems but attributed their reasons for low
levels of participation mainly to factors such as lack of rapport, relevance, lack of time and
school culture, which were not dependent on the mode of communication.
Lockhorst, Admiraal, and Pilot (2010) reported that collaboration was essential in
­student-teacher training and that this could be supported with technology; similarly,
Orvis et al. (2002) identified that web-based technology provides flexibility of time and
place which enhances collaboration and reflective practice. Khoo and Cowie (2011)
­conducted an action research study to promote online teacher development using a
negotiated intervention. Their article was of interest to us because it aimed to improve
practice in online teaching. However, the development process used negotiated
­intervention by the researcher with a single teacher. This is a very different context to our
large group discussions.

Method
The research reported in this article was a sub-project of a large umbrella action research
project, described in the next section. The sub-project investigated reflective discussion
within the larger team for the umbrella project.
The sub-project, on mechanisms for reflective discussion, reported in this article, used
an action research approach. The two reflective mechanisms of face-to-face and online asyn-
chronous discussion were trialled using an iterative cyclical process. Participants were suffi-
ciently familiar with the mechanism of face-to-face discussion that little training was needed.
Content issues and ways of getting the large team working together were explored.
Participants were used to online communication through email and online teaching, but
new to reflective discussion through the medium, so ways of setting up and utilising a
website for reflective discussion were explored. Members of the project started to see the
benefits of utilising the two modes together, and therefore trialled ways of combining the
two.
Evidence about face-to-face discussion came from notes and recordings of the meetings.
The website used for the online discussion provided a complete record of all postings. As
the site used was a learning management system (LMS), a great deal of information was
available from the learning analytics.
In keeping with the action research method, reflections of the sub-project team are used
as data. These are shown in the article in the format of displayed quotations, with the reflector
identified in parentheses.

The context of the study – the umbrella project

The study examined reflective discussions within a large teaching development project that
took the form of multiple action research projects in which teachers trialled mechanisms
4    S. Salter et al.

for developing graduate attributes in online units they taught. Graduate attributes comprise
a set of generic outcomes for students across all university disciplines which allow graduates
to work within and contribute to society in a manner that extends beyond their tertiary
qualification. These attributes include generic knowledge, communication skills,
­problem-solving skills, social responsibility and a global perspective. They are designed to
produce an effective ‘work-ready’ graduate who will function both independently and
­cooperatively and will be aware of the social and ethical implications of their actions
(Bridgstock 2009; Hager and Holland 2007; Tomlinson 2012).
Within the main project, participants had their own individual action research project.
These projects aimed to address a particular issue, related to the overall project aims, of
concern to the teacher in the unit they taught.
The overall project was in the form of an umbrella embracing the multiple individual
action research projects. The umbrella project provided support, helped with evaluation
and attempted to synthesise conclusions across the individual projects. This involved com-
prehensive discussion and comparison of successful methodologies.

Cross-project reflection and synthesis

Reflection is an integral part of the action research cycle. It is through the step of reflection
on practice that insights are gained to guide the iterative development of practice. The
multiple sub-project format means that the initiative can reach a higher plane of reflection.
Lessons learnt from individual sub-projects can be compared with those from the others.
Similar findings between sub-projects suggest that more general conclusions can be drawn
and lend confidence to those synthesised deductions (Kember 2000).
Two formats were used to facilitate the reflective discussions in this collaborative group
project. The face-to-face meetings took place via video conference. The University of
Tasmania (UTAS) has campuses in four cities, with most faculties split between several cam-
puses. Many meetings therefore take place by video conference and there are good facilities
for such meetings. Members of staff are familiar with video-conference meetings and equate
them to normal face-to-face meetings. This meeting forum can, therefore, be equated to
the types of face-to-face meeting normally used in action research projects for reflective
discussion. The video-conference meetings related to the project took place at intervals of
five or six weeks.
The online discussion took place through a site on a LMS set up for the project. The reason
for choosing this online discussion forum was that it was the same type of LMS site that was
used for online teaching. The LMS facility included discussion forums and content reposito-
ries, which appeared to be what was needed for communication exchanges within the pro-
ject. It was anticipated that participants might learn about online teaching and learning by
using the type of site used in teaching for their project discussions.
The site featured a discussion forum for each of the targeted graduate attributes. In these
forums, participants posted explanations of how they nurture specific graduate attributes
and their reflections on the outcomes. The site also had a content area for each of the attrib-
utes examined in the study where participants posted any material relevant to the project.
This included: sections of unit outlines specifying which graduate attributes should be devel-
oped; instructions from unit LMS sites for activities and assignments which encourage the
practice of graduate attributes; student postings in response to these activities which display
 Educational Action Research   5

evidence of the attribute; threads from the discussion forum pertinent to the display or
development of graduate attributes; and examples of good practice in mentoring discussion
forums. The site also had a space for each individual project.

Face-to-face discussions
A large number of academics expressed interest in joining the project. From this interest, it
seemed important to make an early start with a meaningful activity which was a face-to-face
critical discussion.
With such a large diverse group it was unlikely that it would be possible to find a time
when everyone was free. Friday from 1:30 to 3:30 pm was picked as a timeslot when there
was not too much teaching. A booking was made for a video-conference link to the three
campuses with participants at that time.
The first discussion involved 20 participants, which was a substantial proportion of those
who had wanted to join the project. Everyone was very familiar with video-conference meet-
ings, so the discussion progressed well. As the project was just getting off the ground, the
initial discussion was about how the project was going to work and the expectations of
participants. We spent some time talking about the individual or small group projects that
most were committed to, relevant to graduate attribute development online. There was also
discussion of the umbrella project format and how that would work.
The following paragraph is the first of the reflections from the authors. The reflector is
identified by the first name in parentheses:
Conversations at the initial meeting began in an attentive manner as we were meeting each other
for the first time. The initial introductions included discussion of any projects that we would like
to be involved in. As a participant in this discussion (Susan Salter) I felt both excited and in awe
of some of the projects that other members were involved with. Informal discussion following
the conclusion of the meeting showed that this was a similar feeling amongst the attendees.
Other participants expressed that they also felt that their project was trivial when compared to
others. However, as the conversations continued we each took ownership of our own project
and became more comfortable with its place within the scope of larger project. Leadership from
the chair of the meeting (David Kember) also reinforced this confidence.
The remaining time was devoted to discussing the first substantive topic for collaborative
critical reflection. The chosen topic was that of student engagement (or the lack of it) with
online activities and discussion forums: the well-known phenomenon of lurkers or inactive
students who make no posts for the online discussions (Hew and Cheung 2012). This
proved to be a good topic to provoke a lively discussion because it was a real concern to
the group and there are multiple ways of interpreting the phenomenon and attempting
to deal with it. The topic was also highly relevant to the overall project theme, because
activities were only likely to help in the development of attributes if students engaged
with them:
This meeting generated robust discussion of graduate attributes which involved looking at the
university’s definitions and also sharing our personal perceptions of their meanings and their
context in our units. I (Tracy Douglas) think that this prompted me to go back and review how I
teach graduate attributes in my 1st and 2nd year units. Historically, we include the information
which is generic in content, in our unit outlines, and do not necessarily reflect on how we teach
these especially in an online format.
6    S. Salter et al.

We agreed to further meetings at intervals of five to six weeks. Following the initial meeting,
there was a series of five meetings, each devoted to discussing one of the five graduate
attributes specified by UTAS. We discussed the nature of the attribute and how it might be
developed through online learning.
For the first four meetings, administrative assistants took notes. They found the task chal-
lenging because the discussions were very different from the formal meetings they were
used to taking minutes for. The project then acquired a research assistant who recorded and
produced meeting notes for the subsequent meetings:
Chairing or leading the meetings was an interesting challenge (David Kember). The discussions
in the meetings about graduate attributes and their development were all wide ranging. My
main concern was that something tangible came from the discussions.

The discussion of the nature of problem-solving was a good example of both the wide ranging
nature of the discussions and the complexity of drawing conclusions from it. The discussion
embraced multiple aspects of problem-solving including: the nature of problems; problem-­
solving steps; the relationship of developmental stages to problem-solving ability; and
­association with online learning capability. The only way to reach a useful conclusion seemed
to be to place some notes and discussion topics on the project’s web-site, to stimulate further
exploration of the topic.
The attendance at meetings, other than the first, ranged between eight and 15 attendees,
which seems very reasonable considering the number of competing meetings and activities
for project members. Three staff who neither read nor posted anything on discussion boards
(see Table 1) did not attend meetings either, so were effectively non-participants in the
project. The final five meetings were dedicated to preparing an application for a national
teaching development grant award, and therefore were not really critical reflective discus-
sions related to the project.

Table 1. Participants’ use of discussion boards.

Participant Initial post
A 0
B 1
C 0
D 17
E 7
F 7
G 0
H 1
I 1
J 0
K 0
L 2
M 1
N 0
O 0
P 0
Q 0
R 0
S 0
T 0
U 0
V 0
W 0
Replies Read, including own
13 142
7 130
0 103
5 102
24 93
12 88
0 82
4 76
1 54
1 50
0 40
1 23
6 22
0 14
0 10
0 5
0 5
0 3
0 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
 Educational Action Research   7

Participation in the online forums

Discussions began with the leader and participants framing their approach for the use of
the specific boards and the order in which topics would be addressed. The role of the leader
was to initially facilitate the first phase of the discussion. The postings would then evolve
into a conversation relatively independent of the leader, and where the conversation would
not be directed specifically to or by the leader. Markel (2001, 3) says that ‘socialization exists
in these virtual conversations’ and that participants who may have felt marginalised are
drawn into the conversation. In setting up the initial phase of the discussion boards, the
leader had worn the ‘four hats’ approach (Maor 2003) which encompassed the technical,
pedagogical, managerial and social functions as a framework on and through which the
conversations of the participants could take place.
The main focus of this section is to identify the common themes and patterns from those
who chose to actively participate by either creating posts, responding to posts or simply
reading posts.
The research project leader’s initial post gave the following guidance:
Stage 1 can be the attributes of problem solving and communication skills. If we start with the
two easiest attributes, problem solving and communication skills, these cannot be developed
without active participation. Take problem solving, this is developed by tackling real life messy
problems and learning the process by doing. The attributes of global perspective and intercul-
tural competence – what types of activities will help to develop this?
Whilst a small number (n = 7) of the study participants read this post, no responses were
posted. A second post from the project leader on the same day contained further
information:
Online learning will be interpreted flexibly. Teaching at UTAS can be seen as being a form of
blended learning, positioned at a point on a spectrum from entirely face-to-face through to fully
online. Blended forms of learning will be examined by the project, with the main focus being
on the online component, but not necessarily exclusively so.
This post received responses over the next few weeks and two of the participants began a
conversation with the leader about definitions of online and blended learning as they per-
tained to individual investigations in this specific project. The definitions were also framed
around the intention to apply for a major grant and the content of the supporting documents
for this application.
The total number of participants involved in the project during the phase which involved
the initial use of the LMS discussion boards was 23 participants (see Table 1), who logged
on to the LMS site over a period of 48 weeks. Automatic statistics collected by the LMS site
showed that 19 of the 23 participants visited the discussion boards, eight created initial
posts/threads on specific topics and 10 participants replied to these topics. Of the 10 who
replied, the number of their posts ranged from one to 24 during the project duration.
The statistics for ‘reading only’ of the posts were much higher. All but four participants
who logged onto the LMS site read some of the posts. Statistics showed that individual
participants read between three and 142 posts. The number of posts read does not differ-
entiate between single and multiple visits to a unique post by an individual participant and
may reflect one participant re-reading unique posts multiple times.
Discussion boards can be set up on the LMS site. The procedure is quite standard for
software used for online forums. A heading is used to designate the main theme of the
forum; in our case there was a general theme about the projects plus four others about
8    S. Salter et al.

Table 2. Statistics for the individual discussion board threads and replies organised under the major
topics (forum title) and subheadings (topic title) of the project.
Forum Topic Threads Replies
About the Project Total Posts 4 11
Discussion about the Project 2 7
Individual Project Discussion 0 0
Instruction 0 0
General Inquiry 1 4
To Project Manager 0 0
Evaluation of the participation/discussion on MyLO 1 0

Cognitive Attributes Total Posts 15 39

Problem Solving 10 30
Logic and Critical Thinking 0 0
Reflection 1 0
Knowledge 4 9

Student Engagement Total Posts 8 26

Student Engagement 8 26

Values Attributes Total Posts 7 16

Social Responsibility 3 15
Global Perspective 3 1
Ethics 1 0

Social Attributes Total Posts 7 9

Communication 7 9

classes of attributes. Contributors can then designate topics for discussion within each
theme. Within each topic contributors start threads for discussion by posting a new com-
ment. Others can reply to those threads.
Table 2 presents the forums and topics within each forum and the number of threads and
replies to each. The topics presented are designated according to the headings entered into
the LMS as descriptors of the intended discussion theme.

Discussion of problem-solving
As shown in Table 2, the Problem Solving discussion topic initiated the most discussion
threads (n = 10) and replies to discussions (n = 30). Six of the 10 discussion threads generated
no replies, with the remaining four generating engaging discussion between up to five
participants in the project:
I (Tracy Douglas) began one of the threads in the Problem Solving discussion topic titled
‘Definition of problem solving continued …’. This post was initiated following one of our face
to face meetings in which we discussed how we would define graduate attributes such as prob-
lem solving. The post generated 8 replies which discussed the generic nature of the definition
of problem solving and the need for any definition to have contextual parameters to situate
its purpose.
The project leader (David Kember) had previously provided the university definition of
­problem-solving in an earlier post which had not engaged any online discussion. This is
perhaps not surprising because the UTAS definitions of attributes were not particularly pro-
found, as they were almost tautological. The contrast between the lack of response to this
posting and the intense discussion of problem-solving stimulated by other initial posts is a
 Educational Action Research   9

Figure 1. Timeline for Problem Solving discussion topic engagement from the day of first discussion
thread posting (day one) to the last day of engagement (day 107).

Figure 2. Point of engagement with each Problem Solving discussion thread (number of threads = 10).

good illustration of the maxim that the nature of an initial post is a key factor in the amount
of and value in discussion which follows (Laurillard 2008).
As shown in Figure 1, participants engaged in the Problem Solving discussion thread
intermittently for a total of 107 days. During this time, three face-to-face meetings were held
on days 7, 58 and 102 of engagement with this discussion thread. Engagement in the dis-
cussion was slow, with relatively regular postings occurring from day 43 to day 84. Multiple
discussion posts to this topic were recorded on days 50, 55, 56, 59, 64, 79, 83 and 84. The
most active day was day 84. The most active period of engagement was therefore just prior
to one of the face-to-face meetings and for a period thereafter.
As stated previously, only four of the discussion threads in Problem Solving generated
replies. These were discussion threads two, three, five and seven. Three of these threads were
posted within 10 days after a face-to-face discussion of the project (Figure 2) and all four
threads provided a forum for discussion that was related to problem-solving from a different
conceptual view. For example, one thread discussed problem-solving in a particular third-
year education unit and its link to intended learning outcomes, and another discussed
10    S. Salter et al.

problem-solving in relation to honour students developing the ability to develop a research

question. A third discussion focused on defining ‘problem-solving’ as mentioned previously,
and the final thread that generated the most engagement was on the six-segment onion-
ring of problem-solving.

Susan Salter’s reflection on the onion-ring discussion

The Discussion thread on the onion ring model of problem solving began by a post from the
project leader, David Kember on October 17, 2013. I, (Susan Salter), a member of the project
team, had also been involved in writing, with a colleague, a Chapter on Communities of Practice
for Sustainability in Education. I noticed that David Kember had listed ‘wicked’ under ‘nature of
the problem’ as part of his post on the onion-ring. I was interested in his definition of the ‘wicked’
concept and its relationship to generic problem solving within communities/groups using online
tools as the format for communication in the previous sustainability project team. In particular,
to solve a specific problem which requires generic outcomes, can have repercussions for the
diverse make-up of communities, i.e., many professionals or academics who are trained in very
explicit and well-defined disciplines often do not work with generic concepts that have broad
application. This then challenges academics to adapt the specific to the generic. David Kember’s
response to my post was, ‘I liked your definition of wicked problems. I will expand the onion ring
model … and incorporate it’.

The next posts occurred 18 days later when a third project member (Participant E) shared her
preferred pedagogical approach to problem solving which was based on the Marzano (1998)
model. I read her comments with interest and replied several days later. The project member’s
research indicated that they were giving students a model, rather than the more specific ‘exem-
plars’. My comments which I posted touched on the clarity of this approach which I found ‘very
clear in terms of visualizing an overview of the task … (and that) … the rubric … is very useful
for both the student and the teacher and would also be incorporated into Criterion Referenced
Assessment when evaluating the student’s work’.

Reflecting on the posts to date, the value of these conversations allowed the members of our
project to look at and/or use the information in the posts in two ways. They could be viewed as
generic information that could be useful in determining the overarching direction and themes
of the project or could be specifically applicable to their own uniquely defined teaching needs
and outcomes. David Kember replied 10 days later and suggested that perhaps his onion-ring
model could be further elaborated to better distinguish between ‘well and ill-defined problems’
and for ‘steps in learning how to deal with ill-defined problems’.

A fourth member of the group (Participant F) joined the discussion at this stage and posted to
the project leader information on a publication from a member of the university, but not within
the research group. This publication was Applying the Bioecological Theory of Human Development
to learning: Enhancing student engagement in online learning (2011). No data are available on
how many people specifically accessed this information.

Fifteen days later, the third project member replied to Participant F on how valuable she had
found the suggested article and which specific themes relating to effective teaching in an online
environment, including the ‘process-person-context-time model (PPCT)’, were most critical to
success. These included the ‘importance of bidirectional interactions between people and their
ecology and proximal processes (those that are enduring, reciprocal, highly interactive, progres-
sively complex and occur regularly over an extended period of time)’. Her reply indicated that
these strategies are ‘critical to effective online learning as are the ecological foundation of the
learner (all the processes, relationships and external influences)’.
 Educational Action Research   11

Table 3. Model of the nature of problem-solving used to summarise the discussion.

Problem-solving Developmental Epistemological Online learning
Nature of problem Domain step continuum beliefs capability
Algebraic Algorithmic Absolute knowing Access and
motivation
Well-defined Cognitive Individual Online socialisa-
tion
Intellectual Interpersonal Transitional Information
inquiry knowing exchange
Ill-defined Intellectual Identify critical Organisational Independent Knowledge
issue knowing construction
Messy Professional Reflective practice Community Contextual Development
knowing
Wicked Cultural Re-define Public policy
problem

Online and face-to-face discussion in conjunction

The previous main sections on face-to-face and online discussion have both noted interac-
tion between the two discussion modes. The project evolved towards a method for using
the two modes in conjunction. While there was a degree of variation between the processes
associated with the discussion of each thread or attribute, the following steps were common
elements:

• Prior to a meeting being called, background information was placed on the website.
• Project members were invited to place on the website any information they wished to
refer to in the face-to-face discussion, because this was used as a display board during
discussions. Typical postings would be activities designed to prompt students to display
the attribute being discussed.
• The meetings then took place. Each meeting had a thorough discussion of the chosen
attribute. Multiple threads arose in each discussion.
• Meeting notes were placed on the website.
• Initial posts relating to discussion threads were then placed on the website.
• Replies to the initial posts further explored the topics.

Part of the discussion relating to problem-solving has been reported in the previous two
sections. An attempt was made to summarise the multiple threads relating to problem-­
solving in a model. This is reproduced in Table 3 to show the complexity of the reflective
discussions.

Discussion
Stimulating reflective discussion
What emerges from these discussions is that a comment on one specific theme can spark
the introduction of other interrelated material including theories and concepts. Reading a
post can have actions and consequences at many different levels. It can prompt and promote
collegiality that is inquiry-centred, as supported by recent studies such as McDougall (2015).
It can also direct the reader to other sources of information and from this can flow onto the
further sharing of material (Salmon 2002). It can promote the application of a generic concept
12    S. Salter et al.

written about in the shared information to a dedicated curriculum direction which can be
seen as translatable and applicable by the reader to their own unique student cohorts, thus
improving practice, according to Swenson (2003). Sharing this information and extending
it by manipulating it to reflect specific attributes in specific units can then underpin and
support increased positive outcomes for the students.
An important distinction between the scheduled face-to-face meetings and the online
discussion modes is the asynchronous nature of online discussion. The stimulus of being in
direct contact meant that the face-to-face meetings seemed to take on the character of a
brainstorming session. As participants had quite different backgrounds and perspectives,
discussions could take many twists and turns. Topics were therefore explored from several
different angles. However, an angle was often not fully explored before the discussion took
another twist and set off in another direction.
The asynchronous nature of the online discussion forums, therefore, was a very good
complement to the face-to-face discussions. The online forums did not seem to be as fertile
at generating alternative angles. They did, however, permit time and space to allow topics
to be fully explored. When aspects of a topic were posted on the website as initial posts,
they usually generated a number of replies. With the asynchronous nature of the online
discussion and the structure of the discussion forums, each post was a response to the
previous posting. Topics were therefore explored in logical, orderly ways.
Dewey (1933) made a distinction between reflection and critical reflection. The latter was
deeper, more profound and more likely to involve a transformation of perspective. A relevant
way to distinguish the levels of reflection lies in the time-frame. Schön (1983) distinguished
between reflection in action and reflection on action. The former operates within a short
time-frame and might result in a hasty decision reached without examining all possible
outcomes. This would normally be characteristic of the reflection in face-to-face meetings.
Yanow and Tsoukas (2009, 1339), building on the work of Schön, affirm the value of ‘evaluative
dimensions built into competent practice that encourage, if not require, reflecting’. Reflection
on action has the luxury of an extended time-fame for consideration. It therefore resembles
the asynchronous nature of online discussion.

Thoroughness of discussion
Table 2 presents the total number of posts for the five UTAS-defined attributes. There were
40 posts for problem-solving, 18 for social responsibility, 16 for communication, 13 for knowl-
edge and four for global perspective. The relatively low number of posts for a global per-
spective could be a reflection of the level of priority of the attribute in courses taught by the
participants, which were generally professional courses with curricula designed primarily
to equip graduates to practice in Australia.
It seems reasonable to claim that the number of posts and the citation of the discussion
of problem-solving provide evidence of a thorough discussion. The discussion seemed to
stop when participants felt that the topic had been taken as far as necessary and a reasonable
conclusion had been reached. The asynchronous nature of the online discussion and the
extended time-frame available permitted a more thorough discussion than in the face-to-
face discussion with its time limit. The Problem Solving example clearly indicates that the
collective understanding of the nature of problem-solving had been significantly enhanced.
 Educational Action Research   13

Levels of participation
Table 1 shows that some members of the research group are either ‘reading only’ the infor-
mation in the posts and not sharing their viewpoints, or are not interacting through online
mechanisms. Anecdotal evidence of ‘corridor conferences’ to share this type of information
was not gathered specifically, but as a participant in these activities when the opportunity
arose I (Susan Salter) can say that these certainly occurred. However, the main difference in
these two forms of communication, posting online or spontaneous unplanned conversations,
has an interesting consequence. The spontaneous corridor conferences pre-empt the ability
to do immediate research into supporting evidence or, perhaps more importantly, for the
careful crafting of a response. The latter, being able to research an answer, is sometimes
necessary when the subject matter is new or not well known. Some of the respondents are
less comfortable in engaging in spontaneous public chat on a little-known topic. This would
then seem to beg the question as to why the discussion board option, which gave partici-
pants the opportunity to research before posting, was reasonably underutilised in terms of
active participation but was more commonly accessed as a ‘read only’ option. Professional
identity issues and what constitutes legitimate peripheral participation (Wenger 1998) in
this specific online format would be an area for future research.
There is extensive literature on levels of student participation in activities and forums
when taking online courses: Hew and Cheung (2012) have written a book-length review.
Teachers can find it frustrating if students do not participate in activities designed for specific
pedagogical purposes.
However, it is not clear to what extent these considerations apply when the discussion is
part of an action research project. The aim of enhancing collective understanding of a social
situation could be reached if only some of the participants took an active part by posting
online. The remainder could enhance their personal understanding by reading the posts.
There were three non-participants who neither read any online posts nor attended face-
to-face meetings. Some others, with low online participation statistics, were lively contrib-
utors to the face-to-face meeting discussions. Having discussions through the two modes
appears to have catered for individual differences. For a project with such a large initial group
of participants, the overall level of participation seems very respectable.

Strengths of synchronous and asynchronous discussion

In the final two sections of the article we return to the two research questions, to provide a
summary of what we have leant about them. Firstly, in this section we will consider the first
research question which sought to compare synchronous face-to-face discussion with asyn-
chronous online discussion.
Synchronous face-to-face discussion was important for generating interest and commit-
ment. It was successful in raising a wide range of relevant topics, and thus enabled the project
team to thoroughly explore the topic discussed. The sessions had an element of brainstorm-
ing. The discussions tended to move around as participants brought different perspectives
to bear.
The asynchronous online discussion was complementary in nature. It enabled a topic to
be explored more thoroughly and to reach some sort of conclusion. The critical reflective
14    S. Salter et al.

discussion occurred in more depth. Because the forum was arranged by threads, the discus-
sion on a theme was quite coherent.

Strategies for combining online and face-to-face reflective discussion

This final section reflects on our understanding of how the synchronous and asynchronous
discussion could work well in conjunction, and therefore addresses the second research
question. Through a series of cyclical action research cycles, the project evolved its under-
standing of how face-to-face critical reflective discussion could be enhanced by comple-
mentary online asynchronous discussion. The two media have complementary strengths;
so combining the two is advantageous. In this article we have provided evidence that using
the two media improved our practice in critical reflective discussion, thus enhancing our
understanding of the topic being researched in the wider umbrella project.
To help others explore the strategy for reflective discussion via online and face-to-face
communication, the following generalised steps represent our conclusions about how the
two media are best used in conjunction:

(1)  Call a face-to-face meeting on a specified topic.

(2)  Ask participants to post on the project discussion website, prior to the meeting,
any information which is likely to be helpful to the discussion.
(3)  Allow the face-to-face meeting to be wide ranging and raise and discuss any issues
which seem relevant. Our meetings tended to be like brainstorming sessions and
multiple aspects of the discussion topic were raised.
(4)  Record the results of the face-to-face discussions on the website as a series of
discussion forums with identified topics for project members to contribute to.
(5)  Use the discussion forums to explore topics in depth.
(6)  As with typical online forums, moderation of discussion is likely to be advantageous.
Attempts to summarise and draw conclusions are valuable.

If the scarcity of current journal literature relating to online reflective discussion within jour-
nals devoted to educational action research is a sign that this communication mode has not
been used widely, we would recommend others make use of this discussion format. In our
project, the more commonly used face-to-face discussion proved very adept at bringing out
a wide range of aspects relating to a topic. The asynchronous nature of online discussion,
however, provided an opportunity for a more thorough exploration of each of the topic
threads. The two modes therefore work very well in conjunction. The additional online dis-
cussions can be advantageous in attaining truly deep critical reflection.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Boud, D., R. Keogh, and D. Walker. 2013. Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Routledge.
Bridgstock, R. 2009. “The Graduate Attributes We’ve Overlooked: Enhancing Graduate Employability
through Career Management Skills.” Higher Education Research & Development 28 (1): 31–44.
 Educational Action Research   15

Brookfield, S. D. 2000. “Transformative Learning as Ideology Critique.” In Learning as Transformation:

Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress, edited by J. Mezirow, 125–148. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cook, T. 1998. “The Importance of Mess in Action Research.” Educational Action Research 6 (1): 93–109.
Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process.
Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.
Gibbs, P., P. Cartney, K. Wilkinson, J. Parkinson, S. Cunningham, C. James-Reynolds, T. Zoubir, et al. 2016.
Literature Review on the Use of Action Research in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Hager, P., and S. Holland, eds. 2007. Graduate Attributes, Learning and Employability (Vol. 6). Springer
Science & Business Media.
Halverson, I. R., C. R. Graham, K. J. Spring, J. S. Drysdale, and C. R. Henrie. 2014. “A Thematic Analysis of
the Most Highly Cited Scholarship in the First Decade of Blended Learning Research.” Internet and
Higher Education. 20: 20–34.
Hew, K. F., and W. S. Cheung. 2012. Student Participation in Online Discussions: Challenges, Solutions, and
Future Research. New York: Springer.
Hew, K. F., W. S. Cheung, and C. S. I. Ng. 2010. “Student Contribution in Asynchronous Online Discussion:
A Review of the Research and Empirical Exploration.” Instructional Science 38 (6): 571–606.
Hung, D., T. S. Chee, J. G. Hedberg, and K. Thiam Seng. 2005. “A Framework for Fostering a Community
of Practice:Scaffolding Learners through an Evolving Continuum.” British Journal of Educational
Technology 36 (2): 159–176.
Johnson, A. P. 2012. A Short Guide to Action Research. 4th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Kember, D. 2000. Action Learning and Action Research: Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning.
London: Kogan Page.
Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 1988. The Action Research Planner. 3rd ed. Geelong: Deakin University.
Khoo, E., and B. Cowie. 2011. “Cycles of Negotiation and Reflection: A Negotiated Intervention to
Promote Online Teacher Development.” Educational Action Research 19 (3): 345–361.
Kolb, D. A., R. E. Boyatzis, and C. Mainemelis. 2001. “Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research
and New Directions.” Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles 1: 227–247.
Kong, S. C. 2014. “Developing Information Literacy and Critical Thinking Skills through Domain
Knowledge Learning in Digital Classrooms: An Experience of Practicing Flipped Classroom Strategy.”
Computers and Education 78: 160–173.
Laurillard, D. 2008. “The Teacher as Action Researcher: Using Technology to Capture Pedagogic Form.”
Studies in Higher Education 33 (2): 139–154.
Lee, N. J. 2009. Using Group Reflection in an Action Research Study: When Group Reflection Was Used
in an Action Research Study, It Was Received Positively and Proved to Be a Valuable Component of
a Study of a Nurse-Led Unit in a Community Hospital, Explains Nancy-Jane Lee. Nurse Researcher
16 (2): 30–42.
Levine, T. H., and A. S. Marcus. 2010. “How the Structure and Focus of Teachers’ Collaborative Activities
Facilitate and Constrain Teacher Learning.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (3): 389–398.
Lewin, K. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2: 34–46.
Lewin, K. 1952. “Group Decision and Social Change.” In Readings in Social Psychology, edited by
G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, and F. E. Hartley, 197–211. New York: Holt.
Liu, X., R. J. Magjuka, C. J. Bonk, and S. Lee. 2007. “Does Sense of Community Matter?” The Quarterly
Review of Distance Education 8 (1): 9–24.
Lockhorst, D., W. Admiraal, and A. Pilot. 2010. “CSCL in Teacher Training: What Tasks Lead to Teacher
Collaboration?” Technology, Pedagogy and Education 19 (1): 63–78.
Loncar, M., N. E. Barrett, and G. Liu. 2014. “Towards the Refinement of Forum and Asynchronous Online
Discussion in Educational Contexts Worldwide: Trends and Investigative Approaches within a
Dominant Research Paradigm.” Computers and Education 73: 93–110.
Maor, D. 2003. “The Teacher’s Role in Developing Interaction and Reflection in an Online Learning
Community.” Educational Media International 40 (1-2): 127–138.
Markel, S.L. (2001). Technology and Education Online Discussion Forums: It’s in the Response. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2) Summer 2001. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/
ojdla/summer42/markel42.html.
 16    S. Salter et al.

Marzano, R. J. 1998. “What Are the General Skills of Thinking and Reasoning and How Do You Teach
Them?” The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 71 (5): 268–273.
Mason, R. B. 2011. “Student Engagement with, and Participation in, E-Forum.” Journal of Educational
Technology and Society 14 (2): 258–268.
McDougall, J. 2015. “The Quest for Authenticity: A Study of an Online Discussion Forum and the Needs
of Adult Learners.” Australian Journal of Adult Learning 55 (1): 94–113.
McKernan, J. 2013. Curriculum Action Research: A Handbook of Methods and Resources for the Reflective
Practitioner. London: Routledge.
Orvis, K. L., R. A. Wisher, C. J. Bonk, and T. M. Olson. 2002. “Communication Patterns during Synchronous
Web-Based Military Training in Problem Solving.” Computers in Human Behaviour 18: 783–795.
Ross, T. 2016. “Making Reflective Practice Visible: Supporting Shifts in Practice towards Personalized
Learning.” Master of Education thesis, University of Victoria, Canada.
Salmon, G. 2002. “Mirror, Mirror, on My Screen. Exploring Online Reflections.” British Journal of Educational
Technology 33 (4): 379–391.
Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Stringer, E. T. 2008. Action Research in Education. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson.
Swenson, J. 2003. “Transformative Teacher Networks, on-Line Professional Development, and the Write
for Your Life Project.” English Education 35 (4): 262–321.
Thang, S. M., C. Hall, P. Murugaiah, and H. Azman. 2011. “Creating and Maintaining Online Communities
of Practice in Malaysian Smart Schools: Challenging Realities.” Educational Action Research 19 (1):
87–105.
Tomlinson, M. 2012. “Graduate Employability: A Review of Conceptual and Empirical Themes.” Higher
Education Policy 25 (4): 407–431.
Waters-Adams, S. 2006. Action Research in Education. Plymouth: University of Plymouth. http://www.
edu.plymouth.ac.uk/RESINED/actionresearch/arhome.htm
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Whiteley, T. R. 2006. “Using the Socratic Method and Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain to
Enhance Online Discussion, Critical Thinking, and Student Learning.” Developments in Business
Simulation and Experiential Learning 33: 65–70.
Yanow, D., and H. Tsoukas. 2009. “What is Reflection-in-Action? A Phenomenological Account.” Journal
of Management Studies 46: 1339–1364. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00859.x.

View publication stats