Discussion Boards
Be creative with discussion boards:
· Lead a discussion based on an image, diagram, or video.
· Use VoiceThread to allow students to engage with images, videos, documents, and presentations. Students can draw on an image as well as leave audio and written comments (the components are synced when played back). More information on VoiceThread for collaboration is here.
· Create a “student lounge” discussion area which would serve the purpose of “off topic” questions, course assignment or procedural questions. A TA would need to monitor frequently.
· Provide a discussion wrap to summarize key concepts/outcomes. This is also useful when the class is divided into discussion board groups.
o Create a document summarizing the key concepts of the thread. This can be done by the TA or students; if the latter, this exercise can count towards a student’s overall participation grade in the class, if relevant to a syllabus grading rubric.
o Create an audio summary of each thread before opening up the next thread by using Voice Board, Voice Podcaster, or Voice Presentation within Sakai.
Discussion board management suggestions:
General Suggestions
· State clear expectations to students for discussion board participation (including assessment criteria and posting expectations/guidelines) (see below).
· To accommodate students who do the majority of their course work on the weekends, consider making the discussion topic open from Tuesday through Monday (vs. ending on Sunday).
· Do not open the next discussion board topic until that topic is addressed in the course. Do not have all threads available for posting immediately as this could result in students in posting initially and then not revisiting the discussion later.
· It is suggested that the minimum number of points for discussion board participation is about 15% (up to 35%). A rubric scoring system is recommended to determine points (desired characteristics: quantitative discussion contributions, responsiveness to discussion/demonstration of knowledge, and followed online protocols/grammar). Sharing the rubric requirements makes sure the students are aware of the expectations.
· Establish a pattern of faculty and/or TA interaction. For large classes, short but frequent interaction is suggested, i.e., “poke your head in.” Communicate your role (or TA’s) for each DB.
Limit the Number of Posts:
· Require each student to post one initial post and at least two "responses" to others. In the initial post, address the question or issue but also make use of what others have already posted. There should be little to no repetition in the initial posts so students need to get a sense of what is already being discussed before leaping into the discussion. Set a deadline for these initial posts.
o If you want peer to peer interaction, have students post their first response to the discussion topic by midweek and the remaining time the discussion area is open for that topic should be used to respond to peers.
§ Students are required to post three substantive original comments by mid-week and three responses to other student comments by the end of the week.
o Discourage last-minute posting.
· For larger classes, reduce the minimum number of postings per topic. Weigh the participation grade more heavily on content and quality (vs. quantity).
· Provide discreet time periods for each thread. Do not keep a thread open for an extended period of time.
o Discussions are typically advised to be open for one week; however, given the DEL 2-week module format, a two-week discussion board may be more appropriate.
· In a large class, consider dividing the class into groups of 5-10. The groups can be mixed up mid-semester.
o Each group could then provide a final summary/wrap-up post about their highlights/learning outcomes. (x number of words or less)
Limit the Length of Posts:
· Requiring students to make substantive comments can sometimes help but you also want to encourage students to be succinct. Remind students that if they write too many posts or posts that are too long, students won't read them. Encourage them to spread posts out over the duration of the discussion area (i.e., don’t get all posts “done” in first day).
· Put a word limit on posts (however, it may be more appropriate to provide guidance on number of posts required, assessment criteria (rubric), provide students with posting guidelines (see below), and/or have short, but frequent faculty/TA interaction within discussion boards (to keep them “honest” and on track).
Suggested Discussion Board Guidelines to Share with Students:
These guidelines can be shared with your students in a syllabus and/or in the Forums section of Sakai. Modify as appropriate.
· Participate in online discussion boards as you would in constructive, face-to-face discussions. There should be little to no repetition in the initial posts so it is important to get a sense of what is already being discussed before leaping into the discussion.
· Postings should continue a conversation and provide avenues for additional continuous dialogue.A good post includes:
o What do you think?
o What would you do?
o What problem or challenge will follow the original question?
· Do not post “I agree,” or similar, statements. Expand by bringing in related examples, concepts, and experiences.
· Stay on the topic of the DB thread – do not stray.
· Indicate the main thought of your post in the subject line.
· Do not just post a link to another document/source. Provide a synopsis/highlight of the linked reference. Incorporate quotations and include the reference and page numbers, etc.
· Weave into your posting related prior personal knowledge gained from experience, prior coursework, discussions, or readings.
· Do not post just to post. Do not repeat what has already been stated. Be sure your post addresses a new opinion or thought not yet discussed.
· Characteristics of quality online discussion postings (adapted from Quality Online Messages, St. John’s University):
o Substantial – posts should relate to the topic and provide information, opinions, or questions
o Concise – messages should be clear. Lengthy messages do not get many replies
o Provocative – prompts others to reply or object
o Explanatory – explore, explain or expand on a concept of connection
o Timely – Participate/read the DB regularly and reply in a timely fashion. Posting initial responses by the middle of the week gives other students time to respond.
o Logical – contain a clearly stated conclusion supported by premises, reason, evidence
o Grammatical – good, clear, concise post free of typos and fragments (similar to the tone and manner you would use within a professional environment). Do not use all caps.
· Online communication lacks verbal cues. Respond carefully, be clear, and keep your sentences and posts brief.
Sample Grading Rubric
This grading rubric is an example (Dr. Chris Wedding). Modify as appropriate. Additional grading rubrics are available via the School of Nursing Online Teaching Guide.
Each 2-week module will be graded using the rubric below. (Note that each week a volunteer will summarize the discussion). A post should be a minimum of one short paragraph and a maximum of two paragraphs.Word totals for each post should be in the 75-150 words range. This is intended to serve as a guideline; however, content and quality will be the major considerations when assigning grades.
“A” Discussion – minimum of 6-7 posts per module
A-level postings:
· Are made in a timely fashion, giving others an opportunity to respond.
· Are thoughtful and analyze the content or question asked.
· Make connections to the course content and/or other experiences.
· Integrate outside resources, including websites, news articles, and other reports that you have read.
· Motivate group discussion, and present a creative approach to the topic.
· Extend discussions already taking place or pose new possibilities or opinions not previously voiced.
“B” Discussion – minimum of 5-6 posts per module
B-level postings:
· Are made in a timely fashion, giving others an opportunity to respond.
· Are thoughtful and analyze the content or question asked.
· Make connections to the course content and/or other experiences, but connections are unclear, not firmly established or are not obvious.
· Include outside resources, including websites, news articles, and other reports that you have read, but they are not well described in the post or thoroughly integrated into the conversation.
· Contain novel ideas, connections, and/or real-world application but lack depth, detail and/or explanation.
“C” Discussion – minimum of 4 posts per module
C-level postings:
· Are not made in a timely fashion.
· The information delivered is limited.
· Make vague or incomplete connections between class content and posting by other students.
· Summarize what other students have posted and contain few novel ideas.
The following is an example from Curdie communicating the requirements for a student to earn full points on a discussion board post:
· Initial postings are completed early in the week
· Follow up posts (generally more than the minimum of one per discussion) are timely
· Content is complete, on-point, thoughtful, and offers new ideas. Supporting detail is abundant and appropriate (i.e., references from the pieces read and/or other sources)
· Content often encourages further discussion on the topic or follows up on others’ thoughts
· Postings are characterized by originality, engagement, and relevance to the topic
· Postings demonstrate an understanding of the material assigned and familiarity with the ideas of the student’s partner and group members (in other words – it’s obvious that you’ve read and understood both the literature assigned and what your peers have written in their postings).
Sources for discussion board information:
Academic technology center: teaching with technology collaboratory. (2010). Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/ATC/Collaboratory/Idea/boards.html.
Boettcher, J.V., & Conrad, R. (2010). The online teaching survival guide. Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Curdie, S. (2010, April 8). Online discussion boards: assessing what’s important. Faculty Focus. http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-discussion-boards-assessing-whats-important/.
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching online: A practical guide (3rd ed.). New York, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Vidra, Rebecca. Mellon Lecturing Fellow with The Thompson Writing Program, Duke University.
Revised 120512