DEOSNEWS Vol. 2  No. 1.
Copyright 1992 DEOS - The Distance Education Online Symposium
   
Editor: Morten Flate Paulsen, MFP101@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Review: Philip W. Pinder
   
DEOS was established with a grant from the Annenberg/CPB Project.
   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
EDITORIAL
   
     I recently read three interesting publications about distance educa-
tion and computer-mediated communication. Empowering Networks: Computer
Conferencing in Education, edited by Michael D. Waggoner (1992), is
available from Educational Technology Publications for USD 34.95. The book
comprises ten individual articles describing a variety of educational
projects based on computer conferencing in the U.S.A.
   
     Computer Mediated Communications: Bulletin Boards, Computer Conferen-
cing, Electronic Mail, and Information Retrieval, written by Matthew
Rapaport (1991) is published in New York by John Wiley & Sons. I payed USD
34.95 for the book in a local book store. It is a comprehensive, technical
book, focusing on the gamut of cmc applications and their features. The
book was especially appealing to me, since I six years ago designed EKKO,
the computer conferencing software used for distance education at the NKI
College in Oslo, Norway. I recommend the book to people who are responsible
for purchase, design, implementation, or operation of cmc systems.
   
     In June 1991, I attended an International Symposium on Computer
Conferencing at the Ohio State University. The conference proceedings,
Applications of Computer Conferencing to Teacher Education and Human
Resource Development, is now available. While supplies last, it can be
ordered from: The Center on Education and Training for Employment, Publica-
tions Office, The Ohio State University, 1900 Kenny Road, Columbus, Ohio
43210. Telephone (614) 292-4353 or (800) 848-4815. The cost is USD $4.00.
For more information, contact Aaron J. Miller (amiller+@osu.edu), editor of
the proceedings.
   
     This issue of DEOSNEWS focuses on the conference proceedings by
presenting the e-mail addresses of authors who have agreed to respond to
questions and comments about their articles; a list of the papers, and
finally, Mark E. Eisley's paper "Guidelines for Conducting Instructional
Discussions on a Computer Conference". Be aware that Eisley's figures are
not included here.
   
   
LIST OF PAPERS AND E-MAIL ADDRESSES
   
Michael G. Moore <n0g@psuvm.psu.edu>. Computer Conferencing in the Context
of Theory and Practice of Distance Education
   
Alex Cruz <acruz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>. An Introduction to Computer
Conferencing: A Look at Software Available in the Academic World
   
Donald R. McNeil. Delivering Credit Courses By Computer and Other Observa-
tions
   
Edward B. Yarrish. The Fully Electronic University; or, Mind Expansion
without Drugs
   
Linda Harasim <linda_harasim@sfu.ca>. Teaching by Computer Conferencing
   
Mark E. Eisley <aiteisle@idbsu>. Guidelines for Conducting Instructional
Discussions on a Computer Conference
   
Robin Mason <rd_mason@vax.acs.open.ac.uk>. Developing a Learning Community
in Distance Education
   
Larry Hudson, Robert Paugh <76557.1057@compuserv.com>, and Phyllis Olm-
stead. Extending the RJ-11 Connection for Audio and Computer Conferencing
   
Constance Pollard and Valerie Akeyo. Telecommunications Networks in Action:
An Inter-university Project
   
Paul E. Post <post.1@osu.edu>. Electronic Mail, Conferencing, and Student
Teaching
   
James T. Roberson, Jr.<roberson@fordmulc.bitnet>. A Focus Group Report on
Religious On-Line Education
   
Ronald M. Stammen <stammen@plains.nodak.edu>. Research and Development
Activities Regarding Opportunities and Problems with Computer Conferencing
for Rural America
   
Robert M. Torres <rtorres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Wesley E. Budke,
Charles M. Loyd, N. L. McCaslin, and Aaron J. Miller <amiller+@osu.edu>.
Examining Computer Conferencing as a Technique for Enhancing Personnel
Development Activities
   
   
   
   
            GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING INSTRUCTIONAL DISCUSSIONS
                         ON A COMPUTER CONFERENCE
   
                             By Mark E. Eisley
                          Boise State University
   
   
A Graduate Program Based on Computer Conferencing
   
   
Overview
   
     Boise State University (BSU) offers an entire graduate degree through
distance education, and more specifically, through computer conferencing.
It is the M.S. degree in Instructional and Performance Technology (IPT).
This is currently the only degree program offered by the university which
can be completed either through traditional, on-campus classes or through
an entirely nonresident option. In terms of its delivery method and scope,
it is one of the first of its kind in the entire world.
     Both the traditional and the nonresident IPT options prepare students
for careers in the areas of instructional design, job performance improve-
ment, human resources, training, and training management. Such careers
exist in a variety of settings, such as business, industry, education, the
military, and private consulting.  Students learn how to design and
evaluate both instructional and noninstructional interventions aimed at
improving human performance.
   
   
Time--and Location--Flexible Classes
   
     Students all over the North American continent (and a few overseas)
participate in BSU's IPT program from their home locations through distance
education classes. A number of IPT students local to the Boise area also
prefer to take the courses we once called "distance courses." The irony of
"local" students taking "distance" courses led us to realize that the
critical attribute of these classes was not the "distance," but their time
flexibility and their location flexibility. Thus we had to coin a new term
which more aptly describes the central element of these nontraditional
classes. The term selected was time--and location--flexible (TLF) classes.
The increased accuracy of this terminology does not, however, negate the
fact that the majority of students enrolled in TLF courses do in fact
reside far away from Boise. While they are sprinkled all over North
America, most of our distant students live on the east coast. Four of them
live in Canada (from British Columbia to Nova Scotia). From application to
diploma, most of our students never set foot on the BSU campus. We are set
up to grant diplomas to students whom we will never meet face to face.
     TLF classes are conducted by computer conferencing (via personal com-
puters and telephone connections). TLF classes are distinct from corre-
spondence courses in many important ways. Two of these are: (a) each
student in the class sees the questions and comments of all the rest of the
students in a natural flow of normal class discussion; and (b) interaction
between teacher and student and among peer students is much more immediate
and natural than possible through mailing systems. Computer conferencing
permits (and encourages) a high level of interaction among class members.
     TLF classes are delivered through a combination of media in addition
to the medium of computer conferencing. For example, for any given course,
the media used might include printed materials, videotapes, audio tapes,
computer-assisted instruction, other computer tools (such as authoring
systems, data bases, etc.), slow-scan video, facsimiles, and personal
telephone contact.
     The distance option of the IPT program uses the same admission
standards, instructors, and required courses as the on-campus option.
However, the tuition is higher than for on-campus classes, and special
equipment is required. The curriculum lends itself to students taking one
or two courses per semester (including the summer session) in order to
complete the program in two to four years.
     In order to be admitted to the distance option, applicants must own or
have convenient access (a minimum of 2 hours per day, 5 days per week) to a
complete computer system which includes the following components: an
IBM-compatible computer with at least 20 megabytes of available hard drive
space and color graphics (EGA or better) capability; a Hayes-compatible
modem (2400 BAUD recommended); either a 3.5" floppy drive or the means to
convert 3.5" floppies to whatever size and density typically used by the
applicant. Distance students are encouraged (but not required) to gain
access to a fax machine for both sending and spontaneous receiving.
     The distance option is fully accredited by the Northwest Association
of Schools and Colleges (NASC). Distance students in the program have been
enthusiastic about the rigor and value of their academic experience. The
distance option clearly meets the needs of busy professionals who are
seeking to increase their knowledge, skills, and credibility in the
training profession, but cannot relocate to attend traditional graduate
courses. (The appendix at the end of this report gives the comments of
several students regarding the value and effectiveness of the TLF classes.)
   
   
Communication Architecture
   
     Various types of communication software available on host computers
enable participants to communicate with one another via text transmitted
through modems and phone lines. These can be grouped into three major
categories: those designed for E-mail (electronic mail), those designed for
bulletin boards, and those designed for conferencing per se. All three
forms of communication architecture operate asynchronously. That is,
participants need not log onto the host computer at the same time in order
to communicate. Senders' messages are stored on the host for later access
by receivers.
   
   
E-Mail
   
     Figure 1 illustrates how E-mail works in actuality. Each user is
connected to the host computer by network cable or phone line. In distance
education, the link is through modem and phone line. Participants are not
linked directly to one another. Rather, they are all linked to the hub
constituted by the host computer. However, as Figure 2 shows, it feels to
the user as though there is a direct link with every other user on the
system. (If Figure 2 were complete with an arrow drawn in from each user to
every other user, the figure would be nearly illegible; but that would more
truly represent the number of private connections felt by the users.) With
E-mail, senders relay private messages to system users one at a time. The
best metaphor for such a communication system is, as the name "electronic
mail" suggests, mailed correspondence.
   
   
Bulletin Boards
   
     Electronic bulletin boards are one step higher in the hierarchy of
communication architecture, because in addition to private mail capabil-
ities, bulletin boards are built for handling public communication. Let it
be pointed out here that "public" communications are possible through most
simple E-mail software programs, but the method of accomplishing such is
laborious. A sender would have to either manually send a separate copy of a
message to each user on the system, or make use of "mailing lists" if the
software permits. The nomenclature and command structure of E-mail are not
really designed to perform bulletin type communication.
Figure 3 illustrates how an electronic bulletin board, much like the
physical one in the student union, can be divided into separate areas where
various bulletins are posted. Such organization does help to reduce the
otherwise overwhelming task of navigating through numerous unrelated
bulletins. However, within each subject area, comments can be addressed
randomly and do not constitute a serial discussion. Thus bulletins do not
lend themselves ideally to emulation of classroom discussion. This is not
to say that they cannot be used as a vehicle for integrated, focused,
linear discussions--but to use them for such takes a great deal of manage-
ment and discipline on the part of the users. Again, the software is really
designed with a nomenclature, command structure, and function set which
best meets the purpose of posting bulletins, not conducting discussions.
   
   
Computer Conferencing
   
     True conferencing software is the ideal supporter of instructional
discussions which "feel like" a real classroom discussion. In fact, the
transcript of an on-line discussion reads just like a transcription of an
audio recording of a discussion held among students and teacher meeting
simultaneously in the same physical classroom. The difference experienced
by the computer conferencing participant is that the time required for the
discussion to evolve is a period of days or weeks, rather than a period of
an hour or so. For this reason, it is advisable to conduct several slowly
unfolding discussions simultaneously. In this manner it is possible to hold
the same number of asynchronous discussions within in the same semester
time frame as are normally held by meeting in a classroom for an hour three
times per week for synchronous discussions.
     Figure 4 compares computer conferencing to a series of related letters
to the editor in a newspaper. In such a series the sequence in which
contributions to the discussion are made is important. Persons reading
letter 3 will understand it better if they have read letters 1 and 2 first.
The letters constitute responses to one another in a chronological order.
Time (at least a day) elapses between each response. Several such chains of
discussion can be unfolding in the newspaper simultaneously. The process is
very similar to computer conferencing, except that the medium is electronic
rather than paper. Another appreciated difference is that many contribu-
tions can be made to any given discussion in a day's time frame.
     The special kind of software available to support a true conferencing
environment contains features which lend themselves to concurrent chains of
discussion responses. They also contain all the facilities needed for
bulletin boarding and E-mail. The IPT program at BSU uses all three levels
of features (conferencing, bulletins, and E-mail) in conducting TLF
courses. The program does not make much use of the software's bulletin-type
potential to do lecturing, mostly because students prefer paper-based
readings/lectures which are more time-enduring, annotatable, highlightable,
and physically referable. The program does make extensive use of the
software's E-mail capability for private student interaction, personal
concerns between student and teacher, submission of assignments and return
of personal feedback on tests and assignments, etc. But for BSU, computer
conferencing actually finds its highest and most distinctive application in
conducting "classroom" discussions.
     In the BSU program, discussions on several discrete topics occur
during the course of a semester. Some of these overlap time-wise or occur
simultaneously. Examples of titles for such discussions are given in Figure
5.
   
   
Making Discussions Effective
   
     There are two key principles for effectively guiding the use of
computer conferencing discussions for instruction:
   
1.   Design the discussion ahead of time.
2.   Manage the discussion in process.
   
     If either of these steps is omitted, computer conferencing discussions
tend to wander aimlessly. The resulting discussion may turn out to be
interesting, but minimally productive.
   
   
Designing Discussions Ahead of Time
   
     With regard to designing the discussion ahead of time, the following
advice is given:
   
1.   Tie discussion plans to your objectives.
2.   Make sure your points get made.
3.   Structure the discussion.
   
   
Tieing Discussion Plans to Objectives
   
     Obviously, a first step in tieing discussion plans to objectives is to
establish what you hope the student will learn. Libraries of material exist
on this aspect of planning discussion, and do not need to be discussed
here. It is sufficient to point out that once objectives are established,
it is important to design your discussion plans around whatever purposes
you have in mind. College instructors can easily be more topic-oriented
than objective-oriented in conducting classroom discussions. The same is
true in computer conferencing discussions, but the consequences seem to
involve even more entropy than results in a traditional classroom. Just
having students bring up any points they may in an on-line discussion to
help "cover the topic" ends up being very low-grade instructional ore. In
order to tie discussion plans to one's objectives, it is important to
determine which of the "phases of instruction" the discussion is aimed at.
Phases of instruction have been described in a number of ways by a number
of authors. One simple schema contains the following five steps:
   
1.   Preparation
2.   Presentation
3.   Practice with Feedback
4.   Evaluation
5.   Follow Up
   
     Determining which of the phases of instruction you are trying to
conduct using computer conferencing helps you to gain a clear view as to
what you hope to achieve in the discussion.  For example, if you are in the
"preparation" phase, your goal will be to arouse interest, to review
prerequisite material, or to tie the new discussion in with what has
preceded it in the course. These goals are quite different from a dis-
cussion which is aimed at the "practice with feedback" phase for the same
unit or topic. And so the way the instructor designs and manages the
discussion will be quite different in different phases of addressing the
same topic or learning objective.
   
   
Making Your Point
   
     After first planning the discussion objectives, it then does become
appropriate to focus a bit on content. One of the activities of the
planning stage for an on-line discussion is, in fact, to plan what points
you hope will be brought out in the discussion. Creating a list of these
points does three things: (1) It helps you see more clearly ways you can
stimulate students to bring out or discover those points without you having
to spoon feed them. (2) It allows you to manage the discussion more
efficiently. (3) While conducting a discussion, checking your list to see
if all your points have been brought out gives you some clue as to whether
to end the discussion and go on to a new one.
   
   
Structuring the Discussion
   
     Structuring the discussion involves four main activities:
   
1.   Focusing the content.
2.   Specifying the format.
3.   Avoiding structures which invite nonresponsive communication.
4.   Avoiding structures which invite redundancy.
   
   
Focusing the Content
   
     The introduction to a discussion tells students exactly what you want
them to do. It is in your "kick-off" statement that you communicate the
structure, format, and rules of the discussion. In an introduction, the
boundaries on the content need to be fairly narrow, otherwise the dis-
cussion will wander. For example, "In this item, let's discuss self-este-
em," would invite such broad discussion that there would be little direc-
tion or cohesiveness. A more content-focused introduction would be, "How
does self-esteem affect the success of incentive systems? Please give
examples."
   
   
Avoiding Nonresponsive Communication
   
     It is all too easy to fall into the trap of giving an introductory
statement which invites too much self-referenced communication. This means
that the discussion inputs of each student will refer only to his or her
own experience or viewpoint. Comments on their peers' contributions are
minimized. Each response is independent of all others. It produces a
nonresponsive environment which is a little akin to the bulletin board
environment where there is no sequence or dialogue to the individual items
posted. Sometimes this is desirable (such as with, "Each of you give an
example of bias in interpreting data."), but more often it is not. An
example of an introductory statement which almost demands that students be
responsive to one another is, "Work together to propose a group recommenda-
tion on how to improve the feedback system in the EverRite case study."
   
   
Avoiding Structures Which Invite Redundancy
   
     If in the introduction to a discussion you imply that each student
should give an answer regardless of how redundant it may be with other
students' answers, you set the discussion on a course for low productivity
and boredom. For example, if you say "Each of you give a definition of
efficiency," you are likely to get 20 repetitions of essentially the same
definition. It would be better to say, "Each of you suggest a way your
employer could be more efficient. Please comment on one anothers' sugges-
tions regarding how well you think they would work and whether you have
tried something similar."
   
   
Specifying the Format
   
     Some of the discussion formats which you might wish to try are
described below. These formats help to keep discussions interesting,
focused, and productive. Rather than define the formats, they are ident-
ified with a title and then illustrated with an example of the type
introductory statement that might be used.
   
     The critique. "Here is a sample proposal for a formative evaluation
study. Please point out its strengths and weaknesses. What would you do to
improve it? Each of you make only one or two comments until others have
also had a chance to respond. In other words, please do not try to do the
whole critique yourself!
   
     The group report. "Susan, Linda, Fred, Daniel and Jan: Please work
together under a restricted conference and research the various methods of
doing cost assessments for instructional programs. Summarize your results
and report them back to the group under discussion #24. Once you report,
the rest of the class will be invited to ask questions of you five."
   
     Twenty questions. "Pretend I am your client and you are an instruc-
tional designer. Please interview me in a group interview to try to narrow
down what I really need you to develop for me. I will give you a first clue
and then you should ask clarifying questions to arrive at what it is I
really want. (This clue is a request I actually received once!) CLUE: We
want you to make us a video tape on how to do maintenance work on our new
line of printers."
   
     The poll. "Each of you register your vote privately with me (use
E-mail) on the following issue: Can you have efficiency without effective-
ness? I will only reveal the poll results and will not reveal how specific
individuals voted."
   
     Timed disclosure. "In one paragraph, please defend why you do or do
not think parties who are not paying for an evaluation should have a say in
what the evaluation addresses. Send your justification to me by private
message. At a certain point in time I will share all of the arguments and
their authors, but I do not want you to be too influenced by what others
are saying until you have all had a chance to respond. After I've received
all your paragraphs, you'll have the opportunity to comment on one an-
other's rationale."
   
     The assigned debate. "John, Maxine, Larry, and Todd: please take (such
and such) a position. Lucile, Corinne, Lee, and Frank: you take the
opposite side. Now please debate the issue."
   
     Free association. "I'm not going to structure this discussion too
much--we're just exploring ideas to peak your interest in the topic of
consulting. What are your thoughts and ideas on this subject?"
   
     The hot seat. "Zach, your in the hot seat now! I want the rest of the
class to ask you questions about why you selected naturalistic inquiry as
the method for your evaluation proposal."
   
     The Socratic dialog. "Class, we're going to bat this one back and
forth. First I'll ask a question, then one of you answer. Then I'll ask the
next question and someone else answer, and so on. Every other comment will
be from the instructor (unless there's something you've just got to break
in and say or ask!)"
   
     The shot gun. "This discussion is to get you thinking about a lot of
related topics relating to the differences between training and education.
I'm going to raise them all at once and you answer which ever ones appeal
to you personally: Ready? here goes:" This is then followed by a set of
perhaps ten related questions.
   
     Go around the circle. "Let's go around the 'circle' and each of you
tell the class why you selected this major. After each of you has re-
sponded, we'll close this item and move on.
   
     Guided discovery. "Class, rather than give you the conclusions Stumpps
and Grig laboriously came to about the use of CAI, I will tell you the
first thing they learned and ask you to raise succeeding questions. Each
time you hit on a question they raised and answered, I will give you the
results of their research."
   
     Blind man's bluff. "Since evaluation is primarily a technical process,
what part does politics play in evaluation?" In this case the initial
premise is purposely misleading and students will eventually bring out the
point that evaluation is only partially a technical process and that it is
also largely a political activity as well as a human communications
activity.
   
   
Managing the Discussion in Process
   
     Once a discussion is appropriately designed, using the principles
outlined above, it is also necessary in the implementation stage to manage
the discussion. Entropy abounds in on-line discussion. It takes the
constant addition of energy to the system on the part of the instructor to
keep the discussion on course. Students are often not disciplined at
following directions explicitly. They need to be reminded and guided.
Management techniques such as the following may be required.
   
1.  Reinforce good discussant behaviors by saying things on-line, like
"Thanks for responding so effectively to Judith's question, Barry."
   
2.  Request change in poor discussant behaviors by tactfully pointing out
the preferable behavior. For example, "Class, I would like to reiterate my
request that you be more directly responsive to one another's comments."
   
3.  Spur participation when lagging by directly requesting it. For example,
"I notice that not many of you have commented on this issue. Let's have a
little more response in this discussion."
   
4.  Move misplaced content. If a student makes a contribution under the
wrong discussion heading, move it immediately. Many students do not bother
watching what the original intent of the discussion was and may follow the
errant lead of the student who misplaced their contribution.
   
5.  Vary who participates by privately asking the overly outspoken to wait
a few responses before contributing, privately asking less outspoken
individuals to participate more actively, and calling on specific individ-
uals just as a teacher might call on a student in a traditional class to
respond.
   
6.  Occasionally, have a student conduct the discussion.
   
7.  Summarize occasionally throughout the discussion, especially if it is a
lengthy one.
   
8.  Handle tangents appropriately. For example, "Lynne, that's a great
issue you brought up, but let's get back to the original topic. If some of
you want to discuss Lynne's issue with her, please do so under the open
discussion #27.
   
9.  Give a decisive end to each discussion. Don't let discussions drag on
after they have served their purpose, since doing so will distract from
other discussions where students should be focusing.
   
=================================================================================
   

Top of Page

The American Center for the Study of Distance Education (ACSDE)
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education
110 Rackley Building
University Park, PA 16802-3202
Phone (814) 863-3764  FAX (814) 865-5878
ACSDE@psu.edu
www.ed.psu.edu/ACSDE

©2001 The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education