Keeping the Thread: Helping Distance Students and Instructors Keep Track of Asynchronous Discussions.

Successful learning in a discursive interaction demands that participants be able to follow the interaction from its beginning to its end; instruction on Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALNs) poses challenges because, unlike in face-to-face interaction, not all messages are serial. This paper offers strategies and techniques to help ALN teachers and students keep the thread of a prolonged, asynchronous discussion. Ways in which face-to-face conversational practice works to ensure the shared understanding of all the interactions are described, including turn taking, repair, overlap, and formulations. How asynchronous interactions may violate these practices and inhibit the construction of shared understanding is then addressed, including the loss of conversational practice in turn taking and overlap, turn taking and indexical repairs, and turn taking and formulations. The following two methods for communicating in asynchronous interactions in order to preserve face-to-face conversational practices and permit students to engage in discursive learning are proposed: using strategic snipping to simulate conversational overlaps, and using formulations and indexical repairs to emulate conversational practice. Two figures illustrate the graphical conversation network and the threaded topic listing. (DLS) ******************************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ******************************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) O This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. O Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Keeping the Thread: Helping Distance Students and Instructors Keep Track of Asynchronous Discussions Donald J. Winiecki, Ed.D. , Assistant Professor Department of Instructional & Performance Technology Boise State University Yonnie Chyung, Ed.D. , Adjunct Professor Department of Instructional & Performance Technology Boise State University Introduction "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY C.H. Olgren TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC). " Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALNs) are a system of distance education in which the instructor and students interact through computer conferencing software and modem or network connections. An ALN is characterized by interactions that follow a many-to-many pattern (teacher and students "talking" to the entire class, and to individual students at the same time). This is unlike conventional face-to-face graduate school classrooms in which there is typically a one-to-many interaction (from teacher to students) with only occasional one-to-one (student to teacher) interactions. ALNs are well suited to the delivery of instruction to students in widely separated geographic areas because there is no need for students and teacher to be together in one place at one time. Students and teacher can log in to the computer-mediated classroom at any time and send messages to each other with the certainty that their messages will be delivered to their recipient(s), and that the recipient(s) will read and respond to them at some time in the future. Because of this interactive pattern, ALNs have been associated with constructivist learning methods in which the teacher acts as a more capable peer (MCP) (Vygotsky, 1978) to assist learners as they actively negotiate an understanding of curricular content. This instructional method has also been described as "discursive" (Laurillard, 1993). Successful learning in a discursive interaction demands that the interactants are able to "follow" the interaction from its beginning to its end. This is because the discursive negotiation of understanding may traverse a very circuitous path as the teacher and students search for ways to communicate and understand embedded concepts, knowledge and skill. In the course of this, interactants develop ad hoc terms, and phrases to describe very personalized examples and inside-humor that are hallmarks of this kind of interaction. Entering such a discursive lesson part way through, and without the historical knowledge to decode the dialog might leave the learner lost and unable to understand the conversation. However, in face to face interactions, there are many tacit verbal practices that permit interactants to keep track and update, or even to repair gaps in understanding, in a conversation (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998). Many of these practices are founded on the serialized turn taking of face-to-face interaction (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998). ALN instruction that follows a discursive method imposes similar demands on students and teachers, but unlike face-to-face interaction all messages in an ALN are not serial. Instead, messages on 2 Keeping the Thread 451 one or many other topics may be received and read in any order and it is up to the interactants to piece together, the meaning of these non-sequential messages. Students and teachers alike, indicate that this is one of the most difficult components in asynchronous instructional environments. Thus, one common problem is following the "thread" of an asynchronous discussion that is transacted between many persons over time. Losing the thread of asynchronous discussions can leave students and teachers confused and have harmful effects on students' motivation to learn. This paper will offer strategies and techniques to help ALN teachers and students "keep the thread" of a prolonged, asynchronous discussion. Discussion In this section of the paper, we describe the ways in which face-to-face conversational practice works to ensure the shared understanding of all interactions. We also describe how asynchronous interactions may violate these practices and inhibit the construction of shared understanding. Finally, we propose methods for communicating in asynchronous interactions that preserve face-to-face conversational practices and permit students in an ALN to engage in "discursive" learning (Laurillard, 1993). Face-to-Face Conversations In synchronous communication, all interactants are aware of (a) the contents of each utterance and action, and (b) the sequence of utterances and actions (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998; Mehan, 1980; 1979; Hymes, 1974). Each utterance is a response to its immediate predecessor and the ideas codified in each utterance are indexical (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998; Garfinkel, 1967) to the entire sequence of ideas encapsulated in the discussion. As a result of their participation in a discussion, interactants acquire knowledge of it over time, and while the interaction is taking place. Entering the discussion "part way through" may leave a person unsure of what is being discussed, and what has been mentioned previously. However, there are tacit practices that interactants use to repair breaks in understanding or recall, and similar techniques that are used to narrow or alter the focus of a face-to-face interaction (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998). These practices and techniques can be used to assist interactants in keeping the thread of an ongoing conversation and even to catch up if it is necessary to refer to an earlier conversation or event, in the current dialog (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998). Keeping the thread in face to face conversations. In face to face interactions, members of a conversation rely on several tacit practices of communication, to maintain a continuity of messages and a mutual understanding of others in the conversation and the topic(s) being discussed: (a) turn taking, (b) repair, (c) overlap, and (d) formulations. Turn taking is so basic to conversation that it is almost unnoticeableone person speaks, then another speaks, etc. However, this is so obvious that we might dismiss its necessity. The information embedded in each turn of a conversation is used like bricks and mortar to build a scaffold for constructing shared knowledge that is accessible to all interactants. A side effect of turn taking is that each utterance occurs in a relatively rapid sequence. According to the psychological principle of primacy-recency, this implies that interactants are most able to 452 4 Winiecki & Chyung recall the beginning of the conversation, and the most recent utterancesbut to forget what was said in between. If we did indeed forget these "middle" messages, conversations would not be very effective in transmitting quantities of information. Conversational repairs are used to fix troubles in communication. One such repair is to overcome the difficulty in remembering middle messages. This is accomplished through the use of indexical statements that refer back to things that were said earlier in the conversation, or before the present conversation. For example, the following is an example of an indexical reference that prompts the listener to recall something in order to understand the current statement. The bolded and italic text, marks the indexical repair: A: I'm worried that I don't understand exactly what (the teacher) wants in the project. I might do it in a way that he doesn't like, and. B: Okay, but you also said that we can turn in a draft copy and get feedback so we can revise the paper before the deadline. By repairing the conversation in this way, prior (and perhaps forgotten) utterances are brought back into the discussion so that the interactants remain aware of important topics or subtopics. Thus, even though the psychological principle of primacy-recency forecasts a potential problem, conversational practices have evolved to mitigate and prevent it from actually causing a problem. In conversations that include more than two persons, the desire to take a turn can be