Ohio Communication Association

To some students, informed, civil discussion is normal in a social media forum. The internet provides a ripe environment for meaningful discourse when we allow it to! When the students are thoughtful, the medium is natural to them, and their participation is voluntary, amazing conversation can take flight.

Late last fall, while avoiding the electronic stack of papers piled in my “needs grading” box, I spent some time perusing my Facebook newsfeed when a conversation caught my eye. One of my students had posted an article reporting an Oberlin College student’s petition to institute a “no-fail mercy period” in light of the racially-charged events of the fall semester (see http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/oberlin_college_denies_request.html for the full article). Along with the link, he presented some comments related to the nature of education and grades more generally. What followed was an informed, civil discussion among other COMM students debating current events and higher education. One student even corrected a typo in the news story.

Fast forward a month or two, and we come to my first grading of the spring semester – a contemporary issues forum in my senior capstone course. The designated leader of the week’s online forum posted a news story about a privacy infringement in a Virginia rental home (see http://fox8.com/2015/01/16/tenant-girlfriend-sue-landlord-over-what-they-found-in-clock-radio/ if you’re curious). Over the next six days, the other students in the class discussed issues of privacy in a new media age, when content can be so easily published for a mass audience. The students brought up communication theories and concepts that may shed light on the issue, and the forum leader managed the discussion by synthesizing ideas and posing new directions to consider.

As I graded this first contemporary issues forum, my heart swelled. No really, it did. You see, I teach a face-to-face (FtF) lab that accompanies an online course out of the Kent campus where sophomore COMM majors participate in online discussions for grades, most for the very first time. I also teach a sophomore-level online Interpersonal Communication course with graded online discussions. My junior FtF Gender and Communication students facilitate online, graded discussions as well. After reading forum after forum of shallow participation, it was so encouraging to finally see depth in an online discussion. There is some hope that by their senior year, our students might finally get it!

But before I could pat myself on the back for the fabulous teaching that must have led to their successful engagement in an online discussion, I was taken back to that Facebook discussion I had observed the semester before. It dawned on me… To some students, informed, civil discussion is normal in a social media forum. The internet provides a ripe environment for meaningful discourse when we allow it to! When the students are thoughtful, the medium is natural to them, and their participation is voluntary, amazing conversation can take flight.

As I reflected over the past week on the idea of improving students’ experiences in online class discussions, I have developed a few key ideas that I would like to present here for consideration. Please allow the following disclaimer before I continue: I am no expert. I have taught online for 2 years, I am not a scholar in communication pedagogy, and my teaching is a work in progress. However, some lessons I have learned in online discussion, as well as my research in computer-mediated communication, may be useful to you as we consider this important topic.

I think most of us can agree that content-related discussion is valuable to enhance student learning. For example, research suggests that students in online courses report greater course satisfaction and perceived learning when they engage in more interaction with peers (Swan, 2002). However, I think we are fooling ourselves if we attempt to make online discussions identical to those that happen in the FtF classroom. Through casual conversation with colleagues, I often hear the relative disappointment or even distain that many instructors have for discussions facilitated through Blackboard. If you are anything like me, creative, engaging classroom discussion was a hallmark of your education, perhaps even the spark that turned you onto higher education as a calling. So instead of embracing progress, we harken to the past and even feel badly for the students enrolled in distance education who are “missing out” on in-class conversations… those “aha” moments that are palpable in the best of circumstances. I suggest we not longer attempt to recreate our FtF conversations online, but instead we capitalize on the ways that online communication is naturally different from FtF. Please suspend your judgment for a moment as I urge you to consider the ways that online class discussions can actually have advantages over those conducted FtF.

Researchers in computer-mediated communication have identified several characteristics of the internet that impact our communication in various ways. First, distance education students are provided visual anonymity when engaging with their instructors and peers online. Suler (2004) described the impact that visual anonymity – the fact that no one can see you in real-time when participating in a typical online, text-based discussion – may have on releasing one’s inhibitions. The judgment that may cloud students’ willing participation in FtF classrooms is eased in an online environment. In a way, we feel “safe” behind our screens… safe from the reactions others may have to our opinions, potentially dismissing us. The social compensation hypothesis poses that this may be a key factor for socially awkward or lonely individuals to really blossom in an online environment (Davis & Kraus, 1989). Students who are shy or otherwise less willing to speak up in class may therefore be more active participants in an online environment.

Second, online communication is typically composed of text-based, asynchronous exchanges (Suler, 2004; Walther, 1996). When students post their thoughts in an online forum, they have to wait for someone to later respond. The time that is afforded to interactants to carefully consider their thoughts and even edit their messages before sending them can positively influence the quality of the response. Isn’t that what we want as instructors? Carefully considered, high-quality contributions to online discussions? In other words, students who think before they speak?

Third, the asynchronous nature of online communication provides students the opportunity to receive others’ messages and contribute their own thoughts at a time and place most conducive to their goals (see Walther, 1996). So rather than being forced to engage in a thoughtful discussion at, say, 8 a.m. when the student worked a closing shift the night before, that same student can log onto the course website at a more convenient time, potentially enhancing the student’s ability to more thoughtfully contribute to the discussion. We can empower students to choose times and places to learn that present less physiological or psychological noise from the conversation at hand.

Of course, even as I wrote that students would have less distractions in online discussion, I chuckled to myself a bit. I am writing this essay at Starbucks on a Friday afternoon. There are countless opportunities for people watching, limitless pieces of media I could consume with the internet at my fingertips, and Facebook keeps pinging me via my mobile phone. Clearly, there are some potential pitfalls to consider, as well.

In addition to the distractions available in an online environment, the online disinhibition effect made possible by visual anonymity (among other things) may also lead online communicators to participate in negative behavior (Suler, 2004). I’m sure we have all seen it. In communication literature, these negativities are known as “flaming,” though “trolling” is a similar phenomenon. In the online environment, students may actually feel freed up to insult and hurt their classmates, calling their opinions worthless or their ideas dumb. Clearly, we need to be proactive to establish a respectful environment and be on the lookout for such behaviors. Though I have not witnessed flaming in my classes to date, such behavior would need to be addressed swiftly. How it should be addressed, I’m not sure.

As we consider the impact that the internet might play in forming online discussions, I encourage you to think of ways you can prepare your students for these conversations. I am far from perfect, but I do make it a point to talk to my students about the differences between online and FtF conversation, warning them of the potential harmful impact that the internet might play in civil discourse. I have also talked with my FtF and hybrid classes about how online discussions might prepare them for engagement in the larger discussion that already exists (and that they already participate in) online. It is our responsibility, in educating citizens that contribute meaningfully to our society, to prepare them for critical thought in the online environment as well, because that is where discourse lives. It is not only in the courtrooms, offices, and coffee shops, but on Twitter and Facebook too.

I hope this post has got you thinking about the potential that discussions play in the online classroom, given the relevant characteristics of the medium itself. I encourage you to even consider how you might incorporate online discussions in your traditional, FtF classes as well. Though there are certainly many hurdles, when discussions flourish online and it “clicks” for our students, the cognitive and interpersonal connections made between interactants are just as real and significant, regardless of the medium that served as the discussion’s vehicle.

References

Davis, M. H., & Kraus, L. A. (1989). Social contact, loneliness, and mass media use: A test of

two hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1100-1124.

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7 (3), 321-326.

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of

interaction. Education, Communication, & Information, 2, 23-49.    doi:10.1080/146363102200000501

Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and

hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 23 (1), 3-43.

Erin E. Hollenbaugh, Ph.D.
Associate Professor

*image retrieved from examiner.com