Tu, C., Blocher, M., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Asynchronous network discussions as organizational scaffold learning: threaded vs. flat-structured discussion boards. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 3(1),43-56. Asynchronous Network Discussions as Organizational Scaffold Learning: Threaded vs. Flat-Structured Discussion Boards Chih-Hsiung Tu Michael Blocher Lawrence Gallagher Northern Arizona University Abstract: Threaded and flat-structured discussions to support online learning present online educators with new and challenging dilemmas. Both formats apply different interfaces, structures and require different organization techniques for presenting postings which may affect the ways students participate. Both formats may impact online learning differently in terms of the organizational scaffold of learning. The purpose of this study was to examine experiences of online students and compare the impact that threaded and flat-structure discussion boards exerted on learning. This study concluded that both formats critically enhanced and inhibited students’ online discussions. Both formats may empower discussion participants differently and with strategic design, can engage learners in more meaningful, deeper and higher order of thinking. To argue that one is better or more effective than the other or to dispute that educators should seek the potential of applying one tool to replace the other is inappropriate. This study proposes that learners should shift their roles from online learners to “network” learners, while instructors should shift their instruction paradigms from online discussions to “network” discussions. Educators should empower network learners to define the organizational scaffolding of their network learning structures and environments. Effective network instructional strategies for network discussions are recommended. Keywords: interface, flat-structured discussions, threaded discussions, Open Network Learning Environments (ONLE), network instructional strategies 1. Introduction enhanced instruction because research has evidently concluded that online discussions Online discussion board is considered one support learners and instructors to challenge, of the most effective instructional strategies reform, and synthesize their current views to engage learners in knowledge construction of knowledge through in-depth interaction and to teach critical thinking skills (Cheong with other learners (Garrison, Anderson, & Cheung, 2008; de Leng et. al., 2009). & Archer, 2001). Researchers agree that Educators continue to integrate asynchronous asynchronous online discussions frame a online discussions boards to enhance learning constructivist learning approach to enhance in completely online, hybrid, or Web- interaction, analysis, and collaboration of Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 43 Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange discussion participants (Bonk & Dennen, Educators integrate Web 2.0’s flat- 2007) and critical thinking skills (Richardson structured discussions without knowing & Ice, 2010). More specifically, research the different interface features because the has concluded that asynchronous threaded technology is new to educators. These two discussions effectively facilitate learners’ different discussions formats harness different meta-cognitive awareness and development interfaces to exhibit online discussion of self-regulatory processes and strategies postings. Educators have not examined how (Vonderwell, Liang, & Alderman, 2007). these different interfaces may affect online Online asynchronous discussion board is discussions. The purpose of this study was to frequently conducted in a text-based format investigate experiences of online students and as threaded, tree, nested, or parent-child to compare the impact of threaded and flat- interface. Instructors or learners may initiate structure discussion boards on learning. new threaded discussion topics and the other can reply to the original discussion topic. The 1.1. Flat-Structured Discussion & Social original discussion topic and the reply messages Networking Environments are displayed in a threaded, tree, or nested format with various fields such as authors, In addition to a chronologic display topics, time stamps, etc. Often asynchronous interface, flat-structured discussions are online discussion boards are integrated with normally equipped with optional social a Course Management System (CMS) or a network features such as social tagging, Learning Management System (LMS) such as tag clouds, RSS, widgets, social network Blackboard or WebCT. These online discussion linkages, and mobile learning linkages to activities are generally required by the course allow discussion participants to access and to instructors; therefore, learners are required to understand discussion content from different reply to discussion questions and/or others’ perspectives which are not available in a postings within the whole class or in groups. threaded format. These network technologies still require instructors to integrate these tools Since the advent of Web 2.0 tools, many with the requirement that participants utilize educators integrate Web 2.0 discussion boards them to support online discussions. to support online discussions or to replace threaded discussion boards. In general, Flat-structured discussions generally allow Web 2.0 discussion boards apply a “flat- participants to tag their postings in a field structured” format to display the discussion that is separated from the postings. The tags postings chronologically with additional function as keywords. Participants can provide social network features such as tagging, RSS tags based on their posting’s content or social (Really Simple Syndication), widgets, tag context to enrich the postings. Some tools may clouds, social network linkages, etc. Flat- feature a tag or word clouds to assist participants structured discussion board applies a simple to view multiple tags based on the frequency of interface; all postings are displayed in a single tags with larger fonts. level, rather than in a threaded or nested reply structure. Flat-structured discussion formats Really Simple Syndication (RSS) allows can frequently be found in blogs, wikis, and participants to subscribe to updates, or any social network sites (Twitter, Facebook, new changes or new activity in subscribed Ning). discussions. Participants can apply RSS readers, such as Google Reader (http://reader.google. 44 Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 Asynchronous Network Discussions as Organizational Scaffold Learning: Threaded vs. Flat-Structured Discussion Boards com), to organize multiple RSS subscriptions. understanding could be gained by researchers This social network feature allows participants examining how these two discussion interfaces to remain updated on new postings without may impact online discussions. visiting the actual discussion pages. 1.2. Learning Impacts Web 2.0 widget technologies allow participants to link flat-structured discussions Human thinking, knowledge presentations, to different Web pages, personal portals such and constructions may not be as simple as as iGoogle (http://igoogle.com), or mobile hierarchical forms. Human thinking may be Apps and devices. These social networking symbolized as a more networking, weaving technologies allow participants to sign format (Educause, 2008). In other words, on, manage, and organize flat-structured humans reflect and synthesize various types discussions at their preferred locations and of ideas/viewpoints to construct a new set of with the technologies at hand (e.g., mobile knowledge. Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena telephones). (1994) emphasized the importance of learner- interface interaction. Branching and replying Unlike threaded discussions, flat-structured cause threaded discussions to become off track, discussions can visually display participants’ and following a thread that has branched can names and profiles such as pictures, avatars, be discombobulating and unnatural, which and links to personal profiles along with their commonly, forces participants to initiate a new postings. Participants can upload their own thread if they want to return to the initial topic. pictures or avatars, configure their personal Flat-structured discussions require participants profiles, or network to become friends, to read all postings to promote meta-cognition fans, or followers. Every time participants and self-regulated skills to achieve higher post postings, their pictures or avatars are learning. attached to their postings along with links to their profiles. This feature provides a visual 1.3. Weaving & Synthesizing Postings interface to support discussions with social and personal touches and effects. Normally, Educators would agree synthesizing participants can click the pictures or avatars to various posted ideas and viewpoints into view the authors’ profile. Some flat-structured one coherent position in online discussions discussion boards are equipped with widgets would be more valuable than replying to one to automatically feature community highlights idea or viewpoint in a more limited sense. To such as hot topics, top discussion contributors, achieve a synthesizing function in threaded visual highlights of members, etc. These discussion, online learners view the content social network mechanisms are powered by the of each posting to determine which postings network servers and they display discussion require a response. Before online learners activities based on real-time data from different can synthesize content of a threaded interface perspectives. they are forced to search by a clicking motion that may defuse their thinking. Typically, Both threaded and flat-structured participants read several postings and select discussions integrate and utilize different one that seems appropriate for response, interfaces. How they may impact discussion inducing parent-child postings. Participants participants is unclear and has not been tend not to read every posting before they reply addressed by researchers and educators. A better (Feldstein, 2005). Therefore, the approach Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 45 Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange of reading one and replying to one becomes comprehensive understanding of students’ common in threaded discussions. learning experiences in both discussion formats is necessary. The purpose of this study 1.4. Engage Learners In Organizational was to investigate the experiences of online Scaffolding students and to compare the learning impact of threaded and flat-structure format discussions. Flat-structure discussion boards generally The research question was: what differences have other networking technologies to help do students experience when comparing support learning, such as RSS and social between the flat-structured discussion format tagging, to achieve a better organizational to threaded discussion format? scaffold. Flat-structured discussion boards are in their raw format, or chronological 2. Methods organizations. Chronological formats can present difficulties in comprehending Forty subjects from two complete graduate discussion contents. Requiring learners to courses (two different groups enrolled in integrate RSS (Lee, Miller, & Newnham, 2008) two different sessions of the same course) and social tagging (Godwin-Jones, 2006) as a taught by the same instructor participated in way of organizing the discussion postings into both flat-structured and threaded discussion their own organized structures is required. formats for two weeks each respectively, In other words, online learners define their using Blackboard Vista threaded discussions own organizational learning scaffold rather and Wetpaint wiki discussions in fall 2009. than following the pre-determined hierarchal Participants were enrolled in the second year structures. of a completely online master program in Educational Technology. This course was 1.5. Authentic Learner-Centered Learning selected because it had more than one session and the students were familiar with threaded Learners follow the hierarchal and discussion format because they were in their threaded structures in threaded discussions second year of their master program. Twenty- to construct their knowledge through limited two participants were female (55%). The learner-centered learning while flat-structured most predominant ethnic group was Caucasian discussions require learners to organize, (n=22, 55%), and the Latino was the second manage, and regulate their own discussion largest one (n=10, 25%). The remainder learning structures by using other social and of the participants were African American network mechanisms. This is a more authentic (n=3, 7.5%), Native Americans (n=3, 7.5%), learner-centered experience and learners are Asians (n=1, 2.5%), and others (n=1, 2.5%). empowered to shape learning technology. Both threaded discussion format and flat- structured format of online discussions were Current literature indicates that there are required and graded. Students participated in several weaknesses in the threaded discussion threaded discussions for the first two weeks format. Research has indicated that flat- and then participated in wiki’s flat-structured structured discussion formats have the discussions for another two weeks. Each potential to resolve the weaknesses of threaded discussion format contained 3-4 discussion discussions. Educators should not overlook topics related to course content, initiated by integrating a flat-structured format to improve the instructor. Students were required to online discussion instructions. Obtaining participate in both discussion boards regularly 46 Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 Asynchronous Network Discussions as Organizational Scaffold Learning: Threaded vs. Flat-Structured Discussion Boards throughout four weeks of online discussions. Blocher, & Roberts, 2008) were employed Flat-structured discussion board had social to guide participants’ Blog reflections, online tagging, RSS, and social networking features discussions, and semi-structured in-depth (profiles, personal pictures/avatars) available interviews on their discussion experiences and participants were encouraged, but not in both discussion formats and to guide required, to use these. researchers in analyzing the data. Participants had a great deal of experience in using threaded discussion during their master degree process, After four weeks of discussions, and data collection and analyses were used participants were asked to make their to compare the participants’ flat-structured discussion reflections on their blogs and on- discussion experiences to their threaded line discussions. Additionally, the data were discussion experiences. collected through in-depth interviews. Eight randomly selected volunteers participated in Two individuals coded the data individual interviews concerning their online independently utilizing the four dimensions discussion experiences with both discussion from the Constructs of Web 2.0 Learning formats. This was a casual conversation Environments (Tu, Blocher, & Roberts, conducted between the researcher and 2008): Cognitive, Social, Networking, and participants on Elluminate, an online Integration. Orientation was provided to both conferencing system. The interviews were coders and included: (a) explanations of the recorded with the participants’ consent for coding process; (b) written coding rules and the data analysis. Eight semi-structured in- guidelines; (c) examples and non-examples; depth interviews were conducted with the and (d) practice with sample data. Both coders participants to understand their experiences acquainted themselves with the particulars with both discussion formats. Examples of the coding scheme and reached a mutual questions asked include: agreement about the coding category to be • How did flat-structured discussion selected. impact your learning when compared Initially, the four codes (cognitive, social, to threaded discussions? networking, and integration) were applied • What are your relationships with other to code the data. The four dimensions were online participants? expanded into eight categories. Thinking • What Web 2.0 technologies did you and density of discussion context emerged use to enhance and support the flat- from cognitive dimension; context-oriented structured discussions? discussion environment, and social network • How well did they perform? features emerged from social dimension; social tagging, and network mechanisms articulated 3. Data Analysis network dimension; and collaborative effectiveness, and community sense attended The data were collected and analyzed the integration dimension. according to the qualitative method. Blog reflection data, online discussion postings, Triangulation methods were utilized to and semi-structured in-depth interview achieve a better understanding about the transcripts were collected for data analysis. participants’ experiences in both threaded Four dimensions from the Constructs of and flat-structured discussion formats, but not Web 2.0 Learning Environments (Tu, as a validation process. Data triangulation Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 47 Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange consisted of time, space, and personal environments through interoperable learning triangulation. Method triangulation consisted architectures. Integration dimension refers to of Blog reflections, online discussions, and the engagement of learners in “collaborative semi-structured in-depth interviews. effectiveness” and “community sense” related activities via network social ritual. 4. Results 4.1. Cognitive Dimension This study identified that both threaded Participants’ experiences with different and flat-structured discussion formats interfaces impact their cognitive learning impacted learners’ discussion experiences process and were clustered as thinking, sense in thinking, density of discussion context, of discussion context, discussion posting context-oriented discussion environments, skills, mental models, and learning perception social network features, social tagging, net- shift. Participants indicated that both formats work mechanisms, collaborative effectiveness, enhanced and inhibited their cognitive learning and community sense. discussions. Tu, Blocher, and Roberts’ (2008) Web 4.1.1. Thinking 2.0 Learning Environment Constructs including four dimensions (Cognitive, Social, Both interfaces enhance and inhibit Networking, and Integration) that were applied participants thinking processes. Participants to analyze participants’ experiences in both reflected that flat-structured interfaces allowed discussion formats from blog reflections, ideas and viewpoints to be synthesized and online discussions, and semi-structured in- they must think what they need to think; depth interviews. however, they indicated this process is extremely difficult to follow who is talking to The Cognitive Dimension focuses on the whom about what and that inhibits thinking. process of the individual “thinking” about their Visually, flat-structured interface does not engagement in and the culture within, “density offer the relationships between and among of discussion context.” Participants think related postings. With threaded interface, about what they will contribute, and how and students indicated they can read one posting with whom they will contribute, which is then and reply to it easily and quickly (parent-child implemented as they construct their knowledge postings); however, they had to click and read through online discussions. Social dimension many postings before they could synthesize refers to learners and their networking mediated all postings. By the time they were ready to relationships in “context-oriented discussion synthesize their ideas, they could not remember environments” with others and focuses both the ideas to begin with because of the inability on the individual and the social contexts by to organize the postings on one screen to integrating “social network features.” weave ideas together. They indicated that the threaded interface frequently led to too many Networking dimension refers to the branched discussions that delineated from the network technology architecture such as main discussion topics and caused them to “social tagging” that empowers learners to lose focus on the discussion, which often left select different “network mechanisms” to them engaged in side conversations. organize and manage their network learning 48 Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 Asynchronous Network Discussions as Organizational Scaffold Learning: Threaded vs. Flat-Structured Discussion Boards 4.1.2. Sense of discussion context with the flat-structured format, which left participants frustrated as one quoted, “I just Although students valued flat-structured dont [don’t] understand how us taking a discussion boards, they admitted it was while to figure out …it’s a waste of our time.” extremely difficult and confusing for them to Another comment was made in that, “I have relate to the context of the discussion. The been trained to use threaded discussion…that sense of “context” can become lost quite easily, is why myself (and others) had such difficulty especially because context is not immediately becoming comfortable with that Web 2.0 obvious to who is responding to whom. One tool.” Participants are accustomed to threaded participant indicated, “It is easier to see who’s interface; therefore, they applied a threaded “bustin” down on you, and easier to answer.” format mental model to participate in flat- One participant commented, “I have no idea structure discussions. Some participants were if I am responding correctly or not…Where able to shift or become aware they needed is everything?...I even couldn’t find my own to shift their mental models to participate in posting.” Another participant echoed similar flat-structured discussions. One participant thoughts, “The discussion was chaotic…It’s commented that “Web 2.0 tools support online less muddy on DB [threaded].” One participant learning by allowing students to organize their summarized well in sense of context, “… I was own learning content.” Another participant merrily responding to various postings thinking offered valuable reflections: they would be connected directly to each post. I was a little frustrated with the After I went back see the fruits of my labor I discussion format in Wetpaint because I was surprised to see most of my fruit seemed to was not able to see who was responding be all on my very own tree.” to who’s post. With vista, the discussions are threaded making it easy to follow. 4.1.3. Discussion posting skills This is how I have been trained to read discussions. I was not aware of how to Flat-structured interface requires students to organize the discussions in Wetpaint, and develop a different set of posting skills. Flat- after reading the site that was given to us, structured interface is new to all participants I go back once in awhile to play around while they are fairly familiar with threaded with the “tags” and see what new things format. One participant expressed the I can do. frustration by “Not having any training on how to use the wiki there is great confusion… So 4.1.5. Learning Perceptions Shift out of frustration… some of us are responding by starting new threads.” Some participants Participants observed flat-structured perceived posting skills should be “the best discussions forced them to shift their learning way for us to figure out the benefits is to use the to a new way. “I believe Web 2.0 and similar wiki and play with it to try to and figure it out.” tools are great for discussion forums, chat Another participant echoed with “Like anything rooms and the like,” said one participant. the best way to learn is through trial and error.” Participants reflected that they should be ready for encouraging these learning disruptions, “… 4.1.4. Mental model they best support online learning by forcing both teachers and students alike to think in new A different mental model from threaded ways…CMS can become easily predictable and discussion is necessary to engage effectively stagnant. The introduction and use of Web 2.0 Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 49 Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange tools forces the lethargy out of those involved “Personally, I learn better if I know my as it becomes necessary to view and learn a classmates better. In other classes, we do self new way of learning.” introduction. That is good but I feel with the profile with pictures, I know them better and 4.2. Social Dimension I think I have a better idea of what they are talking about..” Additionally, Wetpaint wiki Context-oriented discussion environments is equipped with social networking widgets and social networking features emerged to enhance social bonding such as “Member from participants’ discussion experiences. Highlights,“ “Top Contributors,” and “Who Participants manifested threaded discussions is talking.” Participants expressed that these were more task-oriented and content-oriented social network widgets helped them know while flat-structured discussions afforded more their classmates better and allowed further and richer social context on discussions and understanding of what has been contributed other participants due to social networking by which community members. features. Online discussion, as one form of CMC, has been considered task-oriented Flat-structured discussions come with a (Culnan, & Markus, 1987) and less social. One social tagging feature to enhance discussions. participant commented on threaded discussions, With social tagging, participants indicated “I read in another post that it really doesn’t take it infuses social dimension to enhance their the time to get to know one another and just chat understandings of their classmates’ postings. for the sake of chatting.” Another participant One participant remarked, “Sometimes I had emphasized the importance of social context, difficulty to comprehend someone’s postings. “We often learn by simply discussing each With social tagging, it gives me better ideas other’s life experiences…it should be through (about) on the focus and themes of each posting the medium of school work that opens the doors because the author attached keywords to each for other types of learning to take place.” posting.” Social tagging was not required in this study; however, participants were encouraged Unlike threaded discussion boards, flat- to apply tags to their postings. structured discussion boards are normally equipped with social networking features 4.2.1. Networking dimension that allow users to upload their pictures or avatars, and manage their profiles to create Social network linkages play critical roles and to enhance their online social identities. in flat-structured discussions while threaded In this study, participants were required to discussions do not offer these features. The create their profiles and upload their picture or issues of social tagging, widgets, RSS, tag avatar as part of the flat-structured discussion cloud, iGoogle, and log in were critical to activities. Participants value social networking discussion experiences of participants. features within flat-structured discussions, “… incorporating features like profiles and Because RSS and social tagging were personal pictures starts to meld the class realm encouraged to be applied to flat-structured with our real lives and the social realm.” In discussion posting/discussion topic, students fact, participants commented that pictures indicated that organizing RSS and providing and profiles made the postings rendered tags engaged them in deeper thinking because by others more meaningful while reading they could determine how they would like their discussion postings. Participants indicated, ideas to be presented. Threaded discussions 50 Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 Asynchronous Network Discussions as Organizational Scaffold Learning: Threaded vs. Flat-Structured Discussion Boards were easier to follow, but flat-structured Managing multiple accounts to participate in discussions required students to apply deeper discussions caused participants inconvenience cognitive thinking. Based on the observations, and confusion. Flat-structured discussions students made better and more comprehensive on Wetpaint required participants to create a networks of references. new account to participate in the discussions. Participants commented on utilizing multiple Several participants observed the value accounts “I don’t have the personal memory of social tagging in online discussions while capacity to remember all my passwords…” and participating in flat-structured discussions. preferred “one less thing to sign into.” These comments revealed that participants understood the values of social tagging even though they were still “confused” but observed 4.2.2. Integration Dimension the value of applying tagging to resolve the loss of discussion context. Participants stressed The issues of collaboration effectiveness social tags as critical learning tools, “As and community sense emerged from both students we can use Web 2.0 tools to stimulate discussion formats. Participants reflected learning amongst each other by tagging and that flat-structured discussion boards allowed adding information within the data source.” them to engage in more collaborative tasks and generated a greater sense of community. One participant made a particularly strong Each posting was more “isolated” in threaded claim for social tagging: format because the reply posting was one- I have been active in several online level up from the parent posting. With various threaded communities and to me social networking features, participants they seem very organized…in what felt their postings weaved together more sequential order. The tool…tags, and effectively. This affords better collaborative “was this useful” I have encountered and community learning. In the flat format, in other areas…they are still new to participants engaged in more effective me…but I am wishing that I had to collaboration, “…building a community continue Wetpaint so that I was forced and communicating between each other to to become more comfortable and learn more.” Additionally, participants took familiar with…this emerging style. pride being engaged in a new method of collaboration to build an online community, Many participants were not accustomed to “… learn virtually anywhere and anytime. It organizing their online discussions; therefore, can give some students pride in what they do RSS, tag clouds, wiki gadget/droplet on by posting what they have learned.” iGoogle, and other social network widgets (E-mail Notification, Recent Site Activity, Do 5. Discussion you find this valuable? Most Recent Posting) were not utilized or applied effectively. Most This study investigated the experiences of participants did not understand what they were, online graduate students in threaded and flat- how they worked, and how they might be structured discussion boards. Both formats integrated to support online discussions. critically enhanced and inhibited online discussions of students. Clearly, both formats empower discussion participants from different directions to engage them in a more meaningful, Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 51 Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange deeper, and higher order of thinking. Concluding self-regulated learning processes by selecting that one format is better or more effective than and applying different and multiple interfaces the other or to argue that educators should seek and social network features to organize, to the potential to apply one tool to replace the examine, to analyze, to comprehend, and to other is inappropriate. Each discussion format participate in network discussion knowledge has its own strengths and weaknesses and this interaction and sharing effectively to enhance must be considered when using one format participants’ deeper, higher order, and critical over the other. In fact, replacing the old one thinking skills. Multi-dimensional network with the new one may result in ineffective and discussions would engage network learners negative learning experiences and outcomes in effective reading (text, auditory, & visual), because both formats require learners to critical reflecting, displaying (information develop different mental models, posting skills, visualization) and doing (tactile, kinesthetic, technical skills, and perceptions of learning and exploratory manipulating information). values. The issue is not using one more or To engage learners in ONLE and PLE, one less tool with which to learn, because allowing them to select and engage in multiple learning can occur with either. Perhaps the discussion interfaces and social network more important questions to ask are: What are features is needed. Network learners define the more effective ways to engage learners in their own organizational scaffolding learning active interaction in online discussions? How structures rather than follow pre-determined can we engage learners in active learning hierarchal structures. in managing, organizing, and making more effective knowledge constructions in online Currently, some threaded and flat- discussion learning processes? What tools structured discussion boards offer basic should be used and how should these tools be multiple discussions interfaces to support integrated to enhance online discussions? network discussions but without wide ranges of interfaces and social networking features. The concepts of Open Network Learning For example, Moodle’s discussion boards Environment (ONLE) and personal learning provide multiple interfaces to allow learners to environment (PLE) should be integrated to participate in discussion boards: flat, threaded, reach effective network discussions. This and nested. Other Web 2.0 discussion boards study proposes that learners should shift provide flat discussion boards with social and their roles from online learners to “network” network features such as social tagging, RSS, learners, while instructors should shift widgets/gadgets, profiles, and pictures. their instruction paradigms from online discussions to “network” discussions. To 6. Recommended Strategies reach interactive and effective network discussions, effective network discussion Having effective network discussion tools should provide multiple discussion tools does not result in completely effective interfaces such as threaded, nested, and flat learning environments. Effective instructional integrate multiple social and networking strategies should be developed and integrated features such as social tagging, tag or word into network discussion activities. Based on clouds, RSS, widgets, profiles, and pictures or the results of this study, effective strategies are avatars. With multiple interfaces and multiple recommended to ensure that network learners social network features, learners are required participate in effective network discussions. to engage in an active meta-cognitive and 52 Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 Asynchronous Network Discussions as Organizational Scaffold Learning: Threaded vs. Flat-Structured Discussion Boards In the area of cognitive dimension, integrate RSS readers to organize the following instructional strategies are discussion postings: such as Google recommended: Reader into iGoogle. • Provide warm-up exercises for the • Apply tag and/or word clouds as discussion board before any graded information visualization to support discussions take place. discussions. • Explain the different values for both • Provide tutorials for subscribing to discussion formats. RSS, social tagging, and other social & • Explain that both discussion formats networking mechanisms. require different mental models to • Apply other Web 2.0 tools to organize construct knowledge. discussion board postings, such as • Social tags should be encouraged or linking discussion board postings to required. personal blogs with widget, social • Integrate learner moderation to bookmarking (Delicious), social enhance a higher level of learning networking site (Facebook), social responsibility. annotation (Diigo), or PLE (iGoogle). • Require learners to create, manage, • Instructors select the tools with multiple and organize network discussions of formats (threaded, nested, flat, audio, their own through Personal Learning video, & mobile) and multiple social Environment (PLE) on a personal web network features to create NLE to allow portal, such as iGoogle, Pageflakes, or learners to manage and organize their NetVibes. PLE. In the area of social dimension, the following In the area of integration dimension, instructional strategies are recommended: the following instructional strategies are • Encourage or require students to create recommended: their own profile and share their pictures • Design and engage learners in network or avatars to enrich social context. collaborative discussion activities. • Encourage learners to join social • Integrate student group moderations networks by requesting entry as friends, into discussions to promote collabora- fans, or followers. tive learning community. • Apply a third party social network tool • Encourage peer support by creating to support social relationships among peer support discussion boards where learners and instructors. students can post questions and allow • Apply social network widgets, such as students to respond. Top Contributors, Member Highlights etc. to tighten social bonding. 7. Future Research In the area of networking dimension, New network discussion learning the following instructional strategies are instructions have emerged from this study. recommended: Educators and researchers should go beyond • Provide social tagging strategies. “online” discussion and continue examining • Require or encourage course members the values, issues, effectiveness, and learning to subscribe to RSS discussion. experiences of these new “network” discussion • Require or encourage learners to of instructional design. Below are a few Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 53 Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange suggested important topics to be examined to to experience a fundamental change in obtain a better understanding in supporting pedagogical concepts and practices. Dede effective network discussions in terms of (2008) argued that effective strategies are examining the how and what factors. to provide multiple specialized tools instead of a single instrument to complete all Regardless what discussion formats, tasks. In innovative and disrupted learning threaded or flat-structured, the overall goals environments, educators should build Open for online discussions do remain the same to Network Learning Environments (ONLE) as engage learners in knowledge construction and interoperable learning infrastructures (Bush to teach critical thinking skills. Future research & Mott, 2009) within learners and allow should examine what and how flat-structured instructors to select appropriate, multiple tools discussion format may impact learners’ to craft their Personal Learning Environments knowledge construction and their critical (PLE). PLE in ONLE is increasingly seen as thinking skills. These examinations should a means for self-directed and collaborative not be limited to learners’ perceptions, but also learning, where individual learners construct their actual gain of knowledge constructions their own agendas and learning organizations and critical thinking skills. to satisfy their own learning goals (Sclater, 2008). With multiple tools and social network Additionally, flat-structured discussion in features, network discussion environments network learning environments are frequently allow learners to construct and to contribute featured with social and network mechanisms their knowledge by self-organized and self- such as social tagging, social networking, managed discussion topics, conversations, RSS feeds etc. Researchers should also and content (Mott, 2010). The researchers investigate what and how these social and and educators should critically examine how network mechanisms may impact learning they can empower network learners to define outcomes in online discussion environments. their organizational scaffolding network Connectivism (Siemens, 2005) emphasized learning structures and environments rather values of connecting people, resources, and than follow the pre-determined hierarchal tools in network learning environments and structures defined by technologies. suggests that network discussions such as flat-structured discussion, should not be constrained to a single tool. To integrate multiple Web 2.0 tools to support network discussion should be examined whether it may References impact online learning. Bonk, C., & Dennen, V. (2007). Frameworks 8. Conclusions for design and instruction. In Handbook of distance education, In: M.G. Moore, When a new technology is introduced Editor (2nd ed., pp. 233-246). Mahwah, to support learning, educators commonly NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. find a way to replace old technology for the Bush, M., & Mott, J. (2009). The transformation same function. Innovative network learning of learning with technology learner- designs require educators to seek disruptive centricity, content and tool malleability, and ways to integrate emerging network learning network effects. Educational Technology, technologies. This requires educators 49(2), 3-20. 54 Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 Asynchronous Network Discussions as Organizational Scaffold Learning: Threaded vs. Flat-Structured Discussion Boards Cheong, C. M., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Online Education: Subscribing to a New Model of discussion and critical thinking skills: A Teaching and Learning. Educational Media case study in a Singapore secondary school. International, 45(4), 311-322. Australasian Journal of Educational de Leng, B. A., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Jobsis, R., Technology, 24(5), 556-573. Muijtjens, A. M. M., & van der Vleuten, C. Culnan, M. J., & Marcus, M. L. (1987). P. M. (2009). Exploration of an e-learning Information technologies. In In F.M. model to foster critical thinking on basic Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Robers, & L.W. science concepts during work placements. Porter (eds.), Handbook of organizational Computers & Education, 53(1), 1-13. communication: An interdisciplinary Mott, J., & Wiley, D. (2009). Open for learning: perspective (pp. 420-443). Newbery Park,: The CMS and the open learning network. In CA: Sage. Education, 15(2). Retrieved July 16, 2009, Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives from http://ineducation.ca/article/open- influencing the use of information learning-cms-and-open-learning-network technology in teaching and learning. In J. Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating Voogt and G. Knezek, (Eds.), International students’ level of critical thinking across Handbook of Information Technology in instructional strategies in online discussions. Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 43- Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 59). New York: Springer. 52-59. Educause. (2008). 2008 Horizon Report. Sclater, N. (2008). Web 2.0, personal learning Retrieved September 22, 2008, from http:// environments, and the future of learning connect.educause.edu/Library/ELI/2008H management systems. ECAR, 2008(13). orizonReport/45926?time=1224635003 Retrieved July 16, 2009, from http://www. Feldstein, M. (2005, March 30). Threaded educause.edu/ECAR/Web20PersonalLearn discussion interfaces: A research challenge. ingEnvironme/163047 e_literate. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from Tu, C., Blocher, M., & Roberts, G. (2008). http://mfeldstein.com/threaded_discussion_ Constructs for Web 2.0 learning interfaces_a_research_challenge/ environments: A theatrical metaphor. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. Educational Media International, 45(3), (2001). Critical inquiry in a text-based 253-268. environment: Computer conferencing in Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. higher education. The Internet and Higher (2007). Asynchronous discussions and Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. assessment in online learning. Journal of Godwin-Jones, R. (2006). Tag clouds in the Research on Technology in Education, Blogosphere: Electronic literacy and 39(3), 309-328. social networking. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 8-15. Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42. Lee, M. J. W., Miller, C., & Newnham, L. (2008). RSS and Content Syndication in Higher Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010 55 Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange Contact the Authors Chih-Hsiung Tu, Ph.D. Northern Arizona University E-mail:
[email protected]Michael Blocher, Ph.D. Northern Arizona University E-mail:
[email protected]Lawrence Gallagher, Ed.D. Northern Arizona University E-mail:
[email protected]56 Volume 3, No. 1, October, 2010