Asynchronous Discussion Groups in Teacher Training Classes: Perceptions of Native and Non-Native Students

Abstract

This paper discusses students’ perceptions of an asynchronous electronic discussion assignment implemented shortly after the technology had been introduced to the university. In addition to the weekly face-to-face class meetings, students in two graduate level teacher training courses were assigned to small groups for an entire semester and made weekly contributions to their group’s course web discussion forum in which they discussed course content. Students were to make explicit references to course readings and postings by their group members. The instructor evaluated students' postings on a weekly basis. At the end of the course, students completed a survey assessing their satisfaction and asking for their suggestions for modification of the particular assignment type and format. For all students, the extension of course-related discussions outside the regular face-to-face class meetings offered benefits in the form of greater social interaction with other class members; for the non-native speakers among the students, the asynchronous discussions facilitated assimilation of course content, but it was not perceived as providing additional language practice. For all students, the two main issues perceived as negative related to their perceptions of forced, unnatural interaction promoted by the asynchronous discussions and lack of topic prompts, the requirement to make connections to prior postings, and the frequency of required contributions to discussions. Possible reasons for students’ perceptions are explored and suggestions for further research are provided.

Essential Elements in Designing Online Discussions to Promote Cognitive Presence — A Practical Experience

“…Its around-the-clock accessibility extends discussions beyond classrooms, and it allows one-to-one, one-to-many, and manyto-many interactions. Compared with spontaneous and transitory face-to-face class discussions, online discussions are text-based and more structured, providing students time to formulate thinking and compose postings, thus helping to promote student higher order learning [22,8,23,24,25]. The textbased feature of online discussions makes student thinking visible and leaves a permanent written record for student later review.…”

“…We considered that the object of the online discussion activity needed to be tied to the overall learning of the course. Research showed when students perceived the online discussion as irrelevant to their overall learning in the course, they did not engage in meaningful interactions [25]. Students posted to satisfy the minimum course requirement.…”

“…A literature review was conducted to identify problems that hinder student learning in online discussions. Frequently cited problems included non-participation [6,35,36], postings that did not reflect critical thinking skills [6,25,37], limited interactions among participants [30] and topic digression to unfocused talks [6,38]. These problems severely encumbered cognitive presence in online discussions.…”

Evaluating the impact of online discussion boards on student engagement with group work

“…However, it has been suggested that a noticeable social divide exists between international and domestic students with generally low levels of group interactions noted (Tawagi & Mak, ). In‐line with SLT asynchronous discussion boards can support group learning in educational settings with international students as it gives English as a Second language learners more time to reflect (Biesenbach‐Lucas, ; Petrides, ). Additionally, random group allocation creates relationships between international and domestic students strengthening the community aspect in SLT (Hill et al, ).…”

“…Additionally, we include the social context and explore differences between international and domestic students at a large Australian University. This is particularly relevant as asynchronous discussions can support English as a Second language learners as it allows more time to reflect (Biesenbach‐Lucas, ; Petrides, ).…”