You are here:

The Use of Asynchronous Discussion: Creating a Text of Talk
Article

, SUNY-Oneonta, United States

CITE Journal Volume 5, Number 1, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

Asynchronous discussion allows students to read and respond “out-of-time”. This form of online discussion, as experienced in a college literacy course, creates a text of talk which has the potential to be reflective given the freedom participants have in their response time. However, students often struggle with reflection. Instructors need to structure discussion online so that it becomes a forum for communication as well as critical thinking. They also need to view writing online as both process (discussion) and product (document to be assessed).

Citation

Black, A. (2005). The Use of Asynchronous Discussion: Creating a Text of Talk. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5-24. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  2. Bhattacharaya, M. (1999, October). A study of asynchronous and synchronous discussion on cognitive maps in a distributed learning environment. WebNet 99 World Conference on the WorldWide Web and Internet Proceedings, Honolulu, HI. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED448698)
  3. Bruffee, K.A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  4. Burge, E.J., Laroque, D., & Boak, C. (2000). Baring professional souls: Reflections on Web life. Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), 81 -89.
  5. Cowan, J. (1998). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action. Milton Keynes, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
  6. Daley, B. (2002). An exploration of electronic discussion as an adult learning strategy. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 11, 53 -66.
  7. Dav idson-Shivers, G, Tanner, E., & Muilenburg, L. (2000, April). Online discussion: How do students participate? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
  8. Durkin , D . (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481 -533.
  9. Dysthe, O. (1996). The multivoiced classroom: Interactions of writing and classroom discourse. Written Commu nication, 13(3), 385 -425 .
  10. Edelson, P.J. (1998, February). The organization of courses via the Internet, academic aspects, interaction, evaluation, and accreditation. Paper presented at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City. (ERIC Docume nt Reproduction No. ED 421644)
  11. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28 , 122 -128 .
  12. Faigley, L. (1992). Fragments of rationality: Postmodernity and the subject of composition. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  13. Feenberg, A. (2001, April). The changing debate over online education. AFT On Campus, p . 12.
  14. Gaddis, B. , Napierkowski, H. Guzman, N., & Muth, R. (2000, October). A comparison of collaborative learning and audience awareness on two computer-mediated writing environments. Annual proceedings of selected research and development papers
  15. Harrington, H., & Hathaway, R. (1998). Computer conferencing, critical reflection, and teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5), 543 -554 .
  16. Hewitt, B.L. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer -mediated peer
  17. Hrabe, M.E., Adamy, P.H., Milman, N. B., Washington, L.A., & Howard, L.A. (1998, March). Curry CONNECT: How online discourse creates community for education
  18. Klemm, W.R. (2000, November). What’s wrong with online discussions and how to fix it. Proceedings of the WebNet 2000 World Conference on the World Wide Web and Internet, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED448755)
  19. Lafer, S. (1996). Audience, the computer, and the development of writing ability. Computers in the Schools, 12(5), 141 -152.
  20. LaGrandeur, K. (1997, March). Splicing ourselves into the machine: Electronic
  21. Lapadat, J.C. (2000, May). Teaching online: Breaking new ground in collaborative
  22. Lang, D. (2000). Critical thinking in web courses. Syllabus, 9, 20 -24.
  23. Langer, J.A., & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
  24. Lehman, J.D., Warfield, J., Palm, M., & Wood, T. (2001). Making teaching public:
  25. Logan, R. (1995). The fifth language: Learning and living in the Computer Age. Toronto: Stoddart.
  26. Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359 -389.
  27. McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000, February). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We kno w why but do we know how? In A .
  28. Misanchuk, M., Anderson, T., Craner, J., Eddy, P., & Smith, C.L. (2000, October).
  29. Moll, L.C., & Greenberg, J.B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional
  30. Oliver, M., & Naidu, S. (1997). Computer supported collaborative problem-based learning (CSC-PBL): A learner -centered design architecture for nurse education. In J. Conway, R. Fisher, L. Sheridan-Burns, & G. Ryan (Eds.), Research and development in problem-
  31. Pontecorvo, C. (1990). Social context, semiotic mediation, and forms of discourse in constructing knowledge at school. In H. Mandl, E. DeCorte, S. N. Bennett, & H.F.
  32. Pressley, M. (1998). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In
  33. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal
  34. Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
  35. Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2004). Defining critical thinking. The Critical Thinking Community. Retrieved January 19, 2005, from http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml
  36. Tuman, M.C. (1992). Word perfect: Literacy in the Computer Age. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Online Teaching: Teams Improve the Quality of Discussions

    Zsuzsanna Szabo, Marist College, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2015 (Mar 02, 2015) pp. 1077–1081

  2. Students’ perceived challenges in an online collaborative learning environment: A case of higher learning institutions in Nairobi, Kenya

    Maina Muuro, Kenyatta University; Waiganjo Wagacha, University of Nairobi; John Kihoro, Jomo Kenyatta University; Robert Oboko, University of Nairobi

    The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning Vol. 15, No. 6 (Oct 22, 2014)

  3. Educator Role Transforms from Sage to Ghost: Implementation of Discovery-Based Learning Online with Large Student Enrollment

    Shelley Cobbett, Dalhousie University, Canada

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (Mar 17, 2014) pp. 277–281

  4. Building Community: Effective Strategies to Increase Interaction in Online Learning

    Carolyn Bishop & Rebecca Hong, Biola University, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (Mar 05, 2012) pp. 1106–1111

  5. The Effects of Contrasting Models in an Online Discussion Environment

    Heejung An, William Paterson University, United States

    Global TIME 2012 (Feb 07, 2012) pp. 246–249

  6. Students’ Cognitive Thinking in Online Discussion

    Hua Bai, State University of New York - Potsdam, United States

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2009 (Jun 22, 2009) pp. 2725–2728

  7. Pre-Service English Teachers and Technology: A Consideration of Weblogs for the English Classroom

    Melanie Shoffner, Purdue University, United States

    Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 7, No. 4 (December 2007) pp. 245–255

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.