2.1 Introduction 18
2.2.5 Higher Education and Online World 28
2.2.5.1 Discussion Forum 29
An online atmosphere for teaching and learning is significantly different from a face-to-face experience, although a growing trend towards blended learning (face-to-face and online learning combined) has rapidly embraced many institutions of higher education (Yuen, 2011). E-learning environments have created a habitat in which students and facilitators can maintain regular contact and endorse collaborative activities, without the necessity of a face-to-face encounter
(Harris & Sandor, 2007). An online delivery of learning instils greater flexibility for students to study almost anywhere and at any time (Dixson, Kuhlhorst & Reiff, 2006). It is within this rationale that online discussion forums are fast becoming an integral component of online learning, with which facilitators and students have familiarised themselves (Mazuro & Rao, 2011).
The online discussion forum refers to an asynchronous discussion space that allows the facilitator and students to exchange ideas through written text messages that can be viewed by all participants at all times (Nault, 2008). Discussions are thought of as threaded. This means that the relationship between a message and the responses posted in the forum is graphically represented on a screen in a manner that gives a purposeful structure to a discussion or activity (O’ Leary, 2004). These can be recorded to allow students or the facilitator to revisit the discussions. Discussion or bulletin boards, as sometimes referred to, are mostly provided in Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) such as Blackboard and Web CT (O’ Leary, 2004). This can create informative discussions between the facilitator and students, by engaging with the content of a course. As a consequence of the unequivocal upward trend of the implementation of computer conferencing in higher education, there is a pressing need to create and disseminate innovative approaches to the medium of discussion forums that are pedagogically worthwhile (Harris & Sandor, 2007). The premise lies in the environment for collaborative learning between the facilitator and students, thereby encouraging engagement with learning material and initiatives that draw students into the online learning process (Nault, 2008). The perception of collaborative learning is synonymous with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development that draws on cognitive development. It articulates the idea that learning is a social context which enables students to refine their thinking, construct new ideas from prior knowledge and achieve a deeper understanding (Markel, 2001). Mazuro and Rao (2011) propose that a tangible way to achieving a thorough understanding is through online collaborative learning dependent on discussion forum use. Harris and Sandor (2007) have developed an interactive model to represent the sentiments of Mazuro and Rao (2011), which indicates a visual representation of how a collaborative discussion takes place.
Figure 2.1: Peer learning in higher education(Adapted from Harris & Sandor 2007, p. 384)
According to Harris and Sandor (2007) figure 2.1 illustrates a didactic top-down approach with interactions between the facilitator and students that symbolise the learning process as one of collaboration. Peer learning is evident throughout the process; indicative of the arrows reaching between students. As students converse with one another a deeper learning experience can be achieved. Since interaction assumes a major part of the process, students gain a broader cognitive understanding and improves their interpersonal and social skills; congruent with the Vygotsky’s theory. The facilitator is regarded as the provider of knowledge for consumption by the students. This position is instrumental in ensuring the discussion forum runs as efficiently as possible. However a huge burden accompanies this role, in having to be online regularly enough to field, guide and stimulate questions, postings and dialogue on course content. To be absent or offline for great lengths of time sheds a negative image of the facilitator as being unresponsive or uninterested which is detrimental to the participation of students. This has been a shortcoming and a concern in using discussion forums, leaving many facilitators and students unenthusiastic about using the tool (Harris & Sandor, 2007). Within this view it then becomes a prerequisite for course facilitators to be adequately prepared and available online to maximise the full potential of the discussion forum as an online learning resource. Yet Richards (2000) contends that the responsibility of the course instructor can be reduced by being able to answer common questions once through discussion forum than having to use email to reply to individual student queries.
Participation in online discussion forums invokes an atmosphere for active learning and responsibility through the expectation of regular participation (Farren, 2008). Participation in the virtual conference requires students become actively engaged with the course content whilst conversing with their peers as they negotiate the meanings of the course content (Markel, 2001).
For example, the Northern Arizona University (NAU) has implemented online discussion forums since the early 1990s (Markel, 2001). NAU uses an online discussion tool called Screen Porch that has been integrated into online web courses and discussion augmentations for face-to-face courses. Screen Porch uses a graphic user interface and allows participants to use graphics and multimedia links. Weekly discussion topics are uploaded with the web course assigned readings for each week in which students are asked to respond to one or two open ended questions designed to generate a discussion about the topics. Participants have to respond to at least three other student postings which elicits a round of discussion amongst students. The purpose surrounding the ongoing use of discussion forum at the NAU suggests collaboration of students working together on projects, participation in discussions focused on course content and the ability to present group project products to other students in the class (Markel, 2001). This supports the views by Harris and Sandor (2007) and Nault (2008) regarding the value of discussion forums as a collaborative tool.
Markel (2001) argues that students construct knowledge through shared experiences that each student can achieve through the discussions. To negotiate and construct knowledge represents technology as a cognitive tool and not a one way road of communication. Cognitive tools and environments support cognitive learning strategies and critical thinking (Jonassen, 1998).
Vygotsky’s theory of social interaction fits genuinely with this assumption as students engage with one another, using language as a mediation tool of cognitive development (Farren, 2008). In concluding the study at NAU Markel (2001) vaguely questions the role of culture, accountability and the position of the socio-economic class, with no definitive answers. However, it is possible to consider these issues within the context of South Africa, given the long history of inequality and diverse heterogeneity. In South Africa the large class sizes, few teaching resources and an increasingly diverse range of students have forced higher education institutions to find new ways of teaching (Ravjee, 2007). O’ Leary (2004) suggest that online discussion forums provide opportunities to manage the diverse cohort of students that enter tertiary education. It is therefore necessary to consider the online discussion forum as a tool for teaching and learning in this study since many of the students involved stem from previously marginalised race groups and this could help reduce the language barriers in learning that exist.