Developments in technology have provided today\u2019s students with numerous opportunities for communication. Technological innovations have allowed young people to express ideas without making face-to-face contact and to exchange information in a variety of ways (Kim & Kamil, 2004; Lenhart, Madden, & Hitlin, 2005). These innovations pose challenges for teachers interested in incorporating technology but also intent on making sure the activities in their classes reflect their instructional goals and desired outcomes.<\/p>\n
In this paper, I describe an approach to using online discussion boards to enhance class discussions in the middle and high school English classroom. I recommend that teachers consider carefully how and why online discussion boards may be used and the benefits of this technological tool in relation to their pedagogical goals.\u00a0\u00a0 I examine how online discussion boards accomplish purposes that face-to-face discussions may not and encourage teachers to reflect on the features of online discussion boards when considering their use. While previous work has addressed the importance of carefully considering the use of technology (Pope & Golub, 2000; Richards, 2000; Young & Bush, 2004), I apply this strategic perspective specifically to online discussion boards and look at ways they can provide useful alternatives to face-to-face discussion.<\/p>\n
The instructional standards of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), International Reading Association (IRA), and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) are aligned with possible uses of online discussion boards.\u00a0 The NCTE\/IRA\u2019s (1996) Standards for the English Language Arts<\/em> (1996) called for students to \u201cuse a variety of technological and information resources (e.g., libraries, databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge\u201d (p. 29).\u00a0 ISTE\u2019s (2007) National Educational Technology Standards<\/em> for Students<\/em> expanded on the NCTE\/IRA\u2019s recommendation by emphasizing communication and collaboration: \u201cStudents use digital media and environments to communicate and work collaboratively, including at a distance, to support individual learning and contribute to the learning of others.\u201d\u00a0 In this paper, I explain how online discussion boards can facilitate the communication and collaboration described in these standards.<\/p>\n The recommendations and cautions offered in this paper are intended to be useful to in-service middle and high school English teachers, preservice English teachers, and teacher educators who prepare future middle and high school English teachers.\u00a0 In-service teachers may be able to add to the ways they already integrate technology and to think in greater depth about the purposes they have for doing so. Preservice teachers will have the opportunity to examine some reasons for teaching with technology and may compare those reasons with their existing beliefs about the uses of technology in the classroom. This examination may help them as they develop their own education philosophies.\u00a0 Teacher educators may see opportunities to explain and model the thoughtful use of technology with their students.\u00a0 Discussing the recommendations, cautions, and ideas in this paper with their students may foster conversations about how and why English teachers may effectively use technology.<\/p>\n Online discussion boards have a number of characteristics in common with face-to-face discussions but also have substantial differences.\u00a0 The asynchronous nature of online discussion boards allows for students to comment without being interrupted, to have responses accumulate over time, and to read and respond to others\u2019 comments.\u00a0 Grisham and Wolsey (2006) characterized online discussion boards as \u201cinteractive, like discussion, but thoughtful, like written discourse\u201d (p. 652).<\/p>\n The focus on middle and high school English classrooms in this paper is based in part on the influence technology has on literacy itself.\u00a0 Through technological innovations, students read and write in different ways than they would when dealing with exclusively print media, making use of New Literacies, which Leu (2002) described as forms of reading and writing that emerge from new technologies.\u00a0 By incorporating online discussion boards, students can use components of technology in the literacy-related practice of discussing the texts and topics that are relevant to the study of English.<\/p>\n As forms of technology develop and related New Literacies emerge, teachers are faced with difficult decisions about what aspects of technology to include and why to include them (Bruce & Hogan, 1998).\u00a0 The intentional nature of technology use is important, because it calls for teachers to reflect on the goals of technologies that are used and consider if the forms of technology being utilized are appropriate to achieving these goals.\u00a0 Literacy practices incorporate technology in a number of ways, but those focused on in this paper involve how students in middle and high school English classes communicate.<\/p>\n How Online Discussion Boards Can Be Used for Class Discussions<\/strong><\/p>\n Online discussion boards present alternative opportunities for class discussions to take place. They provide more opportunities for sharing one\u2019s opinions than does a face-to-face conversation, reducing the control that teachers have over a discussion (Larson & Keiper, 2002), and utilizing the technological communication with which many adolescents are familiar (Kim & Kamil, 2004) and are often eager to adopt (Lenhart et al., 2006).\u00a0 Online discussion boards represent a means of including the voices and perspectives of a variety of participants and allow for the democratic class discussions that Larson and Keiper (2002) described.\u00a0 Grisham and Wolsey (2006) depicted these online discussion boards as places where students can \u201cprocess ideas about the reading,\u201d collaboratively make sense of texts and concepts, and \u201cbuild group coherence\u201d (p. 652) by communicating with each other.<\/p>\n The typical classroom discussion in elementary, middle, and secondary schools is \u201cnot really a discussion at all but a teacher-centered discourse pattern\u201d (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006, p. 650).\u00a0 Grisham and Wolsey contended that this discussion format does not provide students with many opportunities to share their thoughts and makes it difficult for teachers to maximize their students\u2019 learning experiences.\u00a0 They claim that such discourse patterns \u201care harmful to the intent of most teachers, that of empowering students to become more competent at academic literacies and more engaged with this particular community of practice\u201d (p. 650).\u00a0 This statement suggests that students with more opportunities to participate can increase their engagement and competence.\u00a0 Forms of discourse that revolve around the teacher may not allow for as much student ownership and growth as those that provide students with opportunities to shape and influence discussions.<\/p>\n Characteristics and Effects of Online Discussion Boards<\/strong><\/p>\n The asynchronous nature of these discussion boards may have a positive impact on the quality of discussion in the middle and high school English classroom: They can provide students with extra time to consider each others\u2019 ideas, build on the insights of their fellow students, enable increased awareness of others\u2019 opinions, and limit comments unrelated to the discussion (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006).\u00a0 The threaded nature of the discussion boards may not only help keep students\u2019 responses related to a certain topic, but also facilitate students\u2019 abilities to discuss a topic in depth.<\/p>\n Online discussion boards present alternatives to face-to-face conversations, and they provide an authentic audience that writing solely for the teacher may not. Grisham and Wolsey (2006) discovered that students who wrote about literature on threaded discussion boards may were likely to use higher order thinking skills than those who wrote only for the teacher. They compared the responses to literature that middle school students wrote in their journals (which were only read by the teacher) with the responses that students composed for the discussion boards and found that students benefitted from the peer audience discussion boards provide: \u201cIn the social environment created in the electronic learning space of threaded discussion, students found a voice, developed perspectives, made meaningful predictions, connected the literature with other media, and established the motivation to read as only peers can\u201d (p. 654).\u00a0 Grisham and Wolsey explained that students\u2019 discussion board posts included inferences, predictions, and connections, while their journal responses \u201cconsisted largely of summaries of the reading\u201d (p. 654).<\/p>\n In addition, online discussion boards allow students to incorporate numerous technological components of Internet-based communication, such as Web 2.0 tools, which are technological features that can \u201cchange how individuals collaborate and interact online\u201d (Doering, Beach, & O\u2019Brien, 2007, p. 41). Students who make use of Web 2.0 technologies when posting on online discussion boards can integrate a variety of links to texts and images in their responses (Doering et al. 2007)\u00a0 and may, therefore, utilize the web-based communication that plays major role in many adolescents\u2019 methods of communication (Kim & Kamil, 2004). Although not all middle and high school students will have the same levels of experience with the technological possibilities of online discussion boards, the strategic incorporation of these discussion boards into the classroom can allow for students to use these forms of communication in academically meaningful ways that can provide opportunities that face-to-face discussions may not (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006).<\/p>\n Online discussions may provide benefits that face-to-face discussions do not, as they can allow students to reflect on topics in depth using higher order thinking skills, carefully consider others\u2019 responses (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006), integrate multimodal links (Doering et al., 2007), and use other web-based communication practices that are part of many adolescents\u2019 everyday lives (Kim & Kamil, 2004).\u00a0\u00a0 These effects do not establish the superiority of one discussion form over another, but do provide a more developed context for understanding the uses of online discussion boards.\u00a0 In addition, this information can be used by teachers who are interested in maximizing the benefits of online discussion boards.\u00a0 By strategically implementing this technological resource, teachers can provide students with enhanced technology in appropriate situations.<\/p>\n Benefits of a Strategic Approach to Using Technology<\/strong><\/p>\n An awareness and understanding of technology\u2019s influence on communication is crucial for teachers interested in using online discussion boards in the English classroom.\u00a0 As suggested in my discussion of the various effects of online discussion boards, the optimal use of technology is aligned with specific instructional goals.\u00a0 The specific characteristics of a discussion determine whether online discussion boards would provide an added benefit to that experience.\u00a0 For example, short, in-class discussions in which the instructor wants to reveal specific facts would take a different shape than those in which the goal is to for students to incorporate higher order thinking skills while analyzing a topic.<\/p>\n Technology is best incorporated into the English classroom \u201cwith an explicit understanding of why we want to do it and how it will affect students, instruction, and curricular goals\u201d (Young & Bush, 2004, p. 9).\u00a0\u00a0 Because of the various applications of technology in literacy instruction, a careful evaluation of the use of technology is integral to maximizing the experience for both students and teachers. Pope and Golub (2000) offered a rationale for why teachers should strategically evaluate technology use: \u201cThe goal of this critical analysis of technology integration is to articulate and internalize a process for questioning and probing both the how and why of infusing technology through various applications, programs, web sites, methods, or communication tools\u201d (p. 93).<\/p>\n The emphasis Pope and Golub placed on the how and why of technology integration suggests the importance of context as a guiding force in instructional decision making: \u201cDifferent methods, whether electronic or not, should be determined based on the context of the students, their needs, and the assignment\u201d (p. 93).\u00a0 This attention to specific circumstances emphasizes the importance of teachers being aware of students\u2019 needs and responding accordingly. As Pope and Golub indicated, such thoughtfulness can be incorporated in a variety of teaching situations, not just those centered on technology.<\/p>\n In addition to promoting student-centered, responsive instruction, a strategic approach to the use of technology has other benefits for students: It can model how to determine when technology is useful and can help students consider the positive and negative aspects of specific forms of technology. Given the widespread use of technological communication in the lives of young people today, it is especially important that middle and high school students are equipped with the skills to make decisions about its use.<\/p>\n Pope and Golub (2000) predicted that students who are comfortable with technology \u201cwill not rely solely on the teacher but will use the Internet and electronic tools and media to gather information and gain insights\u201d (p. 95), explaining that this change \u201cdemands that the teacher\u2019s role change from that of an \u2018information giver\u2019 to one of \u2018designer\u2019 and \u2018director\u2019 of instruction\u201d (p. 95).\u00a0 Under this new role, teachers will design problems and projects and provide guidance as students navigate various tasks. Given these changes in how students will learn and in the function of the teacher in construction of that learning, it is especially important that teachers model sound use of technology.\u00a0 By thinking strategically about their technology choices, teachers will lead by example and guide their students to thoughtful applications of technological principles.<\/p>\n Recommendations for the Use of Online Discussion Boards<\/strong><\/p>\n Teachers interested in integrating technology into their instruction\u00a0 \u201cneed to understand not only how to use these technologies, but also the benefits and costs their adoption and integration into English language arts and literacy teaching have the potential to create for teachers, students, and the broader community\u201d (Swenson, Rozema, Young, McGrail, & Whitin, 2005, p. 212).\u00a0 Online discussion boards may enable the kinds of discussions that face-to-face interactions do not, but teachers must consider whether these discussions are in the best interests of the students they teach and the objectives for their discussions.<\/p>\n Swenson et al. (2005) emphasized the importance of specific situations and contexts in strategically evaluating the use of technology, providing suggestions rooted in the idea that \u201cteachers, individually and collectively, have the capacity and the responsibility to influence the development, modification, adoption, and\/or rejection of newer technologies\u201d (p. 211).\u00a0 The capacity of teachers as reflective practitioners is highlighted in these suggestions, which address topics for teachers to consider as they attempt to determine if the use of online discussion boards will enhance the conversations in their classrooms.<\/p>\n The following recommendations are offered for the use of online discussion boards in the middle and high school English classroom based on suggestions offered in the relevant theoretical and empirical literature, as well as the advice in practitioner-oriented articles and position papers:<\/p>\n In the following sections, each of these recommendations is described, along with the literature that supports them. They are evaluated based on the questions Richards (2000) outlined for evaluating technology use.\u00a0 Richards provided guidance for English teachers considering integrating technology into their instruction by encouraging them to respond to the following questions:<\/p>\n Richards recommended that teachers make sure they can answer yes to at least two of the questions before adopting a technology-related practice.<\/p>\n Recommendation 1: Use Discussion Boards to Promote Thoughtful Responses<\/strong><\/p>\n The act of posting to an online discussion board is structured differently than contributing to a face-to-face discussion.\u00a0 In online discussions, there is unlimited capacity for all members of the class to contribute. Students\u2019 abilities to respond are not hindered by a lack of class time or the need to move to another topic. Markel (2001) described the thoughtfulness made possible by the characteristics of online discussion boards, explaining that students can \u201cread other student responses and interpretations and compare these with their own thoughts,\u201d which helps create an environment in which \u201cthe learning is deeper and more long lasting and students refine their thinking and their voice\u201d (para. 9). These assertions suggest that the acts of reading, comparing, and refining enabled by the online format can produce more thoughtful learning experiences, resulting from an increased quality of response.<\/p>\n When comparing this component of online discussion boards with Richards\u2019 (2000) criteria, one can infer that the use of online discussion boards to promote thoughtful response validates the individual.\u00a0 Since students are able to take more time for their responses, the class becomes increasingly focused on individual experiences and allows for students who process information more slowly to still take part in the deepened learning that Markel (2001) described.<\/p>\n An online discussion board can function as a tool that allows for a wider range of students to enter into dialog and respond thoughtfully to the topics discussed in class, therefore, fulfilling the criteria of being worth the time and effort. Reflective responses associated with deep, long-lasting learning have a definite benefit for individual students. Enhancing this learning process and allowing students to take more from the material can allow for both immediate and long-term learner benefits.<\/p>\n Recommendation 2: Use Discussion Boards to Establish an Authentic Audience<\/strong><\/p>\n Grisham and Wolsey\u2019s (2006) finding that students wrote more in-depth responses about the novel they were reading when they wrote for an online discussion board read by the entire class leads to some conclusions about the possible use of discussion boards to establish authentic audiences.\u00a0 The authors posit that since the students were not writing exclusively for teachers they may have felt increased motivation in sharing their work with their peers. Student writing done for an audience other than the teacher can be especially motivating, and technology can function as a tool for making this audience possible (Rowen, 2005).<\/p>\n The concept of an authentic audience fits Richards\u2019 (2000) criteria of validating the work of the classroom.\u00a0 Through opportunities to share their work with others, students\u2019 motivations to produce quality, meaningful work may be increased. By increasing the audience that has access to their work, students may see their responses to written prompts as more meaningful and relevant.<\/p>\n While face-to-face discussions also allow students to share their responses with a larger audience than the teacher, using online discussion boards can incorporate the benefits of written responses\u2014such as increased time and opportunity for reflection\u2014with the audiences provided by online discussion boards.\u00a0 The idea of also giving students opportunities to share their ideas with other online audiences with similar interests provides another way to validate what students do in school.<\/p>\n In addition to validating what students do, providing students with an authentic audience can enhance the class\u2019s conversation.\u00a0 Since students are able to write responses that will be read by each other, they can refer to their online discussions in face-to-face conversations and vice versa (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006).\u00a0 If students are motivated by an authentic audience, they are likely to produce better quality responses on online discussion boards (Rowen, 2005).\u00a0 All members of the class who read these comments will benefit from the ideas and insights of their fellow students.<\/p>\n Recommendation 3: Use Discussion Boards as Opportunities to Utilize Web 2.0 Technologies<\/strong><\/p>\n In a discussion of Web 2.0 technologies, Doering et al. (2007) emphasized the collaborative nature of these technological innovations.\u00a0 The authors described the ways Web 2.0 technologies can permit individuals to use specific technological innovations when communicating with both local and distant audiences, depicting the Web 2.0 model as one in which students use the Internet as a tool for creating and \u201cproducing multimodal digital texts\u201d (p. 41) that can be shared with others.\u00a0 Students who use online discussion boards have the opportunity to use technological tools to enhance and support the ideas that they would otherwise be able only to describe.<\/p>\n The use of Web 2.0 technologies can validate the individual and the work of the classroom.\u00a0 Allowing\u00a0 students opportunities to compose multimedia texts can appeal to their out-of-school interests and provide them with opportunities to share ways of technology-based composition and communication they already use: \u201cThe use of Web 2.0 tools has also resulted in an increased emphasis on multimodal digital communication in allowing adolescents to readily mix images, video, music, and print texts\u201d (Doering et al., 2007, p. 43)<\/p>\n Although student facility in creating and mixing these forms of\u00a0 multimedia may vary, providing opportunities for students who are skilled in this area to utilize their talents may motivate them and allow them to share their skills with the other members of the class. Students who are less comfortable with multimedia would have the option of including links and pictures in their discussion posts in order to support or add to their ideas. In either situation, students would have opportunities to share their out-of-school interests through multimedia to the extent they are comfortable. The act of including aspects of multimedia to support a point or provide additional resources can validate the work of the classroom by forging connections between the class discussion and the forms of technology students use in their everyday lives.<\/p>\n Recommendation 4: Use Discussion Boards as Formative Assessments<\/strong><\/p>\n The discussion records provided by online discussion boards are useful\u00a0 for teachers looking for formative assessment data on their students (Larson & Keiper, 2002).\u00a0 Although face-to-face class discussion is sometimes used for formative assessment, this discussion is \u201climited to only those students who talked\u201d (p. 11).\u00a0\u00a0 Records of student postings give teachers \u201ca very accurate approach for determining who is participating, and to assess the quality of the interactions\u201d (p. 11).\u00a0 Larson and Keiper noted that reading entire class discussions online can be time consuming, but can inform teachers\u2019 future instruction with the whole class or with specific students.<\/p>\n This recommendation combines the motivation and learning benefits of online discussion boards with the records they can provide for teachers.\u00a0 The work of the individual is validated because students\u2019 individual responses can be used by the teacher to assess what students\u00a0 know and adjust instruction based on their needs.\u00a0 If student responses provide teachers with useful formative assessment data, then the teachers may conclude that the discussion boards are likely worth the time and effort and, therefore, satisfy that aspect of Richards\u2019 (2000) criteria. The data generated by posts to online discussion boards can allow teachers to achieve a greater understanding of students\u2019 strengths and weaknesses, thereby providing opportunities for teaching and learning that may not have been noticed otherwise.<\/p>\n Cautions Related to the Use of Online Discussion Boards<\/strong><\/p>\n Although there are a number of possible benefits in using online discussion boards to enhance communication in English classes, there are also important areas of caution as well. Teachers should be aware of possible negative consequences and be equipped to guard against them.<\/p>\n Caution 1: Communication Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n One reason that online discussion boards can be beneficial to class discussions is they can increase the ability and comfort of students to communicate with each other (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006).\u00a0 However, this method of interaction can also increase the likelihood of miscommunication between students. \u201cCaution is warranted \u2026[when students interact online] because these forms of communication lack important features that are present in face-to-face interactions\u201d (Hacker & Neiderhauser, 2000, p. 55).<\/p>\n Swenson et al. (2005) explained, \u201cUnlike face-to-face communication, digital communication does not allow for nonverbal signals such as voice tone, facial expression, or body language, to help the writer clarify intended meanings\u201d (p. 228). By calling attention to this possibility, teachers can help their students reflect on ways to avoid miscommunications by coming up with strategies to limit their occurrences.<\/p>\n An increased awareness of the possibility of misinterpretation may encourage students to read their classmates\u2019 responses closely before reacting and to phrase potentially misinterpreted statements as clearly as possible. When such miscommunications do occur, teachers can handle them by emphasizing the limitations of digital communication and providing students with opportunities to clarify their responses.<\/p>\n Caution 2: Access Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n Pope and Golub (2000) recommended that teachers are aware of variations in students\u2019 levels of access to technology, both in and out of school. They call for teachers to \u201cconsider this variability in their class assignments, opportunities for use in the school day, and homework expectations,\u201d describing a teacher \u201cwho works to provide everyone in her class an equal opportunity to use the three computers available in her middle school classroom\u201d (p. 95).\u00a0 The specific steps teachers may take to promote access will depend on the needs of the students and the resources available at the school and in students\u2019 home lives. Teachers may want to talk with students, parents, and administrators to develop a sense of how much access students have to technology at home. If many students do not have access to online discussion boards at home, or if there is considerable disparity in access levels, then teachers should limit the use of online discussion boards to in-class activities, where all students have equal access.<\/p>\n Access issues can be a major challenge in using a technology-oriented approach such as online discussion boards, but teachers should not let these challenges deter them from implementing technology. As technology continues to be used for more purposes, it is important that students have access to it and are able to use it in a variety of ways.\u00a0 Students who have limited or no access to technology at home may be among the greatest beneficiaries of using it in the classroom.<\/p>\n Caution 3: Time Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n Using online discussion boards as a substitute for face-to-face conversations can take more time for students (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Meyer, 2003), since reading others\u2019 postings and typing thoughtful responses generally results in a greater time commitment than does speaking in class (Meyer, 2003), especially since many adolescent students can vary in the amount of time they take to read, process, and write information.\u00a0 Consider Richards\u2019 (2000) fourth question about using technology: \u201cIs it worth the time and effort?\u201d (p. 38). Class discussions using online discussion boards to achieve learning goals that are important to class objectives and that cannot be achieved during a face-to-face conversation may be considered worth the time and effort.<\/p>\n Conversely, discussions that incorporate technology in ways that are not in accordance with learning goals or major benefits would likely not be considered worth time or effort. As teachers consider these factors, they can structure their classes and the amount of time dedicated to online discussion boards accordingly.<\/p>\n Suggestions for Future Research<\/strong><\/p>\n While the use of online discussion boards is becoming a frequently addressed topic in research and practitioner literature, future research can contribute to the current knowledge base in a number of ways, including (a) conducting more empirical studies on adolescents\u2019 experiences with online discussion boards, (b) exploring the quality of online discussion, and (c) doing research that applies the principles and suggestions outlined in published position papers.<\/p>\n Much of the literature on adolescents\u2019 experiences with online discussion boards and other forms of technology is presented as anecdotal evidence from individual teachers\u2019 experiences (Rowen, 2005), or as action research rooted in specific teachers\u2019 practices (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006). Many studies that examine the differences between face-to-face conversations and exchanges on online discussion boards have investigated the experiences of adult populations, such as graduate students (Meyer, 2003; Wang & Woo, 2007) and preservice teachers (Larson & Keiper, 2002). Future research could build off of these studies and fill a gap in the literature by examining the experiences of middle or high school students using online discussion boards.<\/p>\n Future research on this topic could explore the quality of online discussions.\u00a0 The existing literature suggests that online discussion boards increase opportunities for students to comment (Larson & Keiper, 2002), allow for increased collaboration among students (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006), and provide additional time to respond using higher order thinking skills (Meyer, 2003).\u00a0 While these topics provide information about students\u2019 experiences with online discussion boards, they also suggest a need for a closer examination of the quality of discussions students have online. Studies that investigate the quality of students\u2019 comments and responses would make a valuable addition to the existing research on the use of online message boards in class discussions and increase teachers\u2019 abilities to make informed decisions about their use.<\/p>\n The current body of literature on technology and English instruction includes a number of position papers that offer guiding principles, pedagogical frameworks, and other suggestions for in-service and preservice English teachers and teacher educators seeking to incorporate technology in their instruction effectively (Pope & Golub, 2000; Swenson et al., 2005; Young & Bush, 2004).\u00a0 Future research should also examine the experiences of teachers and students in classrooms where the instruction is guided by the principles and suggested practices described in these articles.\u00a0 Studies such as these will allow for a deeper understanding of how these suggestions influence the experiences of students and teachers.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n Online discussion boards can provide teachers and students in middle and high school English classes with opportunities for rich exchanges of information. They offer numerous benefits when used in accordance with pedagogical goals and can provide opportunities for students to share information that may not be available in a traditional face-to-face classroom interaction. Of paramount importance, however, is that teachers\u00a0 evaluate why they are using online discussion boards and the benefits they expect their students to receive from the use.\u00a0 A final word of caution, then, could be for teachers to avoid using technology merely for the sake of doing so (Pasternak, 2007; Young & Bush, 2004).\u00a0 Although general benefits come from students being familiar and comfortable with technology, a strategic approach to using technology in the classroom is preferred.\u00a0 Young and Bush (2004) asserted that one of the things technology should not do is, \u201creplace complex language and developmental goals with more simplistic \u2018learn technology\u2019 goals\u201d (p. 12).<\/p>\n Teachers must be aware of the context in which their students are using technology.\u00a0 Teaching with technology is often valued in the general sense by learning standards and teacher evaluation protocols (Young & Bush, 2004). A consideration of the specific aspects of a given situation, however, is integral for implementing online discussion boards in a way that enhances the class\u2019s discussion. The benefits of using this or any form of technology can most frequently be achieved when used in an intentional way that utilizes the technological features with a specific goal or end in mind.\u00a0 If a possible benefit of incorporating technology does not align with the instructor\u2019s goals for the class, then the technological component may be better incorporated in another lesson (Pope & Golub, 2000).<\/p>\n Richards and Lockhart (1996) advised teachers to question their practices actively, and he contended that doing so will enable them to \u201clook objectively at teaching and reflect critically on what one discovers\u201d (p. 2).\u00a0 Using online discussion boards purposefully and strategically considering their positive and negative attributes for specific situations will allow for their optimal use in the middle and high school English classroom.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n Bruce, B. C., & Hogan, M. P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world <\/em>(pp. 269- 281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.<\/p>\n Doering, A., Beach, R., & O\u2019Brien, D. (2007). Infusing multimodal tools and digital literacies into an English education program. English Education<\/em>, 40<\/em>(1), 41-60.<\/p>\n Grisham, D.L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2006). Recentering the middle school classroom as a vibrant learning community: Students, literacy, and technology intersect. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49<\/em>(8), 648-660.<\/p>\n Hacker, D. J., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B.W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom<\/em> (pp. 53\u201364). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n International Society for Technology in Education. <\/em>(2007). National educational technology standards<\/em> for students<\/em>. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.iste.org\/standards\/nets-for-students.aspx<\/a><\/p>\n Kim, H.S., & Kamil, M.L. (2004), Culturally responsive practices for youth literacy learning. In T. Jetton & J. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice <\/em>(pp. 351-368).\u00a0 New York, NY: Guilford Press.<\/p>\n Larson, B.E., & Keiper, T.A. (2004). Classroom discussion and threaded electronic discussion: Learning in two arenas. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2<\/em>(2), 1-22. Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/vol2\/iss1\/socialstudies\/article1.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation<\/em>. Washington, DC: PEW Internet and Family Life.<\/p>\n Leu, D.J. (2002). Internet workshop: Making time for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 55<\/em>(5), 466-472.<\/p>\n Markel, S.L. (2001). Technology and education online discussion forums: It’s in the response. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4<\/em>(2). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.westga.edu\/~distance\/ojdla\/summer42\/markel42.html <\/a><\/p>\n Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher order thinking.\u00a0 Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7<\/em>(3), 55-65.<\/p>\n National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association. (1996.) Standards for the English language arts. <\/em>(1996). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ncte.org\/library\/NCTEFiles\/Resources\/Books\/Sample\/StandardsDoc.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n Pasternak, D.L (2007). Is technology used as practice? A survey analysis of preservice English teachers\u2019 perceptions and classroom practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7<\/em>(3), 140-157. Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/vol7\/iss3\/languagearts\/article1.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n Pope, C., & Golub, J. (2000). Preparing tomorrow\u2019s English language arts teachers today: Principles and practices for infusing technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1<\/em>, 89-97. Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/vol1\/iss1\/currentissues\/english\/article1.htm<\/a><\/p>\n Rowen, D. (2005). The write motivation: Using writing to engage students in writing across the curriculum.\u00a0 Learning & Leading with Technology, 32<\/em>(5), 22-43.<\/p>\n Richards, G. (2000). Why use computer technology? English Journal, 90<\/em>(2), 38-41.<\/p>\n Richards, J.C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. <\/em>New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n Swenson, J.,\u00a0 Rozema, R., Young, C.A, McGrail, E., & Whitin, P. (2005). Beliefs about \u00a0technology and the preparation of English teachers: Beginning the conversation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(<\/em>3\/4), 210-236. Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/vol5\/iss3\/languagearts\/article1.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38<\/em>(2), 272-286.<\/p>\n Young, C.A., & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English language arts with technology: A critical approach and pedagogical framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4<\/em>(1), 1-22. Retrieved from https:\/\/citejournal.org\/vol4\/iss1\/languagearts\/article1.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n Author Information<\/p>\n Sean Ruday <\/p>\n\n
\n
\nLongwood University
\nemail: rudaysr@longwood.edu<\/a><\/p>\n