{"id":762,"date":"2005-01-01T01:11:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-01T01:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8888\/cite\/2016\/02\/09\/the-use-of-asynchronous-discussion-creating-a-text-of-talk\/"},"modified":"2016-06-01T20:17:47","modified_gmt":"2016-06-01T20:17:47","slug":"the-use-of-asynchronous-discussion-creating-a-text-of-talk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-5\/issue-1-05\/english-language-arts\/the-use-of-asynchronous-discussion-creating-a-text-of-talk","title":{"rendered":"The Use of Asynchronous Discussion: Creating a Text of Talk"},"content":{"rendered":"

Twenty years. That is the time difference that separates the research findings by Durkin (1978-1979) and Pressley (1998). Yet the results are the same. Durkin in 1978 initially reported that teachers did not teach students to comprehend, yet these same students were tested on comprehension skills they were expected to acquire. Twenty years elapse, and Pressley comes to the same conclusion after observing fourth and fifth graders. The only difference in variables seems to be the tests on comprehension themselves. Are Durkin’s findings still relevant today? Another five years have passed since the last study, so it may be difficult to say. However, after reading the chapter, it seems that Pressley still seems to think so (Farstrup & Samuels, 2002, p. 303). [Referring to instruction in reading comprehension during an asynchronous discussion, this quote is a student’s partial response to the question \u201cAre Durkin’s findings still relevant today? Explain.”]<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

As an instructor at a rural four year college, I have taught online graduate literacy courses in both elementary and secondary teacher education programs for 6 years. My courses rely heavily upon students’ discussion online, and I am interested in the use of asychronous or out-of-time discussion. Because I teach literacy and focus on the English language arts, I am especially interested in this type of online discussion that allows students to read and respond at any time and create a text of talk or a written product of their discussion. Literature that looks at asynchronous discussion as a viable form of discussion or as the creation of a text of talk is scarce. Therefore, this article shares my experiences with asynchronous discussion and embeds them within the context of current teaching and assessment.<\/p>\n

In an online course that utilizes asynchronous discussion, students have a password to access the course site on the Internet. Within the course is a structure for asynchronous discussion allowing students to post questions and responses to colleagues, as well as to read what has been posted, as often as they wish. Such postings may be structured by the course instructor as to quantity and quality. For example, in the checklist I have created (see appendix<\/a>), students were required to meet specific criteria as to quality of response. They were also required to respond at least five times, with three of those times an informal response and two, a reflective response.<\/p>\n

An informal response is defined as language in a conversational tone that may be sharing or describing an experience rather than answering the question and making connections to the text, responding positively to a peer\u2019s \u201ctalk,\u201d or asking a question. Figure 1 is an example of a nonreflective, informal response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

———————————————————————-
\nCurrent Forum: Chapter 10: Historical Fiction and MacLeod (E-Reserve: Modern Models in Historical Fiction”) Read 23 times
\nDate: Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:02 pm
\nAuthor: XXXXXX
\nSubject: Re: Question 1
\n———————————————————————-
\nThe responses I’ve read so far to this question, from Corey and Linda, have been very informative. You have both done a very good job in distinguishing between contemporary realistic fiction and historical fiction.
\nMy reasoning behind coming up with this question had to do with a book report that one of my daughters was working on a couple of months ago. Her teacher had assigned a “realistic fiction” book report, and my daughter asked me to help her choose a book. To make a long story short, we picked out three books. They all fit under the “realistic” and “fiction” categories, but two of them happened to deal with events that happened in the past. After choosing the books, I did caution my daughter about asking her teacher which, if any, of the books she could use. As it turns out, the teacher wanted the class to use “contemporary realistic fiction” books. Before reading the two chapters (9 and 10) of our text, I was unclear about the distinction between these two genres and, since the teacher didn’t specify, wanted to make sure my daughter had all of her bases covered. I have found it difficult, at times, being a parent who also happens to be a teacher. I try to help my children as much as I can, but I also offer the caveat that the way I do things might be a little different than what their teachers might want them to do, so they should always defer to what their teacher says. After all, I’m not the one handing out their grades.
\n———————————————————————-
\n———————————————————————-
\nCurrent Thread Detail:
\nQuestion 1 Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:02 pm
\n<\/span>Re: Question 1 Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:27 am
\nRe: Question 1 Sat Nov 15, 2003 2:29 pm
\nRe: Question 1 Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:57 pm
\nRe: Question 1 Sun Nov 16, 2003 7:35 pm
\nRe: Question 1 Tues Nov 18, 2003 11:16 pm<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
Figure 1.<\/strong> Example of a nonreflective, informal response.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

During an online discussion for a course on children\u2019s literature, a student responded informally to the question, \u201cCompare contemporary realistic fiction and historical fiction. How are they similar? How are they different?\u201d (see Figure 1). This student responded to other students positively. He also described an experience and, while making a point, meandered and did not critically analyze the difference between the two book genres. His response lacked any reflection and its conversational tone would relegate it to the status of an informal response.<\/p>\n

A reflective response involves critical thinking and focuses on what students in the classroom may have learned. Such a response also considers possibilities and results in a deeper understanding of the issue. The reflective piece in Figure 2 responded to the question, \u201cAside from a well-constructed plot, convincing characterization, a worthwhile theme and an appropriate style, what other considerations must guide the evaluation of a well-written fantasy?\u201d This student also positively responded to a colleague. However, she made a connection to the text and, while she shared a classroom experience, she built on that experience by focusing on what her students may have learned.<\/p>\n

I require that all five responses occur over a period of 6 days or more. I have found this structuring of time frame to be vital; otherwise, some students post all their responses the day before class, and it is unlikely anyone will read them. I liken this to coming to class when everyone else has left the room.<\/p>\n

I have found it possible to mandate a quantity of “talk” through specific assignment criteria noted in the checklist, (see appendix<\/a>) such as five responses over a minimum of 6 days. However, the facilitation of students’ reflective talk has proven to be more difficult. Over the past 6 years, I have solicited feedback regarding asynchronous discussion in the form of brief surveys given to my students in the online courses I have taught. These are graduate education students, most of whom are practicing teachers. A total of 92 graduate students were surveyed and responded over six semesters. An overwhelming 95% of the students responded positively to the use of asynchronous discussion as a forum for discussion. Although they believed that the criteria to my assessment of their online talk “was very clear and helpful” and “they were evaluated fairly,” I am still seeking ways to enhance their reflection and thoughtful responses. Throughout this paper, my students’ feedback will be included to support concepts integral to my premise that asynchronous discussion is a viable forum for discussion, especially in facilitating critical thinking skills.<\/p>\n

Discussion or “purposeful conversation in which several individuals participate” (Dejnozka & Kapel, 1991, p. 179) has long been a component of learning and understanding. With the advent of computer technology, discussion has also become a major component in online education. Faigley (1992) defined this online “talk” as a hybrid with elements of both written and spoken language. Such discussion may be in real time, as in a “chat room” where students engage in synchronous discussion, or it may be through the use of a “bulletin board,” as in asynchronous discussion where students are able to post questions and responses at any time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Current Forum: Chapter 7: Modern Fantasy and articles (Barron and Rockman) Read 35 times
\nDate: Wed November 3, 2004 12:10 am
\nAuthor: XXXXX
\nSubject: Re: Question 3
\n———————————————————————-
\nMary, I agree with your response to Meghan’s question. I too feel that one of the most important considerations is whether or not the author makes the fantasy believable. As Huck cited in our reading, “We call our individual fantasies dreams, but when we dream as a society, or human race, it becomes the sum total of all our hopes. Fantasy touches our deepest feelings…it speaks to the best and most hopeful parts of ourselves…” (308).
\nHuck also cites that, “…imagination…permits us to give credence to alternative realities” (308). The more believable an author makes a fantasy, the more connections to life a reader will be able to make. Many of you may recall my experiences with the fantasy, Tuck Everlasting from previous classes, but I feel it is worth mentioning again here. Babbitt’s story of everlasting life allows children to really explore what the reality of such a concept is by using their imaginations. I was very excited at how well my 5th graders responded to this idea and were able to discuss the pros and cons of this concept passionately in class discussions (during a mock trial of Mae Tuck) and in their written work. The connections that the students were able to make was in fact due to the wonderful imagery that the author used in her writing to help make the story feel real to the reader.
\n———————————————————————-
\nCurrent Thread Detail:
\nQuestion 3 Wed Nov 3, 2004 12 :10 pm
\nRe: Question 3 Thurs Nov 4, 2004 10:41 am
\nRe: Question 3 Thurs Nov 4, 2004 9:24 pm
\nRe: Question 3 Fri Nov 5, 2004 11:04 pm
\nRe: Question 3 Sat Nov 6, 2004 7:52 am
\nRe: Question 3 Sun Nov 7, 2004 9:41 am
\n<\/span>Re: Question 3 Sun Nov 7, 2004 10:11 am
\nRe: Question 3 Sun Nov 7, 2004 3:44 pm
\nRe: Question 3 Tues Nov 9, 2004 5:12 pm
\nRe: Question 3 Tues Nov 9, 2004 7:33 pm
\nRe: Question 3 Thurs Nov 10, 2004 10:11 pm
\nRe: Question 3 Sat Nov 12, 2004 4:21 pm
\nRe: Question 3 Sat Nov 12, 2004 7:52 pm<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Figure 2.<\/strong> Example of a reflective response.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Asynchronous discussion allows for reflective thought and “talk,” components valued in effective discussion. These same components make asynchronous discussion more viable than synchronous discussion in fostering higher order thinking, social construction of meaning, and reflection (Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, & Tinker, 2000; Davidson-Shivers, Tanner, & Muilenberg, 2000; Lapadat, 2000).<\/p>\n

The literature on reflection within online discussion in the domain of online teaching is scarce. In one study, Lehman, Warfield, Palm, and Wood (2001) examined the online discussion forum in an attempt to help elementary mathematics teachers develop their teaching in ways consistent with reform. Online discussion was found to help them reflect on their own teaching. It also allowed them to see how and what other teachers do and to make connections to their own teaching and understanding of classroom practice.<\/p>\n

From data collected through the survey, I found that all of my students agreed. One responded that online discussion “allowed me to hear everyone’s ideas. This would never have been possible during a regular class period.” Another noted that online discussion “was effectively used because we had time to explore the course information with others, seeing their points of view and hearing other’s ideas.”<\/p>\n

Reflection requires that teachers “look behind our professional facades, and examine our less confident practitioner selves” (Burge, Laroque, & Boak, 2000, p. 84). Reflecting on our practice means observing how we did what we did (analytical), questioning our assumptions, considering new ideas, and determining how well we did what we did (evaluative; see Cowan, 1998). One of the reasons that reflection, although highly touted in professional development, may not be valued or practiced is that it challenges us and may cause discomfort and uncertainty, resulting in what Schon called “restructuring” (1983, p. 35) of what we believe, know, and do.<\/p>\n

Burge et al. (2000) conducted a reflective analysis of their personal online professional development enacted completely through online discussions. They found it to be very challenging because “being online meant being on the line, that is, worrying about less-than-perfect participation and feeling susceptible to reduced self-esteem and critical judgments from peers” (p. 95). However, inquiry and reflection may serve as a way to move from defensive reactions and personal positions toward an inner exploration of why these views are held.<\/p>\n

In an attempt to place asynchronous discussion within the context of my current literacy teaching and assessment, I will explore this form of discussion with a focus on (a) language and learning from a social constructivist perspective, (b) its use as a forum for communication and critical thinking, and (c) writing online as both process (discussion) and product (document to be assessed).<\/p>\n

Language and Learning from a Social Constructivist Perspective<\/p>\n

The pedagogical rationale for discussion is best understood from the social constructivist perspective. Oliver and Naidu (1996) claimed that explaining, elaborating, and defending one’s position forces learners to integrate and elaborate on knowledge in ways that facilitate higher order learning. Embedded in the social constructivist perspective is the concept that thinking processes and the growth of knowledge result from both personal interactions in social contexts and the appropriation of socially constructed knowledge (Bruffee, 1993; Moll & Greenberg, 1990). This perspective argues that knowledge is created by the individual in an attempt to bring meaning to new information, as well as to integrate this knowledge with the individual’s prior experience. Students are then viewed as participants in the construction of meaning through their interactions with others, with such interactions mediated through spoken and written language. The classroom may be seen as a sociocultural system in which language plays a vital role. In particular, discussion among students on specific knowledge has the potential to motivate inquiry and to create a learning context in which collaborative meaning making occurs (Mason, 1998; Pontecorvo, 1990).<\/p>\n

Dialogue and discourse, talk that is oral or written, occurs in the social constructivist classroom and has many voices. It is this concept of “multivoice” (Bakhtin, 1981) that characterizes such a classroom. This concept of “multivoice” was noted by my students who appreciated the ability of online discussion as a way for everyone’s voice to be heard. “The struggle between different conceptual systems \u2013 the speaker’s and the listener’s \u2013 creates new elements and an understanding that differs from what the conversants had before” (Dysthe, 1996, p. 390). If dialogue were to be considered as purposeful online discussion, then the speaker would become the writer, the listener the reader, and due to the number of participants, online discussion would become “multivoiced.”<\/p>\n

Mason’s (1998) descriptive study of the role of oral and written discourse investigated large and small group discussion to determine if the sharing of information resulted in a greater understanding of content. Results indicated that the sharing of what participants knew through discussion helped to activate important thought processes. My students agreed, with one responding “at first, I struggled with it (discussion online). But before long, I was very comfortable. It was a wonderful way to explore new ideas.”<\/p>\n

Mason concluded that both oral and written discourse were “important pedagogical strategies to be promoted for knowledge construction and reconstruction in the classroom” (p. 384). Again my students agreed. Through the use of asynchronous discussion, one noted “I got to ‘hear’ everyone else’s view and ideas. Questions and responses were posed that I never would have even considered.” Another said, “I thought it provided insights and a great way to hear of other teachers’ actual hands-on practice.”<\/p>\n

Traditionally used as a tool for thinking and socially negotiating meaning, discussion has become a major online strategy that continues to facilitate the social construction of meaning. Because asynchronous discussion is the online environment that may be best suited to the human interactions so essential to learning (Feenberg, 2001), it will be explored as a forum for communication and critical thinking.<\/p>\n

The Use of Asynchronous Discussion<\/p>\n

Good discussion, whether in class or online, requires teachers “to facilitate the engagement of students in a dialogical process that produces increasingly sound, well grounded, and valid understanding of a topic or issue” (Lang, 2000, p. 24). As noted earlier, good discussion also moves from a sharing or descriptive content to one of reflection and critical thinking.<\/p>\n

Critical thinking may be considered \u201cself-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking\u201d (Scriven & Paul, 2004). It entails careful observation of what is read, heard, or observed followed by a thoughtful, organized analysis that results in a logical, reasoned response.<\/p>\n

Davidson-Shivers et al. (2000) examined how graduate students participated in both synchronous and asynchronous discussion. They found that, although students enjoyed both forms of online discussion, asynchronous discussion provided an opportunity for them to give reflective, thoughtful responses to posed questions and to provide insightful reaction to others’ opinions and ideas.<\/p>\n

Comparing asynchronous and synchronous discussion, Bhattacharaya (1999) also found that learners preferred asynchronous discussion because it gave them an opportunity to read and craft responses and to reflect and be better able to think critically before responding. My students agreed, with one declaring “I like the asynchronous discussion because it gave me time to really consider the material and think about my response.” Another stated, “I like this style of discussion more than a ‘chat’ session. I found myself thinking deeply about my responses and responding more from both my experience and my own knowledge.”<\/p>\n

Discussion is more than crafted responses, and asynchronous discussion has the capacity to allow for both informal and formal or reflective talk. The latter follows a set of established criteria, and in my courses is focused on what I term \u201cfinished reflective pieces.\u201d However, because discussion is a form of communication, informal talk should also be allowed. For example, the informal talk in Figure 3 responded to the online question, \u201cHow do you\/will you promote the use of nonfiction in the classroom?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
—————————————————————–
\nCurrent Forum: Chapter 11: Nonfiction, Chapter 12: Biography, and Giblin (“Ask the Author”, “Issue to Consider”) Read 28 times
\nDate: Mon Dec 1, 2003 8:56 pm
\nAuthor: XXXXXXX
\nSubject: Re: Chapter 11 Question 1
\n—————————————————————–
\nWendy, in regards to your request for non-fiction titles for the fourth grade level, I have a few suggestions. I teach fourth grade, but my concentration is in social studies. However, I recently discovered that the “Magic School Bus” series now consists of chapter books, some dealing with the science curriculum in fourth grade. Two topics that come to mind are electricity and magnetism. They are leveled at 3rd grade which is excellent because we all know that at each grade level, we have readers at above, on-level, and below level.
\nIn addition, I recommend a catalog I use to order non-fiction from school called Sundance. There are several options available at varying levels. I hope this helps.
\n—————————————————————–
\n—————————————————————–
\nCurrent Thread Detail:
\nChapter 11 Question 1 Mon Dec 1, 2003 8:56 pm
\n<\/span>Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Fri Dec 5, 2003 6:48 pm
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:47 am
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 6, 2003 11:06 am
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:04 pm
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:47 pm
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:18 pm
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sun Dec 7, 2003 1:18 pm
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:28 pm
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:56 pm
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:04 pm
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 13, 2003 9:39 am
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 13, 2003 4:19 pm
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:02 pm
\nRe: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:37 pm
\n<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Figure 3.<\/strong> Example of informal talk.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Although this response does not critically answer the question, it allows peers to share their expertise and experiences within the framework of an asynchronous discussion. This type of response does receive some credit because it documents the student\u2019s presence and participation online. It also provides a greater range of online talk.<\/p>\n

I require students to respond at least three times in an informal manner, including some sharing of information or experiences, asking of questions, or simply noting how they appreciated what someone else had said. Some other examples of such talk include the following. One student noted online, after exploring a specific Web site a peer had posted, “This is really a great website! I couldn’t believe all the information available. It will be very useful. Thanks for sharing it.”<\/p>\n

Another student responded to a peer’s talk about the importance of teaching to students’ needs, especially those for whom English is a second language (ESL):<\/p>\n

Jodi’s sensitivity and awareness of issues regarding ESL students are to be highly commended. There are so many strategies and concepts that ESL teachers would love to share with their colleagues. By cooperating and forming partnerships with ESL teachers and having them share their expertise in the teaching of ESL, teachers can greatly benefit from their newly acquired knowledge and in the process help their students who come from different linguistic backgrounds.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Although clear and supportive, this is still an informal, uncritical response. It does not note specific examples of ESL strategies and concepts and fails to analyze how the partnership\u2019s ESL teachers form with other teachers may benefit each. Compare this response to the response in Figure 4. In a children’s literature course, while discussing contemporary realistic fiction, specifically survival stories, a student validated a peer’s response but also asked a question that raised the discussion to a level beyond sharing.<\/p>\n

In this reflective response, the writer took the class from a point they knew (\u201csurvival is basic instinct\u201d) and challenged them with a thought-provoking question. She analyzed the concept of survival and considered new possibilities.<\/p>\n

Another example of online talk that exhibits attributes of critical thinking is the response to the question \u201cWhat is schema theory? Explain why it is important to the reading process?\u201d (see Figure 4). This student responds to a peer with some positive feedback. She then continues to build on the concept of schema theory, making specific connections to the text and analyzing the issue clearly from the point of view of the classroom teacher. Her language is professional, yet accessible and provides some general guidelines for other teachers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
————————————————————
\nCurrent Forum: Chapter Five Discussion: Building the Background Knowledge of Students Read 18 times
\nDate Tues Oct 19, 2004 11:11 am
\nAuthor: XXXXXXXX
\nSubject: Re: Question 1-Schema theory
\n—————————————————————–
\nYou did an excellent job of explaining what schema theory is. I like the way that chapter five discusses schema as a “mental blueprint.” As each child acquires new information, this knowledge is organized by linking this new information with previously learned knowledge. This shows just how important building prior knowledge is for all people. In order to gain new knowledge, students must build on the knowledge they already have. If there is no knowledge to be used as a basis, it is up to teachers to supply this new knowledge.
\nIn chapter five, the importance of “connecting the intent of words to what is already stored in one’s schemata (eye to brain)” was called real reading. In thinking about this, I realized how true this was for all students. By simply seeing or saying words, the students will not be truly taking in new knowledge. Instead, students must connect these words with their own mental blueprint or things they already know. This takes learning from a surface level to a more engaging, reflective level.
\nEncouraging students to tap into their prior knowledge and helping them build knowledge if it is lacking, is essential if we expect students to be successful with reading. Schemata allows students to experience success in the content areas if it is organized in a way that allows them to access previous experiences easily. This is where teachers must step in. In order for students to organize schemata, teachers must build on what students already know and provide information for those students who have limited experiences.
\n—————————————————————–
\nCurrent Thread Detail:
\nQuestion 1-Schema theory Tues Oct 19 2004 11:11 am
\nRe: Question 1-Schema theory Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:15 am
\n<\/span>Re: Question 1-Schema theory Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:24 pm
\nRe: Question 1-Schema theory Sat Oct 21, 2004 10:28 am
\nRe: Question 1-Schema theory Sat Oct 21, 2004 1:56 pm
\nRe: Question 1-Schema theory Sun Oct 22, 2004 7:46 pm <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Figure 4.<\/strong> Example of reflective response.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

I have found that one of the main benefits of asynchronous discussion lies in the fact that this forum for talk may be used at the students’ convenience \u2013 any time, any place. Another benefit is the time possible for students to reflect and compose a response. Time for reflection has the potential for more critical and thoughtful responses. The text of talk, as documented online, indicates that increased student participation and a written record are other benefits for the class, as well as the instructor. One of my students stated, “It’s easier to express your ideas online. I don’t think people are as willing to talk face to face.” This reaction to the use of asynchronous discussion indicates that writing may allow some students to take more risks and be more expressive than talking with peers in a traditional classroom.<\/p>\n

However, the increasing shift from the traditional classroom to an online format poses enormous challenges to both instructors and learners.<\/p>\n

The concept of the classroom where students meet to interact with other learners and the instructor no longer exists. The instructor can no longer ‘look’ around the room to see if students are attending to the material, bored, or confused. (Misanchuk, Anderson, Craner, Eddy, & Smith, 2000, p. 300)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In fact, the natural social outlet of the classroom where learners engage with peers is replaced by the computer screen. If a student does not actively participate in the online discussion, he does not exist. Therefore, student participation is vital not only for the sharing of ideas and reflection, but also for validation of each student’s membership in the classroom community.<\/p>\n

Also inherent in this isolation is the need for self-motivation. My students were very aware of this, stating, “Self-monitoring challenges me because when I am home, I tend not to think of school until one or two days before class.” Another student discussed her difficulty at times in understanding what was being asked and even discussed. She noted, “But after I would reread the text, the question and discussion would make more sense.” A third student said, “I had to motivate myself to get on the computer all the time,” adding, “It made me grow as a person.”<\/p>\n

Through my own experiences and through feedback received from my students, I have found other disadvantages of asynchronous discussion. These may include<\/p>\n