Content uploaded by Teresa Franklin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Teresa Franklin on Jul 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Designing asynchronous online discussion environments:
Recent progress and possible future directions_1330 469..483
Fei Gao, Tianyi Zhang and Teresa Franklin
Fei Gao is an assistant professor in Learning Design at Bowling Green State University. Her research focuses on
designing technology-enhanced learning environments and assessing the effectiveness of learning in these
environments. Tianyi Zhang received her PhD at Michigan State University. She specializes in motivation, epistemic
beliefs and technology integration for learning in ill-structured knowledge domains. Teresa Franklin is a professor in
Instructional Technology at Ohio University. Her research interests include the integration of technology through
curriculum development, mobile technologies in the classroom, virtual learning environments, game development for
science classrooms and online course development as well as issues surrounding access to technology in rural
communities. Address for correspondence: Dr Fei Gao, Bowling Green State University, 149 College Park, Bowling
Green, OH, 43403, USA. Email: gaof@bgsu.edu
Abstract
Asynchronous online discussion environments are important platforms to support
learning. Research suggests, however, threaded forums, one of the most popular asyn-
chronous discussion environments, do not often foster productive online discussions
naturally. This paper explores how certain properties of threaded forums have affected or
constrained the quality of discussions, and argues that developing alternative discussion
environments is highly needed to offer better support for asynchronous online commu-
nication. Using the Productive Online Discussion Model developed by Gao, Wang and
Sun, we analyzed current work on four types of asynchronous discussion environ-
ments that have been developed and researched: constrained environments, visualized
environments, anchored environments and combined environments. The paper has
implications for developing future asynchronous online discussion environments. More
specifically, future work should aim at (1) exploring new environments that support
varied goals of learning, (2) integrating emerging technologies to address the
constraints of current environments, (3) designing multifunctional environments to
facilitate complex learning and (4) developing appropriate instructional activities and
strategies for these environments.
Introduction
Asynchronous online discussion plays an important role in online and hybrid courses by sup-
porting a variety of educational activities. It is considered an extension of instructional practices
that promotes dialogue, reflection, knowledge construction and self-assessment (Gerosa, Filippo,
Pimentel, Fuks & Lucena, 2010; Kayler & Weller, 2007). Researchers believe that it frees learners
from time and space constraints, providing ample possibilities for communication. Participating
in asynchronous online discussion by sharing thoughts, asking questions and providing feedback
is one of the major means to support interaction and build communities in online learning
environments (DeWert, Babinski & Jones, 2006; Y. Yang, Yeh & Wong, 2010). In addition, some
argue that online discussion potentially allows for more in-depth discussions and more thought-
ful learning than is possible in traditional face-to-face settings (Hawkes, 2006), because students
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 3 2013 469–483
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
in face-to-face discussions may not have sufficient time to think thoroughly before they respond.
In online discussion forums, in contrast, the entire discussion is available for perusal, providing
learners with opportunities for identifying, examining and reflecting upon ideas (Collison,
Elbaum, Haavind & Tinker, 2000).
Asynchronous online discussion environments, typically threaded discussion forums, have
been widely used in educational settings for such purposes. Despite the popularity of threaded
forums, it is argued that they “might not be the best technology to support the interactive and
collaborative processes essential to a conversational model of learning” (Thomas, 2002, p. 364).
Researchers have identified some problems in having students participate in threaded discus-
sions. For example, there is a frequent lack of focus in threaded discussions. The digressions in
threaded forums prevent students from focusing on course content or developing an incisive
understanding of the learning materials (Knowlton, 2001). In addition, some researchers notice
that there is not much meaningful interaction taking place in threaded forums. In many forums,
students post condensed expositions of their own ideas, without attending or responding to the
ideas of others (Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 2000; Larson & Keiper, 2002). Finally, the discussions often
remain at a surface level, such as sharing or comparing information, seldom delving to deeper
levels that involve negotiating meaning, synthesizing or applying newly acquired knowledge
(Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson, 1997).
To promote the quality of discussions, researchers have investigated different instructional
approaches, including developing online activities to engage learners (Nussbaum, 2005; Seo,
2007), teaching and modeling ways of interaction (Choi & Johnson, 2005; Smet, Keer, Wever &
Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic
• Asynchronous online discussion plays an important role in facilitating learning.
• It is hard to foster a focused, interactive and in-depth asynchronous discussion in
traditional threaded forums.
• Researchers have investigated multiple ways of structuring or facilitating asynchro-
nous online discussions.
What this paper adds
• The paper analyzes how existing features of threaded forums constrain the quality of
online discussion.
• The paper identifies the progress made in designing alternative asynchronous
discussion environments and discusses four major types of asynchronous discussion
environments that have been developed and researched.
• The paper provides suggestions for developing future asynchronous discussion
environments.
Implications for practice and/or policy
• Designing alternative asynchronous discussion environments is necessary to improve
the quality of online discussion and communication.
• New asynchronous discussion environments need to be designed to meet varied
learning goals and facilitate complex learning.
• Appropriate instructional strategies need to be developed for both existing and new
online discussion environments.
470 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 3 2013
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
Valcke, 2010), and adopting teaching or moderating strategies (Bradley, Thom, Hayes & Hay,
2008; Chen, Kinshuk, Wei & Liu, 2011). A few researchers have taken a different approach and
noticed that some of the problems result from the design and structure of threaded forums.
Therefore, there is a need to design discussion environments with specific features to increase the
likelihood of effective discussions. We argue that, to improve the quality of asynchronous online
discussion, more attention should be paid to such effort. This paper discusses the theoretical basis
of online discussion, analyzes the constraints of threaded forums, summarizes current work
on designing discussion environments and offers suggestions for designing online discussion
environments.
A model for productive online discussion
The assumption that active participation in asynchronous online discussion is important for
learning has been widely recognized (Morris, Finnegan & Sz-Shyan, 2005). Learning through
discussion involves a wide variety of cognitive and social activities. Researchers have studied
learning occurring in online discussion forums from different perspectives, attempting to concep-
tualize its complex meanings (eg, Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000; Gunawardena et al, 1997;
Henri, 1992). Based on these theories, Gao, Wang and Sun (2009) proposed the Productive
Online Discussion Model (see Table 1), suggesting that in a productive discussion, it is essential for
participants to embrace the following four dispositions: (1) discuss to comprehend, (2) discuss to
critique, (3) discuss to construct knowledge and (4) discuss to share. These four dispositions
address different but interrelated perspectives on learning.
Table 1: Productive Online Discussion Model
Disposition 1: discuss to comprehend
Actively engage in such cognitive processes as interpretation, elaboration, making connections to prior
knowledge.
Learner Actions
(a) Interpreting or elaborating the ideas by making connection to the learning materials
(b) Interpreting or elaborating the ideas by making connection to personal experience
(c) Interpreting or elaborating the ideas by making connection to other ideas, sources or references
Disposition 2: discuss to critique
Carefully examine other people’s views, and be sensitive and analytical to conflicting views.
Learner Actions
(a) Building upon others’ posts by adding new insights or ideas
(b) Challenging the ideas in the learning materials
(c) Challenging the ideas in others’ posts
Disposition 3: discuss to construct knowledge
Actively negotiate meanings, and be ready to reconsider, refine and sometimes revise their thinking.
Learner Actions
(a) Comparing and contrasting views from the texts or others’ posts
(b) Facilitating thinking and discussions by raising questions
(c) Refining and revising one’s own view based on the texts or others’ posts
Disposition 4: discuss to share
Actively encourage and support each other’s thinking and share improved understanding based on
previous discussions.
Learner Actions
(a) Showing support and appreciation
(b) Synthesizing discussion contents
(c) Coming up with ideas or questions that invite further discussion
Adapted from Gao et al (2009).
Designing asynchronous discussion environments 471
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
Discuss to comprehend
A productive discussion involves diverse and complex cognitive activities. Based on perspectives of
cognitive psychologists, information is more likely to be understood or retained when individual
learners are actively engaged in cognitive efforts such as questioning, interpreting, elaborating or
relating the information to their prior knowledge (Pressley, Wood, Woloshyn & Martin, 1992).
During productive discussions, participants need to comprehend the issues or ideas shared in
discussion forums by interpreting and elaborating ideas, building connections, and so on.
Discuss to critique
Researchers taking the individual constructivist perspective emphasize the importance of argu-
mentation in online discussions to trigger learners’ knowledge construction. From this perspec-
tive, knowledge acquisition originates from cognitive conflicts from social interactions. The
conflict between the individual’s existing understanding and new experiences creates disequili-
bration, which, in turn, leads the individual to questioning original assumptions and exploring
new resolutions (Piaget, 1985). Based on this perspective, conflicting statements should be
carefully developed and examined in productive discussions.
Discuss to construct knowledge
Researchers taking a social constructivist perspective focus on investigating collaborative knowl-
edge construction in online discussions. From this perspective, individuals do not learn in isola-
tion. Each individual may conceive the external reality somewhat differently, based on their
unique prior experiences and beliefs (Jonassen, 1991). A productive online discussion, as a result,
should offer opportunities for social interaction and collaboration, where individuals can
compare different perspectives, negotiate personal interpretations with those of others and con-
struct a richer understanding of the topic.
Discuss to share
Related to the idea of collaborative knowledge construction, psychologists have also studied the
role of learning community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). They consider that learning occurs when
learners are immersed and play a role in communities of practice. According to this perspective,
a productive online discussion occurs in an online learning community in which learners
embrace a sense of belonging, show mutual support, create shared values and enjoy their shared
identity.
In this paper, we will use this model as a framework to evaluate and critique the research on
asynchronous online discussion environments because the model addresses critical perspectives
of learning in online discussion, and can serve as a useful framework to analyze the types of
learning that is supported or inhibited in online discussion environments.
Constraints of threaded discussion forums
One of the most commonly used environments for asynchronous online discussion is a threaded
forum. In a threaded forum, participants can either start a new thread of discussion by creating
a post or continue an existing thread by replying to others’ posts. Posts in a given thread are linked
to each other in chronological order. Although the practice of having online discussions is well
supported by learning theories, a few researchers believe that certain properties of threaded
discussion forums may affect or constrain the quality of discussions. In particular, they have
identified the following limitations of traditional threaded forums.
First, it is difficult to maintain a focused discussion in threaded forums. Many threaded forums
are set up in a way that participants are likely to pay attentions to unread posts (in boldface)
and the most recent posts (listed at the top of the forums) rather than posts with important
content. Hewitt (2003) noticed that, because participants are more likely to respond to recent
472 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 3 2013
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
posts and less likely to revisit older posts, the excessive focus on new posts can unintentionally
shift participants’ attention away from discussing important issues. Herring (1999) believed
the asynchronous threaded discussion system resulted in a high level of overlapping exchanges
and topic decay. She cited Lambiase’s (2010) work who found that during the first nine days of
discussion, the percentage of posts on the group’s global topic decreased steadily from 65% to
33%. Meaningful reflection, social interaction and knowledge construction can hardly occur
when participants fail to maintain the focus of discussion on the central topics.
Second, it is difficult to promote interactive dialogues in threaded forums. In threaded forums, the
hierarchical structure of discussion threads fails to represent the interrelationship of discussion
posts. In a typical threaded forum, the hierarchical structure of the discussion only indicates the
reply relationship between posts (by using indentation) and the time sequence of the replies (by
showing the posts in chronological order). But Hewitt (2001) pointed out there is a significant
distinction between the hierarchical structure imposed by the system and the linkages that are
implicit in the text of the posts. “Online discussions may be much more intertwined and interre-
lated than the threaded representation indicates” (Hewitt, 2001, p. 210). In threaded forums, if
a student’s response is triggered by multiple messages posted by others, for example, the student
may have difficulty in deciding whose post should be followed and how to integrate everyone’s
ideas in his or her response. In threaded forums, it can be hard for participants to perceive how
discussions are interrelated and build upon previous discussions. As a result, threaded forums
may not be able to “promote the interactive dialogue of conversation, but rather leads students
towards poorly interrelated monologues” (Thomas, 2002, p. 351).
Third, it is hard to synthesize ideas in threaded forums. The hierarchical structure of threaded
forums only supports the expanding and branching of the conversation, but provides little
support for convergent processes (Hewitt, 2001). Rourke and Kanuka (2009), after reviewing the
literature, found that researchers uniformly identify the majority of participants’ posts in online
forums as exploring ideas (exploration) and only a negligible percentage of posts as integrating
ideas for solutions (resolution). The absence of “counteracting processes that draw branches
together, tease out the best ideas, and rally the community around promising new avenues of
investigation” has made it difficult to build consensus or co-construct knowledge (Hewitt, 2001,
p. 217).
Finally, there is a lack of emotional cues and timely feedback in threaded forums, which may
reduce the extent and the effectiveness of communication (Curtis & Lawson, 2001). Participants
in Murphy and Coleman’s (2004) study reported that, in the text-only environment, it was
difficult to “discern the flavour of a reply,” “read into responses” or avoid taking “a comment the
wrong way” (Challenges Related to Text-Only, Online Communication section, para. 1). Lacking
timely feedback may also affect the quality of discussion, because having to wait for several hours
or days for replies from others greatly inhibit the momentum and flow of discussions (Jeong &
Frazier, 2008).
In sum, threaded forums, though commonly used in educational settings, have certain con-
straints, and may not be ideal to support various learning goals. To enhance the quality of
online discussions in threaded forums, researchers have investigated how to provide appropriate
instructions and guidelines to provoke good discussions (Ertmer et al, 2007; Nussbaum, 2005;
Seo, 2007), how to enhance participants’ discussion skills (Choi & Johnson, 2005; Yang, Newby
& Bill, 2005) and moderators’ facilitation skills (Muilenburg & Berge, 2000; Bradley et al, 2008).
An alternative way, however, is to enhance the design of threaded forums or to design new
discussion environments that encourage particular learning processes. Unfortunately, limited
progress has been made on designing alternative asynchronous online discussion environments.
The next section discusses current work.
Designing asynchronous discussion environments 473
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
Method
Identification of research
To present an overview of the discussion environments that have been developed and researched
over the past few years, studies were selected based on the following steps. First, we searched for
papers on online discussion environments in six refereed educational technology journal (British
Journal of Educational Technology,Computers and Education,Educational Technology Research and
Development,Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,Journal of Educational Computing Research and
Journal of Educational Technology and Society) from 2000 to May 2011 using the key words such as
“online discussion,” “online communication,” “asynchronous discussion,” “discussion environ-
ment” and “discussion environment design.” These journals were selected because they are
among the most important channels where scientific research on the design, development and
use of such environments take place.
Second, we read the abstracts of each paper found in the search results and selected those studies
that focus on designing asynchronous online discussion environments. Studies that are not
related to discussion environment design or address only synchronous environment design were
excluded. Altogether, seven papers were identified.
Finally, snowball sampling was conducted examining related papers cited in these seven papers.
Six more papers were identified and were thus added to the existing pool. We understand that the
list of 13 studies is not exhaustive, but the purpose of this study is not to provide a comprehensive
review on the topic. Instead, it aims to critically evaluate a number of discussion environments
that have been rigorously studied and represented the current research effort on designing asyn-
chronous discussion environments. Evaluating these environments will thus provide insights for
future research in the field.
Data analysis
We conducted an analysis of the 13 studies in two phases. During the first phase, we coded each
study for the following characteristics: environment names, features and educational goals.
During the second phase, we analyzed those environments based on their features to determine
the major types of discussion environments. The first two authors independently coded each of
the studies for categories, and then discussed their coding and determined the major types of
environments. The four types of discussion environments emerged from the data analysis were:
constrained environments, visualized environments, anchored environments and combined
environments (see Appendix).
Four types of asynchronous discussion environments
This section describes the four types of asynchronous discussion environments in detail and
discusses how the quality of online discussion in such environments can be improved based on
the Productive Online Discussion Model.
Constrained environments
Constrained environments are a prestructured form of discussion environments that scaffold
participants to participate in discussion in certain ways.Typically, it requires participants to start
their notes with a predefined phase—a note starter, such as “my argument is . . .” (Jonassen &
Remidez, 2005) or label their notes using a predefined set of post types, such as evidence or
elaboration (Oh & Jonassen, 2007). The rationale is that such structured environments can
promote participants’ metacognitive thinking and engage them in desired cognitive processes
(Jonassen & Remidez, 2005; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). A few scholars have investigated the
effectiveness of such environments.
Nussbaum, Hartley, Sinatra, Reynolds and Bendixen (2004), for example, encouraged counter-
argument using a constrained environment, in which students were asked to use such note
474 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 3 2013
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
starters as “on the opposite side,” “I need to understand” and “my argument is” to begin their
notes. By comparing discussion in this environment with that in a threaded forum, they con-
cluded the approach significantly increased the frequency of disagreement. However, note start-
ers are not equally effective for different types of learners. They are particularly useful for students
with low degrees of curiosity or assertiveness.
In addition to note starters, some researchers designed environments where participants are
required to add a post type label adjacent to the titles of their posts. Hoadley and Linn’s (2000)
SpeakEasy environment uses semantic labels such as and,or,but,i.e., and ?to indicate the rela-
tionship of current posts and previous posts. In their study, students were prompt to categorize
their comments by picking a semantic label before providing a subject heading. When compar-
ing student discussions in SpeakEasy with that in a regular threaded forum, they found no
significant difference. Both discussion formats supported students to gain an integrated under-
standing of the learning content. In a constrained environment developed by Oh and Jonassen
(2007), both post type labels (which are hypothesis cause,solution generation,verification,rebuttal,
evidence and elaboration) and note starters (including “My experience is ...,”“I believe ...,”
“Research shows ...,”“Ascholar says . . .”) were applied. By comparing the online argumen-
tation occurred in this environment with that in a threaded forum, Oh and Jonassen (2007)
concluded that participants in the constrained environment generated more evidence posts,
more hypothesis and hypothesis testing posts. The study conducted by Jeong and Joung (2007),
however, reported negative effect of using such labels. Jeong and Joung (2007) compared the
nature of online argumentation of three groups: (1) control group, (2) constraints-only group,
where students posted only specific types of message from a prescribed set of message categories
such as arguments,evidence,critique and explanation, and (3) constraints-with-labels group,
where students posted specific types of message and at the same time manually labeled each
message with a prescribed post type label. The study found that participants in the constraints-
with-labels group were less likely to critique others and respond back to critiques than the other
two groups, suggesting post type labels inhibited the process of developing deeper and more
critical analysis of individual arguments.
In sum, the educational goal of most constrained environments is to promote the quality of
online argumentation using note starters or post type labels, probably because, compared with
other forms of discussion, argumentation has a stricter format and requires the presence of
certain key components such as claim, ground (evidence, data), warrant, backing, rebuttal
(Toulmin, 1958). In such cases, note starters or post type labels can provide learners necessary
scaffolds through the process of argumentation. Both positive and negative effects were
identified in using such environments. Researchers in these studies have investigated different
starters or post type labels, and evaluated the quality of discussion based on different criteria.
As a result, it is hard to synthesize the research findings across the studies or to
conclude what specific types of constrained environments are effective in achieving what
goals.
The constrained environments have mainly been used for scaffolding the two types of disposi-
tions specified in the Productive Online Discussion Model (Disposition 2: discuss to critique and
Disposition 3: discuss to construct knowledge). Because in these studies, participants’ response
were restricted to the predetermined types, such as hypothesis cause,solution generation,verifi-
cation,rebuttal,evidence and elaboration, it is hard for learners to participate in the discussion in
other ways, such as interpreting or clarifying ideas (in Disposition 1) or providing support or
encouragement (in Disposition 4). As a result, the discussion may become too convergent and
somewhat artificial. Therefore, although constrained online discussion environments embrace
the advantage of enhancing focused student–student interactions, such environments are also
challenged by its possibility of hindering the diversity of discussion threads. Perhaps this
Designing asynchronous discussion environments 475
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
disadvantage can explain why the participants who used such discussion environment
in Jeong and Joung’s (2007) study did not outperform their peers in terms of critique ideas or
responding to critiques. It is, therefore, crucial for online instructors who plan to use the con-
strained discussion environment to be very clear about their instructional goals and develop
predefined discussion scaffolds based on the learning goals.
Visualized environments
Visualized discussion environments use maps or tables to create graphical representations of
different viewpoints and their relations (Ertl, Kopp & Mandl, 2008; Suthers, Vatrapu, Medina,
Joseph & Dwyer, 2008). Researchers believe that learners benefit from co-constructing graphical
representations because the processes of construction, such as linking new claims to an existing
argument graph or filling in cells of a table, may prompt the externalization of particular cogni-
tive processes (Andriessen, Baker & Suthers, 2003).
One of the most researched visualized environments is Belvedere developed by Suther and
colleagues (Andriessen et al, 2003; Suthers et al, 2008; Suthers, Weiner, Connelly & Paolucci,
1995). Belvedere is a visualized online argumentation environment where participants can visu-
ally express relations of conceptual objects by creating notes of different shapes and links between
notes. Additionally, participants can set different belief levels for statements and relations and
display these as line thickness (Suthers et al, 2001). Researchers found that the use of Belvedere
increased the generation of coherent arguments and problem-solving actions (Cho & Jonassen,
2002), and participants using Belvedere were more likely to state hypotheses early, elaborate on
their hypotheses and integrate them with data than learners using a threaded forum (Suthers
et al, 2008).
BeyondShare is another discussion and collaboration tool based on concept map (Kao, Lin & Sun,
2008). In this environment, students can construct their personal concept maps, and integrate
their maps with their classmates’ maps by establishing interlinks between the maps. They can also
make comments to evaluate their classmates’ maps and select “personal best fit” concept maps.
The map receiving the most votes earns the designation of “best fit” map. Based on the analysis
of the learners’ questionnaire responses, the authors claimed that BeyondShare was capable of
engaging learners in active knowledge construction and learning.
A visualized environment can be an ideal environment to “provide new representations of dis-
course structures,” “make it easier for learner to review global progress” and “allow learners to
view more than one note at a time” (Hewitt, 2001, pp. 217–218), which according to Hewitt,
are important features for a successful discussion environment. Capturing and representing the
flow of discussions by using shapes and links, visualized environments can encourage
learners’ analytical reasoning (ie, Disposition 2: discuss to critique) and knowledge construction
(ie, Disposition 3: discuss to construct knowledge). Nevertheless, when online discussions
are more complicated, multifaceted, prolonged or recursive, visualization may no longer be
illuminating. Therefore, the popularity of this type of environments in the future relies on the
effort and the success to release this limitation. Using other functions, such as tagging
or color coding different types of posts, are suggested to support the flexibility of discussion
flows.
Anchored environments
A group of researchers believe that discussions should be focused on the topic and sustained over
a period of time to have a positive effect on learning (Guzdial & Turns, 2000), and have studied
how anchored environments support sustained on-topic discussion. In an anchored discussion
environment, participants can identify a portion of text and type in a comment while they are
reading an online document. The comments are shown alongside the document with a visual
476 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 3 2013
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
indication of the associated text, so all other participants can read and respond to each other’s
comments. As a result, discussions are anchored within specific content.
WebAnn (Brush, Bargeron, Grudin, Borning & Gupta, 2002; Marshall & Brush, 2004) is a system
that supports anchored discussion of online documents. When comparing the discussion in
WebAnn with that in Epost, a typical threaded discussion board, Brush and her colleagues found
there was more discussion in WebAnn, and students perceived that the discussion in WebAnn
focused more on the text, and was more thoughtful. When van der Pol, Admiraal and Simons
(2006) compared an anchored discussion forum with regular threaded discussion forums in
Blackboard, they investigated the quality of discussion by analyzing students’ posts. They found
that discussion in the anchored discussion forum referred more frequently to the text, and was
more focused and more communicatively efficient.
Some anchored environments were enhanced by integrating a threaded discussion forum. The
advantage of such design is that participants can have the freedom to use either the anchored
environments to share annotations while studying the learning materials or the threaded forums
to have more in-depth discussions. Nokelainen, Miettinen, Kurhila, Floréen and Tirri (2005)
designed such an environment called EDUCOSM. Their study showed a positive correlation
between the quality of annotations and learners’ final grades. Similarly, in Wei and Chen’s
(2006) e-book, participants can annotate the text, and the annotations are linked to a threaded
forum for continued discussion. Participants can also use mobile phones to access the discussion
forum anytime and anywhere. Wei and Chen (2006) found that the e-book environment signifi-
cantly increased the level of participation in the discussion as compared with the threaded forum.
The quality of discussion, however, was not examined in the study.
In sum, anchored environments share a common purpose, which is promoting more contextu-
alized and more focused discussion on the learning materials. The discussion in anchored
environments mainly encourages Disposition 1: discuss to comprehend and Disposition 2: discuss to
critique. Though their effects on learning remains unknown, across studies, researchers found
that there were usually more discussions in anchored environments than in threaded forum and
the discussions were more focused on the learning materials. So far, anchored environments have
mainly been used to discuss text-based materials. Based on the reported positive effects of
anchored environments, we argue that anchored environments may potentially support other
types of artifact-centered discussion. The artifacts can take a variety of forms, such as graphics or
videos. Within anchored environments, learners can highlight a particular part of the artifact,
making to-the-point, focused discussion.
Though an anchored environment has made it easy to have in-depth and focused discussions on
specific section of the readings, comparing and contrasting views across posts (Disposition 3 of
the Productive Online Discussion Model) and synthesizing discussion or ideas across the readings
(Disposition 4 of the Productive Online Discussion Model) could be hard, and the scope of dis-
cussion could be limited because general discussion is unlikely to occur when all the comments
are made based on specific texts (Gao, 2009). That is, such environments may be difficult to
trigger knowledge connections due to its localization effect. This is an issue that needs to be
resolved in the future when designing anchored environments.
Combined environments
Combined environments refer to those that integrate more than one of the three types of
environments. Two environments that identified as combined environments are CaMILE and
Knowledge Forum.
CaMILE is an online discussion system developed by Guzdial and Turns (2000). It shares the
features of constrained environments and anchored environments. Similar to other structured
Designing asynchronous discussion environments 477
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
environments, students chose a post type or classification, such as new theory or evidence.In
addition, when students create notes on a page in CaMILE, they can choose to link them to a file,
a web page or other media. The selected file is uploaded to CaMILE Server and attached to the
note, which serves as an anchor for subsequent discussion. Consistent to the research on
anchored environments, discussion in CaMILE was more sustained, more focused on class learn-
ing topics and involved broader participation.
Knowledge Forum (previously called CSILE) (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, 2003), combined
major features of all the three different environments. When composing a note in Knowledge
Forum, participants can choose a scaffold indicating whether the post belongs to one of the
subcategories of “Theory Building,” “Opinion,” “Assessment” or “KB principles,” and upload
artifacts to support their statements. In addition, links can be created to connect a note to the
notes or artifacts previously created by others, making it possible to anchor a note to other notes
or artifacts. In the enhanced version of Knowledge Forum, there is a graphical view function,
where note icons related to a particular topic of discussion can be placed and arranged visually to
provide a higher level representation of ideas (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2010). According to
Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994), students using CSILE/Knowledge Forum greatly surpass stu-
dents in ordinary classrooms in terms of the depth of learning and reflection, awareness of what
they have learned or need to learn, and understanding of learning.
Not many studies on combined environments were found. Combined environments bring
together the advantages of different types of environments to enhance the quality of discus-
sion. In particular, Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (1994, 2003) work on Knowledge Forum has
received a lot of attention (Chai & Tan, 2009). Empirical studies on Knowledge Forum, however,
are limited, so it remains unclear how the multiple features integrated in Knowledge Forum work
together to promote learning. Future research is needed to examine the mechanism of such
combined environments, which will in turn provide insights on designing new environments.
Implications for designing future discussion environments
This paper discusses why threaded forums may not be an ideal environment for asynchronous
online discussion and presents four types of asynchronous online discussion environments that
have been developed and researched as alternatives for threaded forums. In addition, we used the
Productive Online Discussion Model as a framework to critique the existing design and suggest
possible improvements. This section goes beyond the design of the four types of environments
discussed so far and offers a few possible directions for designing asynchronous online discussion
in the future.
First, the discussion environments in many of the reviewed studies (especially the constrained
environments and visualized environments) aim at facilitating collaborative online argumenta-
tion. Research on designing environments to achieve other learning goals is limited. Online
discussion serves a variety of purposes, including fostering an online community (Mäkitalo,
Häkkinen, Leinonen & Järvelä, 2002), encouraging information sharing (Hew & Hara, 2007),
promoting critical thinking (Chiu, 2009) and supporting collaborative problem solving (Ge, Chen
& Davis, 2005). Effective environment for interaction and discussion varies when the educational
purpose differs. Therefore, there is a need to identify and develop new types of discussion envi-
ronments that best support other purposes of learning. For example, if the main goal of discus-
sion is to foster online community, providing timely feedback and support could be crucial. In
such case, some incentive mechanism may be designed into the discussion environment, so
participants who respond in a timely manner will be rewarded in certain ways.
Second, current discussion environments have addressed some of the constraints of traditional
threaded forums. For example, the visualized environments try to provide a more conspicuous
478 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 3 2013
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
discussion structure for participants by visualizing the relationships among posts. Anchored
environments try to solve the problem of digression in discussions by contextualizing the posts.
Some other constraints of threaded forums, including lack of convergent processes, emotional
cues or timely responses, have not been fully addressed. To address these problems, we should
consider the possibility of integrating emerging technologies to enhance the effectiveness of
discussion environment design. For example, Hewitt designs an environment called Pepper, which
integrates a Web 2.0 collaborative writing pad into a threaded forum, so participants can sum-
marize what they have learned from the discussions on the writing pad as the discussions go on
in the forum. Such environment may encourage participants to go beyond knowledge sharing,
and actively process and synthesize information presented by others.
Third, the majority of current work on online discussion environments typically examines a
particular discussion tool or environment. In reality, learning is a complex process that aims at
the integration of knowledge, skills and attitude, and requires a high level of learners’ engage-
ment at multiple stages. To achieve a desired learning goal, discussion supported by a single tool
may not be enough. Future work should consider designing multifunctional environments or
systems that integrate asynchronous discussion environments with other new media technolo-
gies to facilitate learning at different phases and levels. The closest example we can find on
multifunctional environments is Jamaludin, Chee and Ho’s (2009) design, where they com-
bined asynchronous and synchronous environments to support different aspects of experiential
learning: Second Life virtual environment was used for role-playing activities to support the
extensional-apprehension mode of experiential learning; and a discussion board was used
for argumentative discourse to support the intentional-comprehension mode of experiential
learning.
Fourth, learning environments alone cannot ensure successful learning. The quality of
discussion can be influenced by a number of different factors, including the design of activities,
learners’ characteristics such as their knowledge and skills. For example, the constrained envi-
ronments use scaffolds (ie, post types or labels) to guide participants through steps of forming an
argumentation. Providing such scaffolds, however, is not sufficient for participants to make
strong arguments. Teaching the essential skills of argumentation may be still necessary to help
students perform well in such environments. As a result, to improve the use of online discussion
environments for expected instructional goals, educators or researchers should also focus on
designing appropriate instructional activities and developing suitable teaching strategies that can
improve participants’ performance in these environments.
References
Andriessen, J., Baker, M. & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: confronting cognitions in computer-supported
collaborative learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Bradley, M. E., Thom, L. R., Hayes, J. & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: how question type
influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology,39,5,
888–900.
Brush, A., Bargeron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A. & Gupta, A. (2002). Supporting interaction outside of class:
anchored discussion vs. discussion boards. Proceedings of 2002 Conference on Computer Support for
Collaborative Learning (pp. 425–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chai, C. S. & Tan, S. C. (2009). Professional development of teachers for computer-supported collaborative
learning: a knowledge-building approach. Teachers College Record,111, 5, 1296–1327.
Chen, N., Kinshuk, Wei, C. & Liu, C. (2011). Effects of matching teaching strategy to thinking style on
learner’s quality of reflection in an online learning environment. Computers & Education,56, 1, 53–64.
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.021.
Chiu, Y. J. (2009). Facilitating Asian students’ critical thinking in online discussions. British Journal of
Educational Technology,40, 1, 42–57. doi: 10.1111/bjet.2009.40.issue-1.
Cho, K. L. & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem
solving. Educational Technology Research and Development,50, 3, 5–22.
Designing asynchronous discussion environments 479
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
Choi, H. J. & Johnson, S. D. (2005). The effect of context-based video instruction on learning and motivation
in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education,19, 4, 215–227.
Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S. & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: effective strategies for
moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Curtis, D. D. & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks,5, 1, 21–34.
DeWert, M. H., Babinski, L. M. & Jones, B. D. (2006). Providing online support to beginning teachers. Journal
of Teacher Education,54, 4, 311–320.
Ertl, B., Kopp, B. & Mandl, H. (2008). Supporting learning using external representations. Computers &
Education,51, 4, 1599–1608.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G. et al (2007). Using peer
feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication,
12, 2, 412–433.
Gao, F. (2009). Fostering focused online discussion. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State
University. East Lansing.
Gao, F., Wang, C. X. & Sun, Y. (2009). A new model of productive online discussion and its implication
for research and discussion. The Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange,2, 1, 65–
78.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer
conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education,2(2–3), 1–19.
Ge, X., Chen, C. & Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designs’ problem-solving processes
using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
33, 219–248.
Gerosa, M. A., Filippo, D., Pimentel, M., Fuks, H. & Lucena, C. J. P. (2010). Is the unfolding of the group
discussion off-pattern? Improving coordination support in educational forums using mobile devices.
Computers & Education,54, 528–544. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.004.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A. & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global on-line debate and
the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in
computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research,17, 4, 397–431.
Guzdial, M. & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences,9, 4, 437–469.
Hara, N. M., Bonk, C. J. M. & Angeli, C. M. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied
educational psychology course. Instructional Science,28, 115–152.
Hawkes, M. (2006). Linguistic discourse vairables as indicators of reflective online interaction. American
Journal of Distance Education,20, 4, 231–244.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative Learning
through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden Papers, pp. 115–136. New York, NY: Springer.
Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,4,4,
1–8. Retrieved on May 23, 2011, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html
Hew, K. & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing.
Educational Technology Research & Development,55, 6, 573–595. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9049-2.
Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications,7,
207–221.
Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads.
Journal of Educational Computing Research,28, 31–45.
Hoadley, C. & Linn, M. (2000). Teaching science through online peer discussions: SpeaKEasy in the knowl-
edge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education,22, 839–857.
Jamaludin, A., Chee, Y. S. & Ho, C. M. L. (2009). Fostering argumentative knowledge construction through
enactive role play in Second Life. Computers and Education,53, 2, 317–329. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.
2009.02.009.
Jeong, A. & Frazier, A. (2008). How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous
discussions and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy,39, 875–887.
Jeong, A. & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with
message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education,48, 3, 427–445.
Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educa-
tional Technology Research and Development,39, 5–14.
Jonassen, D. & Remidez, H. (2005). Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences.
International Journal of Knowledge and Learning,1, 1/2, 113–129.
480 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 3 2013
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
Kao, G. Y., Lin, S. S. J. & Sun, C. (2008). Beyond sharing: engaging students in cooperative and competitive
active learning. Educational Technology & Society,11, 3, 82–96.
Kayler, M. & Weller, K. (2007). Pedagogy, self-assessment, and online discussion groups. Journal of Educa-
tional Technology & Society,10, 1, 136–147.
Knowlton, D. S. (2001). Promoting durable knowledge construction through online discussion. Mid-South
Instructional Technology Conference. Retrieved May 22, 2011, from http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/
proceed01/11.html
Lambiase, J. J. (2010). Hanging by a thread: topic development and death in an online discussion of breaking news.
Language at Internet. Retrieved June 30, 2011 from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/
2814
Larson, B. E. & Keiper, T. A. (2002). Classroom discussion and threaded electronic discussion: learning in
two arenas. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,2, 1, 45–62. Retrieved November 29,
2006, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss1/socialstudies/article1.cfm
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mäkitalo, K., Häkkinen, P., Leinonen, P. & Järvelä, S. (2002). Mechanisms of common ground in case-based
web discussions in teacher education. Internet and Higher Education,5, 3, 247–265.
Marshall, C. & Brush, A. (2004). Exploring the relationship between personal and public annotations.
Proceedings of the JCDL (pp. 349–357). Tucson, Arizona.
Morris, K. V., Finnegan, C. & Sz-Shyan, W. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement
in online courses. Internet and Higher Education,8, 3, 221–231.
Muilenburg, L. & Berge, Z. (2000). A framework for designing questions for online learning. DEOSNEWS,
10(2). Retrieved on May 3rd, 2012 from http://www.iddl.vt.edu/fdi/old/2000/frame.html
Murphy, E. & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous
discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,30, 2, 29–46. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from
http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/viewArticle/128/122
Nokelainen, P., Miettinen, M., Kurhila, J., Floréen, P. & Tirri, H. (2005). A shared document-based annota-
tion tool to support learner-centred collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology,36,5,
757–770. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00474.x.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumenta-
tion. Educational Contemporary Psychology,30, 3, 286–313.
Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E. & Bendixen, L. D. (2004). Personality
interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research,30, 113–
136.
Oh, S. & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning,23, 2, 95–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structure: the cental problem of intellectual development. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E. & Martin, V. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge:
attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist,27, 91–
109.
Rourke, L. & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: a review of the literature. Journal of
Distance Education,23, 1, 19–48.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences,3, 3, 265–283.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: extending the limits of
the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam & R. Silverman (Eds),
Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2010). A brief history of knowledge building. Canadian Journal of Learning
and Technology,36, 1. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/
574/0.
Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating in online discussions: addressing the controversy between
teacher moderation and nonmoderation. American Journal of Distance Education,21, 1, 21–36.
Smet, M. D., Keer, H. V., Wever, B. D. & Valcke, M. (2010). Cross-age peer tutors in asynchronous discus-
sion groups: exploring the impact of three types of tutor training on patterns in tutor support and on
tutor characteristics. Computers & Education,54, 4, 1167–1181. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.
002.
Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J. et al (2001). Representational and
advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds), Smart
Designing asynchronous discussion environments 481
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
machines in education: the coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 7–35). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/Mit
Press.
Suthers, D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S. & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: represen-
tational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education,50,4,
1103–1127.
Suthers, D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J. & Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: engaging students in critical
discussion of science and public policy issues. In J. Greer (Ed.), Artificial intelligence in education, 1995:
proceedings of AI-ED’95—7th world conference on artificial intelligence in education. (pp. 266–273). Charlot-
tesville, VA: AACE.
Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,18, 351–366.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: University Press.
van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W. & Simons, P. R. J. (2006). The affordance of anchored discussion for the
collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learn-
ing,1, 3, 339–357.
Wei, F. & Chen, G. (2006). Collaborative mentor support in a learning context using a ubiquitous discussion
forum to facilitate knowledge sharing for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology,37,6,
917–935. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00674.x.
Yang, Y., Yeh, H. & Wong, W. (2010). The influence of social interaction on meaning construction in a
virtual community. British Journal of Educational Technology,41, 2, 287–306. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.00934.x.
Yang, Y. C., Newby, T. J. & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills
through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. The American Journal of
Distance Education,19, 3, 163–181.
482 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 3 2013
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
Appendix. Four major types of discussion environments
Environment
types Constrained environments Visualized environments Anchored environments Combined environments
Authors Nussbaum et al.
(2004)
Oh and Jonassen
(2007)
Hoadley and
Linn (2000)
Jeong and
Joung
(2007)
Suthers et al.
(2008); Cho
and Jonassen
(2002)
Kao et al
(2008)
Brush et al (2002);
Marshall and
Brush (2004)
Nokelainen et al
(2005)
Wei and Chen
(2006)
Guzdial and
Turns
(2000)
Scardamalia
and Bereiter
(1994, 2003)
Environment
names
— — SpeakEasy — Belvedere BeyondShare WebAnn EDUCOSM e-book CaMILE Knowledge
Forum
Features Requires the use
of note starter s
Requires the use
of post type
labels and
note starters
Requires the
use of post
type labels
Requires the
use of post
type labels
Visually
represents
argumentation
objects and
their relations
Allows for
collaborative
construction
and peer
evaluation
of concept
maps
Allows for
anchored
discussion on
learning
materials
Allows for
anchored
discussion
on learning
materials and
extended
discussion
in a threaded
forum
Allows for
ubiquitous
access of
anchored
discussion
on learning
materials and extended
discussion in a
threaded
forum
Requires the
use of post
type labels
and allows
for anchored
discussion
Allows for
anchored
discussion, visual
representation of
discussion and the
use of note
starters
Educational
goals
Collaborative
argumentation
Collaborative
argumentation
Knowledge
building and
integration
Collaborative
argumentation
Collaborative
argumentation
and problem
solving
Collaborative
knowledge
sharing and
integration
Focused and
contextualized
discussion
Learner-centered
collaborative
learning
Contextualized
knowledge
sharing
Sustained
on-topic
discussion
Collaborative
knowledge
building
Designing asynchronous discussion environments 483
© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.
Copyright of British Journal of Educational Technology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.