Best Practices - EDUC 633

Our class, EDUC 633, experienced both asynchronous and synchronous discussions.  This is an important topic in the distance education field.  There were plenty of scholarly articles that discussed best practices in asynchronous and synchronous discussions (Molseed, 2011, Wanstreet & Stein, 2011, Zha  & Ottendorfer, 2011).  Some key terms that appear in these articles include Community of Inquiry, constructivism, teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence.  One article found that social presence and cognitive presence were highly positively correlated with learner-led synchronous environments. It also found that teaching presence and social presence are moderately positively correlated in learner-led synchronous environments (Wanstreet & Stein, 2011). In our class, our synchronous mandatory meetings would be similar to this research.  Also, our group meetings would definitely be an example of student-led synchronous discussions.  I can see how social and cognitive presence would be high learner-led synchronous environments.

For asynchronous studies, Ottendorfer (2011) found that student leaders in group discussion boards scored higher on lower-order cognitive achievement that that of student responders. In higher-order cognitive levels, the student leaders and responders scored the same. Both groups of students did experience positive and moderate correlations in their achievement (Ottendorfer, 2011). This would be similar to our blogs that we have been required to do or like discussion board posts in other classes.  In fact, I have had one class (Conflict Resolution) that required us to post in groups, and we each had to respond to all group members each week. That brought me closer to my five group members and increased my sense of community for that online learning environment. The professor also posted in our group discussion. With him participating, I felt a stronger sense of teaching presence and social presence.

One more aspect of asynchronous learning is the benefit of peer reviews in discussion boards.  This works especially well with graduate students because they are older, more mature, and able to critically think about content and style of writing (Molseed, 2011).  We experienced asynchronous peer reviews in this class. I received very positive comments from several of the group members that I did a peer review for. They appreciated my attention to detail and critical eye.  I, too, appreciated my peer review reports that I received.  Another one of my classes had us do two peer reviews.  I learned just as much doing their peer reviews as I learned in writing my personal paper.  I had to do some major critical thinking.  When I went back to my personal paper, I was able to critique it at a higher level than when I wrote it the first time.  My experience is very similar to the results that Molseed (2011) found in her research.

Each of these best practices in asynchronous and synchronous learning environments promote my personal theory of learning which aligns well with Malcolm Knowles' (1970) theory for adult learners called andragogy. He discovered that when designing learning for adult learners, the course needs to be self-directed and allow for higher levels of learner control (Knowles, 1970). What I have described above definitely falls under this category.

Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Molseed, T. (2011). An analysis of peer review response types in threaded discussions of an online graduate class. American Journal of Distance Education, 25(4), 254-267.

Wanstreet, C. E., & Stein, D.S. (2011). Presence over time in synchronous communities of inquiry. American Journal of Distance Education, 25(3), 162-177.

Zha, S.,  & Ottendorfer, C. L. (2011). Effects of peer-led online asynchronous discussion on undergraduate students' cognitive achievement.  American Journal of Distance Education, 25(4), 238-253.