article04

Editor’s Note: Performance is the ultimate measure of learning. It can be measured throughout the course and as a culminating experience. Online forums allow the learning process to be observed as dialog. When students fail to explore concepts in depth, it raises concerns as to how well course goals will be reached. This study explores learning related aspects of the forum in an effort to design more motivating and effective e-learning experiences.

Promoting (quality) participation in online forums:
A study of the use of forums in two online modules at the University of Mauritius

Harry Ponnusawmy, Mohammad Issack Santally

Abstract

Online forums are very widely used worldwide in the dissemination of e-learning courses. Most e-learning platforms, if not all, have a discussion tool embedded. The pedagogical importance of online forums has been emphasized by many authors (Simpson, 2004; Santally, 2003; Pilkington et al., 2000). At the University of Mauritius, online forums are considered to be an important element of the e-learning process. However, there are no clear definitions in the way they are used in the courses. From survey studies, it has been found that students value the online forums, yet the participation rate and quality of contributions have not been as expected. This paper investigates discussion forums that have been used in two different e-learning courses over a period of two years at then undergraduate and master degree levels. It addresses quality participation from an instructional design perspective concerning e-learning. Observations can be accumulated to formulate a framework that can be used for effective implementation of discussion forums for e-learning. This foreword may also be used as an evaluation grid which can help monitor the quality of posting.

Introduction

The use of online discussion as a learning tool in higher education is a growing area of interest in higher education research. It is postulated that interactions between learners play a positive role in individual learning (George & Hotte, 2003). University educators who have been eager to make use of WEBCT, Blackboard and other online discussion formats are now becoming aware of the risks and limitations such as large time commitments, equity of access, and the need for well designed modules to create deep learning (Breuleux et al., 1998; Salmon, 2000; Kippin, 2003). However, in current distance learning platforms, communications tools are separated from other tools and from learning activities. This separation doesn’t encourage learners to discuss the activities they carry out and to question each other about the difficulties they encounter. During individual learning activities, providing classical tools to communicate (i.e. forum, chat and electronic mail) is not enough to create true interactions between learners and to encourage collective knowledge building (George & Hotte, 2003). These tools can be suitable if a collective learning activity is set-up, for project-based learning (George & Leroux, 2001). Nevertheless, providing these generic communication tools isn’t sufficient to create strong significant interactions between learners.

This paper reports the preliminary findings of a study carried out on the use of online forums at the University of Mauritius in two different modules. It has been found that online participation as well as the quality of participation is normally not as expected. This observation correlates with the fact that inclusion of forums in a learning environment is not sufficient to promote quality learning. The paper describes how forums have improved based on previous experience. The process, based on an action-research oriented perspective, is ongoing and iterative.

Discussion forums in the e-Learning Scenarios

Online communication tools are now readily available. They have the potential to foster new avenues for student interaction that are not possible without an online environment (Mock, 2001). A forum can also be viewed as a technique where participants question and discuss the presentation as a total group (Knox, 1987). Alternatively, a forum can be defined as “an open discussion carried on by one or more resource persons and an entire group.” It is used when large groups of twenty-five persons or more meet for the purpose of diffusion of knowledge, information, or opinion. The integration of discussion forum in education may help to cover most of the communication task between students and teachers: debate about controversial topics, brainstorming, questioning, homework submission queries, news dissemination etc. Moreover, learners can also use forum discussion space as an online socializing zone. Mock (2001) points out that Forum is good for extended discussions and wide information dissemination but requires motivation or structure. He points out that in case studies, student participation was generally low unless the students were either motivated or given an explicit assignment for using a particular tool. Participants enjoyed online chat but it was difficult to organize students together simultaneously. Surveys indicated that students appreciated the availability of online tools but remarked that they would like more peer participation.

Online discussion forums are now regularly used as a component of distance education courses in tertiary education as a means of promoting interaction between course participants (Spatariu et al., 2004). Discussion forums create an environment similar to the face-to-face classroom environment where knowledge can be critically constructed, validated and shared (Knauka & Anderson, 1998). As the use of discussion forums has grown, an increasing number of researchers have attempted to produce models that measure and analyze the networked conversations produced (Campos, 2004). Computer–mediated communication (CMC) is now used by almost everyone in distance education training (Garrison, 2000) and comprises various forms of electronic communication including synchronous chat, audio and video, and asynchronous conferencing, email, and file exchange.

Support for the use of discussion forums in distance education is widespread. Discussion forums are said to allow students to see different perspectives which can help to foster new meaning construction (Heller & Kearsley, 1996; Ruberg et al., 1996). Discussion forums encourage student ownership of learning and collaborative problem-solving skills (Becker, 1992). They encourage participants to put their thoughts into writing in a way that others can understand, promoting self-reflective dialogue and dialogue with others (Valacich et al., 1994). Discussion forums have the potential to expose students to a broader range of views than face-to-face talk, and hence enable them to develop more complex perspectives on a topic (Prain & Lyons, 2000).

A number of different approaches have been attempted to identify quality in online discussions. Spatariu et al., (2004), having reviewed current literature, suggest that the majority of studies can be loosely categorized into one of four categories, according to the construct being measured: levels of disagreement; argument structure analysis; interaction-based; and content analysis.

Henri (1992) identified the following five dimensions which can be used to evaluate CMC: participative, social, interactive, cognitive and metacognitive. The cognitive and metacognitive dimensions measured reasoning, critical thought and self-awareness and, as such, are more likely to be of interest when attempting to reward participants for assessed discussion forum contribution. Garrison et al. (2000) developed a ‘community of learning’ model which assumes that learning occurs through the interaction of three core components: cognitive presence, teaching presence, and social presence. Cognitive presence is defined by Garrison et al. (2000) as “the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community are able to construct meaning through sustained communication”. Social presence deals with all those declarations of the students or tutors where the creation of a dynamic group is promoted, including social relationships, expressions of emotions, and affirmation messages. Teaching presence considers the interactions of teachers and students, as they formulate questions, expose ideas and answer questions.

The cognitive presence concept was expanded by Garrison et al., (2001) into a four stage cognitive-processing model, which was used to assess critical thinking skills in on-line discussions. The model classified student responses into triggering, exploration, integration and resolution categories. The framework for the model was well documented and it was chosen as the second model for the research. Mcloughlin ( 2003) stipulates that trends in pedagogy are converging with the emergence of e-learning technologies that allow for greater learner control, personal responsibility, and collaboration. The advances in interactive technology are forcing instructional designers and technology users to confront and envision learner-centered instruction as well as their role in it.

Clearly, asynchronous tools provide greater opportunity for learners to “learn anytime, anywhere”. This manner of thinking does foster additional expectations for greater learner autonomy and more learner options. With the increasing expectations that a learner will be guiding his or her own learning, instructors need to develop pedagogical strategies and employ technological tools that foster self-directed student inquiry and investigation. In such an environment, tools and strategies for student manipulation of information, discovery, generation or artifacts, and sharing or knowledge are highlighted (Hannafin & Land, 1997). With appropriate task design, students can examine problems at multiple levels of complexity, thereby deepening understanding.

Research Questions and Methods

The research questions that will be addressed in this preliminary investigation are:

The methodology employed is based on Veerman (2001) method of categorizing messages

Table 1

Categorizing messages

Veerman (2001) focuses on task-related messages that he categorize as “New Idea”, “Explanation” and “Evaluation”. A “New idea” is described as a task-related message, focused on relevant content which is not mentioned before. An “explanation” is a message in which information is refined or elaborated that was already stated before, but elsewhere in the discussion. An “Evaluation” is a message in which an earlier contribution is critically discussed on strength and relevance in the light of the task. An evaluation is more than a short posting like “Yes, you are right” and often involves reasoning processes or justifications.

In addition, Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) state messages could contain information about planning the task, technical problems considering the system, conversational rules and reference to other facts, issues, summaries or remarks elsewhere in the discussion. Moreover some messages only referred to non-task related issues such as weather, joke etc.

Two modules have been selected to form the subjects of the study. Case 1, ILT6010 - Cognitive Sciences and Learning and Case 2, ILT1020 – Educational Technologies and Computer-Based Learning Environments, were analyzed based whether the forum messages posted were task on non-task related. The subject of each message with the number of replies to the topic/message was computed to have a quantitative insight. Then the replies to the messages were further classified according to the type of task-related or non-task related messages. The messages posted for the various batches were tabulated to have an overview of the nature of its content, which was analyzed based on a classification of Veerman et al. (1999).

This module was first given in August 2004 as part of a Postgraduate Programme in “Computer-Mediated Communication and Pedagogies”. The module was given fully online (Web-site + CD-ROM) to part-time (working) students and forums were used for different purposes in this module. Furthermore, for this module, the virtual learning platform was not used and thus forum systems that were used were open-source software from phpBB (http://www.phpbb.com). Sixteen students were enrolled on this module.

This module was again delivered in following academic year, August 2005, as part of the same course to the next cohort of student embarked on the same Postgraduate program in “Computer-Mediated Communication and Pedagogies”. However, the module was delivered on a virtual learning platform, Moodle was used and it has an integrated forum systems, so it differed slightly from the previous delivery. Thirteen students were enrolled on this module.

The last cohort, August 2006, on the same postgraduate program in “Computer-Mediated Communication and Pedagogies” followed this module in the similar manner as the previous batch. The same Moodle platform was used but with a slight change in versioning, Odel (http://vcampus.uom.ac.mu/odel) was used. Ten students were enrolled in this module. The three batches form part of the population of this study.

Educational Technology and Computer-Based Learning Environments
ILT 1020 Setting and participant:

It took place for a General Elective Module (GEM) offered by the University of Mauritius (UOM). The module ILT 1020 is open to all students of the University across faculty, irrespective of level or year of study.

The module (ILT 1020) has already been prototyped over 3 version changes. The first version, Version 1.0, was released in Semester 1 of academic year 2005/06 while version 2.0 was released the following semester, Semester 2 of academic year 2005/06. The last updated version, Version 3.0, was released in Semester 1 of academic year 2006/07. This case study is based on the forum discussion of participants, tutor as well as learners, of Version 3.0.

The module was delivered over one academic semester. There was no face-to-face interaction except for one start-up meeting to introduce the students
to the learning environment and help a few with the online registration procedures.

The module consists of five activities that need to be carried out in sequence all the way through the semester. There is also a continuous assessment activity, which count as 40 % of total marks. It consists of forum participation that is transversal to every other activity included in this module.

The module is therefore delivered neither through the traditional classroom-based delivery nor through the classic e-learning approach (first and second generations). The belief is that classic e-learning through well-structured platforms, diffusion of contents online with structured chapters and classic activities such as open-ended questions and Multiple Choice Questions defeat the purpose of using e-learning technologies to foster innovative pedagogies and to promote knowledge construction and autonomous development of the student (Santally & Senteni, 2004). The occurrence of successful learning in this module is therefore defined as a three-phased activity: (a) Knowledge Acquisition Phase; (b) Knowledge Application Phase; (b) Knowledge Construction through Sharing and Reflexive Practice.

The module, “Educational Technology and Computer-Based Learning Environments”, ILT 1020 comprises various activities or tasks, namely:

§ Activity 3: Implementation of a website using the software Macromedia Dreamweaver

For a few who were late for registration, there was no face-to-face meeting because there was no request made and also the need was not felt. Those students pick up as they had classmates who were enrolled in the same module and guided them. However, those students seem to rush through Activity 1 and in general, scored less than the average mark for Activity 1 and some even failed to score 50% in Activity1.

It was also noted, by the tutor, that some students took a lot of time to get use to the learning environment. For example, in certain cases, they were not able to recognize that messages should be posted appropriately on discussion forum.

Online participation of the learner counts as 15 % of the mark for continuous assessment, which is 60% of the total marks. The replies to forum discussions, number of messages posted and discussion initiated are the areas where the students are assessed. This forms part of their contribution to the virtual classroom community.

A first observation of use of online forums at the
University of Mauritius in two online modules

Amount of messages

The number of messages posted on the different forums amount to a total of 2268 messages. Out of which 1903 messages were posted by under-graduate students (a total of 78 students) for module delivered for 2 different cohorts. The remaining 365 messages which were analyzed are posted by graduate students (a total of 39 students) for 3 different cohorts.

Table 2

Population of students and messages

Level	Students	Messages
Under-graduate	78	1903
Post-graduate	39	365
Total	117	2268

The average number of message posted by a student at the under-graduate level is 24. This was found to be higher, as compared to post-graduate level of 9 per student. This shows that there is greater need to show virtual presence by under-graduate students. It was observed that there is a high percentage of social messages sent by the latter.

Types of messages

The total number of messages that met the criteria to be considered as task related messages was higher, for all the batches, at undergraduate as well as post-graduate level, as compared to those considered as non-task related messages.

However, there are marked differences between the peak percentage of task related messages at undergraduate and post-graduate level. Postings, to forums, at undergraduate level, on average (75%) with a peak of 82%., attain task related message is lower as compared to post-graduate level posting, on average (84 %) with a peak of 94%.This suggests that postings, at post-graduate level, achieve higher quality as compared to postgraduate level postings’.

Table 3

Percentage of Non-Task related and Task related message posted

Batch	Non-Task related	Task related
ILT 1020_1	32	68
ILT 1020_2	18	82
ILT 6010_1	6	94
ILT 6010_ 2	18	82
ILT 6010 _3	23	77

At undergraduate level, there are high proportions of non-task related messages which can be categorized as social type messages. (See table 4). An average of 83 % of all non-task related messages are of social type messages

Table 4

Non-task related and social message

For Batch1 of ILT1020, the percentage of social message is 75% of the total non-task related messages. Messages posted as part of a forum space dedicated to introducing the student do not form part of social messages as it is considered part of the activity. All other messages posted on the different discussion thread amount, for socializing purposes, amount of 24% of messages posted by students

For Batch 2 of ILT1020, 18% of all messages posted were non-task related: out of which 90% were social messages. This shows a higher proportion, as compared to Batch 1, of non-task related messages can be classified as of type social messages.

It can be observed that the number of message posted in Batch 2 is lower than Batch 1, 1239 as compared to 664. This shows that fewer messages posted, the smaller is the proportion of non-task related messages. However, the lesser is the proportion of non-task related message, there is a significant proportion of social type messages, 90% as compared to 75%

At post-graduate level, the percentage of social messages sent form, on average, around 20 % of the non-task related messages. For Batch 1, only 14% of non-task related message are of a social type. Batch 2 has 15% of social type messages out of all non-task related messages. And Batch 3 has a total of 30% of social type messages for all non-task related messages

Out of all non-task related messages, posted on forums at the post-graduate level, there is a significantly higher number of technical types messages for Batches 1 and 3 and a higher proportion of planning type messages for Batch 2 (8). Table 5 summarizes the percentage of the non-task related message in the different types

Table 5

Distribution of non-task related message (ILT6010)

The percentage of task related postings which were made for the various batches is on average around 80 %. The distribution percentage for the various type of classification (New idea, Explanation and Evaluation) for task related messages is tabulated below.

Table 6

Distribution of task related messages

Batch	Task related	New Idea	Explanation	Evaluation
1020_1	68	38	60	2
1020_2	82	41	55	4
6010_1	93	42	39	19
6010_2	82	39	50	11
6010_3	73	32	58	10

Of the postings participants sent, a higher proportion can be classified as “New Idea” and “Explanation”. For undergraduate students, on average 3% of the task related message, are of “Evaluation” type. This demonstrates that while commenting on the topic participants mainly appeared to answer each other’s questions or to provide more information for fellow students’ inquiry. Very few, 3 out of every 100, postings were elaborate enough to be classified as “Evaluation”

Similarly, at postgraduate level, a minor proportion, on average around 13% of task-related postings, were lengthy enough to provide in-depth analysis of the topic. Of those comments that were task-related, a slightly higher percentage, 49 % were providing information and explanations, and 38% were asking questions or creating new topics.

Tutor Interventions

The figure below shows clearly that the student, irrespective of level of study, participated much more than the tutor. It can be noted that the highest percentage participation of tutor is only 29%.

Tutor intervention in Module ILT 6010

The module ILT 6010 has produced higher student participation compared to tutor participation. Seventy-four percent of all messages were posted by students. The students of Batch 2 were relatively more active than Batch 1. 146 messages were posted by Batch 2 as compared to 119 by Batch 1. There was an increase in participation of about 23%, while number of student enrolled decreased by 19 %.

It should be noted that despite the ratio of tutor to student participation remained constant (29:100), there was more messages posted on the forum. Thus, the despite the percentage of tutor intervention did not change, the number of messages posted by students increased. The number of messages posted by tutor increased for a decreasing number of students. This observation might imply that the students were more active in Batch 2.

The reduced tutor intervention in Batch 3, 20% as compared to 29% for previous Batch, showed a reduction of 32% of messages posted. This result can be interpreted as decreasing tutor participation induced less motivation for the students to send their posting.

Tutor intervention in Module ILT 1020

The two Batches for module ILT1020 were delivered by two different tutors. Since the content and teaching strategy remained more or less constant, it can be noted that there is quantitative and most probably qualitative differences in the postings. The number of messages posted on the forums by the tutor of Batch 1 of ILT1020 was twice that of the tutor for Batch 2 for the same course.

Black (2005) urged that instructors should structure asynchronous discussions in a way to encourage critical thinking. In a traditional classroom setting, discussion is often teacher-centered and dominated by a handful of students. Asynchronous discussions, on the other hand, are more evenly distributed because students have to respond and feel little or no social pressure against voicing their opinions.

Despite the number of student being constant (39), in the successive cohort, the number of posted message was reduced by more than 50 %, from 1239 to 664. This shows a clear indication that the total number of posted messages is considerable less when the tutor intervention increased. The 13 % increase in tutor participation generated a 46 % decrease in the total number of messages.

Consequently, there was a higher percentage (82%) of task-related posting, for Batch 1, as compared to 68%, for Batch 2. This can imply that the higher the participation rate of tutor, the higher is the percentage of on-task posting by the participant.

However, it should be noted that even if the participation rate of tutor is higher for Batch 2, there is an equal number of in-depth analysis (“Evaluation”) types posting for both Batch 1 and Batch 2. Higher level learning, in reference to Solo taxonomy, is not affected by the high participation rate of tutor participation.

Quality

Quality of posting is considered here as an indication of the level of learning achieved. Considering the different level of learning outcome, in reference to Solo Taxonomy, the higher level will be considered as high quality posting. Consequently, an analysis of quality of posting will involve only posting which fall under the category of “Task related messages”.

Table 7

Task related posting and tutor participation

There is one feature in the quality of participants’ discourse that merits discussion. There were rarely, on average 3 out of 100 task related postings for undergraduate and on average around 13 out of 100 task related postings at post-graduate level, that were in-depth analysis discussions with participants genuinely exposing at length issues or debating meaning. A high proportion of a posting were of “Explanation” type, more than 57% at undergraduate level and around 48% at post-graduate level. From a quantitative analysis, it can be observed that the percentage of “new idea” type message is less than 40%, at both levels, which imply that ,on average every topic got at least one reply.

Survey and feedback

At the end of semester for module ILT 1020, a feedback open-ended questionnaire is sent to the students.

For both the batches, a persistent observation was that many of the student commented lengthier questions focused on the social aspect of the module rather than technical skills acquired. Some of the students were proud to have been able to communicate exclusively online with students they did not meet throughout the whole semester

There were complaints about students who set questions, addressed to lecturers only. Forums should have been open questions and not addressed to only one person, so that anyone could reply these questions Forum participation was also very useful and enjoyable interaction.

Many students complained yhat some notes and tutorials were available in French, which was very difficult as they had always been studying in an English medium. These French terms were really confusing for them. An English version would have been appropriate for most of the students.

Others felt that they were too slow to interact/ react. From the students’ feedback obtained, Batch 2 IlT1020, the general viewpoint was that, the forums were, as pointed out by Batch 1, very helpful and this helped many to post their queries without hesitation. Some of the participants indeed showed much more responsibility and their concern for the whole batch by sharing their knowledge to other in terms of sharing notes, giving guidelines to solve problems related to the platform and software. One of the main deceptions was that there was a lack of interaction or less participation of some students on forum.

From a few students, who devote time by writing lengthier feedback, it should be noted some common benefits such as:

Individual attention

Forum discussion provides beneficial means to meet the needs of diverse student population at the University. Some of them mention that:

Those who are on placement and find it difficult to attend lectures especially during work time.

Those who find that there is less attention on each individual’s problem by the lecturer during lectures as there are too many students in a GEM class.

Convenience

The communication mode, using discussion forum, has enabled student to study without the need to leave other commitments such as work placement. This means that the students have been able to learn at their own pace. Moreover, this also implies that students could spend longer hours on difficult areas and keep repeating a lesson, until they could understand it, without slowing down other students.

Availability

This online module communication channel, used by discussion forum, has enabled learners to access a tutorial whenever they wanted, at a convenient time. This flexibility allows participants to learn anytime, anywhere, according to their preferred learning styles.

More Interactive

Contrary to traditional classroom setting, this way of delivery was more interactive as those who may have been uncomfortable in asking questions in class can communicate more comfortably in the online forum. Moreover, there were learners who can take their own time to formulate their query which is not always possible, with the time restricted, limited period of a lecture.

Discussion

The findings of this study are consistent with results of previous studies concerning students' participation rates, (Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Hewitt and Tevlops, 1999). These studies indicate that students do not participate very intensively in discussion forums. The findings show that the task-related postings are less of “Evaluation” type.

Generally, the discussion threads in on-line forums appear to be quite short (Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Hewitt & Tevlops, 1999). The results of the present study confirm these results. There was a high number of short discussion, one or two lines (“New Idea” and “Explanation” type) messages.

The value of threaded discussions was confirmed by Wang and Woo (2007). Based on the empirical evidence of this study, forums, due to their asynchronous nature, might be an appropriate tool to promote equal, (irrespective of time and location) and high participation. Whether these possibilities are ever exploited depends on factors such as educators themselves and also on institutionalized practice.

This study also shows that students find it important to socialize on the forum. A high proportion of non-task related discussion was of “Social” type message. This was irrespective of level of studies and applied to undergraduate as well as postgraduate. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the postings indicates that around 80% of the all postings were task-related.

Now, the question is, “Would a discussion focusing entirely on learning topics be a realistic goal?”. In fact, the optimal ratio of “task related” posting to “non-task related” posting for effective learning and collaboration is yet to be defined. Furthermore, a closer look at the data reveals that most of the postings received at least one reply. Of those that were attended, some were of reflection type, for example the forum on reflection on the activity where each participant created a topic on their personal experience, thereby leaving almost no opportunity of getting a reply or some were of informative type, again with no expectation of a reply.

Students dominated the discussion, not the tutor. This finding indicates that the online modules offered, both at graduate and post-graduate level, were student-centered. The instructor was purposefully creating a learning environment wherein students were in charge of their own learning and responsive to each other. In ‘forcing’ students to assume the roles of facilitator, it was hypothesized that the students would become more engaged and comfortable with the conferencing system.

Another finding was, at the beginning of the modules, most students posted a strict minimum, just one message to introduce themselves in order to satisfy the minimum course requirement.

Answering questions or commenting on others’ postings by providing information and analysis is evidently an important part of effective communication. Moreover, with a high-quality expectation, students should not only be seeking understanding by offering answers and elaborate replies, but should also request clarifications concerning other participants’ postings. In order to represent genuine high quality, participants should be more daring, rather than being neutral or abstaining from giving their opinion. They should be asking more clarifications online rather than choosing the alternative of face-to-face meeting with peers or using telecommunication channels which would be to the detriment of the batch.

Furthermore, in a high-quality communication, the length of posting should definitely be longer. There is little hope for quality if the average length of the postings is only one or two sentences. The “non-task related” postings were mostly focused on social issues, which is important considering the social interactions needed to overcome the physical absence of the participants; and on technical problems, which were faced by users who were new to learning platforms technologies.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to analyze the patterns of participation and quality of students’ posting in discussion forum from two modules delivered by VCILT over a period of two years. If educators, researchers, and technologists (software developers) are going to implement discussion forums on a large scale, for a varied population at different level, they definitely need more information on patterns of participation and quantity as well as quality of discussions on discussion forums in realistic educational settings. By combining quantitative and qualitative content analysis, the present study gives insights on how discussion forums are used and a few patterns, of student as well as tutor, participation. A framework, based on instructional design perspective on how discussion forums can be implemented, was derived from the various patterns observed. Discussions were rather Task Related, which means that some learning and new understanding might have occurred. On the other hand, for Non-Task Related posting, the social interchange was pre-dominant. Although social exchange is not probably very valuable for learning academic subjects, it might serve some other functions, like activating participation in discourse by building a sense of community.

References

Becker, H. (1992). A model for improving the performance of integrated learning systems: Mixed individualized/group/whole class lessons, cooperative learning, and organizing time for teacher-led remediation of small groups. Educational Technology 32, 6-15. Available from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm [Accessed on 15 April 2007]

Black, A. (2005) the Use of Asynchronous Discussion: Creating a Text of Talk. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5-24

Campos, M. (2004). A Constructivist method for the analysis of networked cognitive communication and the assessment of collaborative learning and knowledge building. Journal of American Learning Networks, 8(2), 1-29. Available from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm [Accessed on 15 April 2007]

Garrison, D.R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the twenty-first century: A shift from structural to translational issues. International Review of research and Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). Available from: http://www.icap.org/iuicode?149.1.1.2 [Accessed on 19 April 2007]

Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment. Computer Conferencing in higher education. Internet in Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105. Available from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm [Accessed on 15 April 2007]

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education 15(1), 7–23. Available: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm [Accessed on 15 April 2007]

George, S., & Hotte, R. (2003). A contextual forum for online learning. Proceedings of the International Conference for Open and Online Learning, 1(1), Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://icool.uom.ac.mu/

George S. & Leroux P. (2001), Project-Based Learning as a Basis for a CSCL Environment: An Example in Educational Robotics. European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Euro-CSCL 2001), Maastricht, Netherlands, 269-276.

Guzdial, M. & Turns, J. (2000). Effective Discussion Through a Computer-Mediated Anchored Forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 437- 469

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: Springer.

Heller, H., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Using a computer BBS for graduate education: Issues and outcomes. In Z. Berge & M. Collins (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom. (Vol. III: Distance learning, pp. 129-137). NJ: Hamptom Press. Available from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm
[Accessed on 15 April 2007]

Hewitt, J., and Tevlops, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing thereads. In C. Hoadley (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL '99: The Third International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 368-375). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kippin, S. (2003). Teacher reflection and theories of learning online. Journal of Educational Enquiry,
4(1), 19-30.

Knuka, K. & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(11), 57-74. Available from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm [Accessed on 15 April 2007]

Mock, K. (2001) The Use of Internet Tools to Supplement Communication in the Classroom: Pedagogical Benefits of using the Discussion Forum. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges. 17(2). 14 – 21 http://www.math.uaa.alaska.edu/~afkjm/papers/ccsc2001.doc
[Accessed on 20 December 2006]

Prain, V. & Lyons, L. (2000) Using information and communication technologies in English: An Australian perspective. In A. Goodwyn (ed.). English in the Digital Age. London: Cassell Education. Available from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm
[Accessed on 15 April 2007]

Pilkington, R., Bennett, C., & Vughan, S. (2000). An evaluation of computer mediated communication to support group discussion in continuing education. Educational Technology and Society. 3(3). 361-372. Retrieved April 12, 2004 from http://www.ifets.info/

Ruberg, L., Moore, D., & Taylor, D. (1996) Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), pp. 243-268. Available from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm [Accessed on 15 April 2007]

Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Paul.

Simpson, A. (2004). Online discussions as a tool for Learning: A case study of the benefits of ICT use in a first year teacher education context. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 1(2). Retrieved Jan 10, 2004 from http://pppjj.usm.my/mojit/

Santally, M. (2003). Students learning styles & computer conferencing as a pedagogical tool to enhance and support the teaching and learning process. World Conference on E-Learning in Corp., Govt., Health., & Higher Ed. 2003(1), 1165-1168. Retrieved Feb 15, 2004 from http://dl.aace.org/13880

Spatariu, A., Hartley, K. & Bendixen, L.D. (2004). Defining and Measuring Quality in On-line Discussion. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 2(4). Available from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm [Accessed on 15 April 2007]

Valacich, J., Dennis, A., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 57, 448-467. Available: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm [Accessed on 15 April 2007]

Veerman, A. & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In Dillenbourg P. Ed. First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Proceedings. March 22-24, 2001. Universiteit Maastrict , Maastrict, Netherlands.Unigraphic Maastrict. 625-632

Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (1999). Collaborative learning through computer- mediated argumentation. In C. Hoadly & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the third conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 640-650). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Available from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_04/article01.htm [Accessed on 15 April 2007]

Wang, Q., & Woo, H. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology. 38(2). 272-286.

About the Authors

Harry Ponnusawmy
Virtual Centre for Innovative Learning Technologies
University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius.

Mohammad Issack Santally
Virtual Centre for Innovative Learning Technologies
University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius.

Promoting (quality) participation in online forums: A study of the use of forums in two online modules at the University of Mauritius