What Is a Threaded Discussion Group?

In a threaded discussion, a group of individuals is connected through an electronic medium, such as an e-mail distribution list, listserv, online conference group, an Internet-based bulletin board service, or a bulletin board established on a local area network. This allows group members to communicate about common interests asynchronously — that is, not simultaneously or in a rapid exchange as in face-to-face conversation, but individually, at their own time. Threaded discussion online provides an effective means of literary exploration. Through threaded discussion groups (TDG), students are allowed time to think about their responses to literature and to the comments of other students in the group. In a face-to-face discussion in the classroom, students must wait their turn to speak and do not have time for reflection; in the asynchronous environment of the TDG, students are free to explore the literature, their peers’ responses, and their own experiences as they contribute to the discussion. “The ‘turn-taking’ here does not allow for interruptions, which means each participant has an opportunity to speak without pause, inspiring declamations as well as dialogues” (Burniske, 2000, p. 60).

Article main page Why might face-to-face discussions fail? What is a threaded discussion group? How is a threaded discussion group set up? A sample from a threaded discussion What if my students don’t have access to the Internet? What are some considerations for teachers? Conclusion Join and try out a threaded discussion group References

Threaded discussion allows the teacher to create and monitor several groups at once. The immediate advantage is that the teacher can participate in every group because the online discussion is not occurring in real time. The TDG fuses the best of reading logs (Atwell, 1987; Daniels, 1994; Reif, 1992;) with in-class, face-to-face discussion. And unlike the linear model of the paper journal, teachers can consistently interact, over time, with the students in a scaffolding relationship (Eby, 1998, p. 198). In this way, threaded discussions become a bridge between role sheets, paper journals, and sophisticated discussions of literature. Additionally, threaded discussions may create a more equitable environment than exists in the classroom, allowing students to participate without the degree of social positioning that some researchers have identified as existing freqently within collaborative groups (e.g., Evans, 1996).

Little has been published in the professional literature that relates specifically to TDG with students in secondary schools. There is, however, growing consensus that technology has already changed the way our students approach learning tasks. Some work has already been done that suggests a need for us to rethink how technology redefines our roles as teachers and changes our expectations of students. Bean, Valerio, and Senior (1999) elaborate on what Cairney (1996) termed intertextuality, which “involves readers making complex connections that link their current reading to previous books, conversations, signs, and personal experiences and memories.” In their study, Bean et al. explored how students connected online in small intergenerational groups might benefit in finding their critical voices in response to literature. Sullivan (1998) paired university students and elementary school students for e-mail exchanges about literature, with positive results. A decade ago, Leu (1994) argued that software hadn’t been developed to make the best pedagogical uses of technology. While the capability exists, teachers and teacher educators should now focus on developing software and using existing technology, such as asynchronous communication, in a more pedagogically effective manner.

“OK. Schools are wired. Now what?” Lisa Guernsey posed this question in the title of a New York Times article in January 2000. Guernsey quotes a teacher, Ted Nellen, who make extensive use of computers: “What the technology is doing is forcing us to rethink how we do our jobs.” And that is exactly what it should be doing. E-mail and threaded discussions allow teachers to interact with students and students to interact with other students in ways that weren’t previously possible within the confines of a school day or a typical classroom. Ehrmann (1999) explains that the simple presence of instructional technologies do not improve learning, “it’s their uses that influence outcomes.”

Levin (1999) identified four major types of online exchanges among a cohort of preservices teachers, and suggested their purposes: personal communication, sharing teaching activities, and offering professional support. Levin’s study also suggested that the most productive exchanges were those written from a member of the cohort to the rest of the group. Smith, Ferguson, and Caris (2001) evaluated online versus face-to-face discussions and concluded that the online environment does not alienate university students — indeed, electronic response elicited critical thinking in a highly challenging format. Leu, Karchmer, and Leu (1999) suggested that teachers use mail lists as a way to explore the new literacies of the Internet. Structured e-mail use has helped student teachers, often disconnected from the familiar and supportive university environment, to reconnect with that environment (Schlagal, Trathen, & Blanton, 1996).

Discussion is arguably the oldest instructional tool, with written response to text closely following. The electronic TDG proposed in this article encourages students to negotiate meaning with the literature they read through a social context that specifically calls for thoughtful response. The unique features of electronic discussion, whether on a bulletin board service or through e-mail, allow the instructor to make the best possible use of an environment incorporating features of written response to literature and discussion. Threaded discussion begins to answer Lisa Guernsey’s question, posed above: With TDG we begin to see the next steps in “Now what?”