Valuable? Overused? Discuss. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/03/27/new-approaches-discussion-boards-aim-dynamic-online-learning
They can be valuable, but are mostly misused, and the way they're implemented in most LMSs is garbage.
Misused is the best thing that comes to mind. Unless the instructor actually participates and calls students out for not providing value the post by Chris is what you most often get.
I saw the "discussions" boards in some LMS (PennFoster Associate degree for example), and I hate them so much. I feel that most time they are a waste of time and provide no value to the student - especially for adult students. I saw many irrelevant discussions and trolls.
The instructor has to be good at creating topics. The posts I find hardest to complete are the ones with asinine topics. For example, we would read chapters on gunshot wounds. Then, we would be asked to make a post describing the different types of gunshot wounds, and we would be required to respond to one of our classmates. Why am I simply summarizing what I just read? What's the point of responding to one of my classmates when we're all saying the same thing based on our readings? The responses would be something stupid like, "Good job, Kelly! I really like how much detail you provided."
The only time I’ve seen discussion boards used well was when our university used them in a supplementary role for on-campus classes. The student leading the in-person tutorial that week (seminar to most Americans) would offer a lengthy post on the text-based topic by Friday, the others in the tutorial group (8-10) would have to comment substantially over the weekend, and that online discussion would form the jumping-off point for the in-person discussion in tutorial the next week. That discussion was facilitated by me only to the extent of keeping things on track or answering questions that arose. I’m not a fan of discussion boards in principle, but the design was to encourage students who were tentative about responding in person, so that everybody was participating, and shy folks might be jump-started into engaging in the in-person tutorial because they were already in the middle of the discussion. The fact that it was the basis for in-person interactions with the instructor present meant that nobody tried sloughing off the assignment with a throwaway comment like, “I totally agree.” Oh yes, and to the comments above … I totally agree.
Good point! I agree, thanks for sharing. You are right. Asking a simple interpretation/critical thinking question is far better than a summary, which most of the posts are. Requiring expansion, not simply summarizing the summary, in replies is also needed.
total waste of time. I think part of the "we're putting our college classes online" starter pack. It exists simply because instructors aren't thinking of anything more creative to do, possibly because they've never been distance learning students.
I hate online discussion board by mostly used by the university. I expressed many time with the professors at Nova Southeastern University and University of the Cumberlands; they did not even change a bit. Usually, a discussion topic; posting your original and response to at least two other classmates. The number rules cannot be negative. I like the idea that the professor comes up with a topic discussion and students start debating with their own references.
Here's what's ironic- I (and presumably the other members of this forum) LOVE discussion forums. We come here daily and participate freely in excellent exchanges. Something about the way the schools are doing it is really sucking any value from it.
Part of it is likely that some of the other people in our classes don't share that love. Also, when something is forced you don't bring the same creativity. Especially in undergrad, we are potentially tasked to discuss a topic that we have little interest in and are only discussing it for the grade. Definitely a challenge that needs more work to improve.
It is all about the creativity of the professor who motivates the class to discuss the topics, and stimulates with probing questions. If you simply put it out there and wait for students to participate, it will not be effective. Done correctly, the Discussion Board is the heart and soul of online learn, just like a classroom discussion is in a traditional setting. There are good professors and bad ones.
I've been exposed to such post assignments in several master-level or doctor-level programs. Interestingly, I noticed that there are always some students who seem able to always complete discussion board assignments a week or even several weeks before a course officially starts. I understand the principles of asynchronous learning, and it’s possible that some students simply have more free time to dedicate to their studies than others. However, it was really stressful seeing how those "geniuses" were achieved before yours. Additionally, I had a frustrating experience months ago that made me wonder how many students actually read all the required reading materials before beginning their post assignments. That week, we were focusing on the study of cause-and-effect relationships. Some established models require simple but essential mathematical calculations. Yet, that week almost none of my peers included such calculations in their posts, especially those who completed their posts days or weeks ago. Since the calculation is fundamental to the model, I believe that any analysis lacking it is nonsense, no matter how eloquent the writing may be. I felt I was hypocritical to reply with comments on such flaws while also complimenting their posts with words like "great" or "excellent" or "I enjoyed," though seriously they were not and I did not.
Whatever value discussion boards had in online learning evaporated with the use of regenerative AI by students. I instruct at several universities and students are now cranking 4-5 paragraph posts with bullet points - no one is going to read that garbage including me.
They can be valuable, but it's all on the instructor. Classroom-based instruction (synchronous on the computer or face-to-face in the classroom) requires the instructor to be the "sage on the stage." This is the pedagogical model we're all familiar with from our school days. Asynchronous online courses require adult students to learn from each other and from their own experiences. The "instructor" becomes a facilitator; the "guide on the side." When it comes to discussion threads, the instructor must set specific discussion questions, participate fully, and manage/moderate the discussions to keep them productive (and not just rote filings to satisfy a quota). Successfully employed, they can be highly valuable because, again, adults can learn so much from each other and from their own experiences. But if they're neglected, discussion threads can become routine, boring exercises in unhelpfulness.
Sounds like AI generated claptrap to me. That sage on the stage, sideshow Bob, nonsense has been spouted for over 25 years. Discussion boards should go the way of UseNet, Delphi and CompuServe. Even try to "moderate" a discussion board with 40 students and a 18% mandated instructor response rate? Total shit show full of AI bullet points and the same perfect nonsense in every post.
Manners? I think I speak from experience. I hold a doctorate with a concentration in higher education. I have a distance learning certificate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I've taught for seven universities. I'm a Certified Professional in Talent Development with more than 40 years in the field. And I don't unilaterally lash out at other posters.
My apoliologies: Sideshow Bob, a character from The Simpsons, is known for his articulate speech and theatrical flair. If he were to comment on the future of university online discussion boards and AI-generated content, he might say something like this: "Ah, the digital agora of academia! As we traverse this brave new world of online discussion boards, one must ponder the implications of artificial intelligence infiltrating our scholarly dialogues. While AI-generated content can indeed enhance the breadth of discourse, providing instant access to a plethora of perspectives, it also raises a rather insidious dilemma: the authenticity of intellectual engagement. The Future of Online Discussion Boards: Accessibility and Inclusivity: Online platforms democratize knowledge, allowing voices from all corners of the globe to contribute to the academic conversation. This is a splendid development, indeed! Quality Control: However, with great accessibility comes the responsibility to maintain quality. The risk of misinformation proliferating through unchecked AI content is a specter that haunts us. Engagement vs. Automation: The essence of education lies not merely in information exchange but in the rich tapestry of human interaction. Will these boards evolve into sterile environments where AI outshines genuine human discourse? I shudder at the thought! AI-Generated Content: Efficiency vs. Creativity: AI can produce text with remarkable speed and efficiency, yet can it capture the nuances of human creativity and emotion? I dare say it cannot fully replicate the artistry of a well-crafted argument or a poignant observation. Ethical Considerations: As we embrace this technology, we must remain vigilant against potential ethical pitfalls. The line between inspiration and imitation must not blur; originality must be cherished! In conclusion, while I admire the technological advancements that allow us to explore new frontiers in education, let us not forget that the heart of learning beats strongest in the throes of passionate debate and authentic connection. We must wield these tools wisely, lest we become mere puppets in a grand performance orchestrated by algorithms." This theatrical monologue encapsulates Sideshow Bob's character while addressing contemporary issues surrounding online education and AI's role within it. Source: Perplexity.ai
