Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124

Attracting student participation in asynchronous

Received 13 August 2007; received in revised form 7 November 2007; accepted 9 November 2007

Abstract

Previous research studies on how to promote student participation in asynchronous online discussions have largely
focused on the role of the instructor or tutor as facilitators. Not many investigated student facilitation. This article reports
a qualitative study examining the facilitation techniques used by student facilitators to attract their course mates to par-
ticipate in asynchronous online discussions. Data were collected from the students’ reflection logs and students’ online
postings. To explore the extent to which student participation in an online discussion forum is successful, we looked at
the depth of discussion threads. We deemed a student facilitator to have successfully attracted other students to participant
if the discussion threads had a depth of six or more levels of students’ postings. We then examined in detail and reported
the facilitation techniques that were exhibited by the student facilitators. Results showed that seven facilitation techniques
were employed; the most frequently used were Socratic questioning and sharing personal opinions or experiences. We end
by exploring potential implications for practice and for future research.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Computer-mediated communication; Pedagogical issues

1. Introduction

An asynchronous online discussion environment may be defined as ‘‘a text-based human-to-human com-
munication via computer networks that provides a platform for the participants to interact with one another
to exchange ideas, insights and personal experiences” (Hew & Cheung, 2003, p. 249). One of the main defining
characteristic of an asynchronous online discussion is that the discourse that takes place is not real time. Asyn-
chronous online discussion is increasingly being integrated into onsite educational settings to extend the learn-
ing activities beyond the traditional classroom time and space (Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006).
Most of the current asynchronous online discussion forums automatically sequences and arranges the mes-
sages into various discussion threads (Ganeva, 1999). A discussion thread is a hierarchically organized collec-
tion of messages in which all messages but the one that started the discussion are written as replies to earlier

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K.F. Hew).

0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.002
1112 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124

messages (Hewitt, 2005). Threads are well-defined and easily identified artifacts; they make it easier for people
to trace the evolution of a discourse (Hewitt, 2005). There are now many software packages that offer plat-
forms for threaded asynchronous online discussions such as BlackBoard, Knowledge Community, Knowledge
Forum, and Knowledge Constructor.
A review of the literature shows several reasons for the popularity of using asynchronous online discussions
in learning. For example, asynchronous online discussion forums are generally available 24 h a day and 7 days
a week. This is especially useful, as they allow student-to-student communications to occur at any time and at
any distance. In addition, since many of the current asynchronous online discussion forums are solely text-
based, students have to explicitly express their thoughts in writing. The very process of writing in itself encour-
ages reflection which helps promote higher level learning such as analysis, synthesis, evaluation as well as clear
and precise thinking (Newman, Johnson, Webb, & Cochrane, 1997).

2. Attracting student participation in online discussion

Although asynchronous online discussions can afford certain benefits, such benefits can only be reaped if
students are willing to participate in the discussions in the first place. Prior research suggests that limited stu-
dent participation in online discussion appears to be a persistent and widespread problem (Hewitt, 2005). For
example, a study conducted by Cheung and Hew (2004) found that some students never participated in the
discussion, while some procrastinated in responding to other people’s messages. Some students contribute
postings very sparingly. For instance, Wan and Johnson (1994) found that university students contributed less
than one message note per week in online discussion forums. Other studies showed that the extent of discus-
sion among students was low. For example, in one study that required students to identify design problems of
their course mates’ hypermedia materials and give comments or suggestions to their course mates, Cheung and
Hew (2005) found that the majority of the students’ level of discussion tended to be low; i.e., the level of dis-
cussion was one (when person A posts a question and person B gives a reply). The level of discussion appeared
to resemble a mere question and answer session where students simply answered their course mates’ online
queries, rather than exchanging opinions about the issues on hand. Similarly, Guzdial (1997) found that
the average discussion thread contained essentially a single message and a response to that message. This
was also corroborated by Hewitt and Teplovs (1999) in their study of seven graduate classes at the University
of Toronto.
Efforts to attract student participation have taken a number of different paths. One important and typical
strand of research focuses on the role of the course instructor or tutor as a facilitator of online discussion. For
example, instructor facilitators are advised to keep the online discussions on track (Beaudin, 1999) because
online discussions can lose their original focus and digress for a long period of time as compared to face-
to-face discussions. Some of the ways to keep the discussions on track include designing good questions, pro-
viding guidelines for students to use when preparing their responses, rewording the question when discussions
go off topic, and by providing discussion summaries.
Other researchers suggest that an instructor facilitator should play the role of an encourager. For example,
Tagg and Dickinson (1995) found facilitator encouragement to be a sufficient condition for increased partic-
ipation among postgraduate students. Encouragement consists of students perceiving a continual facilitator
presence, evidenced by the following six characteristics: a reasonably prompt response to the initial student
contribution (between 3 and 5 days), rapid subsequent responses to student contributions (overall average
of 3 days), responses directed mainly to individual students rather than groups, facilitator responses that
are dispersed throughout the discussions rather than being clustered together, responses to about half the total
number of messages posted by students, and a pattern of individual student-addressed messages that acknowl-
edge an individual’s contribution and immediately follow with guidance.
Other instructor facilitator roles involve helping students overcome technical difficulties or concerns on
how to access the online discussions (Cifuentes, Murphy, Segur, & Kodali, 1997), and setting explicit expec-
tations for student participation in the online discussion. For example, Jung, Choi, Lim, and Leem (2002)
found that explicit expectations from instructor (e.g., students told to share ideas and information) were found
to increase student participation in online discussions. Dennen (2005), similarly found that in cases where
expectations were unclear, student participation floundered because students did not know how much they
 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124 1113

were to contribute or what their messages should look like. In summary, factors associated with instructor
facilitator roles such as keeping the discussion on track, giving encouragement, helping students overcome
technical difficulties, and using problem-centric, curiosity-arousing wordings when initiating a discussion have
been suggested as positively influencing student participation.
It is important, however, to note that not all researchers agree that an instructor should facilitate the online
discussion. For example, Poole (2000) claimed that students become more involved and responsible for their
participation when the entire discussion is not instructor facilitated. Mazzolini and Maddison (2003) found
that instructor facilitators who were active in starting up discussion threads on average ended up with shorter
discussion threads than did instructors who largely left it to the students to initiate discussions.
There is comparatively little research done that directly addresses student- or peer facilitation compared to
instructor facilitation. Furthermore, extant research on peer facilitation is limited because the actual types of
peer facilitation techniques or strategies were typically not delineated clearly. For example, in Gilbert and
Dabbaghs’s (2005) study, student facilitators were provided with facilitation guidelines that included an article
entitled ‘‘The role of the online instructor/facilitator”, and a document specifying criteria for facilitating an
online discussion. The former was a web-based resource explaining the various roles in an online discussion
providing more structure and guidelines for facilitators, while the latter was a five-item description of how stu-
dent facilitators would be evaluated. The latter addressed the discussant, ability to demonstrate knowledge of
the subject, synthesize student postings, and respond to peers. What exactly these entailed were not elabo-
rated. Other researchers such as Cifuentes et al. (1997) studied students (e.g., graduate and pre-service teach-
ers) facilitating online discussions by adopting intellectual, social, and organizational roles. Again, the exact
description and example of each role, however, were not elaborated.

3. Method

The purpose of the current study was to examine in detail the facilitation techniques used by student facil-
itators to attract their peers to participate in asynchronous online discussions. An exploratory qualitative case
study approach involving the constant-comparative approach (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) is adopted in this
study. According to Merriam (2001), a case study methodology is utilized when the researcher seeks to gain
an in-depth understanding of a particular situation. The study relied on two primary sources of data: (a) stu-
dent reflection logs, and (b) online observations of the students’ discussion.

3.1. Participants

Twenty-four pre-service teachers (hereafter called students), who were enrolled in a Post Graduate Diploma
course in Education at the National Institute of Education in Singapore, took part in the current study. At the
time of this study, the students were taking an elective course entitled, ‘‘Instructional Technology”. It was a
blended course involving both face-to-face and asynchronous online discussion sections. The nature of the
online discussion tasks was the same for all students, namely the same learning goals, same discussion topics,
course expectations, time requirements, and deliverables were put forward. All 24 students had computer and
internet access at home.

3.2. Procedure

All the students had the opportunity to be facilitators and participants in the online discussion. There were
three topics of online discussion in the course, each lasting 1 week. The first topic of discussion took place
during the fourth week of the course, the second topic during the sixth week, and finally the third topic
occurred during the ninth week. In each discussion topic, there were four groups of students. Each group
had two student facilitators except for two groups which only had one facilitator. In this study, we dropped
the two groups which had only one facilitator in a group. In each topic of the discussion, the students were
randomly assigned into the four groups and two students were randomly chosen as facilitators. However, stu-
dents who served as facilitators before would not be chosen as facilitators again. All groups had the same dis-
cussion topics.
1114 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124

The first topic of discussion was on ‘‘How teachers can implement ICT Masterplan II for engaged student
learning?” The second topic of discussion focused on ‘‘How ICT can be used to facilitate problem-based learn-
ing in the classrooms?” Finally, the third topic of discussion centered on ‘‘How ICT can be employed to
address different students’ learning styles?”
After the online discussions, each student wrote a reflection. The reflection required the students to do the
following: (a) state four facilitation skills that they used in the online forum and explain why they applied them
in those instances, and (b) identify three different facilitation skills that students learned from their peers.

3.3. Data analysis

Student participation in asynchronous online discussion typically includes reading and writing messages.
However, we were primarily interested in the writing aspect because writing is closely tied with discussion
(Guzdial & Turns, 2000). Student discussion has been identified as a key component of online learning, where
learning takes place (Ertmer et al., 2007). Student discussion provides the primary means for students to
exchange ideas, share multiple perspectives, and clarify understandings (Dunlap, 2005); a notion consistent
with the social constructivist perspective, where learning is thought to take place on two levels of interaction
(Vygotsky, 1978). First, an individual learns by interacting with others. Second, in an interaction with self, this
knowledge is integrated into the individual’s own mental structures. Student asynchronous online discussion
affords a venue for the first level of learning to occur; and for a discussion to occur, students must first write
and post messages. Furthermore, writing can subsume reading, such as when the student is replying to mes-
sages from an existing discussion thread (Guzdial & Turns, 2000).
For the purpose of our study, we looked at the depth of threads in order to explore the extent to which
student participation in an online discussion forum is successful. We considered a student facilitator to have
successfully attracted their peers to participate in a discussion thread if the thread had a depth of at least six
levels of message postings. Both students’ and facilitators’ postings were included in our depth count. Fig. 1
illustrates an example of the structure of a six-level deep thread.
We chose to examine the depth of threads because we posit that the goal of using an asynchronous online
discussion forum is to enable students to have discussions or online dialogues (Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Hewitt,
2005). Measuring the depth of threads can provide a way to see if conversational exchanges or discussions are
taking place (Dennen, 2001).We opted not to merely count the number of student postings because such an
approach would not indicate whether students are having conversational exchanges. For example, the postings
may essentially be due to many single messages with no replies (i.e., one-level deep thread) or a single initial
message and many responses to that single message which resembles a mere question and answer session (i.e.,
two-level deep thread). We opted for a depth of six-level as the measure of success because such a level not
only suggests that a discussion is taking place but also the possibility that the discussion is sustained or
extended.
Using the above criterion, we found 12 threads that achieved a depth of six or more levels. Facilitators’
postings amounted to 40%, while students’ contributions were 60% of the total postings analyzed in these
12 threads that had a depth of six or more levels. Of these 12 threads, seven threads achieved a depth of
six levels each, one achieved a depth of seven levels, one achieved a depth of eight, one achieved a depth of
nine, one achieved a depth of ten levels, and finally one thread achieved a depth of twelve levels. Table 1 shows
the percent of group members who contributed in each of these 12 threads.
From Table 1 we can see that all group members contributed in threads that achieved a depth of nine, ten,
and twelve levels. Sixty-seven percent of group members contributed in threads that achieved depths of seven
and eight levels, while 50–83% of group members contributed in six-level deep threads. In addition, the data in
Table 1 suggest that 67% of students in week One group Three made multiple postings (i.e., two or more post-
ings) in twelve-deep threads. Sixty-seven percent of students in week One group Two contributed multiple
postings in ten-deep threads. On the other hand, 17–40% of students made multiple postings in six-deep
threads. This suggests that generally more students made multiple postings in ten- and twelve-level threads
when compared with six-level deep threads.
The depth of threads appeared to vary as a function of topic (see Table 2). Specifically, we found that seven
six-level or more deep threads occurred during the first topic of discussion (How teachers can implement ICT
K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124 1115

Fig. 1. Example of a six-level deep thread.

Fig. 1 (continued)

Table 1
Percent of group members who contributed in the 12 threads
Depth of Week and group Percent of group members Percent of same student who made
thread who contributed multiple postings (i.e., two or more)
12 Week1 Group 3 100 67
10 Week 1 Group 2 100 67
9 Week 1 Group 3 100 33
8 Week 2 Group 3 67 33
7 Week 2 Group 3 67 33
6 Week 2 Group 2 67 33
6 Week 2 Group 1 80 40
6 Week 1 Group 2 83 17
6 Week 1 Group 2 83 17
6 Week 1 Group 2 67 33
6 Week 1 Group 3 83 17
6 Week 2 Group 3 50 33

Masterplan II for engaged learning?). Of these seven threads, four were six-level deep threads, one was nine-
level deep, one was ten-level deep, and one was twelve-level deep. During the second topic of discussion (How
ICT can be used to facilitate problem-based learning in the classrooms?) five six-level or more deep threads were
found. Of these five threads, three were six-level deep, one was seven-level deep, and one was eight-level deep.
No thread of six or more levels was found during the third discussion topic (How ICT can be employed to
address different students’ learning styles?). Thus, more six-level and deeper level threads seemed to occur dur-
ing the first topic of discussion, compared to the other two topics. One possible explanation for this may be
due to the students having more to say concerning the first topic as compared to the other two (Hewitt, 2005).
We examined in detail the facilitation techniques employed by the student facilitators within these 12
threads, triangulated with the student facilitators’ reflection logs. The coding scheme regarding the peer facil-
 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124 1117

Table 2
Discussion topic and thread level
Discussion topic Thread level
First topic – ‘‘How teachers can implement ICT Masterplan II for engaged learning?” 4 six-level deep
1 nine-level deep
1 ten-level deep
1 twelve-level deep
Second topic – ‘‘How ICT can be used to facilitate problem-based learning in the classrooms?” 3 six-level deep
1 seven-level deep
1 eight-level deep
Third topic – ‘‘How ICT can be employed to address different students’ learning styles?” No thread of six or more levels found

itation techniques was not predetermined but emerged inductively and was continually refined through our
interaction with the data. Specifically, the students’ data were examined via the constant-comparative method
to build emergent and initial data categories of facilitation techniques (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Each category
was then reviewed to ensure that each was internally consistent (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The three examples
below illustrate how the data were analyzed and coded.
The first example is: ‘‘Hi F. and G. We’d like to hear a bit more from you guys since we all know the forum
is closing this Sunday, 8.00 pm. So please contribute more stuff by then, especially for the threads you haven’t
posted under. Thanks.” This example was coded as ‘‘personal invitation” facilitation technique category
because of the emphasis on the facilitators’ referring to particular students by name and encouraging them
to contribute their postings.
The second example is: ‘‘Let’s keep to one issue per posting to facilitate the replying to one another, and to
keep the discussions neat in their respective threads for easy reference. Try to reply within 48 h.” This example
was coded as ‘‘establishing ground rules” facilitation technique because the most salient element appeared to
be the setting of principles prior to the discussion on which future students’ postings were to be based.
The third example is: ‘‘What you mean by teachers sharing resources and learning from each other beyond
the school setting?” This example was coded as ‘‘questions of clarification” facilitation technique because of
the emphasis on the facilitators’ asking for the contributor to elaborate or furnish more pertinent details about
an issue or topic being discussed.
Analysis of the student facilitators’ data progressed until each emergent facilitation technique category was
saturated, that is new data began to confirm rather than shed new light on the existing categories. The first
author analyzed the entire data corpus independently. At the end of the analysis, seven different categories
of facilitation techniques were found (see Section 4 for details). However, in order to determine the consistency
of the analysis, the second author independently coded half of the data corpus. The inter-rater reliability of the
coding was high (92%).

4. Results

Seven facilitation techniques were revealed (see Table 3): (a) giving own opinions or experiences, (b) ques-
tioning, (c) showing appreciation, (d) establishing ground rules, (e) suggesting new direction, (f) personally
inviting people to contribute, and (g) summarizing. Each facilitation technique will be described with one
or more representative excerpts from the data, both to define the empirical results and to show that each
one was supported by data from the participants.

4.1. Giving own opinions or experiences

Giving own opinions or experiences (32%) constituted the bulk of the facilitation techniques encountered in
the discussion threads that span six or more levels deep. A closer examination of the ‘‘giving own opinions or
experiences” facilitation technique revealed that student facilitators frequently (61%) employed this technique
1118 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124

Table 3
Peer facilitation techniques
Facilitation technique Definition Percent Illustrative example
Giving own opinions or Personal opinions or 32 I’m just not too sure if students will participate more in
experiences experiences about an issue or discussions when teachers include elements of IT in
topic their lessons since not all students’ home are equipped
with computers at the moment and further more the
number of computers in school can be quite limited as
well. Anyway, it’s just my thoughts
Questioning Questions about Asks for other students’ 33 Do you think it is feasible and how can this be achieved
other people’s viewpoints opinions or experiences about in the near future?
Questions of clarification an issue or topic
Asks for clarification or 5 Can clarify further on what you mean by ‘‘teachers can
elaboration of an idea or issue share resources and learn from each other, beyond the
school setting?
Establishing ground rules Setting expectations of 2 To begin, EV and I have discussed a few ground rules
desired online behavior for the posting and discussion of the topic. For
example, participants to visit forum and respond to
questions posed to them as soon as possible (within
36 h), no personal attacks
Showing appreciation Offering thanks for some 17 Thanks S for responding and sharing with all of us
action, posting regarding some of the pros and cons of using
technological resources in teaching
Suggesting new direction Proposing a different area for 4 With these thoughts in mind, let’s try to look into
potential discussion something new. The website below is a short lesson
plan about using ICT in teaching poetry. . .
Personally inviting people to Specifically encouraging 6 Hey M and K, probably you might want to share with
contribute particular people to post all of us your views on this issue too
Summarizing Giving a short synopsis of 1 Ok, from the numerous posts, let me try to summarize
what has been discussed so far some issues or queries we’ve discussed

when responding to particular students. To illustrate this, consider the following example. The student facil-
itator in the example posted his personal opinion whether he was in agreement or not with students’ (B
and E. V.) opinions, as well as introducing a new different idea:
B and E. V., one thing that seems to come up in both of your posts is this idea of scaffolding for students. I
totally agree that many problems occur with students who are used to a certain teaching/learning style and
also for students with different learning capabilities. One way out of this that I can think of is by means of
very deliberate groupings – putting people with different but complementary strengths together.
Student facilitators also, on the other hand, employed this technique (39% of the time) without responding
to any particular student, as illustrated by the following example.
I think that although teachers should work towards being a good ‘facilitator’, there should also be a healthy
balance between the teacher-centered and student-centered environment – to ensure that all students are pro-
gressing, at least, to the required curriculum goals.
Analysis of the student facilitators’ reflection logs suggested that the reasons in using the ‘‘giving own opin-
ions or experiences” facilitation technique were to keep the discussion going, as well as help put other students
at ease, as highlighted by the following two remarks:
Due to the lack of physical interactions, members’ participation may wane during the discussion. It is
important to keep spirits up, encourage discussion from other members by agreeing or disagreeing with their
points or sharing personal experiences.
Sometimes, it’s also useful for a student facilitator to contribute his or her own experiences to a discussion.
This not only gives the participants something to talk about, but may put them at ease if they can see that the
facilitator has experiences similar to theirs.
 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124 1119

4.2. Questioning

Questioning (38%) also constituted the bulk of the student facilitation techniques encountered in the dis-
cussion threads that span six or more levels deep. Specifically, two categories of questions were employed.
First, student facilitators used questions of clarification (5%) which basically asked other students to elaborate
on their ideas or opinions. For example, ‘‘You said that you had to draw your images on Paint, and put
together to be combined into a scene. Can you clarify, was it just a static single scene (e.g., picture), or did
you eventually come up with many scenes (combining them into a movie)?”
Second, student facilitators more frequently employed questions about viewpoints (33%). Specifically, such
questions probe other students’ stand or opinion pertaining to a particular issue or topic. For example, ‘‘Do
you think it is feasible for teachers to share resources and learn from one another and how can this be
achieved?” and ‘‘Do you think we can extend the idea of using ICT tools to teaching other things in English
or Literature?”
Analysis of the student facilitators’ reflection logs suggested that questioning about other students’ view-
points was a useful technique to attract student participation, as illustrated by the following comment: ‘‘I
found that this was quite useful in encouraging discussion since asking opinion-based questions are non-
threatening and there is no right or wrong answer.”

4.3. Establishing ground rules

Ground rules are prescribed directives that guide students’ participation in asynchronous online discussion.
The ground rules were typically established by the student facilitators prior to the online discussion so that
students knew what was to be expected of them and to pre-empt any unpleasant experiences that might occur.
The ground rules could parsimoniously be categorized into one of the following categories: (a) ground rules
for appropriate behavior, (b) ground rules for organizing postings, and (c) ground rules for participation.
The purpose of establishing ground rules for appropriate behavior was to foster a respectful environment
for students to interact with one another. For example, ‘‘There should be no personal attacks. Comments
should be constructive and non-judgmental. No vulgarities and obscene language.” The purpose of establish-
ing ground rules for organizing postings was to help students easily keep track of the discussion. For example,
‘‘One idea per posting please so that it is easier for us to see at a glance and to reply to.” Finally, the purpose of
establishing ground rules for participation is to avoid procrastination. For example, ‘‘Participants to visit
forum and respond to questions posed to them as soon as possible (within 48 h).”

4.4. Showing appreciation

Showing appreciation to other people’s contribution constituted 17% of the student facilitation techniques.
The following two examples illustrate this technique: ‘‘Thanks for responding and sharing with all of us
regarding some of the pros and cons of using technological resources in teaching” and ‘‘Thanks M for your
concise and quick response to E!”
Analysis of the reflection logs revealed that showing appreciation attracted student participation in a dis-
cussion because it made students feel that they were worthy contributors; that their contributions were deemed
important enough to be noticed. Two comments highlight this point: ‘‘Acknowledging participants’ contribu-
tion aids in encouraging discussions as it ensures that the participants of the forum obtain the satisfaction that
their views have been taken note of and this encourages further discussion” and ‘‘The student facilitator’s
posts tended to start off with a brief appreciation to individuals who contributed. This, I felt, led to a general
feeling of infectious warmth within the forum and a subsequent desire to share even more. This uplifting and
encouraging tone could be the main contributory factor to why I was the most active in the final forum.”

4.5. Other facilitation techniques

Three other peer facilitation techniques were suggesting new direction, personally inviting people to con-
tribute, and summarizing. Suggesting new direction (4%) referred to the student facilitator proposing a new
1120 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124

topic or issue for discussion with the intention of stimulating ideas. For example, ‘‘With these thoughts in
mind, let’s try to look into something new . . . for instance using ICT in teaching poetry.” Personally inviting
people to contribute (6%) involved the student facilitator sending messages to particular students, especially
the quiet ones, to encourage and remind them to contribute in the ongoing discussion. For example, ‘‘Hi M
and K, probably you might want to share with all of us your views on this issue too.” Finally, summarizing
(1%) referred to the student facilitator providing short description of the main points or ideas that had been
discussed thus far. For example, ‘‘Okay, from the numerous posts, let me try to summarize some issues or
queries we’ve discussed. . .”

5. Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was to examine the facilitation techniques used by student facilitators to attract their
peers to participate in asynchronous online discussions. Specifically, we considered student facilitators to have
successfully attracted their peers to participate in a discussion thread if the thread contained six or more levels
of message postings since such levels not only suggest that discussion is taking place but also the possibility
that the discussion is sustained or extended. Accordingly, we surfaced a number of facilitation techniques
including (a) giving own opinions or experiences, (b) questioning, (c) showing appreciation, (d) establishing
ground rules, (e) suggesting new direction, (f) personally inviting people to contribute, and (g) summarizing.
The questioning technique used by the student facilitators may be considered a form of Socratic question-
ing approach. According to Thoms and Junaid (1997), Socratic questioning requires students to make assump-
tions, explain ideas, and differentiate between relevant and irrelevant points. More specifically, Paul (1990, pp.
276–277) identifies a Taxonomy of Socratic Questions including (a) questions of clarification which ask for
verification or additional information of one point or main idea, (b) questions that probe assumptions which
ask the student for explanation or reliability of an assumption, (c) questions that probe reasons and evidence
which ask for additional examples, reasons for making statements or process that lead the student to his or her
belief, (d) questions about viewpoints which ask the student whether there are alternatives to his viewpoint or
a comparison of similarities and differences between viewpoints, and (e) questions that probe implications and
consequences which helps the student to describe the implication of what is being done, or the cause-and-effect
of an action. Of these five categories of questions, two were found in our study – questions of clarification and
questions about viewpoints. The results of this study suggest that questions of clarification and about view-
points may help sustain an asynchronous online discussion, in addition to motivating student thinking, par-
ticularly critical thinking (Elder & Paul, 1998).
Additionally, on the basis of the findings, a pattern or typical sequence of the facilitation techniques may be
inferred. The seven facilitation techniques may be categorized into three critical phases: Introduction, Engage-
ment, and Monitoring. Fig. 2 illustrates this pattern.
The Introduction phase refers to the activities that student facilitators do before the discussion begins. Typ-
ically, student facilitators establish ground rules in this phase. Ground rules such as requiring students to
respond within a certain amount of hours (e.g., 48 h) have been found to be effective in eliminating the prob-
lem of student procrastinating when replying the postings. This helps to maintain the momentum of the dis-
cussion, and minimize the risk of students giving up altogether to communicate (Cheung & Hew, 2007).
In the Engagement phase, student facilitators attempt to get other students interested in the discussion
thread, as well as to keep them participating in it. Typical facilitation techniques include giving own opinion
or experiences, questioning, and showing appreciation. The importance of showing appreciation with regard
to attracting student participation in online discussion is perhaps best understood from a person’s self-image
perspective. Students’ contribution of postings may be considered a form of knowledge sharing since what is
contributed can include the students’ own opinions and suggestions pertaining to a particular issue. According
to Wasko and Faraj (2000), knowledge is a very important component of an individual’s self-efficacy and per-
sonal self-image. Showing appreciation helps student contributors feel that their contributions are important
and useful. We also posit that student facilitators who show appreciation to contributors help create a respect-
ful environment in their discussion thread. A respectful environment can help reduce the possibility that a con-
tributor’s personal self-image is being threatened because attacks on a contributor’s ideas, which are typically
viewed as attacks on the individual itself and destroys further contribution, are minimized. Results also sug-
 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124 1121

Introduction
• Establish ground
rules

Engagement
• Give own
opinions/experiences
• Questioning
• Showing appreciation

Monitoring
• Suggesting new
direction
• Summarizing
• Personally inviting
people to contribute

Fig. 2. Pattern of student facilitation techniques.

gest that giving own opinions or experiences, and questioning is the most common combination of facilitation
technique. Interestingly, results further shows that questioning typically succeeds providing own opinions or
experiences. This suggests that student facilitators should pose questions later rather than earlier because this
may be a useful technique to prolong a discussion as it fosters a sense of obligation on the part of other stu-
dents, in particular students to whom the questions are addressed, to reply. We may infer that the use of pro-
viding own opinions and questioning, together with posing questions toward the end of a message rather than
in front has the greatest potential of improving the probability of success in attracting student participation in
an asynchronous online discussion.
Finally, in the Monitoring phase student facilitators watch and check the progress of the online discussion.
An example of a facilitation technique found in this phase is summarizing the main points discussed. The value
of using a discussion summary is perhaps best understood from an information overload perspective. For
example, Jones, Ravid, and Rafaeli (2004) found that individuals are more likely to end participation if infor-
mation overload occurs. Information overload can occur when there is a high frequency of postings, so that
individuals are unable to processed them and respond adequately (Whittaker, Terveen, Hill, & Cherny, 1998).
Thus, discussion summaries can motivate students to continue to contribute in a discussion because it helps
eliminate the problem of information overload by describing only the main points covered. Other facilitation
techniques found in the Monitoring phase include setting new direction, and personally inviting students to
contribute in the discussion.
1122 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124

We cannot, through the current case study, determine actual causal effects of facilitation techniques on dee-
per threads (seven-level or more deep threads) because the study did not employ any control treatment. Nev-
ertheless, we could infer based on our data that three facilitation techniques (a) showing appreciation, (b) giving
own opinions or experiences, and (c) questions about other people’s viewpoints may foster seven-level or more
deep threads because these techniques were found in the deeper threads (see Table 4). The data in Table 4 also
suggest that the facilitation technique of questions of clarification may foster 9- and 10-level deep threads, while
establishing ground rules may foster 12-level deep thread.

5.1. Implications

The results of this study have practical implications for instructors interested in using student facilitators to
attract student participation in an asynchronous online discussion. First, students acting as facilitators should
be cognizant of the three critical phases of facilitating an online discussion, namely the Introduction, Engage-
ment, and Monitoring phases. Each of these phases is important. For example, setting ground rules and wel-
coming participants in the Introduction phase help to set the stage or orient students to the online discussion.
Such activities by themselves, however, are not sufficient to attract students to continue to participate in a dis-
cussion thread. Student facilitators should continually engage other students in the online discussion, as well
as continually monitor their discussion threads to ensure that the discussions are on topic. It is also helpful to
create discussion summaries to help other students keep track of the discussion especially if the discussion has
many postings.
Second, notwithstanding the importance of other facilitation techniques, student facilitators should focus
their attention particularly on two facilitation techniques: providing personal opinions and questioning since
these two techniques are the most common individual facilitation technique found in discussion threads that
have six or more levels of postings. Furthermore, these two facilitation techniques are most commonly used in
tandem, with questions typically succeeding providing own opinions. Other categories of Socratic questions,
besides that of clarification and asking for viewpoints, can also be used. For example, following the Taxonomy
of Socratic questions, questions that probe assumptions, questions that probe reasons and evidence, and ques-
tions that probe implications and consequences may be raised (Paul, 1990).

Table 4
Facilitation techniques found in deeper threads (seven-level or more)
Thread level Facilitation technique and (frequency of occurrence)
7 Showing appreciation (2)
Giving own opinions or experiences (4)
Questions about other people’s viewpoints (2)
8 Showing appreciation (2)
Giving own opinions or experiences (3)
Questions about other people’s viewpoints (2)
9 Showing appreciation (2)
Giving own opinions or experiences (2)
Questions about other people’s viewpoints (6)
Questions of clarification (2)
Suggesting new direction (1)
Summarizing (1)
10 Showing appreciation (2)
Giving own opinions or experiences (4)
Questions about other people’s viewpoints (5)
Questions of clarification (1)
Personally inviting people to contribute (2)
12 Showing appreciation (2)
Establishing ground rules (2)
Giving own opinions or experiences (5)
Questions about other people’s viewpoints (2)
 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124 1123

5.2. Limitations and future research

We should note that there are several limitations to this study, requiring further research. One limitation is
that we examined only one aspect of student participation in asynchronous online discussions, namely depth
of discussion threads. Future research should also examine how peer facilitation techniques affect student
thinking such as critical and creative thinking, or learning outcomes.
Furthermore, the transferability of our findings may be limited. Firstly, we examined only a single case
using post graduate students as facilitators of online discussions. Post graduate students may be more likely
to participate in deeper discussions when compared to their undergraduate counterparts. Future studies
should therefore examine whether other cases of student facilitators (e.g., undergraduate students) exhibit sim-
ilar facilitation techniques. Additionally, the pattern or sequence of facilitation techniques could be compared
to determine both similarities and differences across various cases (e.g., post graduate students and undergrad-
uate students).
Secondly, in the current study, the discipline being examined was teacher education. It is possible that stu-
dents training to be educators may be more likely to participate in deeper discussions than students in other
disciplines or content areas (e.g., non-instructional technology type class). Consequently, we urge further
research to examine depth of threads in the online discussions of other disciplines, content areas, or even dis-
cussion topics (since we found that depth of threads appeared to vary as a function of topic), as well as the
peer facilitation techniques.
Thirdly, in the current study, the particular course being examined was a blended or hybrid one which con-
sisted of both face-to-face and online components. Since the ability to interact face-to-face may impact the
depth of discussion, we recommend future research to focus on courses that are completely online, without
any face-to-face component. Future research might investigate the peer facilitation techniques in completely
online courses to see if there are variations in the facilitation techniques between blended and completely
online courses.
Fourthly, students in our current study received incentives in the form of course points for the number of
postings they made in the online discussion. Such an incentive may have motivated students to post more mes-
sages, which is likely to foster deeper threads. We urge future research to examine cases where no incentive is
used.

References

Beaudin, B. P. (1999). Keeping online asynchronous discussions on topic. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 41–53.
Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2005). How can we facilitate students’ in-depth thinking and interaction in an asynchronous online
discussion environment? A case study. In Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,USA 28, 114–
121.
Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2007). Use of ground rules and guidelines in online discussion: A case study. In Paper presented at the ED-
MEDIA conference.
Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2004). Evaluating the extent of ill-structured problem solving process among pre-service teachers in an
asynchronous online discussion and reflection log learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(3), 197–227.
Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K. L., Segur, R., & Kodali, S. (1997). Design considerations for computer conferences. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 30(2), 177–201.
Dennen, V. P. (2001). The design and facilitation of asynchronous discussion activities in Web-based courses: Implications for instructional
design theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University Bloomington.
Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion.
Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148.
Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Workload reduction in online courses: Getting some shuteye. Performance and Improvement, 44(5), 18–25.
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (1998). The role of Socratic questioning in thinking, teaching, and learning. Clearing House, 71(5), 297–301.
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: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2). Retrieved on March 20,
2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html.
Ganeva, I. (1999). Native and non-native speakers’ participation in educational asynchronous computer conferencing: A case study.
Unpublished Master thesis. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.
1124 K.F. Hew, W.S. Cheung / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 1111–1124

Guzdial, M. (1997). Information ecology of collaborations in educational settings: Influence of tool. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy
(Eds.), Proceedings of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 83–90). Toronto, Canada: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4),
437–469.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2003). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous
online discussion environment: Part 1. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(3), 247–262.
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
14(4), 567–589.
Hewitt, J., & Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 232–241). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical
model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194–210.
Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and
participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online
discussion forums. Computers and Education, 40, 237–253.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported cooperative
learning. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 48, 484–495.
Paul, R. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical
Thinking and Moral Critique.
Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 33(2), 162–177.
Tagg, A. C., & Dickinson, J. A. (1995). Tutor messaging and its effectiveness in encouraging student participation on computer
conferences. Journal of Distance Education, 10(2). Retrieved on November 29, 2006 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol10.2/
taggdickinson.html.
Thoms, K. J., & Junaid, N. (1997). Developing critical thinking skills in a technology-related class. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED430526).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wan, D., & Johnson, P. M. (1994). Computer supported collaborative learning using CLARE: The approach and experimental findings.
In R. Furuta & C. Neuwirth (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCW ‘94 (pp. 187–198). Chapel Hill, NC: ACM.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). ‘‘It is what one does”: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 155–173.
Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., Hill, W., & Cherny, L. (1998). The dynamics of mass interaction. In Proceedings of ACM’s Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 257–264).
Xie, K., DeBacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student
motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67–89.

Khe Foon Hew is an assistant professor at the Learning Sciences and Technologies academic group at the National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. His research interests include teacher education, online learning, and technology
integration.

Wing Sum Cheung is an associate professor with the same academic group. His research interests focuses on asynchronous online
discussions, multimedia design, and online learning.