A Support Taxonomy for Developing Online Discussions William Brescia University of Arkansas ABSTRACT Since the development of threaded discussion on the World Wide Web, effective use of asynchronous discussion forums has been an issue for public affairs educators.This article is an account of research that examined how traditional mentoring practices might be used successfully in this electronic environment.A taxonomy of strategies for online discussion leaders is described. By using these strategies, instructors can move beyond just asking good questions in online discussions, to putting into practice methods that are designed to challenge students’ critical thinking and foster higher levels of student participation.The research results indicate that threaded discussion by the study’s target population was improved by use of the taxonomy.
J-PAE 9 (2003):4:289-289
Since the introduction of e-mail on Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) in 1971 (Hafner and Lyon, 1996), higher education instructors have been struggling to use computerized electronic communications for instructional purposes.The Mosaic browser’s introduction just over twenty years later (Lee,Armitage, Groves, and Stephens, 1999) allowed educators nationwide to use the Internet for teaching purposes.Almost immediately, it became evident that this new environment needed new tools. Web-based discussion, one of the most promising tools developed, offered the capability to overcome temporal and physical limitations (Harasim, 1990). Using this powerful, new,Webbased instructional tool called for new instructional techniques to maximize learning. A critical issue was determining which techniques could be used in threaded discussions to move beyond asking good questions to leading the discussion and helping students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills online. The aim of this study was to examine traditional mentoring practices and apply them to Web-based threaded discussions in a strategy called telementoring.Telementoring can be used as an instructional technique for improving discussions in nonprofit management education. Virtually every society has discovered the usefulness of the mentor— defined by the dictionary as a trusted counselor or guide—and has developed and used mentoring to pass on its culture. Ptahhotep served as the mentor to the eldest son of Pharaoh Assa of Kmt (called Egypt by the Greeks) (Hilliard, 1987). Modern Jewish scholars point to the Jewish liturgical voice as a mentor reaching across the ages to tell how the body and spirit should be integrated into the community (Madsen, 1998).Today, we look at Mentor as a wise and cultivated man entrusted with the education of Odysseus’ son,Telemachus (Laurent, 1986).The effectiveness of mentoring can be seen in many examples of successful mentoring throughout history, such as Franz Boas and Margaret Mead, Anna Freud and Erik Erikson, and Thomas Scott and Andrew Carnegie (Gordon, 1983). Mentoring usually concentrates on achieving goals of the organization, goals of the individual, or short-term skill development. Galbraith
Journal of Public Affairs Education 289
A Support Taxonomy for Developing Online Discussions and Cohen (1995, 90-91) describe the characteristics of mentoring most useful for improving Web-based instruction: “mentoring is a process within a contextual setting; involves a relationship of a more knowledgeable individual with a less experienced individual; provides professional networking...is a developmental mechanism (personal, professional, and psychological); is a socialization and reciprocal relationship; and provides an identity transformation” for all participants. Many authors have developed lists of characteristics of effective mentors (Brescia, under consideration). Many types of conferencing tools have appeared on the Web; most of these are not designed for use in any particular discipline. However, because Web technology permits discussions, it appears to be an apt technology to use in the discussion-intensive venue of nonprofit management graduate education (McInernery, 1997). Each student working alone in a Web class has the opportunity to have a one-to-one interactive learning experience with the professor during the course that is analogous to the mentor/protégé experience. I developed the telementoring taxonomy described here to provide online instructors with support strategies that will lead to improved student learning (Brescia, 2001). By combining the success of mentoring with a Webbased course, instructors can be even more successful with threaded discussions than with traditional classroom discussions.These online discussions create a shared space where ideas can be debated and linked to other ideas and where arguments for the revision of previously held theories can be made (Bonk and Kim, 1998). The term telementoring is used here because the strategies in the taxonomy were developed from face-to-face mentoring practices. I assume that distance education students respond to these strategies as individuals even though they are part of a group discussion.This was supported by interview data showing that students responded to telementoring posts to other students as if they were directed to them. The telementoring taxonomy (see Figure 1) suggests three general strategies for supporting student development, each of which has its own techniques. 290 Journal of Public Affairs Education
The first group of strategies is to coach through participation.Teachers can do this by modeling good analysis, clarifying ideas, challenging hypotheses, and raising questions.The second group is to provide structure. Particular techniques to do this include framing tasks, summarizing discussions, and encouraging reflection.The third group is to support individual students. Faculty can do this by championing lost ideas and nourishing good ideas. Figure 1 provides more information about each element of the taxonomy. With a notable lack of research on the nature and outcomes of mentoring relationships in Web-based environments, several researchers and programs recently have turned their attention to studies of telementoring.Among them, MentorNet (Single and Muller, 1999), CoVis (Pea and Gomez, 1996), and the Electronic Emissary Program (Dimock, 1997), which have provided places for telementoring to occur, now regularly produce research on telementoring’s use and effectiveness. The nature of telementoring relationships and how they might be improved are important issues. Ferneding-Lenert and Harris (1994) found that, while online mentors saw their role as question-answerers for students working on projects, the key to success in online discussions was in building strong relationships. In another study, Harris, O’Bryan, and Rothenberg (1996) reported that, in order for telementoring relationships to work, clear learning goals need to be developed, and the frequency and number of online communications need to be established. THE INSTRUCTOR’S ROLE AS TELEMENTOR Although the telementoring taxonomy and its application were developed for a course in nonprofit management, it should apply equally well throughout the public affairs curriculum. In order to foster a high level of student participation, public affairs instructors have a responsibility to make the threaded discussion a setting in which students are comfortable assuming responsibility for their own learning, inquiry is encouraged, the necessary tools are provided, and the instructor is active and involved by asking questions.The instructor needs to help stu-
A Support Taxonomy for Developing Online Discussions dents grow from their current understandings to richer, more complex understandings (Brooks and Brooks, 1993).An effective way for instructors to foster the learning process is to provide structure to
the class by making the goals clear, managing the discussion, and controlling group size. Discussion group size should depend on the nature of the task (Rikkerink and van Halstein, 1994). As facilitator, the
Figure 1. The Telementoring Taxonomy Coaching Through Participation Model good analysis: Show the students the kinds of behaviors you are looking for. For example, one of the attributes of asynchronous conferencing is the ability for conference participants to find references and quote from them online. Model what is expected of the students. Clarify: Provide keys, links, framing statements, focusing statements, and examples from the readings that help the discussion avoid vagueness.The discussion should include references to the readings and other research, rather than discussion of what students did on the job last week. Challenge hypotheses: Students will develop hypotheses relating to actions to be taken relating to the case studies.You may introduce some conflict into the proceedings by challenging those hypotheses. For example, bring up a nonprofit management theory that is counter to the one the students are proposing. Another possibility is to challenge the context the students have constructed. Question: Ask students to think more about what they are saying or conclusions they have reached.You can ask any number of questions to help the students explore an idea, reach a conclusion, or work on an assignment. Ex: Can you give some examples of this? How might you go about doing that? Providing Structure Frame tasks: You must provide structure for the discussion to proceed toward a reasonable end.You should devise clear tasks and allow appropriate time for discussion and completion of those tasks. Once the task is clear, the faculty mentor should help the students to stay on task. Summarize: The faculty mentor guides the discussion along by summarizing key points, topics covered and those still needing to be covered, bringing the group to a point of convergence from which they can move forward.The faculty mentor should not always be the summarizer.The responsibility for this might pass to the “student of the week.” Encourage reflection: Students should think about what should be done as much as how to do it. Help the students to reflect on what they have said in the discussion and how it may contribute to an outcome. Ex:What were you thinking about when you were doing that? Did your actions change after doing that several times? Did you ever stop to question your assumptions? Supporting Individual Students Champion lost ideas: You may provide support for a student’s ideas as expressed in the conference.You can help a student’s ideas have visibility in the discussion by returning the discussion to ideas a student has presented but were not followed up on by the conference. Nourish good ideas: The faculty mentor markets the good points a student has made to the group or may intervene in a conflict to defend points a student has presented.The mentor is trying to convince the conference of the significance of particular ideas and is attempting to gain admission of those ideas into the conversation.
Journal of Public Affairs Education 291
A Support Taxonomy for Developing Online Discussions instructor should structure the nature of the inquiry by defining the problem, developing and evaluating several solution alternatives, coming to a resolution, and leading the participants through reflection upon the process.Web conferencing facilitates this by allowing the instructor to observe students’ electronic messages (called posts), keep a record of the discussion forum, model appropriate posts, question students, and show critical thinking about the issue (Duffy, Dueber, and Hawley, 1998).These actions are the functions of a mentor who provides appropriate support for learners, and, when appropriate, allows the learner to perform the task when he or she is able, rather than telling learners what to do (Duffy and Cunningham, 1996). The instructor can provide examples of analysis and critical reflection that students can see, and the discussion environments make that modeling process obvious.The Web discussion enables the students to divert the focus from one’s self to the group when performing tasks or making decisions (Marsick, 1987). One way people learn is by taking on new opportunities and then reflecting upon the new role associated with those opportunities.The telementor can use Web discussions to make reflection a regular practice by clarifying the key issues in a discussion, challenging students to support their hypotheses, and questioning learners’ statements. Learners can describe their practice, share with others their analysis of their actions, present why and how they came to the decision to do what they did, and reconstruct the event (McGree, 1998). RESEARCH METHODS This case study examines a distance-learning course in nonprofit human resource management offered in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs of Indiana University.The course was taught by a professor at the main university campus of the eight-campus, state-supported university system. The course made extensive use of Web technology and the case study instructional method.Weekly case studies related directly to events that students would face in nonprofit management situations.The class discussed possible solutions to the issues addressed
292 Journal of Public Affairs Education
in the case studies, using Web-based threaded discussion software.The instructor assigned weekly readings relating directly to the case study that the class was discussing online. Thirty-five students were enrolled in the course. Most were from the two largest campuses; the rest were from remote areas of the state.The majority of students were seeking degrees in public and environmental affairs, with a special emphasis on nonprofit management. Knowledge of the Internet and access to a computer with modem and a current Internet browser were enrollment requirements. The discussion forums were part of a course shell software package and closely resembled discussion forums in similar programs.The software was designed as a “big picture” solution for teaching and learning on the Web to provide teachers with all the necessary instructional spaces they might need (Jafari, 1999).The communications section provided tools that facilitated electronic interaction between the faculty member and students via e-mail and synchronous and asynchronous discussions. As mentioned above, a case study was assigned each week. Cases developed by the National Center for Nonprofit Boards were available on the Web. On Monday morning of each week, a case was presented that consisted of a two- or three-page description of a problem or issue that is commonly faced in nonprofit management. For each case, the professor prepared three or four discussion questions that were designed to lead the students through the salient points of the case.After reading the assigned texts and the appropriate case study, students entered the Web site and selected the discussion for the week. There they found directions provided by the professor on what they were to do for the week’s discussion. Students were generally asked to discuss the questions and were not given any other specific task. The one exception was when they were assigned to participate in a debate related to the case for that week.The instructor described his usual strategy to the students as dividing the discussion into three threads.The first focuses on your diagnosing the problem.The
A Support Taxonomy for Developing Online Discussions second question asks you to draw upon ideas from the readings that you find helpful for thinking about OR acting upon this problem. The third thread addresses the “bottom line” question raised at the end of the case. At the beginning of the course, the professor informed the students that short replies such as “I agree” would not be considered useful.This stance was taken because the professor and this researcher wanted the students to say why they thought a post was good and why they agreed with it.The professor informed them that he was looking for quality, not quantity, and that relevant and thoughtful replies were expected of students, to show their familiarity with the assigned texts and other research. Students were advised to post at the beginning of the discussion, during the middle, and at the end of the discussion.As it turned out, the students were harsh critics of one another’s posts. If a student tended to go on and on with their answers, other students complained and encouraged shorter posts. Students were aware that the professor was attempting to implement a new strategy designed to improve participation in Web-based threaded discussions, but they did not know exactly what strategies he would be using.The professor posted a copy of the telementoring taxonomy next to his computer so he could refer to it while he was reading student posts. Using the taxonomy made it possible for the professor to move from asking good questions to making posts that were designed to respond to specific student posts and to draw out their ideas. For this study, telementoring posts were distinguished from nontelementoring posts if the professor identified a post as not being influenced by the taxonomy, or if raters who were familiar with the taxonomy did not identify a post as coming from the taxonomy. The professor used qualitative methods for each use of telementoring to determine the impact that each post had on student reflection and on the use of the readings and other sources in their posts. Interviews conducted with the students analyzed their reactions to specific telementoring strategies and determined which telementoring strategies they saw as most effective and least effective.
The study took place during weeks eight through twelve of the semester. By starting in week eight, it was possible to avoid collecting data on conferences for which students would not yet have learned how to correctly respond to the questions. It also avoided inappropriate posts, i.e., students asking for information about the course or assignments.The ending date was selected because after week twelve the class discontinued discussion of cases. Each discussion was designed to last one week in length. During the last week of the study, two discussions were open at the same time. Of the thirty-five students who completed the class, eighteen agreed to participate in this study. Three students were interviewed for each of the five discussions for a total of fifteen interviews. Students were chosen by using a random serial selection sampling, i.e., each student was picked only after the previous student had been selected. Each successive interviewee was questioned to reinforce and extend information already obtained and to fill in gaps in the information obtained in previous interviews (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In the interviews, students were asked structured, semi-structured, and open-ended questions aimed at discovering the students’ reactions to the various telementoring techniques, the extent to which telementoring caused them to change the nature of their posts, and how telementoring was affecting their participation in the case discussions. In addition, they were asked for general comments about the effectiveness of telementoring and the course design. Students who agreed to be interviewed were shown a copy of the case discussion.They were asked questions about that discussion and asked whether they could make judgments about specific telementoring posts by the professor and their responses.After some warm-up questions about their use of the discussion software, they were asked a series of questions related to their experience of working on the case studies and the professor’s use of telementoring. Interviews were conducted during the week subsequent to the Web-based discussion in a place chosen by the interviewee. However, if there were any Journal of Public Affairs Education 293
A Support Taxonomy for Developing Online Discussions questions about a discussion, a hard copy of the discussion was available to them for reference during the interview. EXAMPLE DISCUSSIONS AND ANALYSIS In the Hungry for Feedback© discussion, the students were assigned this problem: An executive director receives an annual evaluation that gives him an excellent rating and raises his salary; however, the evaluation does not go far beyond that. He feels that he needs more and that the board has let him down by not providing him with more feedback.As with most cases, there are several issues generated in the case, and the students must apply their course readings for the week to find out a solution to the problem.The professor presented three issues for the students to discuss. The first focuses on what the case suggests about training and development needs for the board and the executive director.This question is intended to give you a chance to put ideas in this week’s readings to use.The second focuses on the performance appraisal and feedback process. How would you reform the process to get better results in the future? The third question seeks your advice about the central issue, i.e.,“What should the executive director do?”
egy to help students deal with...complexity. These cases aren’t quite as complex as they need to be, particularly for the more sophisticated students. He was also exploring what his area of influence really was in threaded discussions. He was beginning to see that Web-based discussions could be a context where students could spend time reflecting before participating in the discussion. He seemed unsure that his posts were being read by the students, though they reported that they were reading all the posts, especially his. I suspect that to the extent I’m making quality (telementoring) posts, my posts get more attention than anyone else’s.What I’m trying to do is have some influence. I’m not sure how substantial that is. The professor stated that he made sure that he was making a telementoring reply to every student who made a post in the class. He saw this as establishing a tutorial relationship with the students that he hypothesized was important in threaded discussions—similar to paying attention to what all the students were saying in a face-to-face class. During the Hungry for Feedback© discussion, the professor made 20 posts.Those posts led to 47 student posts with an average length of 140 words. In
When asked about the usefulness of telementoring in reaching his learning goals, the professor stated that he was Table 1. Hungry for Feedback Discussion beginning to see the power of telementoring. He also pointed out No. of Χ Replies that some of these cases were not TM Posts as complex as they might have Nourish Good Ideas 5 2.20 been in order to create an illClarify 3 3.00 defined problem with enough data for students to come up with multiQuestion 3 1.33 ple solutions. Frame Task 3 4.33 I’d have to say to some extent, it (telementoring) did ...help reach learning goals. ...the mentoring is intervention strat-
294 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Χ Words Per Reply 137.60 130.33 157.00 155.53
Encourage Reflection
2
2.00
128.25
Feedback
2
2.50
122.60
Total
19
2.37
140.56
A Support Taxonomy for Developing Online Discussions this discussion, Nourish Good Ideas was used more often than any other telementoring strategy. Frame Task produced the highest average of student replies to a telementoring post. The total number of words produced by the students in this discussion was equal to 55 minutes of oral discussion. In his initial post for this discussion, the professor stated that he always started a discussion with a Frame Task post. Students also were seeing his post as “making us focus on the issue at hand.”They were also seeing the practical applications of this post, “that, if we wind up on a board, we could foresee that kind of problem happening.”They saw that he was “putting us in that situation.” Students saw that he was framing the task in such a way that they had to role play how the characters in the case study would have acted, not what they as students would have done. Students also appreciated the part of his post where he said to “limit your post to one training need.”They said that it was hard to make posts that met the course requirements when someone else had already posted the same comment they had intended to make. One of the student posts that the professor wanted to support by Nourishing Good Ideas was one that referred to a book he had used in the past as a text for this course. I really wanted to support that, but I also really wanted to steer the students and say ‘yeah,’ if they’re going to look for some good resources, this was going to be a good resource for them. The students also saw that he was trying to do that.They repeatedly used words like “supported” or “reinforcing students’ ideas.” Two Encourage Reflection posts were made in the third thread of this discussion.The professor stated he was trying to get the students to think more about what they were posting. Here, I was again trying to conceptualize. I guess I was as much trying to encourage
reflection in her as much as anything. She stated it in a particular way and I tried to...[state that] it has some consequences, for elsewhere. The fact that one can’t just sit back waiting for the board to lead. In fact, the executive director may need to manage the board. In the Whose Vision Is It,Anyway©, discussion, the professor assigned the students to support or reject an executive director’s request “to be paid at the top of his field.” Unlike the other discussions, this discussion had only two branches: affirmative and negative. Some of the students did have difficulties with the debate format and confused rebuttals with negative posts, which caused some confusion in the discussion.The professor had to send out an e-mail message to provide the students with directions on the correct form for a debate.The professor stated that using debate in threaded discussions might not be as simple as he thought, and that students might be more successful if they were first trained in the debate process. The professor began this threaded discussion with posts identified as Frame Task.These posts set up the affirmative and negative arguments for the debate.As might be expected with a debate, several of the telementoring posts were identified as Challenging Hypothesis. The professor suggested the addition of Feedback to the taxonomy. By feedback, he meant simple feedback such as “good post,” without any further explanation. Students also looked for this kind of feedback from the professor as a gauge of their performance. In this group, they had the feeling that if one of them got a positive feedback response, that indicated that the whole group was doing well in the discussion.This suggestion by the professor contradicts the position, taken by this researcher at the beginning of the class, that telementoring posts give an explanation of why a post was good. It appears that students are receptive to simple positive feedback online, just as they are in face-to-face mentoring situations. The professor also used Questioning as a telementoring strategy.When asked about his use of this
Journal of Public Affairs Education 295
A Support Taxonomy for Developing Online Discussions strategy, the professor said he was trying to “goad” USING THE TAXONOMY During the discussions, the professor used all the the students into action. He said that one side of the telementoring strategies except Championing Lost debate group was not participating, and, although Ideas.While he used Frame Task and Nourish Good this post was addressed to one person, he expected Ideas most often, he believed that all the strategies all students to take the question to heart and act on were useful in fostering reflection.The professor it. Another Questioning post was a simple request commented about the importance of using for information. Perhaps the most interesting use of Summarizing telementoring posts. this telementoring strategy was in an attempt by the professor to get the student whom he was question[O]ne of the things I have been trying to do is ing to take a stand. Several of the other students saw retranslate students’ posts into something a litthis as a negative reaction to that student alone, tle more conceptual, or to reinforce concepts. rather than to the whole group:“I’m glad my name’s not (student’s name). ...[Y]ou could take it really perThe professor indicated that he saw that telemensonally.When you’re online, you have to be so caretoring was changing the power relationship with ful about how you word things.”The professor also students. made several Nourish Good Ideas posts when he wanted students to see that a student made good A faculty member is...the greater of a number points. He thought it was important to make the of equals. So, if your [sic] talking about people posts to support the student because that student being on a...more level plane, that suggests that had some good ideas.With these posts, the students my interventions are lessened more than in a said the professor was trying get them to “bring regular class. those kinds of issues to the forefront” that are important for resolving the issue of compensation for nonFinally, the professor indicated that he liked the profit managers. idea of using the telementoring taxonomy. He sugDuring the Compensation Debate case discussion, gested there might be even more guidelines that the professor made thirteen telementoring posts. could be given to instructors who were offering Those posts prompted forty student posts with an their first Web-based class. He felt that the structure average length of 121 words.Table 2 shows that the of the taxonomy made it possible for the students most often used telementoring strategy during the and him to be successful in using threaded discusCompensation Debate Discussion was Challenge sions. Hypothesis, which was also most effective in producing student responses, with a mean of 165 words per reply.Again, Table 2. Posts In Compensation Debate Discussion Frame Task and Nourish Good Ideas were used by the professor but were more effective in producing No. of Χ Replies Χ Words TM Posts Per Reply lengthy student replies than in the first discussion. Challenge Hypothesis 5 2.00 165.30 Students stated that the Frame Question 3 2.67 102.00 the Task posts helped them orgaFrame Task 3 5.00 116.00 nize their thoughts before posting. It was clear to me. I understood it and I knew immediately what I was supposed to do. It was very helpful. 296 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Nourish Good Ideas
2
2.50
102.20
Feedback
1
0.00
0.00
Total
14
2.71
124.21
A Support Taxonomy for Developing Online Discussions CONCLUSION The professor said the taxonomy was useful to him in thinking about how to post and how those posts would be most effective in causing students to reflect and to advance the objective of that week’s case study.The professor’s perception of his own use of the telementoring taxonomy improved over the course of the semester. Perhaps the most interesting finding was that, prior to the introduction of the taxonomy, he had thought of threaded discussions as a means for asking good questions that would help with the discussion. He had not thought of a way for his participation to affect student reflection. The taxonomy proved to be useful in providing guidance to the professor in using threaded discussions. Eighty-six percent of student posts indicated reflection and advanced the discussion.The professor indicated that the taxonomy was useful to him in posting a framework and allowing him to question. It enabled him to systematically organize the discussion, challenge students to participate in a reflective manner, and support their good ideas. The professor thought the taxonomy, while useful in this context, could be affected positively or negatively by its use in another context.The effects of a different context might bring strategies that were not often used in this course to the forefront, or might call for the addition of other strategies. It also seems logical that developments in technology might make it possible for additional strategies to be used. The use of different strategies in the telementoring taxonomy varied between and within discussions.Although Modeling Good Analysis may have been important at the beginning of a semester, its value decreased as the course progressed. On the other hand, Summarizing occurred logically at the end of a thread or an entire discussion. Two telementoring strategies, Frame Task and Nourish Good Ideas, seemed to be most effective.They were also the most often used strategies for all discussions, and there was some expectation by both the professor and the students that these particular strategies would be used.The persistent use of these two
strategies paid off in the quality and quantity of student posts. The finding that students in this nonprofit management course responded so positively to simple feedback was unexpected. In future research, simple feedback will be added to the taxonomy. On the whole, the professor and the students found the use of telementoring in Web-based threaded discussions to be a tool that helped them accomplish their learning goals. Students and faculty made suggested expanding the telementoring taxonomy to include additional strategies.As the professor suggested, the taxonomy should be examined prior to each use and modified to include those strategies that are appropriate for that context. It may be that future developments in threaded discussion technology will make it possible to increase the number of mentoring strategies that can be used in this environment.
REFERENCES Brescia,W. 2002.“The Role of Faculty in Web-Based Instruction.” Under consideration. Brescia,W. 2001. Using a Telementoring Taxonomy in a World Wide Web Instructional Environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Bonk, C., and K. Kim. 1998.“Extending Sociocultural Theory to Adult Learning.” In M. C. Smith and T. Pourchot, eds., Adult Learning and Development: Perspectives from Educational Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 67-88. Brooks, J., and M. Brooks. 1997. The Good Mentor Guide: Initial Teacher Education in Secondary Schools. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. deLeon, Linda, and Jerri Killian. 2000.“Comparing Modes of Delivery: Classroom and On-line (and Other) Learning.” Journal of Public Affairs Education. 6(1):5-18. Dimock, K.V. 1997.“Building Relationships, Engaging Students:A Naturalistic Study of Classroom Participation in the Electronic Emissary Project.” [Online].Available at ftp://ftp.tapr.org/pub/emissary/studies/Dimock.pdf. Dolence, M., and D. Norris. 1995. Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning. Duffy,T. M. and D. J. Cunningham. 1996.“Constructivism: Implications for the Design of Delivery of Instruction.” In Jonassen, D. H., ed., Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: publisher?, 170-198. Duffy,T. M.,W. Dueber, and C. L. Hawley. 1998.“Critical Thinking in a Distributed Environment:A Pedagogical Basis for the Design of Conferencing Systems.” In C. J. Bonk, and K. King, eds., Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 51-78.
Journal of Public Affairs Education 297
A Support Taxonomy for Developing Online Discussions Ferneding-Lenert, K., and J. B. Harris. 1994.“Redefining Expertise and Reallocating Roles in Text-Based Asynchronous Teaching/Learning Environments.” Machine-mediated Learning, 4(2-3):129-148. Galbraith, M.W., and N. H. Cohen, eds. 1995.“Mentoring: New Strategies and Challenges.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 66(Summer). Gordon, C. I. 1983. Toward a Conceptual Framework of the MentorMentee Relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University. Hafner, K., and M. Lyon. 1996. Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster. Harasim. L. 1990. Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. New York: Praeger. Harris, J., E. O’Bryan, and L. Rotenberg. 1996. :It’s a Simple Idea, but It’s Not Easy To Do: Practical Lessons in Telementoring.” Learning and Leading with Technology, 24(2):53-57. Hilliard,A. G. 1985. SBA: The Reawakening of the African Mind. Gainesville, FL: Makare. Jafari,A. 1999.“Putting Everyone and Every Course On-Line:The Oncourse Environment.” WebNet Journal, 1(4):37-43. Laurent,A. D. 1986. Effective Teaching and Mentoring. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lee, S. D., S.Armitage, P. Groves, and C. Stephens. 1999.“Internet Teaching.” Retrieved June 14, 2003, from http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/projects/jtap/reports/teaching/basic.h tml Lincoln,Y., and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. McGree, P. 1998. Unintended Professional Development in Curriculum—Based on K-12 Telementoring Projects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas,Austin. McInerney,W. D. 1997.“Learning to Teach via the Internet.” In N. Millichap, ed., Beginnings: Initial Experiences in Teaching Via Distance Education. Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education (IPSE). Madsen, C. 1998.“Love Songs to the Dead:The Liturgical Voice as Mentor and Reminder.” Cross Currents, 48:458-470. Marsick,V. J., ed. 1987. Learning in the Workplace. New York: Croom Helm. Pea, R., and L. Gomez. 1996.“Overview of the CoVis Project.”Available at http://www.covis.nwu.edu/info/papers/. Rikkerink, E., and M. van Halstein. 1994.“Computer Conferencing: Discussions and Projects.”Available at http://www.to.utwente.nl/ism/ online95/campus/library/online94/capter4/chap4.html.
Special thanks to Ed Jennings for his guidance is rewriting and assistance with the final editing of this article.
William Brescia is an assistant professor of educational technology at the University of Arkansas. His research interests include the development of Web-based tools that promote learning and interactivity, mentoring, and adult learning in the specific contexts of legal continuing education, advanced language learning, and nonprofit organizations.
298 Journal of Public Affairs Education
