"Integrating Technology with Small, Peer-led Discussions of Literature" (Coffey)

            This article, another review of research, was much less thoughtful than the last.  The entire review seemed to be throwing around buzzwords—and the names of types of classroom uses of technology—without arriving at any substance.  My biggest complaint is that as Coffey catalogued the costs and benefits of synchronous, asynchronous, and combined online discussion threads, I forgot that the article was supposed to be about small groups, and about discussions that were student-led and interest driven.   There was no explanation of how that was the case in any of these contexts.  An instant chat or discussion thread doesn’t seem like it would add as much to a small-group discussion as it would to a whole-class discussion.  And is the teacher just observing in all of these studies, without assigning any prompts?

              Most of the article is devoted to describing the ways of using technology, after which we are presented with a long list of benefits.  “Ability to connect with readers outside of the classroom”—I doubt many students are particularly interested in this, or that they would go out of their way to do so without prompting.  “Provides written transcripts of analysis”—fair enough. (Although in my experience with use of discussion threads for class, there’s not usually much that’s worth going back and rereading.  The fact that you are obliged to both respond to literature and to your peers regardless of whether you have anything to say  does not often prompt the most enlightening posts, much like in classroom discussion when you are being graded on participation but you really just want to listen to what’s going on while you work out things for yourself.) “Engagement/Motivation”—according to four cited studies, “students’ excitement and motivation to participate in online book clubs was sustained throughout the entire school year”! I would love to see that.  I’ll try it in my classroom and let you know if it’s the case.  “Fosters classroom community”—see my above point.  I am dubious that anyone is engaged enough in an online discussion to “get to know each other” there more than in the classroom.  “Develops new literacy skills”—yes, more often than not, that seems to be the only thing that going out of your way to inorganically bring technology into the classroom adds which, depending on your goal, may be the point.

            However, the author did cite one noteworthy finding.  Coffey writes,  “Asynchronous communications are interactive, like discussions, but thoughtful, like written discourse” (Wolsey 2006).  This, I think, is perhaps the greatest benefit that an online discussion forum offers.  It comes into play in the last two benefits delineated: “Giving voice to marginalized students” and “Giving students time to think before responding.”  Yes, the marginalized students Coffey refers to are the shy students.  But nevertheless, I think the hybrid between being exposed to your peers’ interpretations and thoughts, and having time to think through those thoughts as well as your own, is perhaps the best reason to use a threaded discussion.  The “Challenges” subset, though, is shockingly underdeveloped.  Two of the points are long because they include solutions that supposedly eliminate the challenge.  The other two (more salient) challenges, “Issues of Speed” and “Issues of Access,” are barely addressed.  Issues of access, in my opinion, go beyond “considering scheduling issues and time management.”

            The suggestions for future research (the most-oft skimmed section of scholarly articles!) was actually the most substantial.  Coffey calls for a look at the quality of online discussion and a comparative study of online and traditional discussion.  This, I feel, is very important.  Camilla, last week, was challenging us to consider what adding technology to the classroom added to the classroom.  If we are hoping to find more benefits of using technology than convenience and developing students’ technological literacy, then we can’t just be adding it for technology’s sake.  It should be doing something more, which, based to the un-substantiated claims of “enhancing learning” above, it may not be.  Coffey also says we must consider the needs of individual students, specifically asking how such a collaborative space can benefit students who learn best independently.  I agree that as teachers, we must consider how “the experience of discussing literature online different for learners with different learning styles” (Coffey).