Cultivating Substantive Peer Interaction in Online Human Service Courses

Cultivating Substantive Peer Interaction in Online Human Service Courses Literature Review The field of human services has experienced a similar pattern of growth as other certificate and degree programs offered in wholly online formats (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Whereas courses offered entirely online do not include an on-site classroom component as seen in blended or hybrid course models, they could be increasingly powerful learning tools if a discussion within a social constructivist environment is included (Hall, 2011). Given the importance of interaction in the scope of work for a human services practitioner, student discussion in online courses needs to be a critical component of learning and deserves significant attention when designing, facilitating, and assessing such classes. Social Constructivist Learning Environments The importance of student discussions is rooted in the theory of constructivist learning that asserts that knowledge is actively constructed rather than passively received (McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2010). This represents a monumental shift away from the idea that a teacher disseminates knowledge and the student passively receives knowledge. From this perspective, the sociocultural effects of the environment, particularly dialogue, is critical to the learning process and is an active experience of all involved. If knowledge is to be constructed, then those individuals constructing the knowledge must converse with one another. Since the majority of dialogue in online courses occurs between learners within asynchronous, threaded discussions, at times other than scheduled class time, such peer interactions need to be significant contributors to the level of learning (Sher, 2009). Advantages and Pitfalls of Online Discussion There are several benefits to online discussion groups when conducting distance education in the human services. For instance, during an online discussion regarding one's field placement, the breadth of socio-political contexts presented by students from different geographical locations allows for a more robust examination of diverse social issues and policies. Also, when discussion is given through an asynchronous online discussion thread, students have the time to critically reflect upon and deconstruct their experiences (Madoc-Jones & Parrott, 2005). Students appreciate these opportunities, as some researchers have found higher rates of student satisfaction, greater depth of discussion, and improved integration of learning among distance education students (Barnett-Queen, Blair, & Merrick, 2005). However, despite the potential for asynchronous discussion, such discussion threads have sometimes been found to be more superficial than substantive (Hall, 2011). In fact, de Boer, Campbell, and Hovey (2011) found that students were disappointed with the lack of peer interaction within discussion. Since the helping professions are highly personalized and attract social and people-oriented professionals (Rounds, Armstrong, Liao, Lewis, & Rivkin, 2008), it makes sense that students are likely more stimulated with personalized interaction within a discussion thread. With recent research supporting this now established modality, it is critical that we design and facilitate discussions that optimize this kind of learning (Larsen, Visser-Rotgans, & Hole, 2011). Design, Facilitation, & Assessment The most effective way to balance the advantages and pitfalls of online discussions occurs through course design, facilitation, and assessment. There are many factors that influence course design, including how student discussions could be used to achieve course learning outcomes. In cultivating substantive peer interaction, the design of the discussion prompt is of paramount importance. Bloom's revised taxonomy and Webb's depth of knowledge offer categories to differentiate the amount of cognition required in a learning activity. …