4.5.1 Discussion List: Definition and Characteristics

Of all types of sustained direct oral communication, none is more common or important to our way of life than discussion (Brilhart, 1978). The following definitions of a discussion indicate the many interpretations that can be given to the term. These definitions also highlight many commonalities. The definitions include:

• a process of shared talking and listening by two or more people; (Brilhart, 1978, p.3)
• a small group of people talking with each other face to face in order to achieve some interdependent goal, such as increased understanding, coordination of efforts, or a solution to a shared problem; (Ibid. p.5)
• a form of group dialectic; (Ibid. p.7)
• the purposeful, systematic, primarily oral exchange of ideas, facts, and opinions by a group of persons who share in the group’s leadership; (Potter Anderson, 1976, p. 1)
• ...one or more meetings of a small group of people who thereby communicate, face to face, in order to fulfill a common purpose and achieve a group goal; (Borman, 1975, p.53)
• an effective technique for intelligent and productive self-expression. (Bergevin Morris, 1965)

These definitions were created at a time when the online discussion was a yet non-existent phenomenon. It is therefore easy to understand why many of the authors cited above relied on the importance of face-to-face contact in their definition. In this age of asynchronous communication facilitated by the many tools of the Internet such as e-mail, the World Wide Web, chat rooms, MUDs and MOOs, discussions can occur without the need for either physical or temporal proximity. Thus, for the purposes of the discussion that formed a major part of the research method of this study, the face-to-face element need not figure as part of the definition. Using these clarifications and with reference to the established definitions listed above, the discussion used in this study can be defined as follows:

A purposeful and systematic exchange of experiences, anecdotes, personal knowledge and implicit theories, by means of electronic, asynchronous, written communication by a group of teachers sharing a common interest in the teaching and learning of French as a second or foreign language in online learning environments.

There are numerous differences between a "live" discussion and an online discussion. The elements of time and distance play no role in the online discussion. E-mail discussion operates in asynchronous time whereby "messages are either e-mailed or posted on a system where, upon login, users are notified of the new postings they have not yet accessed" (Bush, 1996, p.2). Discussions are frozen on the hard drives of the participants and the discussion can be entered into at an interval convenient to the participant (Logan, 1995). The characteristic of asynchronicity means that participants do not have to be logged onto the computer system at the same time in order to communicate, thus freeing them from time and distance limitations. Asynchronicity also allows either reflective or spontaneous interaction (Harasim, 1986, p.6). In terms of distance, whether the discussion list member sends a message from 500 or from 50 miles away, the resulting message and relative speed of its delivery are the same. Physical presence is not a requirement for online discussion which has the capacity to "unite" a geographically dispersed group of individuals. In an online discussion, participants "share a common corner of cyberspace rather than sit at a banquet table" (Logan, 1995, p.276). The absence of physical presence means that members of the discussion cannot see each other.

Absence of physical presence has important implications for the discussion. The benefit of freedom from spatio-temporal limitations allows for more interaction and flexibility in communication among members and thus potentially more exchange of ideas, increased participation and variety of interchange (McComb, 1993). The fact that the communication is taking place online has important implications for the amount and types of participation. "The time for reflection and the distance of the written interaction allow the slow thinker or shy person opportunity to interact just as much as the quicker or bolder person, who can, however, still interact at his or her own pace without having to wait for permission" (McComb,1993, p.8). While some might argue that online discussions are limited by lack of physical interaction, others see significant benefits to the freedom of spatial limitation. Feenberg (1987) considers the advantages of computer-mediated communication (CMC):

CMC users often feel they gain a more immediate access to each other's thought processes, undistracted by the status signaling and social games that are played simultaneously with speech in face-to-face encounters.... ordinary individuals possess the 'literary' capability necessary to project their personalities in written texts. The loss of the interlocutor's bodily presence does not signify impersonality, but freedom from undesirable social constraints. (p. 174)

Computer-mediated communication facilitates a greater equality of participation than does a face-to-face discussion. Such communication can benefit most those who would normally be shut out of the conversation because of shyness but also because of other factors. In a review of the literature on computer-mediated collaboration, Warschauer (1997a) summarizes some of the findings related to the equalizing nature of computer-mediated discussions. He explains that factors related to race, gender, status, handicap, accent or status do not impact on the discussion. Certain non-verbal clues such as frowning and hesitating which might normally serve to intimidate certain participants are eliminated. Finally, individuals can contribute at their own time and pace.

Another characteristic of online communication that distinguishes it from its real- world counterpart is its oral nature. In spite of the fact that communication via e-mail is written, the style of communication in an online discussion bears more resemblance to oral communication. Logan (1995) explains:

The protocols and rituals associated with the use of the Internet are not the formal patterns characteristic of literate communication but are more like those of an oral society, despite the underlying literate substrata that infuses the use of computers. The primary mode of communication, e-mail, is written, but, in contrast to traditional literacy, the form of writing is not formal. Grammatical structures are frequently relaxed and shorthands and jargon are liberally used. The writing is frequently infused with hieroglyphic signs used to connote feelings and tone and are meant to replicate the kind of information that facial gesture and vocal tone convey during face-to-face conversation. (p. 268)

Shank (1993) likens Internet communication to a conversation. He notes that messages tend to be informal and phrased in conversational form, and can engender a great deal of interchange. He also distinguishes the online discussion from all others through his reference to the term "multiloguing". Shank distinguishes between three types of conversation: the monologue where "there is only one sender, and one or more multiple receivers who listen passively to the message of the sender"; the dialogue whereby "the sender and receiver take turns" (p.2). The third type of conversation is the discussion whereby "we have one person who starts as the sender, and multiple receivers. While it is important for the receivers to take turns as senders, in the discussion, the initial sender still retains control of the conversation" (p.2). However, argues Shank, these models of monologue, dialogue, discussion, do not capture the dynamics of Internet communication. For this reason, he claims, a new linguistic model is needed - that of the multilogue:

In the multilogue, we have a number of players. We have the starter, or the initial sender, who starts the "thread" (a well-established Net term, by the way). Once a thread has been started though, it is no longer under sender control. This is because the mechanics of Net response do not require turn taking. From the oral side, it is as if everyone who is interested in talking can all jump in at once, but still their individual voices can be clearly heard. From the written side, it is as if someone had started writing a piece, but before he/she gets too far, people are there magically in print to add to, correct, challenge, or extend the piece. Therefore, what we have is a written quasi-discussion that has the potential to use the strengths of each form. Since the "feel" of Net communication is still oral, I think it is best to call this form of communication "multiloguing", to retain the link with its oral heritage. (p.3)

The pattern of communication or conversation in the online discussions that took place in the context of this study’s discussion lists can be described as multiloguing. The researcher served most often, though not always, as the starter. The participants developed the thread such that the researcher as participant-observer needed to intervene to maintain momentum, to start a new thread where necessary, to probe further or to request clarification. Multiloguing served as an effective technique for ensuring a context in which teachers could "talk", share ideas, opinions, questions and debate without too much intervention by the researcher.

Besides defining the term discussion, it is important to understand in detail its characteristics. Hyman (1980) highlights seven such characteristics. The first of these characteristics is that of the discussion as a social activity whereby several people react to each other. A minimum group of five individuals is necessary to provide the opportunity to talk and yet allow some shifting of roles within the group. Secondly, a discussion is also a cooperative endeavor without winners or losers unlike the argument and debate which thrive on competition. Thirdly, unlike the free conversation among friends, the discussion can be distinguished by reason and purpose and a focus on an agreed-upon topic. Participants are required to think reflectively and to weigh arguments. The characteristic of being systematic implies that there will be some progression in the discussion. The fifth characteristic of the discussion is that it is creative. It is through the participants asking of, responding and reacting to questions, that remarks are shaped and that the discussion is created. A discussion requires participation. Active, attentive listening as well as active responsive speaking constitutes a sixth characteristic of the discussion-that of participation. The speakers and listeners constitute the integral participants. The discussion benefits from a broad range of participants.

The online discussion conducted in the context of this study followed a systematic exchange among teachers. The discussion provided them with the opportunity to reflect on their practices, the curriculum, their theories and knowledge. Through a cooperative sharing of ideas and experiences, teachers were able to respond and react to each other, to weigh arguments, ask questions, compare practices and ideas, express concerns and clarify issues in order to better understand how best to work and learn in OLEs. Providing teachers with the opportunity to talk about their experiences, theories and knowledge meant that they were having to reflect on their practice as well as on the environment in which they work. Such reflection brings closer "to the surface" issues, knowledge, theories, ideas and feelings that might otherwise have gone unexplored, unquestioned and unnoticed. Teachers were guided in this process by the researcher who served as a leader of the group discussion.

A discussion requires leadership in order to keep it focused, rational, purposeful, creative, systematic and participatory. The leadership of the discussion may take at least three different forms: that of the leader-centered group, the leader-guided group or the group-centered group (Hyman, 1980). In the first group, it is the leader who provides the motivation and direction and makes decisions for the group. The leader functions like the hub of the group without whom the group might cease to function. It is the leader who chooses the topic, sets the tone and focuses the discussion. In the leader-guided group, the leader functions as a facilitator who guides the discussion, contributes facts and opinions, clarifies ideas and raises questions. The third type is the group-centered group in which case there is no official leader. Instead, all members function as leader so that the discussion is not focused by one person rather each participant is responsible for providing the focus.

Specific discussion skills are required in order to lead the discussion. Hyman lists six skills which he identifies as being necessary to ensure an effective discussion. The first of these skills, that of contributing, involves supplying requests for information, providing information not provided by the participants themselves, offering opinions, and suggesting new ways to view a point. Crystallizing is the second important skill for the discussion leader and essentially involves stating concisely, summarizing or interpreting the remarks of the participants in order to get at both the explicit and implicit, overall meanings. The leader may clarify statements made, offer alternative ways of perceiving meaning of remarks or offer a reflection on remarks. The third skill is that of focusing or putting the discussion on its intended course and ensuring that progress is made in the discussion. Focusing may also involve linking remarks with previous remarks, setting limits on what can and cannot be discussed.

In addition to the three leadership skills is the skill of introducing/closing the discussion. Introducing the discussion involves getting it off the ground by presenting the topic while closing the discussion involves ensuring that the discussants have a sense of satisfaction about their participation. The introduction also provides an important opportunity to deal with procedural issues related to the discussion. Closing the discussion involves more than ending it. A summary or recapitulation of the important points made along with suggestions for future discussions are important parts of the closing process. Participants can also be asked by the leader to perform the role of summarizing the highlights of the discussion. The fifth discussion skill is that of questioning or probing which serves to stimulate greater participation by the discussants and allows opportunities to solicit further opinions, explanations or generalizations or to explore relationships between ideas and remarks. Mixing the skill of questioning with other skills allows the leader to avoid dominating the discussion by interrogating. The final, but not the least important skill for the leader, is that of supporting. Praise, humourous remarks, and facilitating participation by shy or inactive members or even reducing any tension in the discussion constitute different ways of supporting.

The discussion that took place in this study could be described as a leader-centered discussion. The researcher functioned like the hub of the group, providing the topic, focus and direction of the discussion. The skills of contributing, crystallizing, focusing, introducing, closing and questioning were exercised in order to ensure the flow of participation, and to elicit comments, and remarks that would provide insight into teachers’ beliefs. As leader, the researcher also had to ensure that the motivation in the group remained sufficient to ensure continued participation of members. Members no doubt needed to feel that the discussion was of benefit to them in their attempt to better understand how to work and learn in the new environment of the Internet. The participants volunteered to join the group knowing that the ultimate purpose was to collect data on their beliefs. At the same time, a second purpose for them or incentive to participate was that, in so doing, they might come to a better understanding of teaching and learning in OLEs .

The role of the leader in the discussion used in this study could also be characterized somewhat as that of the participant-observer. Brilhart (1978) describes the role of the participant observer in discussion groups:

The participant-observer is a person who is a regular member of the group, engaging actively in its deliberations, but who at the same time is observing, evaluating, and adapting to its processes and procedures. In terms of role, the participant-observer directs part of his attention to task functions and part to maintenance functions, trying always to be aware of what the group needs at the moment. (p.45)

In the role of participant-observer, the researcher did not actively engage in the deliberations except to provide questioning, probing, direction and focus. It was important, however, as participant observer, to observe, evaluate and to adapt the discussion in ways most conducive to making beliefs explicit. In this sense, as participant-observer, the researcher acted more as a leader-observer than a true participant. Certainly, the online, virtual nature of the discussion that took place in this study allowed the researcher to play a more invisible role than what might have been possible in a face-to-face discussion. In the online discussion, there is no physical presence of the participants or the leader. In the case of this discussion, the participants had never met physically. Instead, their interactions were all virtual - i.e. via their individual e-mail messages sent through the list. Thus the focus becomes less on who is delivering the message than on the message itself.

As leader and participant-observer, it was important to construct what Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) refer to as a working identity. This identity allows the researcher to exploit any relevant skills or knowledge that she possesses. In this way, the participants can perceive the participant-observer, not as an "exploitive interloper", but as someone who has something to contribute. To maintain the participants’ interest and continued participation in the list, it was necessary for the researcher to provide such a contribution. This contribution took the form of suggestions of sites, contacts, resources, answers to technical questions, some support with and feedback on projects and occasional summaries of information or research. A collaborative and cooperative tone was thus fostered in this discussion.