Biting the bulletin: using discussion boards

This case study, submitted by Ronan Deazley of the Department of Law and Kate Boardman of the Learning Technologies Team at the University of Durham in 2003, reflects on the use of a virtual learning environment (VLE) within a traditional law department.

An online discussion forum, designed initially as a pilot project, provides students with an additional resource in which they are able explore various aspects of a course in a secure environment, complementing existing teaching practices as well as facilitating independent student learning and exchange.

The University of Durham adopted Blackboard as its VLE platform in October 2000 to make Durham University Online (DUO) available across campus. The university is not heavily involved in distance/flexible learning, so DUO is used entirely for the extension and enhancement of existing traditional learning and teaching methods.

There have been three models of uptake:

• departmental decision to give every module a presence, even if it be only basic information and materials (13 out of 27 departments/schools)
• interested individuals working in isolation with no strategic thinking on behalf of the department (8 departments)
• selected pilot projects, where a small number of staff have exploited DUO and then reported back to the department before any decision was made (6 departments)

The Department of Law falls into the last category. Use of an online discussion board using DUO was piloted in two subjects during 2001-02:

• Trusts and Equity – a double module for students in their final year, involving 119 students. Students attended lectures twice a week as well as nine tutorials throughout the academic year. For this course one generic discussion forum was made available to the entire year group.
• Land Law – a single module taken by students in their second year, involving 161 students. Students attended lectures once a week as well as five additional tutorials throughout the academic year. By contrast with the Trusts module, individual discussion forums were set up for each tutorial group in addition to the general year discussion forum.

Pedagogic aims and objectives

The use of the discussion forum was originally conceived with a number of goals in mind:

• to provide an additional (anonymous if necessary) method by which students could raise questions or points of difficulty concerning the course
• to encourage asynchronous dialogue and discussion between students concerning a particular area of law
• to provide a relaxed space within which students can develop their own thoughts, opinions and critiques concerning the area of law they are studying, through actively (and sometimes passively) engaging with relevant online debate
• to keep students informed of recent cases and publications that are relevant to the subjects under discussion, thus reinforcing the truism that law, and the study of the law, is and should be a constantly evolving phenomenon
• to exploit the opportunity for making a selection of student answers (of first class standard) to various formatively assessed assignments undertaken throughout the year available to the rest of the students. Sample answers were put online (having been anonymised) with the permission of the authors. The course leader annotated the answers before introducing them to the discussion forum, providing a commentary upon the substantive, structural and stylistic features of each essay.

Lessons learned

Effective moderation of the forum involved checking it, on average, every other day (generally for no more than 15-20 minutes). By and large this time was spent simply moderating (reading) the discussions that were taking place online and, when appropriate (but not too often, and sometimes anonymously), intervening to correct misconceptions or misunderstandings developing about the areas of law under discussion (or simply to move the debate along).

Key elements contributing to the success of the pilot were its relative informality, as well as the opportunity for the student to remain anonymous when making contributions. Both factors seemed to encourage students to engage with and provide support for each other. These also operated to encourage student reflection upon the various merits and demerits of course content and teaching style (this was almost always anonymous).

One aspect of the pilot, consistently identified by the participating students as beneficial, was the introduction of the annotated sample student answers. This also had clear pedagogical value in moving students away from a ‘model answer’mindset, and allowing them to appreciate that different ways of approaching and answering the same question (whether essay or problem) can be of comparable merit and value.

Perhaps most important was the realisation that the process of evaluating the success of the pilot was an on-going one – different year groups present different needs and demands. The point is to be attentive to the need to engage in a pro-active and on-going evaluative exercise, and make alterations and improvements as and when they are considered appropriate or salient.

Student reaction

Student uptake was very positive. For example, the Land Law site was accessed every day of the week during the time that the pilot was running (the least popular day was Saturday, receiving 5% of hits) and also at every hour of the day bar one (3-4 am).

Other patterns of use indicate that while the various student-initiated discussion threads were relatively well distributed across the term of the pilot scheme, there was a noticeable increase in the use of the forum in the period between the end of formal teaching and the beginning of the exams. In short, DUO was very popular with the students, whether they were actively or passively engaging with the online discussions.

In addition to these quantitative indicators of high student uptake, there is also considerable qualitative evidence indicating the enthusiastic response of the student body, with many students recommending that it be used in other subject areas. In their end of year feedback forms various comments were made as to the value of the online forum and the opportunities for engaging in self assessment. Many students described it as an “excellent” or “very good” initiative, as well as commenting upon its value in “encouraging discussion and answering queries”.

Also interesting was the way in which the students were prepared to use the forum to engage in discussion about the various merits and demerits of the seminar forum and the course content – the availability of the discussion board enabled the students to consider and debate what it means to teach and to learn within a socio-legal framework.

Moreover, having the option to read and consider other students’ answers provided an invaluable opportunity for reflecting upon the quality of their own as well as another’s work, but also more generally upon the value in developing individually defensible opinions and constructing personal meaning and understanding within a given legal discourse.

Also striking was the way in which the students were willing to have their work disseminated in such manner. In a discipline generally regarded by students as being overtly competitive, the willingness to engage in such high levels of collaborative learning proved particularly gratifying.

Encouraging participation

A series of self assessed exercises that roll out and complement various aspects of the course have been incorporated within DUO, to encourage students to reflect on their own understanding of the material they are dealing with in advance of tutorial sessions and greater use of DUO in general.

Academics often show relatively little enthusiasm for IT training courses that appear to make too great a demand upon their time. The solution chosen here was relatively straightforward – training was peer delivered, within a 10-15 minute framework, in a manner that provided staff with sufficient knowledge and understanding to allow them to explore the system and learn how to negotiate DUO experientially. Clearly this is not as useful as aproperly organised and co-ordinated training session, however, it is useful to reflect upon the various elements involved:

• personal attention
• short time frame
• in local surroundings
• peer training
• enabling self education and experimentation

Issues for the future

The pilot itself (2001-02) was successful. Any problems which have arisen have tended to manifest themselves in the process of rolling the pilot out across other subjects.

In the academic year 2002-03 DUO was adopted within 64% of courses currently available within the department. Take-up has tended to be disappointing for those subjects in which a discussion forum was established on the understanding that its use would be defined almost entirely according to the interests and input of the students themselves. It seems that where the students perceive a lack of active engagement with the discussion forum on the part of the course organisers, this operates to undermine their assessment of the utility of the online forum.

More generally, there seems to have been a drop in use. One possible reason lies in the fact that more courses within the department are now making use of similar teaching strategies – there may now be discussion boards running in all of a second or third year student’s courses. It is interesting to speculate whether the opportunities DUO has to offer an individual course may be diluted in impact by the adoption of similar teaching strategies throughout a department. It may be that the very ubiquity of these online fora may carry within themselves the seeds for undermining their own potential and efficacy.

Further reading

• Collis B and Moonen J (2001) Flexible learning in a digital world: experiences and expectations London: Kogan Page
• Salmon G (2000) E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online London: Kogan Page
• Salmon G (2002) E-tivities: the key to active online learning London: Kogan Page

Last Modified: 4 June 2010