Authorship 2.0

Threaded discussions are where it all began. Back in the early days of the Internet (when it still had a capital “I”), Usenet newsgroups sparked great excitement about talking to other people (often previously unknown) in writing without constraints of time or place. Thanks to technical advances that have made web-based authorship as simple and accessible as word processing, such excitement is now hitting the mainstream, essentially transforming the internet into a qualitatively different entity that warrants its very own name: Web 2.0 (or the Read/Write Web).

And yet, in all the present excitement about blogs and wikis and social networking and other web-enabled communication media in education, the old-fashioned threaded discussion has gotten short shrift. Threaded discussions facilitate true dialogue in ways that blogs and wikis often do not, especially when coupled with curriculum, instruction, and facilitation that capitalize on their affordances. For example, the nonlinear nature of threaded discussions allows participants to respond directly to a particular comment, regardless of the time it was made, which can promote a depth of discussion that has significant learning value. Responding directly to someone who has responded directly to you, all in the context of a public discussion, is quite a different experience than posting a comment on an author’s (blogger’s) published work. Both have value, but they are not interchangeable. Written discourse feels more like communication (and is often more engaging) when you receive a response, indicating that you have been heard. Blogs primarily facilitate one-to-many communication, while threaded discussions enable many-to-many communication, as long as those involved know how to take advantage of it. They can help teachers achieve that elusive goal of getting out of the middle of a class discussion and encouraging students to talk to each other. Such decentered discussions can potentially engage students in deeper, more authentic communication, which can enrich their learning in a variety of ways.

Naturally, successful instructional use of online discussion forums (much like successful instructional use of face-to-face discussions) requires clear expectations, generative prompts, shared discussion norms, and skilled moderation. However, under the right conditions, such online discussions can probe further and promote more substantive exchanges even than face-to-face discussions, with many added benefits. For example, threaded discussions afford the opportunity for any participant to enter the dialogue about any point at any time, regardless of where the conversation has traveled since the point was made. They are often more inclusive than face-to-face discussions, since many students feel more comfortable contributing to a computer-mediated discussion without the pressures inherent in speaking in front of an audience. The time cushion also allows for more thoughtful, reflective contributions, and there is no limit to how many people can respond to a certain point without sacrificing coherence.

Unfortunately, many of the most recently developed online tools and environments have abandoned the threading feature, which I believe is a big loss. Ning is one that does a nice job with threaded discussions from a technical perspective, and Tapped In is another. Most of the CMS/LMS/courseware environments also include threaded discussions, but they are not free. Many of the blogging tools lack this feature, which, in my view, limits their flexibility as communication media. Most blogs are essentially designed for readers to communicate with one author, which can be of enormous benefit in promoting authentic written communication (although readers can and do also address each other). However, I believe they could be even more powerful if they structurally supported discourse in any direction, encouraging readers to communicate with each other in writing, thereby distributing authorship more broadly. In this model, authorship can be viewed in a qualitatively different way, blurring the lines between author and audience, between speaking and writing, between conversation and publication. These blurred lines have important implications both for learning how to communicate (skills), and for learning about the subjects that are the focus of communication (content).

Another benefit of threaded discussions is that there are relatively low barriers to entry, which make them a good initial opportunity for participating substantively in the Web 2.0 community at large. I think that if students and teachers had positive experiences with discussion forums optimally implemented, they would get more out of the blogging experience and its potential to support interactivity as well as publication. I hope that the next generation of digital communication media will resurrect this important, often unsung hero of Web 2.0. Communication environments allowing for both instant global publication AND true dialogue would offer teachers and students the power and flexibility to take authorship to a whole new level.