One of the ways I hope to see the ubernetwork that is the internet evolve is for its depth to begin to catch up with its breadth. With the viral spread of online networks, we must take care not to dilute them so much (by rapidly migrating to new ones) that they lose their power, which derives from the quantity and quality of their membership. With the proliferation of blogs, we must take care not to get lost in a plethora of solipsistic silos, speaking without listening, reinventing rather than building upon each other’s ideas and deepening the collective dialogue.

Whether these tendencies are an indicator of the novelty of the Web 2.0 phenomenon, an extension of dominant American cultural values emphasizing independence and entrepreneurship, or the result of some other socio-cosmic force, I do not consider them to be an inevitable end. I believe that if we choose to be reflective about the ways in which we interact online, we can optimize the enormous learning possibilities that such connected authorship affords. We can become even smarter and more knowledgeable than we are, both individually and collectively.

In particular, I find myself wishing for more reciprocal dialogue. For example, I was pleased to receive a number of quick, thoughtful responses to my initial post in a discussion forum I initiated about Teaching Writing with Web 2.0 within Classroom 2.0, an online network for educators interested in Web 2.0 created using the Ning platform. However, conversation seems to have withered with my responses to those responses, full of open questions posed in an effort to probe deeper into the topics at hand, make additional connections, and learn more by thinking together with my cyber-colleagues. Similarly, most of the comments I have made on other people’s blogs or posts I have made to other discussion forums remain unanswered, despite my efforts to engage others in dialogue.

One can only speculate about the reasons for this…people are busy and easily distracted or overwhelmed…the design of popular tools does not inherently foster two-way communication…social norms and time constraints favor more cursory discourse. And yet, it is my hope that once they are experienced more broadly, the benefits of such interactive communication will ultimately prove strong enough for cyberculture to break through those barriers and realize its potential to promote sustained, enduring, thought-provoking conversation as well as individually authored, interconnected literary nodes.

Just as we are innately driven toward both adventure and safety, people are driven both to speak and to listen. Real dialogue involves multiple cycles of speaking and listening in the spirit of inquiry. Such dialogue, in the tradition of Socrates, Plato, and their cohorts, is preciously uncommon in contemporary society. It is my hope that just as we have seen authorship and publication rise to new levels with Web 2.0, so shall we see true dialogue also rise.

Naturally, I would welcome any dialogue on the subject!

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.