Everyone begins a conversation by posting their essay to a new "thread" and choosing the subject line. A thread is the main organizing unit of a forum. Within a traditional classroom, there is usually only one "thread" (subject of discussion) going at once. Online, we usually have multiple threads going (unless the forum is limited to one thread). The following guidelines are intended to help you consider the special needs of the online environment, which provides a number of different advantages compared to classroom discussion but also has a number of potential pitfalls. (The same, of course, can be said for classroom discussion.) In either case, we want to try and maximize the learning potential of the specific environment.

It is very important to maintain a discussion structure (a "tree") that offers participants a good idea of the direction of the contents of the discussion. If yours is the first response to an essay, you should hit the "reply" button of the essay you are reading and responding to. In most cases, you will keep the subject line the same as it was (the default setting will generate a "Re:" and the original subject line. However, if you think you are adding a substantive point that alters the direction of the original essay (keeping to its original intent, of course) you may alter the subject line accordingly (using the same box where you enter the subject for your original posting).

Once there is a response posting, you will have the choice of responding to the original posting (as you did in your first response) or responding to the response (or responding to a response to a response, etc.) Any response that references content from the original posting/essay should respond to the essay, even if you are also including content from other responses in the thread. If you are replying to a specific point within a response and no other (or to a reply to a response, etc.), you should respond to that posting (using the same considerations about subject line as noted above). Usually, a thread that has a series of replies to replies (represented graphically by successive indentations for more than three postings in a row) is not going to be very productive. It indicates that the discussion is getting narrower and narrower rather than integrating the whole of the thread.

You may also begin a new thread with your second posting from your second set of responses. You may only do this if all of the threads have at least two responses and you are referencing at least two essays or threads fairly equally. (If you are mainly responding to one essay/thread but including a relatively small bit of content from another, respond to the main essay.) Your subject line should reflect this synthesis. This option is a good choice if you want to make a comment that offers some concluding thoughts to multiple threads.

It is important not to get too uptight about your posting decisions, since the main point is to create an intellectually stimulating learning experience. There are often more than one appropriate choice with advantages and disadvantages to different strategies. As with in-class discussion, different participants prefer different strategies (in both structural and content choices). In both environments, it's important to be mindful and respectful of those differences while still expecting everyone to play by the same set of rules. If you make your choice with care and can provide a reason based on the guidelines, you'll be fine. (The alternative is to mindlessly reply to whatever reply you happen to have open or to create a new thread without a specific purpose in mind. That's what we want to avoid.)

The basic criteria for a successful response is that you would be interested to read it if it came from another students. Simple affirmations ("great essay, thanks!) without additional content will be removed (most discussants find it a waste of time to read and resent it). If you thought someone had a particularly effective posting, you can email them directly by clicking on their name in the posting. You may offer a clarifying question, but you should explain clearly why you don't understand a writer's point (or what part of the point seems missing) and what you looking for in response. (That is, avoid something like "I don't understand your point about White's misunderstanding about how logging works. Please explain?") If you ask a question requiring the expansion of a point, you should offer your own insight as well. Don't simply expect the first writer to do all of the work.

All claims should be backed by logic and evidence from a source, which should be cited with page numbers whenever possible to enable discussants to check. Although you may use an informal tone, avoid colloquialisms that others might not understand. All postings should be checked for basic spelling, typographical and grammatical errors before posting.

© 2001-7 Michael Lewis Goldberg: intellectual property information

MLG HOME

Back to Top