Main Article Content
In this case, we focus on two innovations in the design of competitive discussions for a high stakes learning context. The designer created the intervention to provide learners first-hand discussion experiences despite large class sizes. It was a business communication course, and the large class sizes and group dynamics previously had inhibited constructive feedback and limited learner participation; however, the combination of a (1) time-constrained asynchronous CMC activity, along with (2) strategically selected smaller groups, created an interactive space that matched the designer’s values of equity and inclusion that he wanted to bring to the design. The case chronicles a number of unforeseen consequences of logical design moves, and presents a multimodal re-conception of what it means to discuss in the context of modern business school.
Copyright © 2012 by the International Journal of Designs for Learning, a publication of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology. (AECT). Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page in print or the first screen in digital media. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IJDL or AECT must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. The IJDL site and its metadata are licensed under CC BY-NC-ND. A simpler version of this statement is available here.
Baaki, J., Maddrell, J., & Stauffer, E. (2017). Designing Authentic and Engaging Personas for Open Education Resources Designers. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 8(2), 110-122. https:// doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v8i2.22427
Bach, K., & R. M. Harnish (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Francis, G. & S. Hunston (1992). Analyzing everyday conversation. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-34). London: Routledge.
Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1), n.p. Retrieved on 10/19/11 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/36/73.
Gibson, J. T. (2009). Discussion approach to instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III). New York: Routledge.
Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4 (4). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1999.772674
Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computermediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4, article 1. Retrieved 9/6/2007 from http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2761
Herring, S. C., Das, A., & Penumarthy, S. (2005). CMC act taxonomy. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/cmc.acts.html
Howard, C.D. (2002) Variations of Turn Taking in the Speech of EFL Learners. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies 14(1), 393-407.
Howard, C.D. (2011). Writing and rewriting the instructional design case: A view from two sides. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v2i1.1104
Howard, C. D., Boling, E., Rowland, G., & Smith, K. M. (2012). Instructional design cases and why we need them. Educational Technology, 52(3), 34.
Howard, C.D., Staples, C., Dubreil, S., & Yamagata-Lynch, L.C. (2016). The App Farm: Engaging design process as a means for French learning. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(3), 42-61. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i3.21658
Mulcahy, R. S. (2011). Bottom line: Defining success in the creation of a business simulation. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v2i1.1080
Parrish, P. E., Wilson, B. G., & Dunlap, J. C. (2011). Learning experience as transaction: A framework for instructional design. Educational Technology, 51(2), 15-22.
Pena-Shaff, J., & Nichols, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussion. Computers and Education, 42, 243-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2003.08.003
Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computermediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 41-86.
Rosean, C., Lundeberg, M., & Terpstra, M. (2010). The case for constructing video cases: Promoting complex, specific, learnercentered analysis of discussion. Educational Technology, 50(1), 18-22.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). Conversation analysis methodology. Language Learning, 54(S1), 1-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00268.x
Smith, K. M. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v1i1.917
Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.