Abstract
This paper argues that asynchronous discussion is a tool that fits well with middle school philosophy and purposes. This argument is advanced through the development of specific connections between the essential nature of middle schools and the educational use of asynchronous discussion. While the main goal of this article is to advance theoretical connections between the use of asynchronous discussion and middle school philosophy, the authors offer advice for designing asynchronous discussion activities in ways that are congruent with middle school philosophy and purposes.
Introduction
Electronic bulletin boards and e-mail allow students and teachers to exchange ideas even when they are separated by distance and time (Morrison & Guenther, 2000; Berge, 1999). Such exchanges—commonly called asynchronous discussion—are common in education; literature documents the educational use of asynchronous discussion in science (cf., Hoadley & Linn, 2000), language arts (cf., Grisham & Wolsey, 2003; Wolsey, 2004), and math (cf., Li, 2003). Asynchronous discussion is now common in higher education, and it has been proposed as a viable tool in secondary schools (cf., Knowlton & Knowlton, 2001). Can it be used effectively in middle schools? Is it appropriate given a middle school curriculum, the level of adolescent cognitive development, and other characteristics of education within middle schools? We argue that it is appropriate. In fact, in this paper, we advance the theoretical argument that asynchronous discussion can support some of the very goals that underlie middle school philosophy and some of the characteristics of middle schools. We begin this paper by noting that the use of asynchronous discussion is congruent with some of the characteristics and goals of middle schools. This paper appears to be the first that advances the notion of a direct congruence between asynchronous discussion and middle school philosophy and concepts; the theoretical discussion in itself, then, is substantive. However, to show that the theoretical ideas presented in this first part of this paper can be implemented, we offer some practical advice for middle school teachers who may wish to use asynchronous discussion.
Congruence between Middle Schools and the
Use of Asynchronous Discussion
The middle school movement has been declared “one of the largest and most comprehensive efforts at educational reorganization in the history of American public schooling” (George & Oldaker, 2003, p. 1). Middle schools were created to provide a program specifically designed for young adolescents and to set up a more effective transition between elementary and high school. Good middle schools incorporate block scheduling, use teaching teams, promote interdisciplinary thematic units, and meet the developmental needs of adolescents (Ediger, 1998/1999; Kellough & Kellough, 2003). In this section, we provide an overview of these characteristics and describe how asynchronous discussion fits well within these middle school concepts. We attempt to support this fit with already-existing literature. Importantly, though, this article appears to be the first to argue a direct congruence between middle school philosophy and the use of asynchronous discussion. Therefore, our connections often are supported only by our perspectives as a middle school teacher and a faculty member who teach preservice and inservice teachers.
Block Scheduling
Many middle schools use block scheduling to give teachers a common planning time, allow for schedule flexibility, and maximize learning (Kellough & Kellough, 1996). Block scheduling allows teachers to replace the traditional structure of fifty-minute-long classes with longer and more flexible blocks. Sometimes these blocks are standardized across the school, such as classes meeting every other day for eighty minutes; but other times, individual teams of teachers can determine longer “blocks” of time by combining classes and using cross-class groupings of students. There is some connection between block scheduling and gains in learning. For example, block scheduling allows students to explore content in greater depth (Black, 1998).
We believe that the sound use of asynchronous discussion can support the purposes of block scheduling. There are two ways that asynchronous discussion can enhance block scheduling. The first way is by offering a communication forum for students and teachers on days that they may not meet face-to-face. Though block scheduling extends class sessions for longer amounts of time, students may only meet for each class on every other day. Because students may go longer periods of time not seeing their teacher and their classmates, asynchronous discussion can serve as a useful tool for enhancing communication among students and with teachers on days where class does not meet. In some instances, the use of asynchronous discussion outside of the classroom actually increased student participation while inside the classroom (Caswell, 2001).
The second way that asynchronous discussion can enhance block scheduling is by allowing students to work independently during longer class sessions. Because block scheduling results in longer class sessions, teachers may need to use some class time for independent work. If students are engaged in a variety of activities, they will not all be available for collaborative work. Some students may use some of the “independent time” to leave messages for their classmates and questions for their teacher. Thus, asynchronous discussion makes class time even more flexible because it allows collaborative work to occur even when an entire student collaborative team is not available. Caswell (2001) seems to support our perspective by noting that asynchronous bulletin boards sometimes make it easier for teachers to answer student questions in a more flexible way.
