Promoting Durable Knowledge Construction Through Online Discussion ...
Promoting Durable Knowledge Construction through Online Discussion
Dr. Dave S. Knowlton, Director
The Center for Distance Education and Learning Technologies
Crichton College
6655 Winchester Road
Memphis, TN 38115
Knowlton@crichton.edu
Abstract
The success of online discussion is not happenstance. This paper focuses on practical
advice for making online discussions educationally durable. This advice focuses on all
stages of online discussions, from designing the assignment guidelines through
summative evaluation. While this practical advice is grounded in the author's experience,
it is more substantively grounded in a framework defining durable knowledge
construction.
Introduction
Without proper guidance, online discussions can quickly digress into isolated bits of
small talk and random cyber-chatter. These digressions inhibit student learning because
discussions that have digressed don't lead students to a fresh and incisive understanding
of course material. To avoid these dangers of digression, instructors shouldn't simply
throw students into an online discussion and expect learning to happen. For online
discussion to benefit students by promoting durable learning, instructors must
meticulously design and facilitate discussion. Instructors also must understand how to
broaden evaluation so that it, too, further facilitates durable knowledge construction.
Before discussing design, facilitation, and evaluation, I define "durable knowledge
construction."
What is Durable Knowledge Construction?
Elsewhere, I have offered a theoretical defense of online discussions by pointing to
various theories and pedagogies. For example, I have pointed to literature that directly
ties online discussion to the use of "computers as a cognitive tool" (Knowlton,
forthcoming[a]; Knowlton, 2000). I also have connected online discussions to the
synthesis between the private and academic selves (Knowlton, forthcoming[b];
Knowlton, Knowlton, & Davis, 2000). Finally, I have connected online discussions to the
Writing-Across-The-Curriculum Literature (Knowlton, forthcoming[a]; Knowlton,
forthcoming[b]). While all of these theoretical connections are valid, in this paper I
examine "durable knowledge construction" as a heuristic for making decisions about the
design, facilitation, and evaluation of online discussions. We can examine what I mean
by durable knowledge construction by considering both "durability" in learning and the
concept of knowledge construction.
Durability of Learning
When I talk of "durability" in learning, I am borrowing from Hacker and Niederhauser's
(2000) assumption that learning should be "Deep and Durable." Hacker and Niederhauser
define durable learning in terms of instructional strategies. Specifically, they argue that
principles of active learning, collaboration, effective feedback, and motivation can make
learning durable.
I agree with Hacker and Niederhauser (2000) (and I strongly recommend their article as a
"good read"); but, for the purposes of this paper, I connect the notion of durable learning
to a Taxonomy of thinking. Bloom's Cognitive Taxonomy (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill,
& Krathwohl, 1956) can be used to measure higher order thinking skills. Knowledge and
comprehension are the two lowest levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. These two lowest levels
are not indicative of durable learning. In general, students focus on the knowledge and
comprehension levels of learning as they prepare for multiple choice, matching, and
true/false style tests. Such preparation focuses on memorizing isolated facts and
understanding static relationships. Knowledge and comprehension are not durable
because they quickly fade after the test.
As we move up the Taxonomy, though, we come to higher levels of learning. When we
require students to interact with each other on these higher levels–application, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation–their interactions will be more durable in the long run. In
pointing to the need for online discussions to operate on these higher levels, I am in no
way saying that knowledge and comprehension are unnecessary. Clearly, students must
know and comprehend information. I am suggesting, though, that knowledge and
comprehension do not, by themselves, constitute the types of critical thinking that should
be indicative of college courses.
Knowledge Construction
The argument that knowledge can be constructed is based on the notion that truth does
not exist apart from our perception of that truth. Thankfully, epistemology and ontology
are beyond the scope of this paper. But even those who argue the existence of an
objective truth must admit that such truth can only be subjectively known. As fallible
human beings, we can't possibly claim to have access to the full span of universal truths.
Therefore, to learn truth, individual students must construct it for themselves (Tam,
2000). That is, students "create a personal view of the world" (Jonassen, Davidson,
Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995, p. 11); that personal view becomes the constructed
knowledge of students.
Knowledge construction is best accomplished through collaboration. In general, students
learn through the give-and-take among classmates. That is, as students write
contributions to discussions, they learn what it is that they are trying to say. The replies
that they receive from their classmates further this learning. (For a discussion of writing
to learn, see Lindemann, 1995.) When students share ideas in a discussion, they receive
feedback on those ideas. Often this feedback from classmates will cause cognitive
dissonance for the student because it conflicts with their original views. The dissonance
encourages students to revise their views and test their revised views in light of further
peer review among the class (Knowlton, Knowlton, & Davis, 2000).
Designing Online Discussions
While the emphasis of this paper is on the teaching and evaluation of online discussions, I
would be remiss to ignore the design of online discussions. To some extent, the
separation of design, facilitation, and evaluation is artificial. As you will see in the next
section of this paper, for example, to use sound principles of online pedagogy is to, in
effect, redesign the scope of the discussion. As you will see in the final section of this
paper, evaluation of students must be considered in the design process because they need
to know up front how they will be evaluated. So, several issues related to "design" are
discussed in future sections of this paper. Still, a word about the design qua precursor to
discussion is appropriate.
When designing online discussions, instructors must ask themselves a number of relevant
questions. Each question is based on the assumption that a goal of online discussion is to
promote durable knowledge construction: Will the students respond to specific questions,
or will students have maximum freedom to comment on the aspects of a topic that
interest them the most? How can questions best be designed to promote durable
knowledge construction among students? What amount of total course time should
students spend engaging in discussion? How many different questions should be asked
throughout a course?
At this point in the article, I wish that I could offer you hard and fast rules for answering
these questions. To do so would be naive, though. The context in which the online
discussion occurs will influence the answers to many of these questions. (And, in fact, the
context in which online discussions occur will effect the questions themselves.) For
example, is the online discussion a supplement to face-to-face classroom discussion or is
it a part of an online course? Is the class size small enough to require students to reply to
each classmate, or is the class extremely large? The possibilities of various contexts are
endless. Thus, rules are impractical. Nevertheless, I address specific elements that should
be specified within a discussion question, and I address the type of questions that should
be designed.
Specified Elements within a Discussion Question
To some extent, specifying elements that should be evident within a discussion is to
specify criteria for evaluation. Criteria for evaluation will be addressed more specifically
in the last section of this paper. But, in this section commonalties among questions can be
suggested. Sometimes, for example, an individual question may need to deviate from the
criteria that governs the scope of discussions during a semester. For example, your
general criteria for evaluation may require a minimum of four contributions to a
discussion in a given week, but perhaps you realize that a specific question is worthy of
more attention than others. So, you may need to designate a new minimum number of
contributions for that week. In effect, you may need to over-ride the criteria that governs
evaluation.
More substantively, I am an advocate of helping students see the intended level of
Bloom's Taxonomy within specific questions. I urge instructors who are designing
questions to use the words "apply," "analyze," "synthesize," and "evaluate" in the actual
question. If students know that you are framing online discussions with a use of Bloom's
Taxonomy, they are more likely to write productive answers to questions if they can tell
which level of the taxonomy that their contributions to a discussion should address.
Questions that Promote Durable Knowledge Construction
I have used online discussion for the past eight years. Sometimes, I avoided using
specific questions in online discussions and simply required students to write about a
general area related to a specific course concept or to react to a required course reading.
While such an approach has sparked useful discussions among students, I more often find
that students resort to summarizing and paraphrasing (which are indicative of the lower
levels of Bloom's Taxonomy). Indeed, students are often so well ingrained into the
"teacher-as-stimulus/student-as-response" (Knowlton, Knowlton, & Davis, 2000) mode
of thinking that they will resort to the safety of regurgitating course content. This type of
summarizing, paraphrasing, and regurgitating will not move students to the upper level of
Bloom's taxonomy. Thus, learning will not be durable, and no new knowledge will be
constructed.
Because online discussion should obligate students to engage in a way that is indicative
of the upper level of Bloom's Taxonomy, I advocate writing specific questions for
students to respond to. Note, however, that these are not convergent questions with only
one correct answer. Instead, these are divergent questions that will offer students plenty
of latitude in the way that they answer. Elsewhere, I have categorized these questions as
Domains of Thinking, Case Analysis, and Introspective Questions (Knowlton,
forthcoming[b]). Domains of thinking questions require students to analyze, synthesize,
and evaluate the types of problem solving approaches and knowledge construction
mechanisms inherent to a given field. For example, in a Biology course, the scientific
method is indicative of problem solving within the field. In economics, certain
approaches to knowledge construction are more valued than other approaches. Gwartney
and Stroup (1995) offer "Eight Guideposts to economic thinking" (p. 7). But, these
approaches that are valid in biology and economics are very different from approaches
that would be acceptable in a music theory course. Requiring students to overtly
acknowledge and interact with the approaches to problem solving and knowledge
construction is valid in the context of online discussion.
Case analysis questions require students to apply course theories and concepts to
specific, real world scenarios (Hacker & Niederhauser, 2000). For example, in an
organizational management course, students might apply a model of a rhetorical situation
to explain factors that enhance (and detract from) effective communication in a specific
corporate setting. Introspective questions are based on issues of metalearning
(Brookfield, 1987; Hacker, Dunlosky, & Graesser, 1998) and are designed to force
students to examine "how they learn." For example, students could be asked to analyze
their contributions to a previous discussion, evaluate the impact of their contributions as
evidenced through classmates' responses, and synthesize guidelines that will help them be
more effective in the future discussions.
Facilitating Online Discussion
I've never really been a fan of the word "facilitating." Somehow, this term seems to
undermine the professional authority that professors should hold. Nevertheless, I must
admit–somewhat begrudgingly–that my dislike of the term is more a function of my own
ego than it is a function of sound pedagogy.
Indeed, the word "professor" has at its roots the notion of professing. "Instructor" implies
one who instructs students through a step-by-step process that is characterized by
mimicking the one who is giving instructions. Both of these titles imply that part of
teaching in an online discussion is to offer cyber-lectures. This is problematic, though,
because lectures tend to transfer factual information. Lectures, in general, tend to
emphasize the importance of the two lowest levels of Bloom's Taxonomy (Anderson,
1998).
I recognize that there are clear exceptions to this rule. For example, a lecture can be
offered to students that will give those students sound criteria for evaluating (an upper
level of the taxonomy) the design of an advertisement or the quality of a poem. Also,
instructors must sometimes clarify factual information so that students use terminology
and facts correctly. In spite of these exceptions, online discussion is not an appropriate
place for faculty members to profess. Emphasis should be placed on students'
construction of knowledge, not on the instructor's views and perspectives. I offer several
models that instructors can use to ensure that they are soundly facilitating online
discussions while students construct knowledge. After outlining the steps of each model,
I focus on instructors' roles as facilitators. In each case, the instructors' roles are based on
the responsibility "to frame" online classrooms (Knowlton, 2000, p. 11).
The Traditional Model
The traditional model requires students to post an original response to the discussion
question and then respond to each other. Sometimes this model is very structured with
rigid criteria and guidelines, but other times, the traditional model may be used more
informally so that students can contribute as they see fit without worrying about a bad
grade.
As instructors engage in facilitating online discussions in the traditional model, they must
consider strategies for deepening students' engagement with course material. Elsewhere
(Knowlton, forthcoming[b]), I offer a number of strategies for facilitation that are
appropriate in a traditional model discussion. Instructors should (a) explain the theoretical
purposes of online discussion, (b) create a sense of community among participants in an
online discussion, (c) model appropriate participation, (d) paraphrase students
contributions in light of course theory, (e) synthesize students' contributions to create a
comprehensive view of the discussion, and (f) use Socratic questioning (Knowlton,
forthcoming[b]).
"To frame" (Knowlton, 2000, p. 11) is based on the notion of the instructor responding to
students' initiatives, so within a single discussion each of the above strategies may not be
necessary, or even advisable. But instructors should broaden their pedagogical repertoire
so that they can appropriately facilitate the knowledge construction dance.
The Discussant Model
The discussant model is based on the view that students should play various roles within
a discussion (Morrison & Guenther, 2000). This model contains four phases. These
phases are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Phases of the Discussant Model
Phase #1: Instructors designate student discussant(s).
Phase #2: All students (except the discussants) contribute
original answers to a discussion question.
Phase #3: Discussants react to the original answers
provided by students and facilitate additional
discussion among the class.
Phase #4: Students respond to the discussant and respond
to each other in light of the discussants'
reactions and interpretations.
Phase #5: All students write a summary of the discussion
One role of an instructor in this model is to train the discussant. Particularly when online
discussion is used with undergraduates, instructors can't assume that a student is prepared
for the rigors of being a discussant. So, I recommend the use of a "job aid" that might
help discussants understand their role and function. The job aid could simply list
strategies for facilitating online discussions. More specific job aids, though, could offer
suggestions for words and phrases that will help discussants avoid ad hominem attacks.
Another way to train the discussant is through side coaching. Many discussion boards
will allow instructors to send messages to individuals that the entire group will not be
able to see. I suggest using this function to point out salient themes or contradictions.
Especially when students are serving as discussants for the first time, they will appreciate
the assistance. More importantly, in this side coaching, instructors can help students
understand the rationale of why those themes are worthy of comment. Side coaching can
be used with more than just the discussant. It also can help students appropriately respond
to the discussant's inquiries and points.
The Self-Analysis Model
The self-analysis model is a variation of the traditional model. But in the self-analysis
model, students are required to metacognitively examine their own contributions to a
discussion. This model is based on Brookfield's (1987) view that critical thinking is a
combination of identifying assumptions in one's own thinking and visualizing alternatives
based on those assumptions. The phases of this model are represented in table 2.
Table 2. Phases of the Self-Analysis Model
Phase #1: Students contribute original answers to a
discussion question.
Phase #2: Students offer replies to each other as a means
of broadening the discussion's scope.
Phase #3: Students write a summary of the discussion
content.
Phase #4: Students write a self-analysis of their role in the
discussion.
Phase four has two purposes. First, students should write a self-analysis of their own
assumptions that are inherent to their discussion contributions. What a student didn't say–
assumed to be true–can sometimes be just as revealing as what a student did say. So,
students should recognize and elaborate on their tacit assumptions. Second, the self-
analysis should examine their own propensities as learners. For example, students might
be encouraged to elaborate on their own emotional reactions as the discussion developed.
The student might also be encouraged to offer and defend reactions about the usefulness
(or application) of the discussion. This type of metacognitive activity can help the
students learn about their own learning. Therefore, in future discussions, they have a
chance to learn more efficiently.
The instructor's role in this model is to help students come to terms with their implicit
assumptions and to help students develop a plan of action for bringing the rationality of
those assumptions to light. For example, after phase two of the discussion, instructors can
use side coaching to point out to students hidden assumptions. Instructors can also ask
students to address in the self-analysis a particularly poignant (or particularly ineffective)
comment that the student made during phase one or two of the discussion.
Evaluating Students' Contributions to Online Discussions
Many problems are inherent to evaluating students' work in general (Anderson, 1998;
Speck, 1998; Knowlton & Knowlton, forthcoming) and online discussions specifically
(Bauer & Anderson, 2000). For example, sometimes instructors wait until the end of a
discussion to evaluate students' contributions. In waiting, instructors are not
distinguishing between "assessing," "grading," and "providing feedback."
Even when instructors do provide feedback, they confuse students because they aren't
clear in what they are evaluating. Instructors may evaluate whether students "vigorously
participated" or "substantively engaged themselves." This lack of clarity is problematic
because it assumes instructor's understand "vigor," "substance," and "engagement" the
same way that students understand these same terms. Indeed, when instructors don't
meticulously delineate guidelines and criteria for discussion, students have no choice but
to depend on their past experiences to determine the amount and type of participation in
which they should engage (Knowlton, Knowlton, & Davis, 2000).
A related problem arises when instructors view themselves as the sole evaluator of
students. On the one hand, instructors are the facilitators and counselors of student
learning as described in the previous section of this paper. On the other hand, though,
instructors must play the role of judge a jury by deciding the students' fate–usually
expressed as a grade. I question the ethical implications of an instructor playing both
roles. I also assert that students are tacitly aware of this contradiction, and it leads them to
be distrustful of both an instructor's advice as a facilitator of knowledge construction and
an instructor's evaluation of students' work as a jury and judge. The good news is that
instructors can overcome these problems by meticulously delineating criteria for
evaluation and broadening the powers of evaluation through self-evaluation and peer
evaluation.
Delineating Evaluation Criteria
Establishing criteria is, to some extent, idiosyncratic to an instructor's approach. It may
be further idiosyncratic to a particular discipline. The types of online discussion expected
in a theology course, for example, may be markedly different from the types of
discussion needed in a engineering course. That is, the domains of thinking in a given
field will influence evaluation criteria. So, part of establishing criteria requires instructors
to ask themselves about the nature of dialogue that occurs in their own discourse
communities.
Establishing criteria is not only idiosyncratic to instructors and disciplines, but also it is
idiosyncratic to particular classes. As instructors get to know the goals, interests,
strengths, and weaknesses of a particular group of students, they may find it necessary to
change and adapt criteria. I also advocate opening the door to discussions with students
about re-negotiating criteria (Knowlton, 2000). My experiences indicate that students–by
virtue of being the ones participating in discussion–often have stronger insights into what
aspects of the discussion should be evaluated than I have as an observer and facilitator of
the discussion.
In spite of the idiosyncrasies of establishing criteria, I advocate some criteria as being
standard when establishing the guidelines of a discussion. Bauer and Anderson (2000)
suggest three separate rubrics for evaluating students' contributions to discussions. The
first rubric deals with content, the second with expression, and the third with
participation. Such an approach may be useful, but I question the value of three separate
rubrics. Students are often overly concerned with a grade–as opposed to learning–and
they will spend large amounts of time trying to make sense of these three different layers
of analysis. I also question the value of over-analyzing expression (mechanics of writing).
Online discussions are not revised, formalized pieces of writing; they are essentially
rough drafts. By over-analyzing mechanics, I am concerned that students will stop
focusing on constructing knowledge and start focusing on eliminating comma splices.
Sometimes, the guidelines for discussion are very open-ended. They include items that
require a large amount of interpretation on the part of instructors and students. For
example, participation in discussions might be evaluated based on whether or not a
student
• uses vocabulary and terminology indicative of the particular field of study.
• addresses salient theories of the field in a way that is indicative of the types of
inquiry commonly accepted within a field.
• organizes and evaluates data, themes, theories, ideas, and perspectives in a
productive way.
• uses clear, concise communication and grammar.
• interacts with classmates.
• shows integrity, timeliness, flexibility, and helpfulness as indicators of
collegiality.
My experiences suggest that these types of criteria may be valuable for students who
understand the implications of each criterion and have experience communicating in
academic contexts; but for students who are novices in academic discourse, such loose
criteria will be disconcerting.
In most discussions, I phrase the criteria as questions that students can answer about their
own work. I also separate the criteria for a strong initial contribution from the criteria for
a strong reply. I evaluate initial contributions to a discussion based on the following
criteria:
• Is the contribution mechanically clear enough for readers to understand the points
being made?
• Is the contribution on time?
• Does the contribution meet the minimum length requirements?
• Does the contribution reference assigned readings or other resources?
• Does the post contain "critical thinking" that is indicative of the paradigms in the
field?
• Are the ideas communicated with respect for those who may dissent?
Of these criteria, the issue of length deserves explanation. I usually require students'
original posts to be roughly two pages long. I assure students that I'm not a "line
counter"; and since some e-mail software and conferencing tools don't show page breaks,
I acknowledge that determining length requires some guess-work. Still, giving a
minimum length is important because it takes some length to construct perspectives that
can become the basis of knowledge. "Writing to learn" requires engagement. Engagement
takes time and effort. The minimum length requirement assures that students are
spending the time to become engaged.
For replies, I use the following criteria to determine quality:
• Is the reply mechanically clear enough for readers to understand the points?
• Is the reply on time?
• Are the minimum number of replies written?
• Does the tone of the reply demonstrate respect towards the author of the
original post?
• Does the reply inspire further discussion among the class?
Broadening the Powers of Evaluation: Self-Evaluation
For the benefits of online discussions to be realized, students must have formal
opportunities for self-evaluation. That is, they must practice evaluating their own
contributions to an online discussion against a clearly articulated set of criteria. A
"yes/no" checklist, for example, can be useful to students as they try to focus on the
evaluation criteria and the way their own contributions to a discussion meet those criteria.
To go beyond checklists, students can be asked to write a paragraph demonstrating how
they met each criterion in a given discussion. Instructors might even require students to
cut and paste excerpts from their contributions as evidence of meeting the evaluation
criteria. As students cut and paste, they are reorganizing their own data by creating a
database of their contributions. Through the reorganization process, students are thinking
about their own thinking (Kuhn, 1999).
Broadening the Powers of Evaluation: Peer Evaluation
Peer evaluations can also be beneficial in online discussions. Informally, the interaction
of the discussion is a form of continuous peer evaluation. When students engage in online
discussion, they are receiving feedback on the quality of their ideas. Responses from
classmates, for example, can help a student understand how readers interpreted a
contribution to a discussion. This informal feedback is what leads students to revise and
restate their ideas.
More formally, instructors can create "feedback groups" or peer-review partners. Within
these groups, students complete Likert-scale questionnaires or dichotomous checklists
that are designed to provide classmates with feedback. Instructors might also ask students
to nominate two or three classmates who have made meaningful contributions to a
particular discussion. Such nominations emphasize to students that their opinions matter.
These types of nominations also place evaluation from the readers of the discussion–
students–in a place of higher prominence than evaluation from the formal authority in a
classroom–the instructor. A simple post from the instructor can go a long way toward
helping students see the importance of participating rigorously: "Congratulations to
Cindy and Keshia. You rewarded them with praises for their contributions last week."
Summary and Conclusion
Durable knowledge construction through online discussion is not happenstance. As
instructors consider using online discussion, they should explore the theoretical basis for
using online discussion. They should not simply use online discussion because the
technology is available.
My experiences have shown me–and theory seems to support my experiences–that when
an instructor considers the theoretical rationale for online discussion and designs,
facilitates, and evaluates students with that rationale in mind, the educational benefits of
online discussion can be substantial. Through these considerations of the instructor,
students have opportunities to construct knowledge that will benefit them in their future
endeavors.
References
Anderson, R. S. (1998). Why talk about different ways to evaluate students'
performance? In R. S. Anderson & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Changing the way we grade
student performance: Classroom assessment and the new learning paradigm (pp. 5-16).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bauer, J. F. & Anderson, R. S. (2000). Evaluating students' written performance in the
online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of
effective teaching in the online classroom (pp.65-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W, & Krathwohl, O. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook 1. The
cognitive domain. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore
alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gwartney, J. D. & Stroup, R. L. (1995). Economics: Private and public choice. New
York: Dryden Press.
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (1998). Megacognition in educational
theory and practice. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Hacker D. J. & Niederhauser, D. S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the
online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of
effective teaching in the online classroom (pp.53-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. (1995).
Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
Knowlton, D. S. (forthcoming[a]). Online discussion as prewriting: Promoting
knowledge construction in the undergraduate classroom. In P. O'Neill and C. Moore
(Eds.), Practice in context: Situating the work of writing teachers. Urbana: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Knowlton, D. S. (forthcoming[b]). Constructed knowledge and synthesized selves:
Online discussion as cognitive tool for enhancing the writing process. In R. Discenza, C.
Howard, & K. D. Schenk (Eds.), Distance education: Challenges and solutions. Hershey:
The Idea Group Publishing.
Knowlton, D. S. (2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom: A defense and
delineation of a student-centered pedagogy. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W.
Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp.5-14). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knowlton, D. S. & Knowlton, H. M. (forthcoming). Assessing students' writing:
Contextual tensions and practical resolutions. The Journal on the Art of Teaching.
Knowlton, D. S., Knowlton, H. M., & Davis, C. (2000). The whys and hows of online
discussion. Syllabus: New Directions in Educational Technology, 13(10), 54-58.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher,
28(2), 16-25.
Lindemann, E. (1995). A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Morrison, G. R. & Guenther, P. (2000). Designing instruction for learning in electronic
classrooms. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective
teaching in the online classroom (pp.15-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Speck, B. W. (1998). Unveiling some of the mystery of professional judgment in
classroom assessment. In R. S. Anderson & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Changing the way we
grade student performance: Classroom assessment and the new learning paradigm (pp.
17-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for
transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60.
