Volume 8:
November 2006

http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/beej-8-4.pdf

Research article
Assessed Online Discussion Groups in Biology Education
Alan J Cann
1
, Jane E Calvert
2
, Karine L Masse
3
and Kevin G Moffat
4

1
Department of Biology, University of Leicester;
2
School of Biomedical
Sciences, Newcastle University;
3,4
Department of Biological Sciences,
University of Warwick

Date received:14/08/2006 Date accepted:27/09/2006
Abstract
Sophisticated software such as Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) are rapidly
being deployed by universities. Despite widespread use of such systems, experience
shows that there is frequently poor pedagogic development, leading primarily to use
of VLEs as electronic document repositories rather than as online learning systems in
which the available suite of tools are used to their full potential. Online assessment is
the major potential efficiency gain of such systems, but most staff do not scratch the
surface of the full capabilities of the software. Based on our experience, we describe
practical guidelines for a model of online assessment which promotes deep versus
superficial learning, encourages higher level learning competencies and inclusivity.
Keywords: assessment, discussion, virtual learning environments
Introduction
Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) are now in widespread use in British
universities (Browne and Jenkins, 2003; Ward et al, 2001). Evidence such as
a recent audit of VLE use in the School of Biological Sciences at the
University of Leicester (Badge et al, 2005) reveals that the majority of
academic staff may use a VLE as an alternative or a supplement to printed
handout materials. The overwhelming majority of staff fail to make use of the
potential pedagogical advantages offered by the full functionality of VLE
software. This pattern of usage is commonly seen at many universities.

These results indicate that when academic staff begin to use a VLE, they
often do not consider how it can be used to improve the educational value of
their teaching. Instead, it is seen as a quick way to deliver learning materials
that would otherwise have been delivered by alternative means, e.g. printed
handouts. In particular, time constraints and the naïve expectations that
learning technology is either a bottomless pit or a quick technological fix for
pedagogical problems, result in the use of sophisticated C&IT systems as
mere filing systems - the lowest educational denominator.

Recent evidence has shown that simply putting notes on the web does not
improve student learning (Evans et al, 2004). The same work also showed
that material which is presented with sound pedagogical underpinning and
which is easily navigable appears to enhance student learning. Many people
have attempted to use C&IT to engage students in online academic

Volume 8:
November 2006

http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/beej-8-4.pdf

discussions to facilitate subject knowledge and reflection, either by email
listservers or bulletin boards (e.g. see Cameron, 2002). These efforts were
unsuccessful, and there is little published evidence concerning the outcomes
of these approaches in bioscience teaching.

In discussions with colleagues, it became clear that many had tried to use
C&IT to facilitate student attributes such as reflection (Kolb, 1984), and to
assess skills beyond the basic “knowledge” competence in Bloom’s taxonomy
of educational objectives (Bloom, 1956). As with our own previous
experiences, most of these attempts had been unsuccessful for a variety of
reasons. The predominant cause of failure was perceived to be the
unwillingness of highly goal-directed bioscience students to engage with what
was seen as a frivolous activity not directly related to assessment.

In January 2005, an initial study of a model for online assessment designed to
overcome these limitations was tested on a group of 34 final year bioscience
students at the University of Leicester. The software used was the Blackboard
VLE. Students were subdivided into three random groups of 11 or 12, since
prior discussions with colleagues indicated that 8–15 members appears to be
the optimum size to facilitate online discussions. Smaller groups than this do
not have the critical mass to sustain discussions and larger groups are difficult
to administer and allow relative anonymity. Contributions to the discussion
boards were explicitly linked to assessment, in this case contributing to 15%
of the total module marks. Students were told that:
Each week there will be a discussion board about the topics presented in
lectures that week. Each discussion board will be open for contributions for two
weeks, then close. To earn the marks, you are expected to make at least two
contributions to each discussion board, i.e. two contributions per week. Of
course, you can contribute as much as you want to each board, but you need
to make a minimum of two contributions to earn the marks each week. An
acceptable contribution is:
• Any original comment or discussion on the topics covered in the
relevant lectures.
• A simple question in itself will not be regarded as an acceptable
contribution, but a complete (and correct) answer to someone else's
question is an acceptable contribution.
• Feel free to cite a relevant publication from WoK [Web of Knowledge] or
PubMed, a book from the Library or a web page, but a citation or a url
alone will not be regarded as an acceptable contribution unless you also
describe in sufficient detail the content of the work and why it is relevant
to this discussion.
• Any other original, non-plagiarised contribution relevant to the topics
under discussion.
Prior to the commencement of any discussions, the entire class engaged in an
online E-tivity, an icebreaker to promote group cohesion, in this case,
construction of a homepage on the VLE to introduce themselves to other
module participants (Salmon, 2002). To accommodate the new form of
assessment, the previous extended module essay was dropped in favour of