Read-Only Participants: A Case For Student Communication In Online Classes Summary

Introduction to Graduate Studies in the College of Education
6/25/2014
Larena Barnett

Article Summary: "Read-Only Participants: A Case for Student Communication in Online Classes"

The problem with the article is that it is very contradictory of itself, which made it confusing, especially the first half of the reading. Some research shows that students need to be actively involved with online discussion to learn, while other research argues that read-only lurkers learn as well. Other research states student participation means better course completion rate and benefits learning, and that the student that only lurks or “listens” doesn’t increase knowledge and often failed. The common theme that I saw in the research is that the researchers
agreed on what makes a highly successful student is being actively involved and they agreed that these students are gaining a lot of knowledge, while they disagreed as to if the lurkers were learning as much, or at all, as their actively involved counterparts.
One of the debates in the articles is what makes a read only participant.
If the facilitator doesn’t entertain certain students as they learn and they do not feel instant gratification from participating actively in online discussions, then those students will simply stop participating and therefore will not benefit from peer-to-peer learning. Other reasons that concern me are that some lurkers may lack confidence to participate, may be introverted, or be a novice student and not understand the material or assignment. Some read only participants may care about themselves alone and are satisfied that their own learning needs are being met, thus being selfish. Lastly, some read-only participants may not be convinced that the course will benefit them and may not want to put the time or effort into the course work. The question is are these non-participants still legitimately learning and that conclusion wavered from yes to no in various
researches.
A major component in teaching elementary children is also a major component for college facilitators to teach college level students; and that is critical thinking, effective communication, and problem-solving skills. The more the facilitator is involved and modeling these social and cognitive aspects, the more students are involved and learning from the guidance of the facilitator. It is important for any teacher or facilitator to critique work, provide feedback, and encourage their students.
To be successful in online learning, one must have more hits and have a high number of discussions and reply posts that are well prepared or thought-out. The online student cannot simply look like they are actively involved by just opening a lot of pages, they must be actively engaged to pass and learn. Interaction with peers is a key component of more successful students and influences online learning. The successful students would become frustrated when other less successful students who would try to “ride on their skirt tails” of the more successful students by replying less often or posting less quality discussions, replies, or assignments.
The findings to being a successful online student are to take risks and post often, foster collaboration, peers grading peers work, and being transparent.
Novice members, like myself, can learn from advanced members and grow into full participating students by collaborating with one another more often, which is a huge component amongst teachers, because interaction influences learning. Peers grading peers work prevents lazy work and therefore more students put forth more effort and have higher quality posts. Students being transparent of personal reasons of why they are struggling or missing an assignment can foster camaraderie and support amongst one another thus influencing us all to stay motivated and persevere. Online learning is entertaining oneself by being actively involved and putting in quality work over quantity, and being open to constructive
criticism.

References
University of Pretoria, South Africa; b North-West University, South Africa; cCape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa (Received 5 April 2007; final version received 25 May 2007): L. Nagela*, A.S. Blignautb and J.C. Cronje´