Williams, Bill (2004). Participation in online courses - How essential is it?  Educational 
Technology and Society, Volume 7, Number 2, April.

The paper begins with a discussion of the notion of participation as being active or 
passive.  Active participants are essential to building a constructivist community based 
learning environment.  Many people, elsewhere termed “lurkers”, tend to passively 
participate (they don’t offer/add much but simply ‘learn’ from reading others’ postings 
and discussions).  Williams terms these people as RoPs (Read only Participants), 
attempting to avoid negative connotations associated with the word ‘lurker’.  Arguments 
are cited which posit the validity of RoPing within an online course, though, it is 
suggested that this is only acceptable within certain contexts.

Next, author discusses the methods for tabulating data regarding the level of 
participation.  Firstly, Williams refers to his own method of spreadsheeting the number of 
postings from a review of (presumably ‘dribble files’ – files which record the number of 
posts).  He breaks these into three categories/groups: 

Group One initiated task-related discussion
Group Two responded to task-related messages
Group Three were non-task-related messages and replies

 The second method discussed was founded by David Wiley and uses mathematical 
values to represent content value.  This approach, though possibly more time consuming, 
seems to be a superior method as it examines what is said rather than how often.

Following this, Williams enters into a very brief and inconclusive commentary regarding 
the awarding of marks for participation in asynchronous discussion forums such as this 
one.  He notes that this is a ‘thorny’ subject… indeed, people seem to have very strong 
opinions and evidence for both sides of the topic.  The author, however, only raises 
questions here… no ‘answer’ is given.  This is a little annoying but perhaps the wisest 
option, considering that this doesn’t seem to be the crux of his discussion.  He does note 
though, that it would encourage participants to post (though, we all know the kind of 
postings that sometimes result from this sort of assessment).  And, while the connection 
is not made directly, one has to question the validity of ‘forced postings’ when we are 
looking at an argument for RoPing in online courses.

The focus now turns to elements which affect participation.  The author agrees with the 
notion that the moderator and the framework of the learning environment are essential 
elements for success, however, his opinion points to the design of learning 
activities/tasks as the chief concern for online learning.

In the final section of this first part of the paper, Williams refers to “Ludic Participation”  --
 participation which seems to be based on social interaction in and of itself.  He cites 
courses where student bars (presumably akin to our Student Café in 537) are 
employed.  Again, no definitive ‘answers’ are given as to whether this does or doesn’t 
work… as a matter of fact, Williams suggests that he is not aware of any research into 
this area.  He does, however, mention that both students who avail of these ‘venting’ 
areas and those who avoid them seem to do equally well in achieving both marks and 
learning goals.

Following this, in the second part of the paper as it exists online, Williams enters into a 
kind of literature review (though no proper citations are used – he simply refers to 
people’s names and their theories/arguments… going as far as to refer to persons by 
their first names at times).  By and large, this first section in part 2 has to do with the 
make-up of online courses and whether or not focus ought to be placed on peer 
interactions.  Again, one only gets a sense of what he is saying, as he never really 
makes a definitive statement of preference from his own perspective.  On the contrary, 
he merely refers to others’ words and arguments for and against the use of discussion.  
Major points, such as the fact that ‘discussion’ doesn’t necessarily mean simply talking 
but could include collaborative projects, research, problem-solving, case studies, etc.  
The sense that one gets, however, is that there is no right answer.  The use of such 
methods (like the use of E-Learning tools in and of themselves) is context dependent… 
that is, it is not always appropriate.

In terms of profiling the participation of class members, there is a sense that Williams is 
indeed in favour of this activity, despite the fact that he begins his brief discussion of the 
topic by citing an argument against it as being a ‘negative effect on participation’.  His 
idea appears to be that a clear articulation at the onset of course-work concerning the 
parameters and expectations for postings, as well as a [rubric?] ‘well set out protocol’ 
would help to alleviate student concerns.

When it comes to assigning marks for participation in class discussions, again there are 
many sources cited for and against the idea.  By and large, no-one really says that it is a 
heinous crime or anything of the sort, but that if one does indeed choose to assign marks 
for discussion postings, the marking scheme ought to be transparent.  Additionally, there 
are multiple warnings about the logistics (particularly the amount of time that an online 
instructor would have to spend reading and assessing the postings of individuals in order 
to ensure that the content, and not the number of postings was actually being 
evaluated).  This, of course, is a concern for all teachers.  In the end, it seems to be the 
case that the idea of assigning marks for discussions ought to be based on assigned 
discussion tasks and/or a display of extrapolative learning throughout the run of the 
course.

In his section on enhancing participation, some very pertinent topics are raised.  Firstly, 
the need for exemplars in terms of postings.  Many, like this one :) , can actually be too 
long and as such, you are among the very few who have read this post.  Likewise with 
the notion that they may be too short (don’t get excited, I don’t do this… ever). :)  *Keep 
in mind that this is not a ‘post’ but rather, a paper review.  Beyond this, I found it very 
pertinent that Williams brought up the fact that, for anyone who misses a day or two, 
s/he will find him/herself very ‘behind’ a discussion thread and therefore unable to 
positively contribute.  Thus, s/he must offer redundant commentary or simply agree with 
previous posts in order to achieve discussion marks.  This sort of thing, Williams notes, is 
not very conducive to actual learning.

Again, Williams returns to the need for ludic areas which enhance student interaction 
through discussions which have little or nothing to do with course requirements.  This is a 
stressed point within the paper and it ought to be.  Current brain research (Kegan, etc) 
suggests that a social learning environment is far more conducive to true and meaningful 
learning because the material learned has that ‘emotional hook’ that I’ve posted about in 
the past.  Our brains focus more clearly and intently on input which has some kind of 
emotional meaning for us.  Social connections on a more personal (and perhaps less 
academic and therefore more familiar) level enhance this emotional connection.

Finally, Williams concludes his discussion(s) by saying what I’ve held all along – there are 
no definitive answers to the questions which he poses.  To attempt one would be lunacy 
because we’re talking about a multiplicity of learners and learning styles.  

Again, sorry for the ramble...

Corey