Case Studies on Peer Facilitation: How to Sustain Participants’ Online Discussion?



Up to this point, our focus has been on studies that examined the possible ways to increase student contribution in peer facilitated online discussion environments. However, another question that should also be asked is what makes an online discussion sustainable. The social constructivist learning perspective suggests that individuals learn by exchanging ideas or opinions with one another. For this to take place, sustained online discussion, typically characterized by long threads, should ideally be the norm because it typically takes many exchanges of postings for students to share viewpoints, explore different perspectives, negotiate issues, and create mutual understandings. This chapter presents three studies that examined how threads grow. The first study examined thread development patterns, while the other two studies examined, in greater detail, the role of questions as well as other facilitation techniques that could foster the continuity of threaded discussion. We discuss six major lessons learned from these three studies.


Asynchronous online discussion Peer facilitation Sustainability Continuity Thread development Thread growth Questions Case studies Social constructivism Facilitation techniques Student facilitation Thread pattern 


  1. Chan, C. C., Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2009). Asynchronous online discussion thread development: Examining growth patterns and peer-facilitation techniques. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 438–452.Google Scholar
  2. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51, 1111–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Ng, C. S. L., Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2009). Sustaining asynchronous online discussions: Contributing factors and peer facilitation techniques. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(4), 477–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does:” Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Education, Learning Sciences, and TechnologiesNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations