Stephen Downes

"The discussion board, as currently designed in 95% of higher education courses, is a graveyard of compliance," writes Adam Pryor. It's not actual discussion; there's no purpose or meaning behind it, beyond getting a grade. So what should replace it? "Not minor tweaks to your syllabus (but) structural replacements for the standard discussion board." Pryor offers seven "patterns" for good engagement. Some of them are low-tech: "we want a node-and-edge system map drawn on a whiteboard, photographed, and uploaded." Others demand "synthesis over simple reaction" (a discussion summary, or a prompt 'autopsy'). I agree with the overall argument but I think the specific patterns are one-dimensional. We want artifact generation, synthesis, and reflection - but for these to be anything more than rote make-work they have to not only be governed by participants, they have to be anchored in their lives and interests.