Robert Appino @rappin01April 20, 2012

Discussions in Classrooms

http://tinyurl.com/discussionsinclassrooms

Student Participation

Face-to-Face Whole Class Discussions

to

Virtual Discussions

Face-to-Face Discussions

Virtual Discussions

What is the effect of virtual discussions on students' participation and sense of belonging?

LITERATURE

Jarmon, Lim and Carpenter (2009) "Introduction Pedagogy, Education and Innovation in Virtual Worlds"

says virtual worlds will be used more for teaching and learning in the future.

Friedman, Karniel and Dinur’s (2009) study “Comparing Group Discussion in Virtual and Physical Environments" found that students had a higher number of on-topic discussions in the physical discussion setting versus the virtual discussion setting (p. 290).

Friedman et al. (2009) setup the 3D virtual world Second Life for students to be anonymous (p.288).

Carnegie’s (2003) study, “Teaching a Critical Understanding of Virtual

Environments” says that virtual discussions provided more opportunities for my quieter students.

Carnegie acknowledges that, “[t]he biggest advantage was for students who were shy, self-conscious, or intimidated in face-to-face group meetings” because they were given a different medium to succeed in, not every student will speak up in whole class discussions (2003, p. 63).

Susan Cain’s (2012) book “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking” she confirms this idea by explaining that ‘quiet’ students feel comfortable collaborating in an “online

working group” which is similar to a virtual discussion because “it is a form of solitude” which better meets the needs of more introverted learners (p. 111).

Wang and Woo’s (2007) study “Comparing Asynchronous Online Discussions and Face-to-Face Discussions in a Classroom Setting” said, “[i]n terms of authenticity, face-to-face discussions were more real and authentic than in-class online discussions because participants could talk to each other in real time, see their facial expressions and clarify matters immediately” (p. 282). In this aspect, face-to-face discussions were regarded as more superior to online discussions.

Wang and Woo (2007) also said that “online discussions were more comfortable, less aggressive and offered more equal opportunities for group members to voice their opinions” (p. 282).

METHOD

independent variable = face-to-face standard whole class discussions and

virtual class discussions

dependent variable = quality and

frequency of student’s participation in discussions.

INTERVENTION

Pre Intervention

students were taught using various face-to-face class discussions for 560 minutes over one eight day rotation cycle.

Post Intervention variety of virtual discussion formats for 560 minutes over another eight day cycle.

DATA COLLECTION

Students completed a Discussion Attitudes Survey (Likert Scale) pre virtual discussion and post virtual discussion to determine if student attitudes changed with the intervention

Discussion Participation was measured pre/post intervention using a tally sheet to measure quality and frequency of participation in class discussion

THREATS TO VALIDITYSubject characteristics - There are twice as many boys than girls (14 boys and 7 girls)

Testing - Student may get nervous taking the Participation Likert Scale

Environmental - Girls students may get more nervous during standard verbal discussions because there are twice as many boys in class (2:1 guy:girl ratio).

Implementation threat - There was bandwidth issues with the virtual discussion part of the research which prevented us from using a 3D virtual world and restrict us to different virtual learning environment.

Subject characteristics: Students may or may not like interacting in a virtual environment.

RESULTS: ATTITUDES

Discussion Attitudes Survey a two-tailed t-test showed

that the difference was considered to be not statistically significant

The P value equals 0.3978 (t = 0.8651, df = 19). The mean gain in discussion attitude pre virtual discussions to post virtual discussions (Pre 26.65, Post 27.25).

RESULTS: DISCUSSION PARTICIPATION FREQUENCY

Discussion Participation Frequency two-tailed t-test

show to be statistically significant with a P value equals 0.0146 (t=2.6748 , df=20). Also the SD value shows less variance during virtual discussion (SD=2.3)

Mean gain of face-to-face standard whole class discussion frequency and virtual class discussion frequency (Standard 7.48, Virtual 10.24).

RESULTS: QUALITY OF PARTICIPATION

Quality of participation was tallied

Discussion Participation Quality OTI results of the two-

tailed t-test was considered to be statistically significant with a P value equals 0.0214 (t=2.4957, df=20).

The SD value shows less variance during virtual discussion (SD=1.36)

Mean gain in participation quality between face-to-face standard whole class discussions to virtual discussions (Standard 5.95, Virtual 7.81)

DISCUSSION

Discussion Participation was affected by virtual discussions

Participation increased in virtual discussion

Quality of participation also increased during virtual discussions

Integrate virtual discussions into other classrooms

REFERENCES Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: the power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking. New York: Crown Publishers.

Carnegie, T. A. (2003). TeachingaCritical Understandingof Virtual Environments. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(4), 55-64.

Friedman, D., Karniel, Y., & Dinur, A. L. (2009). Comparing Group Discussion in Virtual and Physical Environments. PRESENCE by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 18(4), 286-293.

Jarmon, L., Lim, K. Y., & Carpenter, B. S. (2009). Pedagogy, Education and Innovation in 3-D Virtual Worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2(1), 3-4.

Ligorio, M. B., Cesareni, D., & Schwartz, N. (2008). Collaborative Virtual Environments as Means to Increase the Level of Intersubjectivity in a Distributed Cognition System. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 339-357.

Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272-286.

ATTRIBUTION - VISUALBirds: by Tim Geers http://www.flickr.com/photos/timypenburg/5271241301/sizes/l/in/photostream/Trees by Mark Sebastian http://www.flickr.com/photos/markjsebastian/506960906/sizes/l/in/photostream/Balloons by Tim Geers http://www.flickr.com/photos/timypenburg/5097328888/sizes/l/in/photostream/Important: by Valerie Everett http://www.flickr.com/photos/valeriebb/290711738/sizes/z/in/photostream/Mask by zigazou76 http://www.flickr.com/photos/zigazou76/6824175422/sizes/c/in/photostream/View from the Top by C.M Keiner http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmkeiner/5230441693/sizes/l/in/photostream/Birds: by Tim Geers http://www.flickr.com/photos/timypenburg/5271241301/sizes/l/in/photostream/

RESOURCESDiscussions in Classrooms: Comparing Face-To-Face Class Discussions to Virtual Discussions by Robert Appino

Robert Appino @rappin01April 20, 2012

Discussions in Classrooms