Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.
-
Upload
amelia-mccormick -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.
![Page 1: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Robert Appino
@rappin01
April 20, 2012
Discussions in Classrooms
![Page 3: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Student Participation
Face-to-Face Whole Class Discussions
to
Virtual Discussions
![Page 4: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Face-to-Face Discussions
![Page 5: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Virtual Discussions
![Page 6: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
What is the effect of virtual discussions on students' participation and sense of belonging?
![Page 7: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
LITERATURE
![Page 9: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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.
![Page 10: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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).
![Page 11: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Friedman et al. (2009) setup the 3D virtual world Second Life for students to be anonymous (p.288).
![Page 12: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Carnegie’s (2003) study, “Teaching a Critical Understanding of Virtual
Environments” says that virtual discussions provided more opportunities for my quieter students.
![Page 13: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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).
![Page 14: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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).
![Page 15: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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.
![Page 16: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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).
![Page 17: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
METHOD
![Page 18: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
independent variable = face-to-face standard whole class discussions and
virtual class discussions
dependent variable = quality and
frequency of student’s participation in discussions.
![Page 19: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
INTERVENTION
![Page 20: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Pre Intervention
students were taught using various face-to-face class discussions for 560 minutes over one eight day rotation cycle.
![Page 21: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Post Intervention
variety of virtual discussion formats for 560 minutes over another eight day cycle.
![Page 22: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
DATA COLLECTION
![Page 23: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Students completed a Discussion Attitudes Survey (Likert Scale) pre virtual discussion and post virtual discussion to determine if student attitudes changed with the intervention
![Page 24: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Discussion Participation was measured pre/post intervention using a tally sheet to measure quality and frequency of participation in class discussion
![Page 25: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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.
![Page 26: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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).
![Page 27: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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).
![Page 29: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
![Page 30: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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)
![Page 31: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
![Page 32: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
DISCUSSION
Discussion Participation was affected by virtual discussions
Participation increased in virtual
discussion
Quality of participation also increased
during virtual discussions
![Page 33: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Integrate virtual discussions into other classrooms
![Page 34: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
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.
![Page 35: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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
![Page 36: Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012 Discussions in Classrooms.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697c0151a28abf838ccdf30/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Robert Appino
@rappin01
April 20, 2012
Discussions in Classrooms