Discussions in Classrooms

1. Discussions in Classrooms Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012

2. http://tinyurl.com/discussionsinclassrooms

3. Student Participation Face-to-Face Whole Class Discussions to Virtual Discussions

4. Face-to-Face Discussions

5. Virtual Discussions

6. What is the effect of virtualdiscussions on students' participation and sense of belonging?

8. Literature

9. 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.

10. 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).

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

12. Carnegie’s (2003) study, “Teaching a Critical Understanding of Virtual Environments” says that virtual discussions provided more opportunities for my quieter students.

13. 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).

14. 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). 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).

15. 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.

16. 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).

17. Method

18. independent variable = face-to-face standard whole class discussions and virtual class discussions dependent variable = quality and frequency of student’s participation in discussions.

19. Intervention

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

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

22. Data Collection

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

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

25. Subject 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. Threats to validity

26. 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: Attitudes

28. Discussion Participation Frequency two-tailed t-test show to be statistically significantwith 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: Discussion Participation Frequency

30. 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) Results: Quality of Participation

32. Discussion Participation was affected by virtual discussions Participationincreased in virtual discussion Quality of participation also increased during virtual discussions Discussion

33. Integrate virtual discussions into other classrooms

34. 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. References

35. Birds: 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 Everetthttp://www.flickr.com/photos/valeriebb/290711738/sizes/z/in/photostream/ Mask by zigazou76http://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/ Resources Discussions in Classrooms: Comparing Face-To-Face Class Discussions to Virtual Discussions by Robert Appino Attribution - Visual

36. Discussions in Classrooms Robert Appino @rappin01 April 20, 2012