Issues surrounding use of online discussion forums on traditional undergraduate psychology modules

1. Issues surrounding use of online discussion forums on traditional undergraduate psychology modules Jane Guiller, Alan Durndell, Anne Ross & Karen Thomson Glasgow Caledonian University

2. 3 research projects: L1 students using online discussion on psychology modules Qualitative and quantitative content analyses Evaluation questionnaires and focus groups Focus of research: Gender differences in online participation and language use Comparison of face-to-face and online discourse in terms of critical thinking indicators How can a VLE be used to support a problem-based learning approach? Outline

3. Advantages Flexible medium Everyone has the chance to speak Loss of face-to-face cues More time for reflection and information searching (Pena-Shaff, Martin & Gay, 2001) Expressing ideas into written words and joint construction of knowledge (Garrison et al., 2000; Harasim et al., 1995) Disadvantages Equalisation effect → naive assumption (Yates, 1997) ‘Cold’ medium, technical issues, uninhibited behaviour Legitimate part of contract (McAteer, 1997) Removal of time contraints overloading staff and students procrastination Asynchronous CMC in Education

4. Project 1 • 197 Introductory Psychology students (148 female, 49 male), 699 postings • Large, open-ended discussion groups on essay topics with tutors in moderating role • Marks for participation (quantity and quality) • IV = gender, DVs = no. of posts/words per post, user identification, range of linguistic codes combined into discourse styles using Atlas.ti • Results • No gender difference in frequency and length of posts • Females significantly more likely to opt for numerical pseudonym • Gender differences in language use and interaction styles

5. Females more likely to use: attenuated language (e.g. personal opinion, qualifiers) female language features (e.g. intensifiers, self-disclosure) positive socioemotional discourse (e.g. agreement, requests opinions, e.g.‘I totally agree with you’, ‘I’d be interested to hear what others think’) Males more likely to use: authoritative language (e.g. strong assertions) male language features (e.g. absolute adverbials) negative socioemotional discourse (e.g. disagreement, challenging utterances, e.g. ‘that’s rubbish!’, ‘how can you possibly think that’, ‘I bet you’d change your mind then’, ‘come off it’, ‘poppycock!’) Gendered Online Discourse

6. Extract from Focus Group Discussion Female 1 – ‘It’s good in first year because you can discuss your ideas but not in front of the class so you can build up your confidence a wee bit’ Female 2 – ‘I liked that you don’t have to give your name, you know you can say what you want and nobody knows that it’s you’ Male 1 – ‘On the other hand, you can actually give your name so in case someone does want to come up and talk to you they can. Also not everybody is going to get together with someone in a seminar and have a discussion but this way they can’ Female 2 – ‘I feel that I can be who I am, you know the way I am with close friends but in a seminar I’m shy and don’t say much’ Female 1 – ‘Yeah, I’d be worried if I put my name that someone would come back and say that’s irrelevant or wrong or something and folk could come back and say that to you’

7. Project 1 – Emerging Issues • Many students said would not have participated initially without incentive but then ‘got into it’ • Females valued anonymity more than males • Pseudonym conducive to participation from females • Gender differences in language use and communication styles → males did not dominate in terms of amount of talk but rather style of discourse • Influence on perceived credibility of contribution? • Instances of high self-disclosure • Herring (1994) – gendered communication ethics • Acceptable forms of discourse?

8. Project 2 • 55 Level 1 Introduction to Learning and Cognition students (10 males, 45 females) • Critical thinking activity involving evaluation of journal article with peer discussion component (marks for participating in both modes) • IV – mode of discussion (face-to-face or online); DVs – frequency of coded categories, responses to items in evaluation questionnaire • Results • Significantly more evidence of critical thinking in the online condition (justification with evidence and weighs evidence) • Majority of students preferred online interaction over face-to-face for this activity due to increased ‘thinking time’ • However, many students preferred face-to-face as more interaction and brainstorming

9. Project 3 • 429 Introductory Psychology students (128 male, 301 female) • Small group online discussion on PBL scenarios • Group presentations in class • 174 students (49 male, 125 female) responded to questionnaire • Classification of 1222 postings according to task behaviour still ongoing • However, preliminary observations suggest not indepth discussion but rather point of contact e.g. arrange face-to-face meetings, swap information, chasing people up, track progress • Responses to evaluation questionnaire

10. ‘Text Speak’ hey evry1!! i cudnt make the class on friday, promise i had a valid reason lol!! but i'll keep up 2 speed with things dont uz worry! this forum things a great idea innit lol! anyway, off 2 dwnload evrythin i need..jus wanted 2 let evry1 know tht im def gona b doin this :) x hiya yall! hows it all going. do u guys have any idea if we have to reference or anytihng in the presentation? hope to hear fae sum1 soon lol. cya xxxx

15. What did you like? (144 responses) Flexible and easy to use (73%) Easier to track individual and group activities (7%) Permanent record of progress and info (4%) Text-based nature (4%) What did you not like? (117 responses) Lack of participation and responses from other group members (35%) Prefer face-to-face discussion (25%) No home access (9%) Technical issues (5%) Nothing! (17%) Classification of open-ended responses to questions

16. Be explicit about the different forms of discourse in psychology Produce guidelines on acceptable forms of discourse – taking gender and ethical issues, perceived credibility of argument (e.g. authoritative vs attenuated) and ‘text speak’ into account Offer an incentive for participation and option of pseudonym use Seems combination of online and face-to-face discussion is beneficial for students in certain tasks (Project 2) BUT in other tasks online may be conducive to increased communication but not necessarily quality of communication (Project 3) Remember moderating, giving feedback and marking can be very time-consuming for staff Recommendations

17. References Guiller, J. & Durndell, A. (in press). "I totally agree with you": Gender interactions in educational online discussion groups. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning. Guiller, J. & Durndell, A. (in press). Students’ linguistic behaviour in online discussion groups: Does gender matter? Computers in Human Behavior. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com. Guiller, J., Ross, A. & Durndell, A. (under review). Peer interaction and critical thinking: face-to-face or online discussion? Learning and Instruction. Guiller, J., Ross, A. & Durndell, A. (2005). The role of gender in a peer-based critical thinking task. In A. Méndez-Vilas, B. González-Pereira, J. Mesa González, J.A. Mesa González (Eds.), Recent Research Developments in Learning Technologies Vol I (pp. 248-252). Spain: Formatex. Miller, J. & Durndell, A. (2004). Gender, language and computer-mediated communication. In K. Morgan, C. A. Brebbia, J. Sanchez & A. Voiskounsky (Eds.), Human Perspectives in the Internet Society: Culture, Psychology & Gender (pp. 235-244). Southampton: WIT Press.