Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Speak up! transforming classroom discussions march 2013


Published on

This workshop was present at the Vietnam Tech Conference at Saigon South International School in HCMC, Vietnam.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Speak up! transforming classroom discussions march 2013

  1. 1.
  2. 2. What is your name, school and position?
  3. 3. What has been your key takeaway from the workshops so far?
  4. 4. Some students enjoyspeaking up in class while others dont.
  5. 5. through different modes of encourage educators to trydifferent ways to reach their studentsthrough different modes of encourage educators to trydifferent ways to reach their studentsthrough different modes of classdiscussions.
  6. 6. What do you think this picture is communicating to the audience?
  7. 7. Research
  8. 8. Student ParticipationFace-to-Face Discussions compared with Virtual Discussions
  9. 9. Face-to-Face Discussions
  10. 10. Virtual Discussions
  11. 11. 21 Students14 boys & 7 GirlsFace-to-Face discussions in classVirtual Discussions in classVirtual Discussions in classVirtual Discussions in classVirtual Discussions in class
  12. 12. What is the effect of virtualdiscussions on students participationand sense of belonging?
  13. 13. Comfortable
  14. 14. Literature
  15. 15. Jarmon, Lim and Carpenter (2009)"Introduction Pedagogy, Education andInnovation in Virtual Worlds" say virtual worlds will be used more forteaching and learning in the future.
  16. 16. Friedman, Karniel and Dinur’s (2009) study“Comparing Group Discussion in Virtual andPhysical Environments" found that studentshad a higher number of on-topicdiscussions in the physical discussionsetting versus the virtual discussion setting(p. 290).
  17. 17. anonymous
  18. 18.  virtual discussions provided moreopportunities for quieter students.-Carnegie’s (2003, “Teaching a Critical Understanding of Virtual Environments”
  19. 19. Carnegie acknowledges that, “[t]he biggestadvantage [of virtual discussions] wasfor students who were shy, self-conscious, or intimidated inface-to-face group meetings” (2003, p.63).
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22. Susan Cain (2012) confirms this idea byexplaining that ‘quiet’ students feelcomfortable collaborating in an “onlineworking group” which is similar to a virtualdiscussion because “it is a form ofsolitude” which better meets the needsof more introverted learners (p. 111).
  23. 23. Safety Behind the Screen
  24. 24. Solitude
  25. 25. Wang and Woo’s (2007) study “ComparingAsynchronous Online Discussions and Face-to-Face Discussions in a Classroom Setting”said, “[i]n terms of authenticity, face-to-facediscussions were more real andauthentic than in-class online discussionsbecause participants could talk to each otherin real time, see their facial expressions andclarify matters immediately” (p. 282). In thisaspect, face-to-face discussions wereregarded as more superior to onlinediscussions.
  26. 26. Wang and Woo (2007) also said that “onlinediscussions were more comfortable,less aggressive and offered moreequal opportunities forgroup members to voicetheir opinions” (p. 282).
  27. 27. Participation increased in virtualdiscussionsQuality of participation also increasedduring virtual discussions
  28. 28. Discussion findings
  29. 29. says that for iGeneration kids “socialconnections are EVERYTHING”.
  30. 30. Comfort Behind the Screen
  31. 31. Students are “morecomfortable with sharing”through virtual writing - Dr. Larry Rosen
  32. 32. Beyond the Screen
  33. 33. Integrate virtual discussions into yourclassrooms
  34. 34. Variety
  35. 35. Ideas for Integrating Virtual Discussionsinto classrooms
  36. 36. Building a community in yourclassrooms using Critical FriendsGroup (CFG) Protocols
  37. 37. How could you integratevirtual discussions into alesson?
  38. 38. Turn and talkWhat do you think would be thechallenges of integrating virtualdiscussions in the classroom?
  39. 39. Questions?
  40. 40. What is something you learned from this workshop?
  41. 41.  ReferencesCain, S. (2012). Quiet: the power of introverts in a world that cant 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 Virtualand 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 Innovationin 3-D Virtual Worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2(1), 3-4.Ligorio, M. B., Cesareni, D., & Schwartz, N. (2008). Collaborative Virtual Environmentsas 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,
  42. 42. Attribution - VisualSpeaking Up by HowardLake Campus images by rappinoSpeaking Up & Raising my hand image by rappinoResearch Human Rights Faces image by rappinoTrees by Mark Sebastian by Tim Geers by sweet_redbird by Valerie Everett by zigazou76 Solitude: by rappinoView from the Top by C.M Keiner Up by HowardLake in Classrooms: Comparing Face-To-Face Whole Class Discussions to Virtual Discussions by RobertAppinoDownload Presentation from Robert Appino
  43. 43. ack 3wf edb 201 Fe tc op m/v or ksh .co W nyurl tp: //tiht