DISCUSSION & CRITICAL
THINKING
Lenny Shedletsky
CTEL SERIES
Summer, 2013
MY BIAS, MY HUNCH:
THESE ARE NOT BEST PRACTICES
• These are ‘trying my best’ practices;
• I need you to help me figure out what would
be best practices;
LIST OF RULES FOR DISCUSSIONCREATED BY MY CLASS
Here is our list based on our discussion last night. We can change the list as we go along.
Please comment on the list as you see fit.
[see http://media.usm.maine.edu/~lenny/group_rules.htm]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Be respectful;
Be open minded;
Be authentic;
Disagree well;
Be prepared;
Attack the theory, not the person;
Don't interrupt to disagree;
Comment on what is presented;
Don't be vague--be specific in responding;
Do not dominate the discussion;
Don't use your cell phone or computer during class if it's not for the class work;
Don't break up into two-somes or three-somes--stay together as a group;
We do not need to raise hands;
Have the group set some goals within each discussion topic so we can expand upon them and meet the
goals together;
THE TEACHER STRUGGLES TO GET
DISCUSSION GOING
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISCUSSION
• VARIATIONS ON DISCUSSION
• Probing Questions
DISCUSSION ON ADOBE CONNECT:
SLOWING IT DOWN
• EARLY IN THE DISCUSSION:
• http://screencast.com/t/xoWmoc54A
• LATE IN THE DISCUSSION:
• http://screencast.com/t/a6pxN6KAJMhC
Mediation:
• http://www.screencast.com/t/ldjW0sTt2u
FINALLY, GETTING A STUDENT
WILLING TO THINK OUT LOUD
• http://screencast.com/t/8nkWpMDyOE
• Here is the transcript and map:
• http://media.usm.maine.edu/~lenny/MIKEdispatcher.htm
VOICETHREAD
1. https://voicethread.com/?#u1573984.b4046
145.i22539065
2. http://media.usm.maine.edu/~lenny/mediati
on.mp4
PROBES
• Very often it is difficult enough to just get
students to say anything that we may settle
for interaction in place of ‘meaningful
learning.’
PROBE
Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005) wrote:
• . . . interaction is not a guarantee that students are
cognitively engaged in an educationally meaningful
manner. High levels of interaction may be reflective of
group cohesion, but it does not directly create
cognitive development or facilitate meaningful learning
and understanding. Interaction directed to cognitive
outcomes is characterized more by the qualitative
nature of the interaction and less by quantitative
measures. There must be a qualitative dimension
characterized by interaction that takes the form of
purposeful and systematic discourse (p. 135).
•
PROBE
• To put it simply, we can only judge how well
our class is doing after we decide what we
want it to do.
PROBE
• Based on a number of reviews of the
literature, it appears that the amount and the
quality of online discussion is quite poor
(Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001; 2003;
Hunt, Simonds, & Simonds, 2007; Meyer,
2003(b); Rourke & Kanuka, 2007).
TIPS
• Consider SAFETY issues: Do students feel comfortable with
themselves to offer ideas?
• Consider AUTHENTIC TALK: Are students offering thoughtful,
considered statements and questions or talk just because they
know they are supposed to talk?
• Consider the level of CHALLENGE: Did students understand
the text?
• Consider OWNERSHIP: Are students carrying the primary load
of working to understand the ideas in the text asking
questions, supporting their assertions with the text and
making observations?
WHAT DO YOU WANT YOUR
STUDENTS TO GET?
• If it is a list of information, then why use time
to discuss? Discussion is better suited for
having to express one’s ideas, for making
connections, for hearing others’ view points,
for thinking through a problem.
WHAT DO YOUR STUDENTS WANT
TO GET?
• Some students conceived of discussions as
“. . . a way of helping to understand topics
better through considering different
perspectives on a topic or reflecting on ideas
in new ways” (Ellis and Calvo, 2006, p.59).
• DEEP
WHAT STUDENTS WANT TO GET
• Other students conceived of discussion as a
way of developing communication skills or
winning arguments.
• SURFACE, PRAGMATIC, USING DISCUSSIONS
TO FIND THE RIGHT ANSWER OR TO
COMPLETE A TASK. STUDENTS FEARED
LOOKING FOOLISH.
WHAT STUDENTS WANT TO GET
• Other students conceived of discussion as a
way of developing communication skills or
winning arguments. Students approached
discussion, whether face-to-face or online, as
either deep or surface thinking.
WHERE STUDENTS ARE AT
• What Ellis and Calvo found was that “only a
small number of students were identified as
understanding how to approach discussions
both in face-to-face and online contexts
meaningfully, know what they could learn
through discussions to help them with their
learning outcomes” (p. 67).
SOME PATTERNS TO KEEP IN MIND
• But here are some principles and research
findings that suggest some patterns that you
may find useful as you take part in discussion
(see if any of these are familiar to you):
PATTERN
1. A major norm in the college classroom is the
consolidation of responsibility;
[The consolidation of responsibility refers to the
finding that regardless of class size, a small
number of students—5 to 7—account for the
majority of interactions in a class meeting.]
2. Serious discrepancies have been found
between what students say/believe about
their participation in discussions and actual
observed behaviors. [For instance, students
tend to overestimate their own participation
in discussion (Howard and Baird, 2000).]
PATTERN
3. A student’s age does matter in predicting
their behavior in discussion in terms of who
speaks (Howard, 2002); Gender of the
student, on the other hand, does not seem to
have a major impact on who speaks;
PATTERN
4. A goal of discussion is to promote thinking,
such as critical thinking and problem solving
(Muilenburg & Berge, 2000);
PATTERN
5. How we ask questions can deepen student
responses (Meyer, 2004; Muilenburg & Berge,
2000; Toledo, 2006); Savage (1998) calls these
probing questions;
PATTERN
6. Much of what we do as teachers is to ask
questions. Most of the questions we ask
require factual recall—most of what students
learn through factual questioning is
forgotten—higher level questions lead to
learning that is retained (Muilenburg & Berge,
2000);[higher level questions ask for relations
between facts (comparisons, purposes,
explanations, causes, predictions) and
justifications of opinions];
PATTERN
7. When to jump in: “If things are going well,
the best action to take is no action!”
“Even more so than in-person, online discussion
is usually stifled by a well articulated,
(especially lengthy) post that gives the answer
from the instructor” P. 7. (Muilenburg &
Berge, (2000);
PATTERN
8. The quantity of interaction does not reflect
the quality of discourse (Garrison and
Cleveland-Innes, 2005);
PATTERN
9. Teaching presence (structure/design and
guidance or the intent to influence thinking in
a critical and reflective manner) either from
the teacher or the other students is needed to
change the students’ behavior from social to
cognitive presence—that is, teaching matters;
PATTERN
10. Without the teacher’s explicit guidance,
students are found to engage primarily in
serial monologues—largely, they share
experiences and opinions (Pawan, Paulus,
Yalcin & Chang, 2003);
PATTERN
• 11. There is some research on peer facilitation
available. Here is a screen shot of a table from
one on graduate students' peer facilitating,
showing the relative effectiveness of different
techniques (from Ng, Cheung, and Hew
(2012). Interaction in asynchronous discussion
forums: Peer facilitation techniques. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 280-294.
• SEE NEXT SLIDE
PATTERN—PEER FACILITATION
SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
State clear expectations
Use manageable content
Structure appropriate activities
Assess in line with your intended goals
Ask engaging questions
Focus discussion
Challenge and test ideas
Model contributions of quality
Focus on students creating meaning (not teacher centered)
Move discussion from exploration [unsupported opinion/statement]
to integration [supported opinion/statement] and then to resolution
[assessment of a solution]