Issues in Education II (RVAC 204) 10:30‐11:50

1. 13th  Connecticut State University Faculty Research Conference Central Connecticut State University Saturday April 17, 2010 Issues in Education II (RVAC 204)  10:30‐11:50 BLACKBOARD Group Discussions: Using Roles to Promote Higher Level Thinking  • Dr. Catherine Kurkjian, Professor, • Department of Reading and Language Arts • Central Connecticut State University

2. Teacher Research Project • Questions: • What impact will assigned group roles in online Blackboard Discussions have in the quality of conversations among and within small groups in my Hybrid Creative Language Arts Class? • What are the strengths and weaknesses of assigning roles in online group discussions? • How can I modify the use of online roles to enhance conversations that demonstrate higher levels of thinking? • Objectives: • Encourage in-depth substantial online discussion • Broaden understanding of the topic under discussion beyond an individual teacher’s experience • Provide a forum for considering applicability of ideas for their Integrated Language Arts Projects • Promote not only declarative, procedural, but conditional knowledge (under what conditions would these ideas be applicable?) • http://vista.csus.ct.edu/webct/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

3. The Process Five rounds of conversations were assigned during the course of the semester of to be conducted every other week during the off campus component of RDG 589 Creative Language Arts Hybrid class. The class was divided into 5 groups based on the grade level that they taught (Groups A-E). Roles were determined and changed for each round. Each round of conversations focused on a different assigned topic. Each group selected and discussed a separate article related to the topic in question. (i.e. all focused on “differentiating instructions” each group read a different article about it) In-class time was devoted to Fishbowl conversations during which each group got to be in the Fishbowl. There was time for conversation to take place between those inside the Fishbowl and those outside the Fishbowl. The leader (Proposer role) was then required to write a paper on the topic following the discussion.

4. Groups: 22 graduate students Group A (middle school –high school) Group B (K-6 span substitute teachers) Group C (Literacy Teachers elementary and grade 2 duo) Group D (grade 4 & 5 and middle school level Group E (pre and K group) Topics Topic 1 Differentiating Instruction Topic 2 Integrating Technology Topic 3 Critical Literacy Topic 4 Multiple Sign Systems Topic 5 Writing and Teaching Mentor Texts

5. Proposer (Group Leader) • Select, disseminate the topic-related recent professional article to the professor and small group • Discuss what and how they understand the article • Pose questions and issues as a catalyst • Keeps group on task • Posts at least 5 days before next class • Proposer Rubric Criterion The Roles • Opposer • Plays the devil's advocate" role • Questioning: • Where you don't understand? Where you are confused? • Where it doesn't fit reality? Where it is incomplete? • Provokes a critical discussion • Postings by at least three (3) days (but sooner if possible) before the next class period. • Opposer Rubric Criterion

6. Monitor • Reads the responses from two other groups and reports back to the home group. • Helps the home group understand the relationship between their ideas and the ideas addressed by the other groups. • Complete postings by at least three (3) days (earlier if possible) before the next class period. • Rubric Criterion • Summarizer • Summarizes the discussion and conclusions of the home group Shares this paragraph for the group's approval. • The group will respond to this summary. • The summarizer submits a revised paragraph to the home group • Posts by at least two (2) days (earlier if possible) before the next class period. • Rubric Criterion

7. Data Sources • Transcripts of Conversation • In class Fishbowl Discussions • Fishbowl Papers by Proposers • Email communications ANALYSIS • Content Analysis on the go (Round 1-5) searching for patterns across and within groups • More formal analysis across questions and data sources • Student Focus Group at the end of the semester

8. Preliminary Findings • Modifying the “on the run” process that evolves with student questions- revised rubrics as questions emerged. I had not envisioned how the monitoring would work and the degree to which each person was required to interact with people in each role. Expanded roles so that to a certain degree everyone led a discussion- Monitors took the lead on this. Summarizer still in process- everyone likes the summary of the summarizer and says that the person captured everything.( Change the assignment and rubric to address what the issues that discussion missed that were addressed in the article) • A weak leader impacts the tone of the conversation although this changed in Round 2 and Round 3 • Selection of the article is key- when leaders selected articles which were appropriate to their level or area – the conversation was more in-depth (leader role) and vice versa • Modeling seems helpful- when professor intervened during discussion with a probing question or gave feedback on the process after each session it seemed to facilitate the process in the next round • Monitoring conversations about what others were discussing were often in-depth and facilitated in in-class face-to-face conversations between Fishbowl Group and others

9. Preliminary Patterns • At first there were lots of procedural questions. (Are we supposed to respond to everyone?) • Opposers are not wanting to be the devil’s advocate- hedging • Monitors, Opposers emerged as discussion leaders • Tendency for some to judge content of article by appropriateness to own setting versus thinking about the conditions under which the ideas might be applicable • Most appeared to be engaged with insightful comments- while a few seemed to be logging on one day and responding to others in a perfunctory way (task oriented) • If students did not know about something they might look it up online and bring the info back to the group to ponder, others would say they did not know about something and leave it at that. • One student actually accessed articles read by other groups on the same topic when she served as the monitor! • Some examples of conditional thinking.

10. Strengths Conversation was broadened through monitoring of other groups- impacted in-class discussion as well Opportunity to merge professional literature and research-based practices with curriculum Weaknesses Technical glitches- Blackboard is down or human error Labor Intensive grading and monitoring student discussions Did not capitalize on the resources of the Internet- only print based articles. Need to address article selection process Students needed to warm up- An in-class computer-lab session to scaffold discussion would be helpful. (Sink or swim on Round 1 is not a good idea)

11. Next Steps • Conduct a more fine-tune analysis and review student Focus Group Data • Revise article selection process- whole group must agree upon articles prior to discussions according to criteria ? OR My own selection of article for different levels coupled with an anticipation reaction guide- Before and After Reading Activity) • Rework Summary Process and rubric so that Summarizer must revisit the articles once more • Use new and revised rubrics which are in place for Monitor, Proposer, Opposer-or revise rubric as a checklist with just the criterion listed to facilitate grading • Set up a trial run with lots of professor intervention-followed by a class discussion of the process- Provide proposer of Round 1 with opportunity to redo role on Round 5- Leadership Paper rubric revision • Rework Fishbowl so everyone is engaged more of the time • Rework Unit Grading Checklist to include a reflection on each of the topics to explain how ideas would be integrated into their unit. Right now it can only inferred by their activities.