The aims of the investigation

The expectations of the curriculum at Key Stage Two in Information and Communication Technology require students to be enquiring about current and future practices, and enable the students to investigate ways of communicating to the wider world. The statutory content states that pupils should know ‘how to share and exchange information in a variety of forms,’ as well as ‘describe and talk about the effectiveness of their work with ICT, comparing it with other methods and considering the effect it has on others.’ (2009)

I have informally noticed that, in the majority of classes, some children tend to dominate physical discussions and debates, for a number of reasons. Meanwhile, a different group of children tend to dominate online discussions, again for a range of reasons.

Many of the assumptions made regarding these reasons are based on generalisation, anecdote and quite unscientific assumption on my part, but it remains an area of great interest to me. My focus for this project is therefore to explore this main aim:

What factors which contribute to dominance in physical and online discussions, and are there areas which allow these factors to cross over?

By examining this, I am hoping to uncover reasons and explanations for dominance in discussions, where in this sense dominance represents active participation, rather than speaking at the exclusion of others.

While there are undoubtedly benefits to this research, which I will briefly outline later in this proposal, a secondary aim for the research is to investigate further the areas to which I can contribute as a teacher in order to develop the participation of those who are unconfident in physical discussions. To that end, one further aim is:

Are there factors contribute to reticence in physical discussions, and are there aspects of online discussions that may reduce this reticence?

The rationale and main themes of this investigation

The growth of ‘social’ tools online is growing at an exponential rate. Sites and services that foster better communication among friends, family and colleagues are offered and expanded upon at a rate that is hard to measure and track, let alone participate in.

As Clay Shirky notes in ‘Here Comes Everybody ‘(2008), social tools are a simple technology to foster for younger generations, raised with a computer screen in the corner of their lives. Indeed the British Government has shown some foresight in expecting each school to provide a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) for their pupils, which offers activities, assessment and communication tools to engage students in their learning.

One such site is www.edmodo.com, described by its owners as ‘Free Private Microblogging For Education’, where microblogging is roughly defined as typing a small section of text, typically around 140 characters, that others can read. With Edmodo however, this is a walled garden; access is though an approved password, and those in a group (teacher and pupils) can only see and speak to each other online – no-one else is allowed.

Limited use of this service with classes has led me to believe that some children, who are reticent in class, become more ‘textually-vocal’ online. The basis for my proposal aims to explore this new use of communication with one year group at my school, while at the same time exploring the children’s perceptions of their participation levels.

While this investigation aims to explore factors that contribute to dominance in discussion, so a structure will be imposed, there are nevertheless areas that are valid to consider in preparation.

Neil Mercer (2000) notes that much observational research has uncovered more disputational conversation between children, and that much talk is largely unproductive. However, Clark Moustakas (2005) has found that free discussion has been the most effective tool for building relationships with pupils.

Social anxiety was one factor regularly raised in informal discussions with colleagues. The perception of making a mistake or saying the wrong thing could of course contribute to a reluctance to speak out loud, but would this correspond accordingly online, when a response is less pressure-sensitive? As Jennifer Hudson (2008) notes, the mental anguish associated with asking for help or starting a conversation can be overwhelming for some, while Asendorpf and Meier’s research (1995) has recognised that the more unfamiliar the situation, the less likely a shy child is to speak.

While it is outside the possibility of this study to investigate the level of discussion held at home, it is possible, via the questionnaire, to view the access to technology that children have, a logical thought being that more access to technology leads to better capabilities within it. Indeed, Stanley Pogrow (2009) has explored the educational benefit that low-income students can gain from discussions at school, so to explore any correlation would be enormously useful in terms of future support those children requiring it.

Considering gender as a possible contributing factor is necessary, not least because informal observation has encouraged a belief that males dominate more offline, whereas girls are more dominating online. Masden (2003) explored the role of gender in conversation among children, and found that it was a linguistic and social construct which is a post-structuralist perspective that can be examined as a factor.

Description of the evidence

To decide what types of evidence to collect, I created the diagram below sharing the areas my aims seek uncover, and considered which were the best forms of evidence to supply data, in order to focus my aims.

	Online	Offline
Dominance	?	?
Reticence	?	?

I would be able to track participation levels online by the electronic footprint their online entries in a fictitious discussion would leave behind. I would divide the class into two groups, and give each a discussion topic, focusing on their opinions of a statement, rather than a test of knowledge.

This would give me:

• A pattern of participation from each group;
• The level of participation from each member; and
• A transcript of the discussion

I also plan to run a similarly-themed discussion in a lesson. To make transcription of this discussion easier, I would run the discussion in the same groups as those run online. This transcription would give me:

• A pattern of participation from each group;
• The level of participation from each member; and
• A transcript of the discussion

With this information, I would be able to compare online and online participation levels, patterns and content from each member. It would not however reveal perceptions of participation, confidence levels in technology and confidence levels surrounding the area for discussion. To uncover this, I will also offer a small questionnaire for each student to complete after the discussions. This will aim to measure the areas outlined above, so that I can correlate actual participation versus perceived participation. Questions would include:

• How much do you like to be involved in debates and discussions?
• How much to you like to listen in discussions?
• How much do you like to speak in discussions?
• How much do you like to interact in discussions?
• What would help you speak out more in discussion?
• How confident are you at using technology?
• Can you touch-type? What speed can you type?

It should be possible to place all pupils on the grid devised, to see if there is any similarity or variance between online and offline participation levels, and between perception and actual participation.

By assimilating the results from the online and offline discussions, the transcriptions and questionnaire results, I should be able to answer my investigation’s aims with evidential clarity.

Ethical Issues

In undertaking this activity, I am recording the children’s voices, as well as digitally recording their responses to a questionnaire and online in edmodo.com To fully adhere to the guidelines provided by the British Association for Allied Linguistics (BAAL),  I would need to request permission from the parents of the children involved in this investigation, and assure them that no judgment, of their verbal and digital contributions would be made public. In addition, each pupil will be given a randomly-assigned name from the phonetic alphabet to trace them for the purpose of this investigation.

Methods used to analyse the evidence

Transcripts

The level of participation will be measured as a percentage of all contributions, with a note taken of the number of times they attempt to contribute, but are interrupted. It is noted that using the Edmodo system, it is not possible to be interrupted.

The opportunities for participation will be investigated through a linear record of the order in which the discussion took place. A student who speaks every fifth turn on average would be seen as participating more than every ninth turn for example.

The type of contribution would be recorded, categorised as:

0 – off-task comment             (‘is it lunch?)

1 – statement             (‘School uniform is a good idea.’)

2 – agreement                       (‘I agree with Echo.’)

3 – challenge             (‘I don’t agree with Foxtrot.’)

4 – question,                           (‘Won’t it cost more money?’)

The results for both the online discussion and offline discussion would then be compared and analysed.

Questionnaires

The responses to the questionnaires would be collated, and compared against actual participation.

in order to further explore the factors that children bring to their perceived roles in discussion, whether online and offline, and whether they match with their actual levels of participation.

References

Asendorpf, Jens & Meier, Gerd. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology; Jun93, Vol. 64 Issue 6

Internet Link: http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-1-and-2/subjects/ict/keystage2/index.aspx?return=/key-stages-1-and-2/subjects/index.aspx on 27th February, 2009

Hudson, Jennifer et al. Treating childhood behavioral and emotional problems: A step-by-step evidence-based approach. Eisen, Andrew R. (Ed); pp. 53-101. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, 2008.

Mercer, Neil. Words & Minds:: how we use language to think together, (2000), Routledge, Oxon, UK

Madsen, Lian Malai. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development; 2003, Vol. 24 Issue 1/2

Moustakas, Clark E., The teacher and the child: Personal interaction in the classroom. Moustakas, New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill. xiv,

Pogrow, Stanley, Phi Delta Kappan; Feb2009, Vol. 90 Issue 6,