Online and face-to-face discussions in the classroom: a study on the experiences of 'active' and 'silent' students

Even though the advantages of online discussions over face-to-face discussion formats has been extensively reported and investigated, the blending of online discussion tools in co-located classroom settings has been considered with far less intensity. In this paper, we report on secondary school students’ experiences and preferences concerning two different discussion formats in co-located classroom settings, namely face-to-face (F2F) and synchronous, computer-mediated communication (CMC). In addition, we also differentiate between students that are known to be active participants in F2F classroom discussions and those who usually remain silent. The findings highlight several advantages of CMC over F2F discussions in co-located settings and show that different students ('active' and 'silent') experience F2F and computer-mediated communication differently. Introduction Many theories of learning have recognized the importance of peer dialogue in learning and teaching (e.g., Rogoff, 1998; Wegerif, 2007). However, whereas passive observation of peer dialogue may be beneficial in some cases, several studies have shown that it is the active participation in processes such as constructing explanations , providing help and engaging in dialectical argumentation that seem to be responsible for the more substantive learning gains (e.g., Asterhan & Schwarz, 2009; Chi, Roy & Hausmann, 2008; Webb, Troper & Fall, 1995). When implemented in authentic classrooms, discussions usually take on a format of teacher-led classroom discussions or small group peer discussions. Both formats have significant shortcomings which may reduce the effect of the advantages of un-moderated peer dialogue (e.g., superficial student involvement, unequal participation rates and extensive teacher interference, and disorganization, peer dominance and lack of coherence, respectively). Computer-mediated discussion boards have been suggested to be able to overcome several of these shortcomings: First of all, and as has been discussed extensively (e.g., Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire, 1984), a great deal of the non-verbal cues that are present in face-to-face (F2F) communication are lacking in distributed CMC. Since these non-verbal cues are, among others, used to assess social status, computer-mediated communication has the potential of being more democratic (Herring, 2004). Moreover, the increased anonymity of on-line communication is thought to cause people to become less inhibited and to self-disclose more frequently (Suler, 2004). This decrease of authority, social status and inhibitions in combination with the lack of need to compete for speaking rights may thus promote free expression of individual standpoints and increased and equalitarian participation by all discussants. In addition, the textual medium of communication, the ability to re-read and re-vise contributions, and the fact that in a-synchronous CMC there is an increase in the amount of time available to think and consider one's response before posting it, are all thought to encourage reflection (Guiller, Durndell, & Ross, 2008; Kim, Anderson, Nguyen-Yahiel, & Archodidou, 2007). Others have argued that even though F2F discussion modes may be particularly suitable for the creation of new ideas and for brainstorming, a-synchronous CMC promote explicitness in communication and increase the rate of substantive and reasoned contributions (Kim et al, 2007; Newman, Webb, & Cochrane, 1995). This, in turn, may have been the result of increased opportunities for reflection and the need to be more explicit in light of the lack of nonverbal cues. However, most of the studies that compare F2F with on-line discussion formats have focused on textbased discussion environments that occur in a-synchronous, distributed, distant communication modes (such as in the framework of e-courses, homework assignments, and after-school social communication). In this study we will focus on the blending of synchronous, text-based discussion tools within co-located classroom settings, a topic that has, thus far, rarely been the focus of research (Cuban, 2002). The use of on-line communication in co-located settings may combine some of the advantages of online communication, without some of the potentially problematic aspects of distant, anonymous communication formats in educational settings: On the one hand, its textual nature, lack of non-verbal cues, persistence of contributions and simultaneous nature may encourage reflection, explicitness, interactivity and participation. On the other, student discussants share a physical space, they personally know their discussion partners and the teacher is physically present. This could avoid some of the negative sides of distant, anonymous CMC in secondary education settings, such as teacher difficulty to verify whether a certain task is actually completed by the student or not, instances of flaming and other social disturbances, and lack of accountability for communication content. Another difference with the above-mentioned studies and the present one concerns the fact that the former have mainly focused on objective rates and aspects of communication and have not explored how these different communication formats are perceived and experienced by the students using them. In the present study, we then seek to investigate students’ preferences of and experiences with two different discussion formats (F2F and CMC) in co-located classroom settings. We focus on several discussion aspects, such as participation, interactivity, learning and classroom management. The student population should not be considered as homogeneous in their behavior and in their preferences for different communication modes (see also Caspi, Chajut, Saporta, & Beyth-Marom, 2006, Eisenmann & Even, in press). We therefore differentiate between students that are known to be active participants in F2F classroom discussions ('active' students) and those who do not participate frequently ('silent' students). We expect that they differ in the extent to which they welcome the introduction of these new technologies in the classroom: Compared to active students, silent students are expected to show a stronger preference for the online format. We also expect this difference to be strongest for discussion characteristics that involve rate of participation, rate of peer interaction and motivation.