Effects of Group Discussions on Actively Open-Minded Thinkingin Active Learning Classroom

Victoria Chen <victoria.chen@queensu.ca>

Research Question Methods

ResultsDiscussion

Background

Future Directions

Actively Open-minded Thinking (AOT) Scale(Stanovich and West, 1997) Active learning classrooms have become the latest solution in assisting the transition

from traditional teaching styles towards active learning techniques in university classrooms (University of Minnesota ALC Pilot Evaluation Team, 2008; University of Tennessee Teaching and Learning Center, 2012).

Although on a group level, students perform better in active learning classrooms compared to students in traditional classrooms, the individual cognitive processes that occur in these classrooms have yet to be the focus in this line of research. Are all students improving? Or are students with certaincognitive tendencies benefiting more than others?

Similarly, studies on individual cognitive disposition (e.g. Actively Open-minded Thinking, Stanovich & West, 2007) have yet to explore the implications of their research in the classrooms.

Typically these studies provide students with scripted arguments and perspectives on a topic rather than an actual interaction among students in the classroom(e.g., Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2013).

The current study investigates whether the active learning activity of group discussions

affects individual cognitive dispositions,

specifically Actively Open- minded thinking,

over the course of one term.

The scale contains 41 statements and is composed of multiple sub-categories: absolutism, dogmatism,

openness to ideas, openness to values,flexible thinking, and categorical thinking.

Statements are rated on a 6 point scale:

Actively Open-minded Thinking: Students were given the AOT Scale at the beginning and end of the semester. Although 28 students completed the pre-test, only 9 of these students completed the post-tests.

1- Disagree Strongly2- Disagree Moderately

3- Disagree Slightly4- Agree Slightly

5- Agree Moderately6- Agree Strongly

Samples using the AOT scale:

M = 168-170SD = 18.2-18.3

Group discussions: took place 5 times through-out the course. It required students to research on a given controversial topic in modern psychology toform a position, and come to the discussion with convincing arguments to support their position. In groups of 3-6 students engaged in discussion for 30-40 minutes during class.

The instructor walked around and sat with half the groups listening to their discussion, and spent

time at the instructor’s seat with students coming up to her to ask questions.

Reflection: During the 3rd and 5th

discussions, students were asked to fill out a reflection on the group discussion by comparing their initial position to their position after the discussion and listing evidence that led to their new stance.

Reflection Before discussion

After discussion

The pre-test AOT (N = 28) was normally distributed, and the mean AOT scores of this sample (M = 184.96, SD = 26.28) was higher than previous in samples (M = 168-170, SD = 18.2-18.3).

Pre-Post AOT (N = 9): A paired samples t-test demonstrated post-test AOT scores (M = 190.44, SD = 23.13) were significantly higher than pre-test AOT scores (M = 184.44, SD = 25.87), t(8) = 2.67, p = .03.

This study showed that AOT could be changed over a course of one term, especially in a classroom that involves various collaborative and group learning opportunities.

However, the findings from this study may be limited to this particular sample or course,therefore, future studies would need to be conducted across multiple courses in different fields.

Furthermore, in future studies, data from each discussion session should be collected in order to control for subject specific confounds such as their interest in the particular topic that week which may affect their willingness to listen to other perspectives.

Unchanged Changed More complex

D 3 7 0 2

D 5 3 2 4

Yourself 2 sources 3 sources 4 sources

0 3 5 1

Discussion reflections for the 3rd and 5th session

(N = 9) were compared, and the frequencies suggest a shift

in being more open-minded with more students reporting their

position has changed in discussion 5 than in 3.

For discussion 5, students were also asked to check off the source corresponding to the evidence

they provided that supported or opposed their initial stance.

This was the first time the AOT scale has been used to measure pre-post differences in Actively Open-Minded Thinking in a classroom setting. The sample as a whole started off with higher mean AOT than in previous samples which could have lead to a ceiling effect.

Post-test AOT were higher than the pre-test AOT

Group of 9 vs rest of sample: A Mann- Whitney U test showed the group of 9 were not significantly different from the rest of the sample.

AOT Results:

High vs Low AOT (N = 9): Using the sample’s mean as a cut off point, two groups were compared high AOT (N =5) and low AOT (N = 4) on their pre to post test difference.

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

Pre-test Post-Test

High AOT Low AOT

Independent t-test showed students with low AOT scores (M = 12.25, SD = 6.39) had higher increases in AOT than students with

high AOT (M = 1.60, SD = 3.36),t(7) = 3.24, p = .01.

Reflections support these findings, demonstrating students were

becoming more open-minded toother perspectives from these

discussions with increased position changes from discussion 3 to 5,

and reports of evidence coming from multiple sources.

Students with low pre-AOT had greater improvement in AOT than students with high pre-AOT

Reflection Results:

The frequencies demonstrate that students were gaining information from a number of sources,

further supporting evidence that students were open-minded.

However, even with the small sample, the predicted trends did occur: