methods of oxford university‟s tutorial in the high school...
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 1
Methods of Oxford University‟s Tutorial in the High School Classroom: Using Discussion
Based Learning to Increase Student Performance
Emily Lott
Columbus State University
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 2
Introduction
Background
The Tutorial System is a higher educational system adopted centuries ago by
England‟s Oxford and Cambridge Universities; which has now developed into the
conglomerate colloquial identity of Oxbridge. For this proposal, however, the main focus will
be set on Oxford‟s system in particular, not because one system shows greater promise than
the other, but due to the intimate knowledge the researcher has with the Oxford System. This
system, as W.S. Rouverol (1955) discusses in “The Tutorial System,” is quite different than
its American University counterpart (Rouverol, 1955, p.3) and also quite different from the
American high school.
For each subject, the pupil is required to write a paper and meet with a tutor once a
week, for eight weeks, to then discuss the paper they have written. Yet, the undergraduate
gains a degree in three years that an American counterpart would gain in four, and what the
Oxford system lacks in classroom hours, they make up for in intimate knowledge and
mastery of disciplines, enough knowledge that Rouverol suggests may even be equivalent to
an American Master‟s degree(p. 5). Thus, there is something to be learned from the Tutorial
System that is not used in traditional American schools, and being that the large difference is
the active dialog between tutor and pupil and intense preparation of knowledge, an increase
in discussion based lessons appears to be the answer.
Statement of the Problem
This proposal is an attempt to assist in adapting to the ever intruding limitations that
teachers experience daily; issues such as: classroom size, budgets for materials, and limiting
textbooks. The bulk of discussion based learning simply requires the students and their
voices, as they can be outside, in a gym, in the classroom, or even in the cafeteria. It also
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 3
teaches these students to engage. In a time when separation by technology is prevalent, this
type of learning delivers the verbal and conversational skills that are essential to surviving
and excelling students in the post-classroom environment. Thus, the problems of classroom
size and budget are both null to this form of learning. Granted, the first portions of
assimilating the knowledge can require some monetary expense, but after that point, there is
not a single cost to the teacher or student.
Review of Literature
A large portion of the initial intentions of this research were educated by Harwood‟s
(1989) article “The Nature of Teacher-Pupil Interactions in the Active Tutorial Work
Approach: Using Interaction Analysis to Evaluate Student-Centered Approaches.” This
article established that teachers regardless of intention typically still maintain attention in
what are considered student-centered approaches, and assisted in the determination that a
simple student-centered approach will not suffice in creating a larger understanding of a
discipline. This article created the understanding that a teacher must teach students to
academically spar with one another, and then also academically spar with the teacher.
Therefore, instead of a teacher becoming egotistically offended, they should rather take that
time as part of the passive conversational education being created for the student. As
Harwood dictates, “The successful implementation of any new pedagogy is crucially
dependent, at least initially, upon the roles and behavior of the teacher” (p.179). Thus, he
defines the initial accountability of teachers to take action against limited ability in the
classroom and conformity, and encourages teachers to experiment with structure and practice.
Rouverol‟s (1955) article, mentioned previously, also helped in defining where the
gap was between the American system of education verses the Oxford education. The detail
to which Rouverol outlines the oddities of both academic systems made the job of adapting
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 4
the higher education system to high school level much easier. Another article to help
exponentially in developing the classroom adaptation was Baxter‟s (1988) article “Turn-
Taking in Tutorial Group Discussion, Under Varying Conditions of Preparation and
Leadership.” This article was written to discover the reasons why turn-taking is difficult to
develop in the Tutorial System. A large portion of this article proposed and proved that
preparation is a key issue in creating authoritative students. Thus, creating a week of
preparation, much like students do in the tutorial system and then creating a week of
discussion in the classroom arose from the research in this article.
McQuillian‟s (2005) article “Possibilities and Pitfalls: A Comparative Analysis of
Student Empowerment,” is the final seminal article for the development of this research
proposal. McQuillian claims that the three areas that develop students to be most effective in
life are social, academic, and political (p. 642-643). Two of these are essentially exhibited
within the discussion based model of learning. A student will gain academic power by being
rehearsed on the concepts and vocabulary of a unit, while the discussion oriented class
requires students to participate socially within the classroom.
There are many articles that focus around either student-centered approaches in
various levels of education or reviews and quantitative research done on the Oxford tutorial
system. For further readings there are more articles included in the reference section that have
marginally helped conform the ideas of this proposal. Yet, none of these articles have created
the amalgamation of grade school academics and the authoritativeness required by the
Tutorial System. Therefore, the creation and enacting of this experiment will be bridging a
large gap between the higher educational triumphs of a long standing academic giant and a
potentially newly rejuvenated high school setting.
Hypothesis
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 5
Through the use of the Oxford Tutorial Model of discussion based learning, students
will gain higher performance grades at the end of an academic unit. If this research and
application is not effective, through the use of the Oxford Tutorial Model of discussion based
learning, students will see no change in their performance grade at the end of an academic
unit.
Method
Participants
The participants for this experiment consist of two eleventh-grade English classrooms
in Hardaway High School, located in the Muscogee County School District of the Georgia
Public School System. This school contains 1,736 students and offers grades 9-12. They
racially divide into: 1 American Indian/Alaska Native, 12 Asian/Hawaiian Native/Pacific
Islander, 0 Hispanic, 939 Black/Non-Hispanics, 651 White/Non-Hispanic, and 132 more
than one race students. 883 students are eligible for a free or reduced lunch. It is not a Title
One school and the student to teacher ratio is seventeen to one (2012). The demographics of
the two classrooms chosen should not be determined until after the selection of Class A and
B, as the demographics of a typical classroom are not controlled.
This lack of contrived selection will maintain and increase not only practicality for the
implementation of the discussion based method outside this experiment, but will also
increase the experiment‟s validity, as this is a real classroom setting. Any attempts to
manipulate the classroom will corrupt this experiment‟s validity. While the demographics are
not to be considered before beginning the experiment, they are to be recorded three times
within the experiment: before Unit One, before Unit Two, and after Unit Two. This is to
maintain a consistency within data reporting and to also to adequately remove any student
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 6
data that is not in all three recordings, as that indicates a student being removed or introduced
into the classroom during the experiment which will skew data findings.
The requirements for each classroom is that the same teacher, who has discussed the
classroom procedures with the researcher, teaches both classes, the students are being taught
within the same semester, and that they are both eleventh-grade classrooms with no Special
Education orientation. Thus, inclusion students may exist within the classroom, but these
classes should not be labeled either remedial or gifted as a whole. These two classrooms will
take on the titles of Class A and Class B for the remainder of the experiment and as stated,
are from the English/Language Arts discipline. However, this experiment, if found effective,
should be encouraged in all disciplines as improvements in any classroom are beneficial to
the education system.
Materials and Apparatus
The materials used within the experiment are a set of surveys and tests that correlate
with unit information. Unit One will be followed with Survey One and Test One; Unit Two
will be followed with Survey Two and Test Two. Survey One and Survey Two are identical
in every way. They contain a scale reading for qualitative information about the student
readiness for Test One and Test Two. They also contain two locations in which the students
can openly answer about what would have been beneficial and was beneficial in their
learning process during Units One and Unit Two. These surveys are not the primary data
point for the experiment, but do allow the research to gain some insight into each
participant‟s level of confidence, test preparedness, and educational preference. A sample
survey has been included in Appendix B.
Due to the focus on performance in this experiment, the primary data for this
experiment are Test One and Test Two, a pre-test and post-test scenario. Test One
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 7
information will derive directly from Unit One and should be modeled after the sample test in
Appendix C. Test Two information will derive directly from Unit Two and should be
modeled after the same sample test in Appendix C. This repetition in structure and specificity
in level of difficulty will allow for more reliability in the testing instrument and also more
validity in testing from the control Unit One to the experimental Unit Two. To gain even
further validity, the researcher and teacher will be required to hold a conference prior to each
test. These conferences will be conducted to assist in establishing the correct format for the
tests and also to maintain the level of difficulty for all given sections. Granted, difficulty is
subjective, but with an experienced teacher who understands student performance and the
researcher with which to confer, the tests should be fairly equitable. From this point, the
attempts to gain approval and then conduct the experiment can be made.
Procedure
The approval by the Muscogee County School District and the Principle of Hardaway
High School are essential to the continuation of this experiment. Once this experiment is
approved, and the paperwork located in Appendix is complete, each student within Class A
and Class B will be required to return a letter of consent from his or her guardian. A sample
of this consent form can be found in Appendix A.1. This will ensure that the experiment is
not rejected because of improper procedure. Once approval from all levels of Hardaway High
School and guardians of students are documented, and only when all approvals are gained,
may the research begin. There is an anticipated time schedule of three months for the
completion of the approval phase in this experiment.
Once the approval phase has gained completion, the research may begin. As the
selection of students is blind and quazi-experimental, the preliminary demographics of each
class will be notated by the researcher. In an effort to be able to study the depth of results at
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 8
the end of the experiment, each element of a student will be taken, including: age, gender,
socio-economic background, and race, any registrations with the American Disabilities Act
and disability services, and current class averages that exist before the experiment begins.
These demographics should not change the way in which the teacher should teach the class, it
is only to gain further information later in the experiment. However, if the researcher feels
that these factors will sway a teacher, to continue keeping this experiment reliable, the
teacher should not be allowed access to student demographics and will only be able to infer
items within the classroom.
Both classes will begin with Unit One, which will be taught will no discussion based
techniques, but in a similar fashion in both classes. This Unit and Unit Two will remain
within the Georgia Eleventh Grade English Standards, as removing the students from the
required subjects will remove this experiment‟s validity for practical use. When Unit One is
complete, Class A and Class B will take Survey One and Test One. Survey One will be
administered the day of Test One. Test One will correlate with the information provided in
Unit One. It will contain varying levels of difficulty and formulation in regards to the
information learned. From this point the researcher and the teacher must remain blind to the
results of Test One, as validity within the experiment will drop if either is swayed within Unit
Two to teach differently, due to results in Test One.
However, when this data is developed at the end of the experiment, the researcher will
use this information as a foundational level of performance for Class A and Class B. These
grades will be examined in comparison of one another and also cross-examined from the
results of Unit Two. Unit One should last the same amount of time anticipated for Unit Two.
Ideally, the time needed is up to the teacher instructing the students, but since the discussion
based design for a large classroom indicates two weeks, Unit One will take two weeks to
complete as well.
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 9
At the start of Unit Two, a second recording of demographical data will be taken,
including: age, gender, socio-economic background, race, and any registrations with the
American Disabilities Act and disability services. It is important to record any changes in
class size and students from Unit One to Unit Two, as classrooms do not always maintain the
same number of students from week to week. If the research finds that a student has left
within either Unit One or Unit Two, all test scores and data of that student should be
excluded in the final data findings.
Within Unit Two, Class A and Class B will begin a pedagogical separation. Class B
will continue their lessons in the same manner taught in Unit One and will remain the control
group for this experiment. Their lessons will contain no discussion style teaching. However,
both Class A and Class B will be receiving the same information in Unit Two. If Class A and
Class B are not taught the same information, the experiment will be corrupted and thus
rejected.
Class A will be taught following the discussion based learning as adapted by the
Oxford Tutorial Method. The teacher involved will follow the class outline as designed
within Appendix D, and will not rely on students learning through individual work after
Week One of Unit Two. Once Unit Two is complete, the teacher will administer Survey Two
just before Test Two, an identical match to Test One in difficulty and structure. The only
difference from Test One to Test Two should be the information in which the students are
tested, as Test One will correlate with the information taught in Unit One and Test Two will
correlate with the information taught in Unit Two. Survey Two should also be identical two
Survey One. At this time, a third round of each student‟s demographics will be recorded, as
Classroom A and Classroom B‟s student population may have shifted within the two weeks
of Unit Two. This recording of demographical data will include: age, gender, socio-economic
background, race, and any registrations with the American Disabilities Act and disability
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 10
services. If the researcher has found a student has permanently left/ been removed from the
classroom within Unit One or Unit Two, this student‟s scores will be removed from data
interpretations as it is corrupted due to a lack of completion.
Data
Once the data is collected from Test Two, the researcher will then begin to examine
the data. This is a score based test which should be observed in two parts: the overall class
grade mean median and mode, and then each student‟s individual performance change from
Unit One to Unit Two. The individual performance change in test score from Test One to
Test Two will indicate if that student, if in Class A, responded in a positive or negative way
to the implementation of the discussion style teaching. The individual performance grades for
Class B are the controls for the information change from Unit One to Unit Two. This
increases the validity, as the performance grades should maintain the same quality in Class B.
However, if Unit Two was more or less difficult, the Class B performance grades will
indicate this issue, as Class B Test Two will show the same increased or decreased rate of
change from Test One. At this point, the researcher should include demographics, as one
demographic may respond better than another to the style of teaching. By comparing Test
One and Test Two of Class A, if there is a large change in a certain demographics‟
performance, this may propose more study in that specific field. If that is the case, part of the
information taken from this experiment is how to teach specific demographics in the
discussion based lesson. When considering data analysis of the entire class, demographics
will play much less of a role.
The overall class grades will be compared in multiple ways. From Unit One, Class A
and Class B mean grades will indicate a base level of understanding in regards to class
performance, as they compare to one another and as they will compare to Unit Two. Once
Unit Two is complete, Class A test scores from Test One and Test Two will be contrasted. If
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 11
the Class A average of Test Two scores is higher than Test One, the preliminary statement
that the discussion based model is effective may be made. However, Class B Test One and
Test Two should also be compared. If the mean for Test One to Test Two for Class B
increases substantially or at the same rate of Class A, then there will be an issue with the
statement, as that shows Unit Two was simply a less difficult Unit either in subject matter or
the design of Test Two. If Test Two for Class B increased at a higher rate that Test Two for
Class A, then it will be understood that the discussion model actually hurt the performance of
Class A.
This can only be reconciled by comparing the levels in which Class A and Class B are
performing. If Test One showed Class B as the higher performing class, then Test Two may
also show this fact. For this experiment to be positively effective, the rate of positive change
between Test One to Test Two for Class A should be substantially higher than that of Test
One to Test Two for Class B.
The Survey One and Survey Two data is simply that of collection and interpretation.
The researcher will look to see if students collectively felt more confident about Test One or
Test Two, and the researcher will also look to see if any students from Class A felt that the
discussion based model actually helped or hurt their test performance. Again, this is not the
primary focus of the experiment, but still gains an awareness of student confidence in the
classroom either increased by the discussion based lesson or decreased by the discussion
based lesson.
Timeline and Budget
Timeline
The timeline for this experiment is really dependent on the participation of the
Muscogee County School District and the Principle of Hardaway High School. This part of
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 12
the process could take three months to five months, depending on the time in which the
experiment is started. The proposal will be taken to the Muscogee County School District in
March of the experimental year, and then once approved, will be taken to the Principle of
Hardaway High School at an estimated time of mid-June to the first of July.
This timeline will allow students to be researched in the Fall semester of that same
year, or Spring if approval takes longer than anticipated. From this point, it is anticipated that
sending out consent forms and awaiting their arrival can take up to a month. Thus, the first
month of the school year, from mid-August to mid-September, will be designed to await
guardian approval. Once all consent forms have been documented, the experiment will last
four weeks. Unit One and Test One will take the first two weeks and Unit Two and Test Two
will take the second two weeks. From this point, the researcher will no longer need the
school‟s participation in a large capacity, and will begin data analysis. This will take no
longer than a month, as the data is fairly basic.
Budget
The budget for this experiment is also basic. Due to the auditory nature of the
discussion based lessons, much of the materials needed to teach Class A will not be needed.
Thus, the basic costs are: any fees incurred by approval from the Muscogee County School
Board, paper for the consent forms, paper for tests, paper for surveys, and the typical supplies
used for an English Unit. There are no special or outside costs that are to be created.
Monetary compensation for the teacher being researched is unacceptable as that may change
his or her performance and thus decrease the validity of the research.
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 13
References
Ashwin, P. (Nov., 2005). Variation in students‟ experiences of the „oxford tutorial.‟ Higher
Education, 50 (4), 631-644. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068115
Baxter, E.P. (1988). Turn-taking in tutorial group discussion, under varying conditions of
preparation and leadership. Higher Education, 17 (3), 295-306. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447066
Chiriac, E.H. (May, 2008). Higher Education 55 (5), 505-518. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29735201
Cornelius, L.L. & Herrenkohl, L.R.. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom
environment shapes students‟ relationships with each other and with concepts.
Cognition and Instruction, 22 (4), 467-498. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233886
Lopez, O.S. (Mar., 2007).Classroom diversification: A strategic view of educational
productivity. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 28-80. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4624887
Greenlaw, S.A. & DeLoach, S.B.. (2003). Teaching critical thinking with electronic
discussion. The Journal of Economic Education, 34 (1), 36-52. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30042522
Harwood, D. (1989). The nature of teacher-pupil interaction in the active tutorial work
approach: using interaction analysis to evaluate student-centred approaches. British
Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 177-194. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1500578
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 14
McQuillan, P.J. (2005). Possibilities and pitfalls: A comparative analysis of student
empowerment. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (4), 639-670. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699475
Newman, F.M., . Marks, H.M & Gamoran, A.. (Aug 1996). Authentic pedagogy and student
performance. American Journal of Education, 104 (4), 280-312. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1085433
Rouverol, W.S. (Jan., 1955). The tutorial system. The Journal of Higher Education, 26 (1), 1-
9+55-56. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1978106
Shimahara, N.K. (1983). Polarized socialization in an urban high school. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 14 (2), 109-130. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3216484
Van Zee, E. & Minstrell, J.. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 6 (2), 227-269. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466870
(2012) Find Good School: Hardaway High School Columbus Georgia. Retrieved from
http://findgoodschool.com/school/130387001397-HARDAWAY-HIGH-SCHOOL-
COLUMBUS-GA
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 15
Appendix A
Permission to Conduct Research Sample Form
Researcher:___________________________
Project/ Date: ___________________________
Institutional Affiliation: ___________________________
We the below signed, authorize ________________________ to conduct research in
Hardaway Schools for the semester of ______________________, with the constraints that
no student information or participation will be used without the written consent of the
guardian of that student and the student‟s permission. Failure to do so will result in
immediate closing of the research and will not be readmitted until proper permission
procedures are followed. All students within this research group have the right to reject
consent at any time within the research timeline. We, as the heads of the Muscogee County
School District and Principle of Hardaway High School can stop this research at any time
with due cause and will do so to protect and lead our school in the best way possible.
Signature of Superintendent of Schools Date
__________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Other Presiding Office Date
__________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Principle of Hardaway High School Date
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 16
Appendix A.1
Consent Form Sample Student/Guardian Inclusive
Hardaway High School
2901 College Drive
Columbus, Georgia 31906
(706) 748-2766
Dear Student Guardian and Student,
The Muscogee County School District and Principle of Hardaway High School have
approved a research study within your student‟s classroom. This experiment in no way will
cause undue stress on your student and is interested in improving the classroom in which
your student is learning. This experiment could be foundational in studying a solution to large
class sizes while also improving your student‟s performance as well as students in the future.
Your student will undergo two surveys and two tests that will be recorded. Your student‟s
participation may also be recorded as well as the demographics of each student. Your student
will remain anonymous and will only be recorded through the assignment of a random
number. No student names will be discussed in the research.
I, the parent or guardian of the student listed below, affirm my understanding that
this form is designed to gain consent to release all scores and class participation information
made by my student within the research time scheme. I also affirm that all demographical
information will be released with the understanding that my student will remain anonymous
and if given any identification will be one of randomized numerical value and not any given
or legal name.
I, the student also understand the above, and the procedures have been explained to
me in class as to what this research includes. I understand that any information released to the
researcher will be kept private and that my name will not be included in the publication for
privacy purposes.
___________________________________________________________________
Student Name (Print)
___________________________________________________________________
Student Signature Date
I grant permission for my student to participate in this research. Yes____ No___
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 17
___________________________________________________________________
Parent/Guardian Name (Print)
___________________________________________________________________
Parent/Guardian Signature Date
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 18
Appendix B
Survey
1. How do you feel about taking this test?
a. Not at all Confident
b. Somewhat Confident
c. Neutral
d. Confident
e. Very Confident
2. Do you feel that you are prepared to take this test?
a. Not at all prepared
b. Somewhat prepared
c. Neutral
d. Prepared
e. Very Prepared
3. Is there something that would have better helped you learn information in the Unit?
a. _______________________________________________
4. Is there something that you helped you learn information in this Unit?
a. _______________________________________________
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 19
Appendix C
Test One and Test Two Structure
Each Multiple Choice and Matching question are worth five points. The Short Answer
questions are worth fifteen points each. The total possible score for this test is 130 points.
Section A: Vocabulary- Multiple Choice, Medium Difficulty
1. Question
a. Answer A
b. Answer B
c. Answer c
d. Answer D
2. Question
a. Answer A
b. Answer B
c. Answer c
d. Answer D
3. Question
a. Answer A
b. Answer B
c. Answer c
d. Answer D
4. Questions
a. Answer A
b. Answer B
c. Answer c
d. Answer D
5. Question
a. Answer A
b. Answer B
c. Answer c
d. Answer D
Section B: Vocabulary- Matching, Medium Difficulty
1. Question A
2. Question B
3. Question C
4. Question D
5. Question E
Matching should contain correlating answers that are presented at random in a column to the
right of the questions.
Section C: Concepts- Multiple Choice, Hard Difficulty
1. Question
a. Answer A
b. Answer B
c. Answer c
d. Answer D
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 20
2. Question
a. Answer A
b. Answer B
c. Answer c
d. Answer D
3. Question
a. Answer A
b. Answer B
c. Answer c
d. Answer D
4. Questions
a. Answer A
b. Answer B
c. Answer c
d. Answer D
5. Question
a. Answer A
b. Answer B
c. Answer c
d. Answer D
Section D: Concepts- Matching, Hard Difficulty
1. Question A
2. Question B
3. Question C
4. Question D
5. Question E
Matching should contain correlating answers that are presented at random in a column to the
right of the questions.
Section E: Concepts- Short Answer
1. Question One should require the articulation of an easy concept taught in the Unit and
can be answered in less than 250 words.
2. Question Two should require the articulation of a difficult concept taught in the Unit
and can be answered in less than 250 words.
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 21
Appendix D
Example Unit Plan for Class A Unit Two
Week One
1. Day One: Introduction with PowerPoint Unit Vocabulary Definitions
2. Day Two: PowerPoint Jeopardy for Unit Vocabulary
3. Day Three: Apply Vocabulary to Concept in Unit
4. Day Four: Continuing Applying Concept through Written Work
5. Day Five: Question and Answer for Teacher about Concepts and Vocabulary
Week Two
1. Day One: Discussion- Each student gets one vocabulary work and must argue that
their word is the best word in Unit Two. If class finishes early, do another round
giving students different vocabulary words.
2. Day Two: Discussion- Each student is given a different vocabulary word and a
concept learned in class last week. They then tell the class how the vocabulary word
either connects or does not connect to the concept.
3. Day Three: Speed Tutorials- Pairs of students argue with one another about concepts
proposed by the teacher for five minutes and then rotate.
4. Day Four: Discussion- Students stand up at the start of class. Teacher pulls a name
and a concept or vocabulary word. The student then, in front of the class,
academically spars with the teacher. They can sit down when they finish their round.
5. Day Five: Survey Two and Test Two taken
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 22
Appendix E
Institutional Review Board Sample Submission Form- To be completed at time of research
Columbus State University
Institutional Review Board
Application for Institutional Review Board Review
Part I – To be completed by researcher:
General Instructions for Completion of Protocol: Unless otherwise instructed, type all
information in the area below each question, using as much space as necessary.
I. Principal Investigator(s):
-Name: ______________________ CSU ID: _______________ E-
Mail:_________________
Mailing Address: _____________________________________ Phone:
_________________
-Name: ______________________ CSU ID: _______________ E-
Mail:_________________
Mailing Address: _____________________________________ Phone:
_________________
-Name: ______________________ CSU ID: _______________ E-
Mail:_________________
Mailing Address: _____________________________________ Phone:
_________________
Faculty Supervisor (if applicable): ______________________ Department:
____________
Faculty Supervisor E-Mail: _____________________________ Phone:
_________________
II. Title of Project:
____________________________________________________________
III. Dates of Proposed Research: Start: ___________________ End:
___________________
IV. Source of Funding for the Protocol: _________________________________________
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 23
V. Purpose of the Study: In a brief statement, clearly describe your reason for performing
this study, including: 1) all of the objectives of the study (including hypothesis when
applicable), and 2) the anticipated outcomes.
VI. Description of Participants and Recruitment:
Number of Participants: ______
Age of Participants: ___ 18 and older ___ under 18 (specify age(s)): __________________
How are participants to be selected and recruited?
What is your relationship to the participants?
Compensation: If compensation is to be awarded for participation in the study describe
below, be specific. If no compensation will be given, state “none”.
VII. Methodology: Explain exactly what the participants will be asked to do. Include the
amount of time that each participant will need to devote to the study. Insert copies of any
questions or surveys that will be given to the participants. Researchers should take care not
to collect any data, especially demographics, unless doing so is necessary and they have
specific plans to analyze or otherwise make use of the data. Explain how each variable
measured supports the purpose of your study. If this is part of a thesis or dissertation, insert
the Methodology section of the thesis or dissertation proposal below. Use as much space as
necessary.
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 24
VIII. Risks of Participation: List all physical, economic, social, and/or psychological risks.
If the risks of harm to a participant are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily
life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations, then state:
“No more than minimal risk.” If, however, the protocol involves more than minimal risk,
specify procedures for protecting participants.
IX. Benefits: Describe the potential benefits to the participants and/or others as a direct
result of this research project.
X. Informed Consent Process: Explain the process through which you will provide the
potential participant all the information they need to decide whether or not to participate.
Append a copy of any written forms, cover letters, verbal scripts, and/or assent scripts that
you will use. Waiver of the informed consent process is limited to research involving the
collection or study of existing data, publicly available information, and observation of
unmanipulated public behavior where data is recorded in such a manner that identifiers
cannot be linked to individuals.
a. What types of information will be collected? Attach a copy of all survey instruments,
interview questions, word or activity tests, etc.
b. Will demographic information be collected? ___ Yes ___ No List all demographic
information that will be collected, if applicable:
c. Will participants be identifiable to anyone? If so, explain how their identity will be
safeguarded:
d. For what purpose is the information being collected (e.g., publication, thesis, dissertation,
presentation)?
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 25
XI. Electronic Signatures: This page may be submitted in hard copy if necessary. It may be
faxed.
Principal Investigator(s):
I understand and will abide by federal policy concerning human subjects research. In
addition, I agree to:
•Obtain approval from the IRB prior to instituting any change in project protocol.
•Inform the IRB immediately of any unforeseen risks or adverse effects.
•Keep signed consent forms, if required, from each participant for the duration of the project,
including publications.
•Submit a Continuation/Conclusion report at 12- month or shorter time intervals (as indicated
on the approval letter).
I accept the responsibilities indicated above. I have attached a copy of my training
certificate. (Attach training certificate only if not previously submitted.)
Signed: ______________________________________ Date: _____________
Principal Investigator 1
Signed: ______________________________________ Date: _____________
Principal Investigator 2
Faculty Advisor (if student-only project)
I have collaborated in the development of the research proposal described in the attached and
have reviewed all of the information enclosed and will oversee the work described. I will
endeavor to ensure that all of the PI responsibilities are fulfilled. I have read the protocol
submitted for this project for content, clarity, and methodology.
____________________________ __________________________ __________
Faculty Advisor (Please Print) Faculty Advisor‟s Signature Date
Part II - To be completed by the IRB:
The proposed research has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).
According to the Federal common rule regulation, it is designated:
Exempt
Expedited
Full Board Review
________________________________________________________________________
Approved
Not Approved
DISCUSSION BASED LEARNING TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE 26
Conditional approval with required modifications/recommendations.
Signature of IRB Chairperson or Member: ________________________________________
Date: __________________________________________________
*This format is found directly from researcher‟s home institution. The researcher is in no way
claiming this as her own design: http://research.columbusstate.edu/irb/process.php