Abstracts
Abstract
This research focuses on the use of breakout rooms in online classes at a private university in Saskatchewan, Canada. It aims to explore factors that contribute to successful collaborative graduate student learning experiences and identify challenges students face during peer-to-peer interactions in breakout rooms. A qualitative research approach was employed and data were collected through a qualitative survey and focus group discussion. The survey was distributed to graduate students in three unique online courses within the college of education at the university. The findings highlight a variety of breakout room activities, ranging from open-ended discussions to problem-solving exercises facilitated by collaborative tools such as shared documents and Padlet. The students expressed a preference for activities that were simpler and more accessible, which fostered teamwork and facilitated the exchange of ideas among group members. The challenges that students mentioned dealt with the non-availability of written instructions for activities, unequal participation or dominance by group members, and potential conflicts arising from differing opinions. Recommendations include further exploration of innovative tools to enhance virtual collaboration, comparative studies across different academic levels, and investigations into the long-term impacts of breakout room usage on student learning outcomes.
Keywords:
- breakout room,
- collaborative learning,
- graduate students,
- online environment
Résumé
Cette recherche porte sur l'utilisation des salles de petits groupes dans les cours en ligne d'une université privée de la Saskatchewan, au Canada. Elle vise à explorer les facteurs qui contribuent à la réussite des expériences d'apprentissage collaboratif des personnes étudiantes aux cycles supérieurs et à identifier les défis auxquels les personnes étudiantes sont confrontées lors des interactions avec leurs camarades de classe dans les salles de petits groupes. Une approche de recherche qualitative a été utilisée et les données ont été recueillies à l’aide d'une enquête qualitative et d'une discussion de groupe. L'enquête a été distribuée aux personnes étudiantes aux cycles supérieurs dans trois cours en ligne uniques dispensés au sein de la Faculté d'éducation de l'université. Les résultats mettent en évidence une variété d'activités menées dans les salles de petits groupes, allant de discussions ouvertes à des exercices de résolution de problèmes facilités par des outils collaboratifs tels que des documents partagés et Padlet. Les personnes étudiantes ont exprimé leur préférence pour des activités plus simples et plus accessibles, qui favorisaient le travail d'équipe et facilitaient l'échange d'idées entre les membres du groupe. Les défis mentionnés par les personnes étudiantes concernaient l'absence d'instructions écrites pour les activités, la participation inégale ou la domination de certains membres du groupe, et les conflits potentiels résultant de divergences d'opinions. Les recommandations incluent l'exploration plus approfondie d'outils innovants pour améliorer la collaboration virtuelle, des études comparatives entre différents niveaux académiques et des recherches sur les impacts à long terme de l'utilisation des salles de petits groupes sur les résultats d'apprentissage des personnes étudiantes.
Mots-clés :
- salle de petits groupes,
- apprentissage collaboratif,
- personnes étudiantes aux cycles supérieurs,
- environnement en ligne
Appendices
Bibliography
- Ahmed, K. M. (2021). The impact of utilizing breakout rooms in ESL distance learning from students’ perspectives [Unpublished manuscript]. Faculty of Education, British University in Dubai. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350771174_The_Impact_of_Utilizing_Breakout_Rooms_in_ESL_Distance_Learning_from_Students_Perspectives
- Akpan, V. I., Igwe, U. A., Mpamah, I. B. I., & Okoro, C. O. (2020). Social constructivism: implications on teaching and learning. British Journal of Education, 8(8), 49–56. https://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Social-Constructivism.pdf
- Almazmome, M. R. (2022). Students’ interaction in breakout rooms. In Higher Education - Reflections from the Field. IntechOpen. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366829302_Students'_Interaction_in_Breakout_Rooms
- Alzahrani, I., & Woollard, J. (2013). The role of the constructivist learning theory and collaborative learning environment on Wiki classroom, and the relationship between them. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference for e-Learning & Distance Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539416.pdf
- Antunes, J., & Farooq, M. (2022). Reimagining online and blended provision of English for academic purposes: Practices and reflections from a distributed network in East Africa. Teacher Education through Flexible Learning in Africa, 3(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.35293/tetfle.v3i1.3713
- Carr, G. (2023). “Give me a minute, I just need to put you into your groups”: Transferring group activities to the online space using breakout rooms. Postgraduate Pedagogies, 3(2), 58–65. https://www.journals.studentengagement.org.uk/index.php/gtateach/article/view/1192
- Chacon, M., Levine, R. S., & Bintliff, A. (2023). Student perceptions: How virtual student-led talking circles promote engagement, social connectedness, and academic benefit. Active Learning in Higher Education, 25(3). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14697874231179238
- Chandler, K. (2016). Using breakout rooms in synchronous online tutorials. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 4(3), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v4i3.216
- Douglas, S. (2023). Achieving online dialogic learning using breakout rooms. Research in Learning Technology, 31, 2882. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v31.2882
- Fotaris, P., & Mastoras, T. (2019, October). Escape rooms for learning: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning (Vol. 2019(1), pp. 235–243). https://cris.brighton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/7029200/Escape_Rooms_for_Learning_ECGBL_Fotaris_Mastoras_final_draft.pdf
- Gimpel, G. (2022). Bringing face-to-face engagement to online classes: Developing a high-presence online teaching method. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 22(4), 32–49. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1376720.pdf
- Hollister, B., Nair, P., Hill-Lindsay, S., & Chukoskie, L. (2022). Engagement in online learning: Student attitudes and behavior during COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 7, 851019. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.851019
- Huang, Y. C. (2021, May). Comparison and contrast of Piaget and Vygotsky’s Theories. In 7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2021) (pp. 28–32). Atlantis Press. https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/ichssr-21/125956903
- Kapur, R. (2018). The significance of social constructivism in education. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323825342_The_Significance_of_Social_Constructivism_in_Education
- Marshall, C., Rossman, G., & Blanco, G. (2022). Designing qualitative research (7th Ed.). Sage Publication.
- Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
- Nisa, L. Z., Prameswari, T. N., & Alawiyah, Y. I. (2021). The effect of using small group discussions through zoom breakout room to increase the frequency of individual speaking participation in the speaking courses. Journal of Digital Learning and Education, 1(3), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.52562/jdle.v1i3.264
- Nordmann, E., Horlin, C., Hutchison, J., Murray, J.-A., Robson, L., Seery, M. K., & MacKay, J. R. D. (2020). Ten simple rules for supporting a temporary online pivot in higher education. PLOS Computational Biology, 16(10), e1008242. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008242
- Punch, K. F. (2006). Developing effective research proposals. Sage Publication.
- Read, D., Barnes, S. M., Hughes, O., Ivanova, I., Sessions, A., & Wilson, P. J. (2022). Supporting student collaboration in online breakout rooms through interactive group activities. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, 17(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1334495.pdf
- Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Journal of Physics, 65(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18498
- Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publication.
- Saltz, J., & Heckman, R. (2020). Using structured pair activities in a distributed online breakout room. Online Learning Consortium, 24(1), 227–244. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1249342
- Sharmin, S., & Zhang, L. Y. (2022). Experience report on the use of breakout rooms in a large online course. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education – Volume 1 (pp. 328–334). https://doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499328
- Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations. Sage Publication.
- Tsihouridis, C., Batsila, M., Tsihouridis, A., & Vavougios, D. (2022). Learning to be together again! Using virtual breakout rooms to fill the communication and cognitive gap in online classrooms. In M. E. Auer, H. Hortsch, O. Michler, & T. Köhler (Eds.), Mobility for Smart Cities and Regional Development - Challenges for Higher Education. ICL 2021 (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Vol. 389, pp. 370–381). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93904-5_38
- Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1759–1785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00404.x
- Wachenheim, C., Idowu, A., & Hanson, E. (2023). Student feedback on use of breakout rooms. NACTA Journal, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v67i1.100
- Wali, F. A., & Tammam, Z. (2024). The effectiveness of breakout rooms in blended learning: A case study in the faculty of engineering, design, and information technology (EDICT) degree at Bahrain Polytechnic. In Embracing Cutting-Edge Technology in Modern Educational Settings (pp. 69–92). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-1022-9.ch004
- Wilkins, S., Butt, M. M., Hazzam, J., & Marder, B. (2023). Collaborative learning in online breakout rooms: the effects of learner attributes on purposeful interpersonal interaction and perceived learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(2), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2022-0412
- Veldkamp, A., van de Grint, L., Knippels, M. C. P., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2020). Escape education: A systematic review on escape rooms in education. Educational Research Review, 31, 100364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100364
- Vygotsky, Lev (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
- Zhan, H. (2008). The effectiveness of instructional models with collaborative learning approaches in undergraduate online courses [Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University]. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/125783/