Is COPI a Better Pedagogical Model for Facilitating Learner Led Discussion Than the One Currently Implemented?

Abstract

This quasi-experiment aims to compare two pedagogical models, to see which is better at facilitating learner led critical discussion. I use two nonrandomised groups. The independent variable, whether communities of philosophical inquiry (COPI) was applied or not, is applied to the experimental group. The control group follows the premade lesson plan of the institution. For this, my quasi-experiment follows a mixed methods research design, using observations and an audio tape to gather qualitative data.The experimental group consists of fourteen, seventeen-year-old learners. They will partake in one COPI session on the content of their normal Religion and Philosophy (RP) lesson. The control group consists of eighteen, seventeen-year-old learners. They will undergo the institutions RP class. This quasi-experiment aims to answer the research question by measuring one dependent variable, speech. I planned to measure speech in different ways to test four hypotheses. I planned to use the hypotheses to address the research question. To test them, I would have observed, and audio recorded both lessons, then produced transcripts of each lesson. Concerning content analysis, I would have calculated the percentage of student talking time (STT) in comparison with teacher talking time (TTT), and the comparative percentages of learner to learner discussion. This data would have been displayed using pie charts. Using a tally chart, I would have counted the frequency and variety of critical dialogue. This would have been displayed in a bar chart. Comparing the representative graphs of the experimental group and the control group would have helped to create meaning towards answering the hypotheses and researchquestion. The quasi-experiment was not conducted, though the method has gone through a peer-review process. After peer review, improvements were suggested for the design of my quasi-experiment. It was noted engagement in critical discussion is not a guarantee that learning would have taken place. Using algorithms to test for surface and deep learning, providing more COPI sessions and using an exam to assess whether learning took place would increase the quasi-experiments effectiveness at answering the research question.