FACTORS DETERMINING STUDENTS ACTIVITY IN VIRTUAL DISCUSSION

Authors

  • Ilona Valantinaitė Professor of the Department of Entertainment Industries, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
  • Vaida Asakavičiūtė Dean of the Faculty of Creative Industries, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
  • Živilė Sederevičiūtė-Pačiauskienė Vice-rector for Studies Central Administration, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17770/etr2025vol3.8527

Keywords:

Student Engagement, Tools and Techniques, Virtual Discussions and Debates

Abstract

Debates and discussions have long been essential in university education, yet technological advancements have transformed their preparation, organisation, and evaluation. Historically, public discourse was limited to experts or those with social status. Today, digital platforms provide this opportunity to everyone, aligning with the creative society paradigm. However, this accessibility has blurred the distinction between free expression and structured debate skills. Although freedom of speech is a democratic right, it does not guarantee the ability to engage in meaningful discussions. Therefore, it is especially important to pay attention to teaching of debates and discussions or learning through discussion and debating in universities.

Various digital platforms incorporate algorithm-based tools for learning and discussion, but they often lack effectiveness, adaptability, and popularity. Mechanised tools developed without research are not effective and do not address the needs of the target audience. Therefore, the development of any machine learning tool, algorithm or platform should start with an experiential study of the target group. This study investigates what motivates students to actively engage in virtual discussions and what platform features encourage their sustained participation.

An empirical study was conducted with 61 first-year PhD students (average age: 31). They watched three movies, formulated discussion questions, and participated in online debates via Moodle. Subsequently, they reflected on their experiences and identified key engagement factors, which were categorized into seven themes: Meaning Construction; Topic Features; Task-Related Requirements; Requirements for Virtual Discussion Platform; Virtual Discussion Activity; Nature and Structure of Communication; Social Interaction.

The findings indicate that students are more active when the discussion topics are clear, directly related to their studies, and thought-provoking. Some students participate only due to assessment requirements, preferring in-person interactions. The study also highlights the growing issue of digital loneliness and the importance of fostering strong social connections in online learning environments. Additionally, an intuitive and visually appealing platform strengthens engagement, as students prefer tools that require minimal effort to navigate. Emotional connection with other PhD students, prompt responses from peers, and visible participant profiles further contribute to active participation.

These insights are essential for designing effective virtual learning environments. The study highlights the necessity of user-centred design, which ensures that online platforms are not only functional but also foster meaningful engagement, social interaction, and  enriching learning experience.

 

References

G. A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric in its Christian and Secular Traditions from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,1980.

T. Fuhrer, Augustine on Rhetoric and Dialectic in theory and practice. Classica - Revista Brasileira De Estudos Clássicos, 2006, 19 (1), https://doi.org/10.24277/classica.v19i1.107

C. Norris, Sophist or Antiphilosopher?, Journal of Critical Realism, 2012, 11 (4), pp. 487-498.

L. Tong and Y. Zhou, Indigenous dialogic teaching: Orality in a Tibetan school in China. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2023, 43, 100776.

L. Vedenpää and K. Lonka, Teachers’ and Teacher Students’ Conceptions of Learning and Creativity. Creative Education, 2014, 5(20), DOI: 10.4236/ce.2014.520203 Iman, J. N., & Angraini, N. (). Discussion task model in EFL classroom: EFL learners’ perception, oral proficiency, and critical thinking achievements. Pedagogika, 2019, 133(1), pp. 43-32. R. A. Fiordo, Editorial: Teaching: Education Through Communication. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET) / Revue de la Pensée Éducative. Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, 1978, 12, 1, pp. 1-2.

D. Jones, Moral psychology: The depths of disgust, 2007.

J. M. Tybur, D. Lieberman, R. Kurzban, and P. DeScioli, Disgust: Evolved function and structure. Psychological Review, 2013, 120 (1), pp. 65–84.

S. Benlamine, M. Chaouachi, S. Villata, E. Cabrio, C. Frasson and F. Gandon, Emotions in argumentation: An empirical evaluation. IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2015, 1, pp. 156-163.

E. Hargittai, E. Gasser, L. Magó and B. Smith, Why Do People Avoid Discussing Science and Religion on Social Media? Findings from a National Sample. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2024, 10, https://doi.org/10.1177/237802312412754 https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231241275430

K. Liberman, Philosophical debate in the Tibetan academy. The Tibetan Journal, 1992, 17 (1), pp. 36-67. M.-Y. Kima, Ian A. G. Wilkinsonb, What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2019, 21, pp. 70–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003

R. Wegerif, Dialogic: Education for the Internet Age. London and New York: Routledge, 2013. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, eds. Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge, Crossref, 1999.

J. Preece, Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, LTD, 2000. J. Lock and P. Redmond, Embedded experts in online collaborative learning: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 2021, 48, 100773, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100773

R. Alexander, A dialogic teaching companion. Abingdon, NY: Routledge, 2020.

C. Bereiter, Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. V. Asakavičiūtė, I. Valantinaitė and Ž. Sederevičiūtė-Pačiauskienė, “Discussion, debate and dispute at university as a method of study” in Conference dedicated to the Day of Europe “European future: philosophical and educational studies,” May 9-10, 2024, p. 11-20. L. Jackson, Academic freedom of students, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2021, 53(11), pp. 1108-1115, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1773798

B. Bitinas, Ugdymo filosofija. Vilnius, 2000. Lu Weixu, Socrates on Slack: Text-based, persistent-chat platforms as an alternative to “Zoom classes” in synchronous online learning, Communication Teacher 2022, pp. 141-150, DOI: 10.1080/17404622.2022.2117395 B. Stelter, S. Wojcicki, Retrieved 3 May 2020 from https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/04/19/inside-youtubes-numerous-policy-changes-during-the-pandemic.cnn V. Strauss, The Washington Post. [online]. www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/05/06/cuomo-questions-why-school-buildings-still-exist-says-new-york-will-work-with-bill-gates-reimagine-education/. [Retrieved 15 May, 2020]. M., J. Dennis, Digital well‑being under pandemic conditions: catalysing a theory of online flourishing. Ethics and Information Technology, 2021, 23, pp. 435–445, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09584-0 L. Corrin, K. Thompson, G.-J. Hwang, The importance of choosing the right keywords for educational technology publications. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(2), pp. 1-8, DOI: 10.14742/ajet.8087 D. Dunbar, M. Proeve and R. Roberts, Problematic Internet usage self-control dilemmas: The opposite effects of commitment and progress framing cues on perceived value of Internet, academic and social behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018, 82, pp. 16–33, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.039

S. Wade and C. Kidd, The role of prior knowledge and curiosity in learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2019, 26, pp. 1377-1387, DOI: 10.3758/s13423-019-01598-6 M. K. Van Vugt, A. J. Moye, J. Pollck, B. Johnson, Tibetan Buddhist monastic debate: Psychological and neuroscientific analysis of a reasoning-based analytical meditation practice. Progress in Brain Research, 2019, 422, pp. 233-253. DOI:10.31231/osf.io/5rhft CH., D. Green, Classics in the History of Psychology / A Theory of Human Motivation A. H. Maslow (1943). Psychological Review, 2000, 50(4), pp. 370-396.

S. McLeod, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology, 2024. A. Maceina, Pedagoginiai raštai. Vilnius: Šviesa, 1990.

WHO, Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2030. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2021. Y. Li, K. Godai, M. Kido, S. Komori, R. Shima, K. Kamide and M. Kabayama, Cognitive decline and poor social relationship in older adults during COVID-19 pandemic: can information and communications technology (ICT) use helps? BMC Geriatr, 2022, 22, 375. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-03061-z Y. Wang, M. Liu, F. Yang, H. Chen, Y. Wang and J. Liu, The associations of socioeconomic status, social activities, and loneliness with depressive symptoms in adults aged 50 years and older across 24 countries: findings from five prospective cohort studies. The Lancet Healthy Longevity, 2024, 5 (9), 100618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2024.07.001 T. Sims, A. E. Reed, D. C. Carr, Information and Communication Technology Use Is Related to Higher Well-Being Among the Oldest-Old. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 2017, 72 (5), pp. 761–770, https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw130 S. E. Neil-Sztramko, G. Coletta and S. Marr, Impact of the AGE-ON Tablet Training Program on Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Attitudes Toward Technology in Older Adults: Single-Group Pre-Post Study. JMIR Aging, 2020, 3(1), https://doi.org/10.2196/18398 S. Lash, Critique of information. London: Sage, 2002. X. Chen and G. Ding, New media as relations, Chinese Journal of Communication, 2009, 2(3), pp. 367–379. R. Schroeder, The Globalization of On Screen Sociability: Social Media and Tethered Togetherness, International Journal of Communication, 2016, 10, pp. 5626–5643.

Downloads

Published

08.06.2025

How to Cite

FACTORS DETERMINING STUDENTS ACTIVITY IN VIRTUAL DISCUSSION. (2025). ENVIRONMENT. TECHNOLOGY. RESOURCES. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, 3, 361-368. https://doi.org/10.17770/etr2025vol3.8527