Leading the Conversation: How Structured Discussion Can Improve Student Engagement in Psychology 101
Sarah E. Feliciano, Guttman Community College
Bio
Sarah E. Feliciano, M.A., is a researcher, adjunct lecturer, and Director of Master’s Program Administration in the Psychology Department at John Jay College. She teaches Psychology 101 for the College Now program, in partnership with Guttman Community College, and several undergraduate psychology courses at John Jay College. With a Master’s degree in Forensic Mental Health Counseling, Feliciano brings a trauma-informed approach to her research on abusive dynamics and a social justice perspective to her teaching.
Course Setting
I teach a 3-hour, online synchronous Saturday morning section of Psychology 101 for the College Now program, in partnership with Guttman Community College. The majority of my roster consists of juniors and seniors in high school.
Problem of Practice
While my students are actively engaged in class and have a solid grasp of the material—evidenced by their thoughtful journal entries and strong exam grades—they experience difficulty interacting with and discussing the material, thereby limiting critical thinking and their exposure to varying viewpoints; thus, my PoP considered the following: How can I increase the percentage of students who speak in class?Strategy
To increase verbal participation in my online synchronous PSY 101 course, I implemented structured discussion activities across three chapters: Research Methods, Social Psychology, and Personality. During each activity, students were placed into breakout rooms and given clearly-defined discussion roles intended to guide participation and reduce passive engagement. Initially, roles included facilitator, reporter, note-taker, and timekeeper; however, after early implementation, I refined the strategy so that each student became responsible for leading a different discussion question framed through a specific lens or perspective. For example, students might analyze a vignette from a therapeutic, theoretical, or social justice perspective, requiring each group member to contribute a unique viewpoint to the discussion and confer with their group for feedback.
Students were provided with clear written instructions, hypothetical scenarios or case vignettes, and designated collaboration time during class. Participation was monitored through Zoom breakout room microphone movement and audio transcripts to identify verbal engagement patterns. The rationale behind this strategy was grounded in reducing social loafing by assigning each student an identifiable responsibility and meaningful contribution to the group discussion, thereby increasing accountability, participation, and critical thinking.
Documentation
PDSA Cycle 2 (Trial #3 Activity and Example of Student Work)
This document contains instructions and a breakdown of roles for Trial #3, where each student was responsible for leading group discussion on a specific focus question. This activity was featured in our class on Personality. Students submitted the group consensus for the discussion question they led, and were able to read the vignette and answer directly on the document, simplifying the data collection process. Within the document, one vignette example (Character 3) and associated student responses are included.
Trial #1 Group Submission Form
This Google Form was used by each group during Trial #1. The form contains a link to the activity materials (research design examples), as well as an optional notepad for notetakers. Activity questions are detailed, and roles are outlined explicitly. This activity was featured in our class on Research Methods. https://forms.gle/3L3NRNKLAdX2cXNd7
Measuring Impact
PDSA Tracker
This is my central hub for data collection, including tabs to track trial data, track and assign roles, and to detail data collection measurements (i.e., how speaking in class vs. breakout rooms is tracked).
I gathered pre-test data on the second day of class to see how many students spoke in class, differentiating between students who:
1) Felt comfortable speaking in both class and breakout rooms
2) Felt comfortable speaking in class only
3) Felt comfortable speaking only in breakout rooms
4) Did not mute
Data was collected for baseline (3/7), Cycle #1 (Trials #1-2; 3/14 and 4/25) and Cycle #2 (Trial #3; 5/16). The percentage of students who spoke in class was calculated by combining students who spoke in class, breakout rooms, or both, divided by the roster minus absences.
Effects of Structured Discussion Roles on Verbal Participation
This line graph highlights the overall increase in students who spoke in class and the sharp decrease in students who did not unmute (45.00% to 6.25%) over the two PDSA cycles.
Analysis
The strategy was highly successful in addressing my problem of practice. Baseline verbal participation in class began at 55.00% and steadily increased throughout implementation, reaching 93.75% by Trial #3. Because PSY 101 is a lecture-heavy course, the structured discussions provided students with dedicated opportunities to collaborate, apply concepts, and refine their understanding through conversation with peers. Students’ written responses also provided insight into areas of conceptual misunderstanding and helped identify which topics required additional clarification during review sessions.
The strategy enhanced student learning experience by increasing both participation and accountability during discussions. Several students who were initially reluctant to speak eventually began contributing verbally within their groups and during larger class discussions. Overall, the observed outcomes aligned closely with my predictions regarding increased engagement and participation. Reviewing participation data and tracking student roles also informed changes to implementation. During the first cycle, I noticed some students consistently selected more passive responsibilities, which led me to revise the strategy in Cycle #2 so that each student became responsible for leading a discussion question from a specific perspective or lens.
Several challenges remained throughout implementation. Monitoring participation in breakout rooms was difficult, particularly when some students relied primarily on the chat box rather than verbal discussion, which slowed group interaction and reduced the effectiveness of collaborative time. Additionally, rotating and tracking roles during Cycle #1 became time-consuming, especially when accounting for student absences and re-explaining expectations. Since the course already covers a large amount of material in a limited timeframe, these logistical issues impacted pacing.
For future iterations, I will avoid rotating traditional group roles and instead assign students unique discussion perspectives for each activity, ensuring that every student is responsible for leading part of the conversation while remaining accountable for the group’s overall discussion.
Recommendation
I would recommend this strategy particularly for College Now or Early College classrooms that are online synchronous or contain students who may feel hesitant speaking in a college-level environment. Assigning students structured discussion responsibilities increases accountability while also reducing the pressure of “thinking on the spot,” since each student enters the discussion with a clear purpose and perspective. I found the strategy especially useful in a lecture-heavy introductory psychology course where students needed additional opportunities to apply abstract concepts to real-world situations.
For instructors implementing this strategy, I recommend keeping all materials and instructions in one place, modeling expectations with an example before breakout rooms begin, and designing roles that require each student to contribute verbally. This will optimize pacing and follow-through, but also account for when groups are uneven due to absences.