• Keyword
  • Volume/Page
  • DOI
  • Citation
  • Advanced
 
   
 
 

2008, AER, 7 (1), 37, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2008004

What Are They Talking About? Lessons Learned from a Study of Peer Instruction

Published 7 July 2008

Mark C. James, Federica Barbieri, and Paula Garcia

Northern Arizona University

Full Text: Read Online (HTML) | Download PDF | View Cart
Electronic classroom response systems (CRSs) have been in use in large college lectures for over three decades. Such systems are designed to provide instructors and students with immediate statistical analyses of student electronic responses to multiple-choice questions posed to the class by the instructor. The technique known as peer instruction uses a CRS to tabulate student responses after students have had an opportunity to discuss ideas with seat partners. In this study, we investigate recorded peer CRS conversations collected in two introductory astronomy courses over two semesters. Findings suggest that when instructors adopt a high-stakes grading incentive that assigns little credit for incorrect CRS responses rather than providing forums for the spontaneous exploration of nascent ideas, conversations tend to become dominated by a single partner as students attempt to earn maximum credit for a correct answer. We also present a comparison of two methods for studying conversation bias in peer instruction discourse that could be valuable to other researchers interested in studying peer discourse.

© 2008 Mark C. James. Copyright assigned to the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.

KEYWORDS and PACS

PACS

ARTICLE DATA

History
Received 11 January 2008
Published online 07 July 2008

  1. Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Loenard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. 2006, “Designing Effective Questions for Classroom Response System Teaching,” Am. J. Phys., 74(1), 31AJPIAS000074000001000031000001.
  2. Bruff, D. 2007, “Classroom Response Systems.” Retrieved January 6, 2008 from Vanderbilt University, Center for Teaching Web site: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/resources/teaching_resources/technology/crs.htm.
  3. Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. 2005, “Peer Instruction Enhanced Meaningful Learning: Ability to Solve Novel Problems,” Advances in Physiology Education, 29(1–4), 107.
  4. Duncan, D. 2006, “Clickers: A New Teaching Aid with Exceptional Promise,” Astronomy Education Review, 5(1), 70AERSCZ000005000001000070000001.
  5. Edelsky, C. 1993, “Who's Got the Floor?” in Gender and Conversational Interaction, D. Tannen (Editor), New York: Oxford University Press, 189.
  6. James, D., & Drakich, J. 1993, “Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk: A Critical Review of Research,” in Gender and Conversational Interaction, D. Tannen (Editor), New York: Oxford University Press, 281.
  7. James, M. C. 2006, “The Effect of Grading Incentive on Student Discourse in Peer Instruction,” Am. J. Phys., 74(8), 689AJPIAS000074000008000689000001.
  8. Kaartinen, S., & Kumpulainen, K. 2002, “Collaborative Inquiry and the Construction of Explanations in the Learning of Science,” Learn. Instr., 12, 189.
  9. Len, P. M. 2007, “Different Reward Structures to Motivate Student Interaction with Electronic Response Systems in Astronomy,” Astronomy Education Review, 5(2), 5AERSCZ000005000002000005000001.
  10. Mazur, E. 1991, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  11. McFayden, R. G. 1997, “The Relationship between Powerless Speech, Agentic Behavior, and Amount of Talk,” Journal of Social Psychology, 137(4), 470.
  12. Meltzer, D. E., & Manivannan, K. 2002, “Transforming the Lecture-Hall Environment: The Fully Interactive Physics Lecture,” Am. J. Phys., 70(6), 639AJPIAS000070000006000639000001. [ISI]



Close
ADVERTISEMENT

close