2014
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.915300
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How the initial thinking period affects student argumentation during peer instruction: students’ experiences versus observations

Abstract: The authors have compared students discussing multiple-choice quizzes during peer instruction with and without the initial thinking period before discussion. Video clips of students engaged in peer discussion in groups of three of varying group combinations, a total of 140 different students in all, were compared to students' own experiences extracted from group interviews (16 students in groups of four and a total of seven interviews) and survey results (109 responses). The initial thinking period was found t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0
3

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
14
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Such findings suggest that collaborative learning occurred when students discussed their answers, but it was beyond the scope of these studies to analyze the students' interactions. Although Nielsen and colleagues video-taped students while they were discussing clicker activities, their analysis focused on the amount of time individual students spent presenting arguments, as opposed to the degree of collaboration evident in each argument (Nielsen et al, 2014). As a result, it is difficult to determine under which conditions students engage in the critical thinking and higherorder skills attributed to collaborative learning versus when their discussions are more akin to peer teaching with one expert student simply explaining the answers.…”
Section: Collaboration and Clickersmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Such findings suggest that collaborative learning occurred when students discussed their answers, but it was beyond the scope of these studies to analyze the students' interactions. Although Nielsen and colleagues video-taped students while they were discussing clicker activities, their analysis focused on the amount of time individual students spent presenting arguments, as opposed to the degree of collaboration evident in each argument (Nielsen et al, 2014). As a result, it is difficult to determine under which conditions students engage in the critical thinking and higherorder skills attributed to collaborative learning versus when their discussions are more akin to peer teaching with one expert student simply explaining the answers.…”
Section: Collaboration and Clickersmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…If they have negative perceptions about collaboration, then it can influence their attitudes toward the course content (Slusser & Erickson, 2006). In addition, it is possible that one student in a pair or group can dominate the conversation (Nielsen, Hansen, & Stav, 2014;Wolfe, 2012), which can negatively impact students' willingness to engage in collaborative learning. Furthermore, the need to compromise in order to reach consensus may be frustrating for some students (Gachago et al, 2010).…”
Section: Collaborative Learningmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Algumas pesquisas mostram a eficiência do método PI em diversas áreas como no trabalho de Oliveira et al (2015), que introduziu o método no ensino de eletromagnetismo; Nielsen et al (2016) Lima et al (2016) apresentaram experimentos na disciplina de lógica de programação, mostrando resultados que melhoraram a motivação em sala de aula. Na literatura, essas são algumas das muitas pesquisas bem-sucedidas que inseriram na sua prática a PI, entretanto na área da programação direcionada ao ensino médio existe uma lacuna, necessitando de mais experimentações.…”
Section: O Método De Aprendizagem Peer Instructionunclassified