Investigating Peer Instruction: How the Initial Voting Session Affects Students' Experiences of Group Discussion

Nielsen, Kjetil L.; Hansen-Nygård, G.; Stav, John B.

doi:10.5402/2012/290157

Cited by 26 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Feedback in ARS typically builds on the number or percentage of students that selected each question choice. This percentage information of answer choice, however, may encourage students to focus more on probabilistic reasoning shifting their initial answers to the most popular one (Nielsen, Hansen‐Nygård, & Stav, ; Perez et al, ). Therefore, we expect that enriching feedback with metrics providing a better picture of the peers would be beneficial for students, especially in self‐assessment and in comparing themselves with their peers.…”

Section: The Role Of Peers In Audience Response Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The revoting phase is important, because it invites the students to reflect and act upon the feedback they received from the tool (i.e., distribution of student population under each question choice) and their peers (i.e., sharing ideas during the brief discussion), thus closing the “feedback loop” (Boud & Molloy, ). In addition, past studies have examined the impact of presenting the tally of initial answers before or after peer discussion (e.g., Brooks & Koretsky, ; Nielsen et al, ; Perez et al, ), with Vickrey et al () suggesting that presenting the tally of initial answers after peer discussion may limit bias towards the consensus, while also mentioning that more research is needed.…”

Section: What Is Known About Ars?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enriching feedback in audience response systems: Analysis and implications of objective and subjective metrics on students' performance and attitudes

Papadopoulos

Natsis

Obwegeser

et al. 2018

Computer Assisted Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study (n = 113) was to examine how (objective and subjective) information on peers' preparation, confidence, and past performance can support students in answering correctly in audience response systems (aka clickers). The result analysis shows that in the “challenging” questions, in which answers diverged, students who received additional information about peers' self‐reported preparation and/or confidence outperformed students who were only given the objective percentage with or without past performance feedback. In addition, students expressed a positive attitude towards the activity, commenting its usefulness in better understanding course material and identifying misconceptions.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Peers In Audience Response Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Is Known About Ars?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enriching feedback in audience response systems: Analysis and implications of objective and subjective metrics on students' performance and attitudes

Papadopoulos

Natsis

Obwegeser

et al. 2018

Computer Assisted Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Peer instruction presentation and discussion of the found categories, see Nielsen, Hansen-Nygård, and Stav (2012). The interviews were conducted by the second author while the analysis of the interviews was performed by the first author.…”

Section: Classicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First we give a short summary of the results from the interview analysis, in particular those results directly covering the effects on students being given time to think and reflect before discussion. A more detailed presentation of the results from the interviews can be found in Nielsen, Hansen-Nygård, and Stav (2012). The second part presents the quantitative results from the video analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Nielsen

Hansen

Stav

2014

Studies in Higher Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 to increase argumentation time during discussion, consistent with students' own experiences. However, while students felt that the initial thinking period increased participation and contribution of ideas among all group members, the authors only found significantly improved discussion for two out of three group members, those already most active. The research did not find any statistically significant difference for the least active students with or without the inclusion of the initial thinking period.

show abstract

“…In the spring semester of 2010, SRS was used for 8 weeks in all four physics classes. The 8 weeks of testing were part of a study to compare different SRS sequences (Nielsen, Hansen-Nygård, and Stav 2012). We prepared around 50 quizzes, which the teachers used for the duration of the study.…”

Section: Semesters 2009á2010mentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching with student response systems (SRS): teacher-centric aspects that can negatively affect students’ experience of using SRS

Nielsen

Hansen

Stav

2013

Research in Learning Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we describe and discuss the most significant teacher-centric aspects of student response systems (SRS) that we have found to negatively affect students' experience of using SRS in lecture settings. By doing so, we hope to increase teachers' awareness of how they use SRS and how seemingly trivial choices or aspects when using SRS can have a significant negative impact on students' experiences, especially when these aspects are often repeated. We cover areas such as consistency when using SRS, time usage, preparation, the experience level of the teachers with regard to SRS, teacher commitment and attitudes, teacher explanations, and how students fear that voting results can mislead the teacher. The data are based on 3 years of experience in developing and using an online SRS in classroom lectures, and they consist of focused (semistructured) student group interviews, student surveys and personal observations. Keywords: audience response systems; clickers; student attitudes; teaching pitfalls Introduction A student response system (SRS) can be described as an electronic voting system that presents students with a multiple-choice question, often as part of a quiz, to which they will answer with a small handheld device (commonly referred to as a ''clicker''), usually after engaging in peer discussions. Benefits from utilising such a system in lectures include increased student motivation and engagement ( With such a promising record, it is easy to forget that SRS is only a tool that, if not used correctly, can actually be detrimental to the lectures (Barber and Njus 2007). Focusing primarily on the technology with a belief that the technology will automatically improve lectures, instead of focusing on how students think and learn, is the single most important reason for failure when implementing new technology into education (Mayer 2005), and SRS is no exception.There are several publications that give best practice guidelines for using SRS (e.g. Although this seems to be an elaborate list, these negative aspects are mostly briefly mentioned and not described in depth in the literature (for a list of general challenges with SRS, see Kay and LeSage 2009). In-depth studies on these aspects and how they affect students' experience of SRS are, to the authors' knowledge, lacking. To fully understand and appreciate best practice guides on SRS, it is important to understand how and why different aspects of implementation can have a negative impact on students.In this article, we describe and discuss such aspects after 3 years of experience (since 2009) in developing and using an online SRS for modern handheld devices, such as smartphones, at Sør-Trøndelag University College in Norway. We start this article with background information, describing the classes where SRS was used and the implementation choices for the different years of testing. This is followed by a brief description of research methods and a presentation of our results. We conclude this article with a discussion and conclusions.

show abstract

Investigating Peer Instruction: How the Initial Voting Session Affects Students' Experiences of Group Discussion

Cited by 26 publications

References 25 publications

Enriching feedback in audience response systems: Analysis and implications of objective and subjective metrics on students' performance and attitudes

Enriching feedback in audience response systems: Analysis and implications of objective and subjective metrics on students' performance and attitudes

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

Teaching with student response systems (SRS): teacher-centric aspects that can negatively affect students’ experience of using SRS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About