The construction of different classroom norms during Peer Instruction: Students perceive differences

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

  Turpen, Chandra ^a   Finkelstein, Noah D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79751499806     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020123     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
2. C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors' implementation of Peer Instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020101 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020101
3. C. H. Crouch, J. Watkins, A. P. Fagen, and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Engaging Students One-on-One, All At Once, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics, edited by, E. F. Redish, and, P. J. Cooney, published by (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007).
4. D. L. Ball and D. K. Cohen, Reform by the Book: What is-or Might Be-the Role of Curriculum Materials in Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform?, Educ. Res. 25, 6 (1996).
5. M. Cole, Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).
6. K. Gutierrez and B. Rogoff, Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice, Educ. Res. 32, 19 (2003). 10.3102/0013189X032005019
7. K. Kumpulainen and P. Renshaw, Cultures of learning, Int. J. Educ. Res. 46, 109 (2007). 10.1016/j.ijer.2007.09.009
8. P. Cobb, M. Stephan, K. McClain, and K. Gravemeijer, Participating in classroom practices, J. Learn. Sci. 10, 113 (2001). 10.1207/S15327809JLS10-1-2-6
9. N. Finkelstein, Learning physics in context: A study of student learning about electricity and magnetism, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 1187 (2005). 10.1080/09500690500069491
10. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991).
11. E. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998).
12. E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics with Physics Suite (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2003).
13. L. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978).
14. R. Scherr and D. Hammer, Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics, Cogn. Instruct. 27, 147 (2009). 10.1080/07370000902797379
15. J. L. Lemke, Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values (Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 1990).
16. We note that these modes of participation have been referred to by other education researchers as participant structures (see Philips, 1983; Herrenkohl and Guerra, 1998) or participation frameworks (see Goffman, 1981).
17. S. Philips, The Invisible Culture: Communication in the Classroom and Community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation (Longman, White Plains, NY, 1983);
18. S. Philips, Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom edited by, C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, and, D. Hymes, Functions of Language in the Classroom (Teachers College Press, New York, NY, 1972), pp. 370-394.
19. L. R. Herrenkohl and M. R. Guerra, Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade, Cogn. Instruct. 16, 431 (1998). 10.1207/s1532690xci1604-3
20. E. Goffman, Forms of Talk (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1981).
21. I. Horn, in A Study of Teaching: Multiple Lenses, Multiple Views, JRME Monograph #14, edited by, D. Ball, and, A. Schoenfeld, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series (Reston, VA, 2008).
22. J. V. Wertsch and C. Toma, in Constructivism in Education, edited by, L. P. Steffe, and, J. Gale, (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1995), pp. 159-174.
23. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66 (3), 212 (1998). 10.1119/1.18847
24. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010101 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010101
25. J. R. MacArthur and L. L. Jones, A review of literature reports of clickers applicable to college chemistry classrooms, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 9, 187 (2008). 10.1039/b812407h
26. V. Simpson and M. Oliver, Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 23, 187 (2007).
27. J. E. Caldwell, Clickers in the large classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6 (1), 9 (2007). 10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
28. C. Fies and J. Marshall, Classroom response systems: A review of the literature, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 15, 101 (2006). 10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
29. E. Judson and D. Sawada, Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls, J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach. 21, 167 (2002).
30. J. Poulis, C. Massen, E. Roberts, and M. Gilbert, Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback, Am. J. Phys. 66, 439 (1998). 10.1119/1.18883
31. R. H. Hall, H. L. Collier, M. L. Thomas, and M. G. Hilgers, Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 11-14, 2005, Omaha, NE. (Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, 2005).
32. D. W. Bullock, V. P. LaBella, T. Clingan, Z. Ding, G. Stewart, and P. M. Thibado, Enhancing the student-instructor interaction frequency, Phys. Teach. 40, 535 (2002). 10.1119/1.1534821
33. R. E. Mayer, A. Stull, K. DeLeeuw, K. Almeroth, B. Bimber, D. Chun, M. Bulger, J. Campbell, A. Knight, and H. Zhang, Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes, Contemp Educ. Psychol. 34, 51 (2009). 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002
34. C. Paschal, Formative assessment in physiology using a wireless classroom communication system, Adv. Physiol. Educ. 26, 299 (2002).
35. D. Bunce, J. VandenPlas, and K. Havanki, Comparing the effectiveness on student achievement of a student response system versus online WebCT quizzes, J. Chem. Educ. 83, 488 (2006). 10.1021/ed083p488
36. G. Kennedy and Q. Cutts, The association between students' use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 21, 260 (2005). 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00133.x
37. W. C. Bessler, Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, 1969.
38. W. C. Bessler and J. J. Nisbet, The use of an electronic response system in teaching biology, Sci. Educ. 55, 275 (1971). 10.1002/sce.3730550305
39. J. D. Brown, An evaluation of the Spitz student response system in teaching a course in logical and mathematical concepts, J. Exp. Educ. 40, 12 (1972).
40. J. J. Bapst, Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1971.
41. J. Casanova, An instructional experiment in organic chemistry. The use of a student response system, J. Chem. Educ. 48, 453 (1971). 10.1021/ed048p453
42. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhammer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992). 10.1119/1.2343497
43. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001). 10.1119/1.1374249
44. A. P. Fagen, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Results from a range of classrooms, Phys. Teach. 40, 206 (2002). 10.1119/1.1474140
45. A. P. Fagen, Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 2003.
46. M. C. James, The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction, Am. J. Phys. 74, 689 (2006). 10.1119/1.2198887
47. M. C. James, F. Barbieri, and P. Garcia, What are they talking about? Lessons learned from a study of peer instruction, Astron. Educ. Rev. 7, 37 (2008). 10.3847/AER2008004
48. P. M. Len, Different reward structures to motivate student interaction with electronic response systems in astronomy, Astron. Educ. Rev. 5 (2), 5 (2006). 10.3847/AER2006016
49. S. D. Willoughby and E. Gustafson, Technology talks: Clickers and grading incentive in the large lecture hall, Am. J. Phys. 77, 180 (2009). 10.1119/1.3013542
50. A. L. Abrahamson, International Workshop, New trends in Physics Teaching, Puebla, Mexico, http://www.bedu.com/Publications/PueblaFinal2.html (unpublished)
51. N. Cue, Proceedings of the First Quality in Teaching and Learning Conference, Hong Kong International Trade and Exhibition Center (HITEC), Hong Kong SAR, China, December 10-12, 1998, http://celt.ust.hk/ideas/prs/pdf/ Nelsoncue.pdf (unpublished).
52. R. J. Dufresne, W. Gerace, W. Leonard, J. Mestre, and L. Wenk, Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning, J. Comput. High. Educ. 7, 3 (1996). 10.1007/BF02948592
53. J. A. Shapiro, Electronic student response found feasible in large science lecture hall, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 26, 408 (1997).
54. D. P. Garg, Conference on Computers in the Undergraduate Curricula, Fort Worth, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED111355), http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED111355.pdf (unpublished).
55. R. Littauer, Instructional Implications of a low-cost electronic system, Educational Technology 12, 69 (1972).
56. J. Barnett, Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture classes: Student perceptions, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 22, 474 (2006).
57. C. R. Graham, T. R. Tripp, L. Seawright, and G. L. Joeckel, Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems, Active Learn. High. Educ. 8, 233 (2007). 10.1177/1469787407081885
58. A. Hoekstra, Vibrant student voices: exploring the effects of the use of clickers in large college courses, Learn. Media Technol. 33, 329 (2008). 10.1080/17439880802497081
59. R. Kaleta and T. Joosten, Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin system study of clickers, EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Research Bulletin 10, 2 (2007).
60. C. Keller, N. Finkelstein, K. Perkins, S. Pollock, C. Turpen, and M. Dubson, "Research-based practices for effective clicker use." Proceedings of the 2007 Physics Education Research Conference, AIP Conf. Proc. 951, 128 (2007). 10.1063/1.2820913
61. E. L. MacGeorge, S. R. Homan, J. B. Dunning, D. Elmore, G. D. Bodie, E. Evans, S. Khichadia, S. Lichti, B. Feng, and B. Geddes, Student Evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 56, 125 (2008). 10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6
62. A. R. Trees and M. H. Jackson, The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems, Learn. Media Technol. 32, 21 (2007). 10.1080/17439880601141179
63. W. R. Penuel, L. Abrahamson, and J. Roschelle, in Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases, edited by, D. A. Banks, (Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA, 2006).
64. S. Davis, Observations in classrooms using a network of handheld devices, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 19, 298 (2003). 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00031.x
65. J. Maxwell, Qualitative Research Design (Sage Publications, London, 2005).
66. F. Erickson, in Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., edited by, M. C. Wittrock, (Macmillan, New York, 1986) pp. 119-161.
67. B. Rogoff, The Cultural Nature of Human Development (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2003), pp. 3-36.
68. It is interesting to note that this methodological choice stems from the fact that many classrooms impose a dual-culture on students where exam days have a different set of norms than other course meetings. Often assessment practices may not align with the values reflected in other classroom activities.
69. L. E. Kost, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010101 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010101
70. W. J. Conover, Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999).
71. A Chi-squared Test is used to determine if we are justified in rejecting the null hypothesis which states that the row variables (instructor) and the column variables (possible answer options) are unrelated.
72. A Kruskal-Wallis Test is used to determine if we are justified in rejecting the null hypothesis which states all of the populations are identical, versus the alternative that some of the populations tend to furnish greater observed values than other populations. This is analogous to an ANOVA for continuous data.
73. P. Black and D. Wiliam, Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment, Phi Delta Kappan 80, 139 (1998).
74. D. Wiliam and P. Black, Meanings and Consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment, Br. Educ. Res. J. 22, 537 (1996). 10.1080/0141192960220502
75. J. Hattie and H. Timperley, The power of feedback, Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 81 (2007). 10.3102/003465430298487
76. We note that Red has slightly higher end-of-term course evaluation ratings than Yellow and Green. However, in our larger set of student survey responses across six different courses, higher instructor ratings do not uniformly correlate with more positive student responses on PI survey questions. For this reason, we do not believe that "liking" Professor Red accounts for differences in students' responses to PI survey questions.
77. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn, Expanded Edition (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
78. P. S. Hutchison, Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 2008.
79. R. Scherr, A. Elby, and T. Bing, American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) National Winter Meeting, Rev. Educ. Res. (2009).
80. In Ref., Purple's PI practices are described from a physics course for nonscience majors, but observations of Purple in his Phys 2 course were found to be similar.