Student experience in a student-centered peer instruction classroom

ICER 2013 - Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 129-136

  Simon, Beth ^a   Esper, Sarah ^a   Porter, Leo ^b   Cutts, Quintin ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b SKIDMORE COLLEGE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Affect.; Flipped classroom; Peer instruction; Student Centered learning

Indexed keywords

AFFECT; CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING; FLIPPED CLASSROOM; PEER INSTRUCTION; POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION; STUDENT EXPERIENCES; STUDENT PERCEPTIONS; STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING;

TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84883544186     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2493394.2493407     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Bjork, R.A., Information-Processing Analysis of College Teaching. Educational Psychologists 14. 1979.
2. Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Prince, M., Henderson, C, & Froyd, J. E. Fidelity of Implementation of Research-Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS) in Engineering Science Courses. Journal of Engineering Education. 2013.
3. Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. How people learn. J. D.Bransford (Ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.2000
4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1).1989
5. Chi, M. T. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1). 2009.
6. rd Edition, Sage Pub. 2007.
7. Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69.
8. Crouch, C. H., Fagen, A. P., Callan, J. P., and Mazur, E.Classroom demonstrations: Learning tools or entertainment?American Journal of Physics 72. 2004.
9. Dweck, CS. Self-Theories - Their role in Motivation,Personality and Development. Philadelphia: Taylor andFrancis/Psychology Press, 1999.
10. Esper, S., Simon, B., & Cutts, Q. Exploratory homeworks:An active learning tool for textbook reading. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international conference on Internationalcomputing education research. 2012.
11. Gaffney, J. D., Gaffney, A. L. H., & Beichner, R. J. Do they see it coming? Using expectancy violation to gauge the success of pedagogical reforms. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 6(1). 2010.
12. Hake, R. R. Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66(1). 1998.
13. Hrepic, Z., Zollman, D. A., & Rebello, N. S. Comparing students' and experts' understanding of the content of a lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3). 2007.
14. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865). 2008.
15. Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C, Simon, B., Cutts, Q., and Zingaro, D. Experience report: a multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 2011.
16. Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C, & Simon, B. Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education). 2013.
17. Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C. Simon, B., Zingaro, D. Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion? In the 7th Annual International Computing Education Research Workshop. 2011.
18. Porter, L., Garcia, S., Glick, J., Matusiewicz, A., & Taylor, C. Peer Instruction in Computer Science at Small Liberal Arts Colleges. In proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 2013.
19. Porter, L. and Simon, B. Retaining Nearly One-Third more Majors with a Trio of Instructional Best Practices in CSl. In Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education Technical Symposium. March. 2013.
20. Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. M. Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1997.
21. Simon, B., Kohanfars, M., Lee, J, Tamayo, K., and Cutts, Q. Experience report: peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education. 2010.
22. Simon, B., Parris, J., & Spacco, J. How we teach impacts student learning: peer instruction vs. lecture in CSO. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 2013.
23. Smith, M., Wood, W., Adams, W., Wieman, C, Knight, J., Guild, N., Su, T. Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions. Science 323. 2009.
24. Teasley, S.D. Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In Resnick, L. B., Saljo, R., Pontecorvo, C, and Burge, B. (Eds.) Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 361-384. 1997.
25. Tobias, S. They're not dumb, they're different: stalking the second tier. Research Corporation, Tucson. 1990.
26. Turpen, C, and Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors' implementation of Peer Instruction. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2). 2009.