Understanding clicker discussions: Student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 645-654

  Knight, Jennifer K ^a   Wise, Sarah B ^a   Southard, Katelyn M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSOCIATION; BIOLOGY; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOLOGY; STUDENT;

BIOLOGY; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; STUDENTS;

EID: 84889036795     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.13-05-0090     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Asterhan CSC, Schwarz BB (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: indications from protocol analyses of peer-topeer dialog. Cogn Sci 33, 374-400.
2. Caldwell JE (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ 6, 9-20.
3. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP (2008). Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 7, 368-381.
4. Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci Educ 84, 287-312.
5. Felder RM, Brent R (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student centered instruction. Coll Teach 44, 43-47.
6. Freeman S, O'Connor E, Parks JW, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 6, 132-139.
7. Hake RR (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics. Am J Phys 66, 64-74.
8. James MC (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in Peer Instruction. Am J Phys 74, 689-691.
9. James MC, Willoughby S (2011). Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: what you have not heard might surprise you! Am J Phys 79, 123-131.
10. Jiménez-Aleixandre MP, Bugallo Rodríguez A, Duschl RA (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": argument in high school genetics. Sci Educ 84, 757-792.
11. Kitchen E, Bell JD, Reeve S, Sudweeks RR, Bradshaw W (2003). Teaching cell biology in the large-enrollment classroom: methods to promote analytical thinking and assessment of their effectiveness. CBE Life Sci Educ 2, 180-194.
12. Kuhn D (1991). The Skills of Argument, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Kuhn D, Udell W (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Dev 74, 1245-1260.
14. Lave J, Wenger E (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Lemke JL (1990). Talking Science Language, Learning, and Values, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16. Lemons PP, Lemons JD (2013). Questions for assessing higher-order cognitive skills: it's not just Bloom's. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 47-58.
17. Marx J, Cummings K (2007). Normalized change. Am J Phys 75, 87-91.
18. Mazur E (1997). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19. McNeill KL, Lizotte DJ, Krajcik J, Marx RW (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. J Learn Sci 15, 153-191.
20. Michaels S, O'Connor C, Hall M, Resnick L (2002). Accountable Talk: Classroom Conversation That Works, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
21. Nichol DJ, Boyle JT (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Stud High Educ 28, 457-473.
22. Osborne J (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 328, 463-466.
23. Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach 41, 994-1020.
24. Perez KE, Strauss EA, Downey N, Galbraith A, Jeanne R, Cooper S (2010). Does displaying the class results affect student discussion during peer instruction? CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 133-140.
25. Sampson V, Clark DB (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Sci Educ 92, 447-472.
26. Schen M (2012). Assessment of argumentation skills through individual written instruments and lab reports in introductory biology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, held 25-28 March 2012 in Indianapolis, IN.
27. Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323, 122-124.
28. Smith MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sci Educ 10, 55-63.
29. Toulmin SE (1958). The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Turpen C, Finkelstein ND (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: students perceive differences. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 6, 020123.
31. Udovic D, Morris D, Dickman A, Postlethwait J, Wetherwax P (2002). Workshop biology: demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning in an introductory biology course. BioScience 52, 272-281.
32. Vygotsky LS (1978). Mind in Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Walker JD, Cotner SH, Baepler PM, Decker MD (2008). A delicate balance: integrating active learning into a large lecture course. CBE Life Sci Educ 7, 361-367.
34. Zohar A, Nemet F (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. J Res Sci Teach 39, 35-62.