Table of Contents
ISRN Education
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 290157, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/290157
Research Article

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

Sør-Trøndelag University College, 7004 Trondheim, Norway

Received 16 March 2012; Accepted 3 April 2012

Academic Editors: F. Jimenez, A. Kara, K. Kiewra, and K. Y. Kuo

Copyright © 2012 Kjetil L. Nielsen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. A. A. Gokhale, “Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking,” Journal of Technology Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 22–30, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  2. A. S. Palincsar, “Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 49, pp. 345–375, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. M. Prince, “Does active learning work? A review of the research,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 223–231, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. J. K. Knight and M. K. Smith, “Different but equal? How nonmajors and majors approach and learn genetics,” CBE Life Sciences Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 34–44, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. R. A. Duschl and J. Osborne, “Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education,” Studies in Science Education, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 39–72, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  6. I. Beaty, “Transforming student learning with classroom communication system,” Research Bulletin, vol. 3, pp. 2–13, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  7. S. W. Draper and M. I. Brown, “Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 81–94, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. C. D. Kam and B. Sommer, “Real-time polling technology in a public opinion course,” Political Science and Politics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 113–117, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. G. Masikunas, A. Panayiotidis, and L. Bruke, “The use of electronic voting systems in lectures within business and marketing: a case study of their impact on student learning,” Research in Learning Technology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  10. S. A. J. Stuart, M. I. Brown, and S. W. Draper, “Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: one practitioner's application,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 95–102, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, W. J. Leonard, J. P. Mestre, and L. Wenk, “Classtalk: a classroom communication system for active learning,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3–47, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. R. R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 64–74, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. R. H. Hall, H. L. Collier, M. L. Thomas, and M. G. Hilgers, “A student response system for increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Omaha, Neb, USA, August, 2005.
  14. S. J. Pollock, “Transferring transformations: learning gains, student attitudes, and the impacts of multiple instructors in large lecture courses,” in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference, vol. 818 of AIP Conference Proceedings, pp. 141–144, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, August 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. S. P. Rao and S. E. DiCarlo, “Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes,” Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 51–55, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, “Peer Instruction: ten years of experience and results,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 970–977, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1997.
  18. P. M. Len, “Different reward structures to motivate student interaction with electronic response systems in astronomy,” Astronomy Education Review, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 5–15, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  19. M. C. James, “The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 74, no. 8, pp. 689–691, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. D. J. Nicol and J. T. Boyle, “Peer Instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 457–473, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. B. J. Brooks and M. D. Koretsky, “The influence of group discussion on students' responses and confidence during peer instruction,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 88, no. 11, pp. 1477–1484, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  22. K. E. Perez, E. A. Strauss, N. Downey, A. Galbraith, R. Jeanne, and S. Cooper, “Does displaying the class results affect student discussion during peer instruction?” CBE Life Sciences Education, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 133–140, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams et al., “Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5910, pp. 122–124, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, K. Krauter, and J. K. Knight, “Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions,” CBE Life Sciences Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 55–63, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. J. K. Knight and W. B. Wood, “Teaching more by lecturing less,” Cell Biology Education, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 298–310, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. J. E. Caldwell, “Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips,” CBE Life Sciences Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–20, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. A. Johannessen, P. A. Tufte, and L. Kristoffersen, Introduksjon til Samfunnsvitenskapelig Metode, Abstrakt Forlag AS, Oslo, Norway, 2004.
  28. K. Charmaz, “Grounded theory,” in Rethinking Methods in Psychology, J. A. Smith, R. Harre, L. Langenhove et al., Eds., pp. 27–49, Sage, London,UK, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  29. K. Charmaz, “Grounded theory,” in Qualitative Psychology; A Practical Guide to Research Methods, J. A. Smith, Ed., pp. 81–110, Sage, London, UK, 2003. View at Google Scholar