...
首页> 外文期刊>American journal of physics >Effective variations of peer instruction: The effects of peer discussions, committing to an answer, and reaching a consensus
【24h】

Effective variations of peer instruction: The effects of peer discussions, committing to an answer, and reaching a consensus

机译:朋辈教学的有效变化:朋辈讨论,做出回答并达成共识的效果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Peer Instruction (PI) is a widely used student-centered pedagogy, but one that is used differently by different instructors. While all PI instructors survey their students with conceptual questions, some do not allow students to discuss with peers. We studied the effect of peer discussion by polling three groups of students (N = 86) twice on the same set of nine conceptual questions. The three groups differed in the tasks assigned between the first and second poll: the first group discussed, the second reflected in silence, and the third was distracted so they could neither reflect nor discuss. Comparing score changes between the first and second poll, we find minimal increases in the distraction condition (3%), sizable increases in the reflection condition (10%), and significantly larger increases in the peer discussion condition (21%). We also examined the effect of committing to an answer before peer discussion and reaching a consensus afterward. We compared a lecture-based control section to three variations of PI that differed in their requirement to commit to an answer or reach consensus (N = 108). We find that all PI groups achieve greater conceptual learning and traditional problem solving than lecture-based instruction. We find one difference between these groups: the absence of consensus building is related to a significant decrease in expert views and beliefs. Our findings can therefore be used to make two recommendations: always use peer discussions and consider asking students to reach a consensus before re-polling. (C) 2016 American Association of Physics Teachers.
机译:朋辈教学(PI)是一种以学生为中心的广泛使用的教学法,但不同的教员使用它的方式有所不同。尽管所有PI指导员都用概念性问题调查学生,但有些不允许学生与同伴讨论。我们通过对三组学生(N = 86)进行两次民意测验来研究同discussion讨论的影响,这两组学生涉及相同的九个概念性问题。这三个小组在第一次和第二次民意测验之间分配的任务有所不同:第一个小组讨论过,第二个小组默默反映,第三个小组分散了注意力,因此他们既不能反思也不能讨论。比较第一次民意测验和第二次民意测验之间的得分变化,我们发现注意力分散状况的增幅最小(3%),反射状况的微幅增加(10%),同伴讨论状况的增幅明显更大(21%)。我们还研究了在同行讨论之前做出回答并在此后达成共识的效果。我们将基于讲课的控制部分与PI的三个变体进行了比较,这三个变体在承诺答案或达成共识方面的要求不同(N = 108)。我们发现,与基于讲课的指导相比,所有PI小组都可以实现更好的概念学习和传统问题解决。我们发现这些群体之间存在一个差异:缺乏共识的建立与专家观点和信念的显着下降有关。因此,我们的发现可用于提出两个建议:始终使用同伴讨论,并考虑在重新投票之前让学生达成共识。 (C)2016年美国物理教师协会。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号