What are Middle School Students Talking About During Clicker Questions? Characterizing Small-Group Conversations Mediated by Classroom Response Systems

There is a growing interest in using classroom response systems or clickers in science classrooms at both the university and K-12 levels. Typically, when instructors use this technology, students are asked to answer and discuss clicker questions with their peers. The existing literature on using clickers at the K-12 level has largely focused on the efficacy of clicker implementation, with few studies investigating collaboration and discourse among students. To expand on this work, we investigated the question: Does clicker use promote productive peer discussion among middle school science students? Specifically, we collected data from middle school students in a physical science course. Students were asked to answer a clicker question individually, discuss the question with their peers, answer the same question again, and then subsequently answer a new matched-pair question individually. We audio recorded the peer conversations to characterize the nature of the student discourse. To analyze these conversations, we used a grounded analysis approach and drew on literature about collaborative knowledge co-construction. The analysis of the conversations revealed that middle school students talked about science content and collaboratively discussed ideas. Furthermore, the majority of conversations, both ones that positively and negatively impacted student performance, contained evidence of collaborative knowledge co-construction.

[1]  R. A. Engle,et al.  Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom , 2002 .

[2]  Asher Shkedi,et al.  Multiple Case Narrative: A qualitative approach to studying multiple populations , 2005 .

[3]  Michelle K. Smith,et al.  The Benefits of Using Clickers in Small-Enrollment Seminar-Style Biology Courses , 2011, CBE life sciences education.

[4]  Sepideh Stewart,et al.  Taking clickers to the next level: a contingent teaching model , 2013 .

[5]  J. Osborne,et al.  Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms , 2000 .

[6]  William B Wood,et al.  Teaching more by lecturing less. , 2005, Cell biology education.

[7]  Ian D. Beatty,et al.  Factors that Affect Science and Mathematics Teachers’ Initial Implementation of Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Using a Classroom Response System , 2012 .

[8]  G. Hatano Commentary: Time to merge Vygotskian and constructivist conceptions of knowledge acquisition. , 1993 .

[9]  Shannon D. Willoughby,et al.  Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: What you have not heard might surprise you! , 2011 .

[10]  Scott Freeman,et al.  Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology , 2007, CBE life sciences education.

[11]  Gerry Stahl,et al.  Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge (Acting with Technology) , 2006 .

[12]  Jane E Caldwell,et al.  Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. , 2007, CBE life sciences education.

[13]  Robin Kay,et al.  Exploring the Use of Audience Response Systems in Secondary School Science Classrooms , 2009 .

[14]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  A time for telling , 1998 .

[15]  Kirsten Crossgrove,et al.  Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. , 2008, CBE life sciences education.

[16]  Elizabeth S. Charles,et al.  When Talking Is Better Than Staying Quiet , 2009 .

[17]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[18]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of Classrooms , 2002 .

[19]  M. Pressley,et al.  Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussions , 1999 .

[20]  Ngss Lead States Next generation science standards : for states, by states , 2013 .

[21]  Katelyn M. Southard,et al.  Understanding Clicker Discussions: Student Reasoning and the Impact of Instructional Cues , 2013, CBE life sciences education.

[22]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[23]  P. Dillenbourg What do you mean by collaborative learning , 1999 .

[24]  Adrienne Wright,et al.  Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class , 2009, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[25]  W. Penuel,et al.  Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study , 2007 .

[26]  Michelle K. Smith,et al.  Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions , 2009, Science.

[27]  William J. Gerace,et al.  Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment: A Research-Based Pedagogy for Teaching Science with Classroom Response Technology , 2009 .

[28]  J. Roschelle Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change , 1992 .

[29]  Kelly Miller,et al.  Response Switching and Self-Efficacy in Peer Instruction Classrooms. , 2015 .

[30]  Victor R. Lee,et al.  In Pursuit of Consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation , 2012 .

[31]  Daniel B. King,et al.  Gender Differences in the Use and Effectiveness of Personal Response Devices , 2008 .

[32]  Beth Simon,et al.  Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? , 2011, ICER.

[33]  Shirley Simon,et al.  Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science , 2004 .