Qualitative Differences Between Learning Environments Using Videos in Small Groups and Whole Class Discussions: A Preliminary Study in Physics

Interactivity, group learning and student engagement are accepted as key features of social constructivist learning theories. The challenge is to understand the interplay between such features in different learning environments. This study focused on the qualitative differences between two interventions—small-groups and whole-class discussions. In both interventions, three short video slices on the abstract topic ‘the physics of superconductivity’ were interspersed with the different discussion styles. The video slices are based on the Bruner stages. Twenty-nine first year university physics students completed a pre-test, underwent the intervention and completed a post-test. The remainder of the data were collected from student drawings, video recordings, observer notes and facilitator feedback. Results indicate that the use of the video slices in both interventions were successful in changing students’ understandings of superconductivity. However, the small groups treatment tended to facilitate questioning, meaning-making and subsequent changes of ideas more so than the whole class discussions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

[1]  Peter J. Fensham,et al.  Prior Knowledge and the Learning of Science. A Review of Ausubel's Theory of This Process. , 1974 .

[2]  M. G. Jones,et al.  Gender Differences in Motivation and Strategy Use in Science: Are Girls Rote Learners?. , 1996 .

[3]  J. Bruner.  Toward a Theory of Instruction , 1966 .

[4]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[5]  Richard Cox,et al.  Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse -- A controlled comparison , 1999 .

[6]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , 1996 .

[7]  J. Bruner.  The Process of Education , 1960 .

[8]  Matthew Kearney,et al.  Classroom Use of Multimedia-Supported Predict–Observe–Explain Tasks in a Social Constructivist Learning Environment , 2004 .

[9]  Dean Zollman,et al.  TEACHING AND LEARNING PHYSICS WITH INTERACTIVE VIDEO , 1994 .

[10]  A. Binnie.  Development of a Senior Physics Syllabus in New South Wales. , 2004 .

[11]  Alex Kozulin,et al.  Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context , 2003 .

[12]  S. Chaiklin.  The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and instruction. , 2003 .

[13]  P. Reimann,et al.  Saying the wrong thing: improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[14]  Alberto Mendez,et al.  The Relationship Between Attendance in Student‐centred Physics Tutorials and Performance in University Examinations , 2005 .

[15]  D. Sokoloff,et al.  Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment , 1997 .

[16]  P. Scott,et al.  Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom , 1994 .

[17]  J. Bruner.  The Culture of Education , 1996 .

[18]  R. Cox,et al.  Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse , 1999 .

[19]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  The impact of video motion analysis on kinematics graph interpretation skills , 1996 .

[20]  D. Nicol,et al.  Peer Instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in Large Classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom , 2003 .

[21]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Increasing Situational Interest in the Classroom , 2001 .

[22]  Norman G. Lederman,et al.  Handbook of Research on Science Education , 2023 .

[23]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? , 1997 .

[24]  Jane Barford,et al.  The use of video as a teaching resource in a new university , 1997, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[25]  R. Kozma.  The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding , 2003 .

[26]  N. Webb,et al.  Short Circuits or Superconductors? Effects of Group Composition on High-Achieving Students’ Science Assessment Performance , 2002 .

[27]  C. Douglas Wetzel,et al.  Instructional Effectiveness of Video Media , 1994 .

[28]  David Hestenes,et al.  Modeling methodology for physics teachers , 2008 .

[29]  R. Kozma.  Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development , 2000 .

[30]  E. Forman,et al.  The role of peer interaction in the social construction of mathematical knowledge , 1989 .

[31]  David Hestenes,et al.  A modeling method for high school physics instruction , 1995 .

[32]  Manjula D. Sharma,et al.  Raising cognitive load with linear multimedia to promote conceptual change , 2008 .

[33]  Tim Sprod.  “I can change your opinion on that”: Social constructivist whole class discussions and their effect on scientific reasoning , 1998 .

[34]  Peter S. Shaffer,et al.  A research-based approach to improving student understanding of the vector nature of kinematical concepts , 2005 .

[35]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Differential Participation During Science Conversations: The Interaction of Display Artifacts, Social Configurations, and Physical Arrangements , 1996, ICLS.

[36]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: finding the right mix , 2004 .

[37]  Manjula D. Sharma,et al.  Conceptual change through vicarious learning in an authentic physics setting , 2007 .

[38]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning , 2002 .

[39]  Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar,et al.  Developing Scientific Communities in Classrooms: A Sociocognitive Approach , 1999 .

[40]  David F. Treagust,et al.  An Evaluation of a Teaching Intervention to Promote Students’ Ability to Use Multiple Levels of Representation When Describing and Explaining Chemical Reactions , 2008 .