When instructors provide time for students to discuss their ideas in Peer Instruction, instructors minimally expect that the conversation partners will discuss their opinions relating to the physical attributes posed in a question and submit clicker responses that coincide with individual opinions. We defined conversations that met these two criteria as “standard conversations.” In our study of 361 recorded Peer Instruction conversations from large introductory astronomy classrooms taught by experienced instructors, we found that 38% of student conversations were standard conversations. Of the remaining 62%, we identified three broad categories consisting of ten types of “nonstandard” conversations. The first category of conversations describes student ideas that were not reflected in any of the given multiple choice answers. The second category includes issues related to the interpretation of the statistical feedback provided by electronic classroom response systems. The third category describes common pitfalls experienced by students during conversations that led to unproductive interactions. Our analysis of nonstandard Peer Instruction conversations will be useful to practitioners and researchers seeking to improve the implementation of Peer Instruction.

1.
E.
Judson
, “
Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls
,”
J. Computers Mathematics Science Teaching
21
(
2
),
167
181
(
2002
).
2.
J.
Stowell
and
J.
Nelson
, “
Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning and emotion
,”
Teaching of Psychology
34
(
4
),
253
258
(
2007
).
3.
E.
Mazur
,
Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual
(
Prentice-Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
,
1991
).
4.
N.
Lasry
,
J.
Watkins
, and
E.
Mazur
, “
Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college
,”
Am. J. Phys.
76
(
11
),
1066
1069
(
2008
).
5.
D.
Meltzer
and
K.
Manivannan
, “
Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture
,”
Am. J. Phys.
70
(
6
),
639
654
(
2002
).
6.
L.
Van Dijk
,
G.
Van Der Berg
, and
H.
Van Keulen
, “
Interactive lectures in engineering education
,”
Eur. J. Eng. Educ.
26
,
15
28
(
2001
).
7.
S.
Rao
and
S.
DiCarlo
, “
Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes
,”
Advanced Physiology Educ.
24
,
51
55
(
2000
).
8.
C.
Turpen
and
N.
Finkelstein
, “
Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of Peer Instruction
,”
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
5
(
2
),
020101
-1–18 (
2009
).
9.
D.
Duncan
, “
Clickers: A new teaching aid with exceptional promise
,”
Astron. Educ. Rev.
5
(
1
),
70
88
(
2006
).
10.
I.
Beatty
,
W.
Gerace
,
W.
Loenard
, and
R.
Dufresne
, “
Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching
,”
Am. J. Phys.
74
(
1
),
31
39
(
2006
).
11.
S.
Willoughby
and
E.
Gustafson
, “
Technology talks: Clickers and grading incentive in the large lecture hall
,”
Am. J. Phys.
77
(
2
),
180
183
(
2009
).
12.
M.
James
,
F.
Barbieri
, and
P.
Garcia
, “
What are they talking about? Lessons learned from a study of peer instruction
,”
Astron. Educ. Rev.
7
(
1
),
37
43
(
2008
).
13.
M.
James
, “
The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in Peer Instruction
,”
Am. J. Phys.
74
(
8
),
689
691
(
2006
).
14.
A.
Strauss
,
Constant Comparison: Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
(
Cambridge U. P.
,
New York
,
1987
).
15.
The clicker system used by Instructors 2 and 3 was manufactured by e-Instruction. Instructor 1 used the i-Clicker system.
16.
The F test is a test for the statistical significance of an observed difference between the means of two samples. The “p-value” is the probability that a statistical finding occurred by chance.
17.
A.
Shamir
,
M.
Zion
, and
O.
Spector
, “
Peer tutoring, metacognitive processes and multimedia problem-based learning: The effect of mediation training on critical thinking
,”
J. Sci. Educ. Technol.
17
,
384
398
(
2008
).
18.
N.
Grover
, “
How to create successful discussion in science classrooms
,”
Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ.
35
(
6
),
397
403
(
2007
).
19.
J.
Barell
,
Teaching for Thoughtfulness: Classroom Strategies To Enhance Intellectual Development
, 2nd ed. (
Longman
,
White Plains
,
1995
).
20.
L.
Ding
,
N.
Reay
,
A.
Lee
, and
L.
Bao
, “
Are we asking the right questions? Validating clicker question sequences by student interviews
,”
Am. J. Phys.
77
(
7
),
643
650
(
2009
).
21.
J.
Clement
, “
Expert novice similarities and instruction using analogies
,”
Int. J. Sci. Educ.
20
(
10
),
1271
1286
(
1998
).
22.
D.
Treagust
and
C.
Smith
, “
Secondary students’ understanding of gravity and the motion of planets
,”
Sch. Sci. Math.
89
(
5
),
380
391
(
1989
).
23.
E.
Bardar
,
E.
Prather
,
K.
Brecher
, and
T.
Slater
, “
Development and validation of the light and spectroscopy concept inventory
,”
Astron. Educ. Rev.
5
(
2
),
103
113
(
2006
).
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.