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.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
January 2011
PAPERS|
January 01 2011
Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: What you have not heard might surprise you!
Mark C. James;
Mark C. James
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
Northern Arizona University
, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011
Search for other works by this author on:
Shannon Willoughby
Shannon Willoughby
Department of Physics,
Montana State University
, Bozeman, Montana 59717
Search for other works by this author on:
Am. J. Phys. 79, 123–132 (2011)
Article history
Received:
August 10 2009
Accepted:
August 19 2010
Citation
Mark C. James, Shannon Willoughby; Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: What you have not heard might surprise you!. Am. J. Phys. 1 January 2011; 79 (1): 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3488097
Download citation file:
Pay-Per-View Access
$40.00
Sign In
You could not be signed in. Please check your credentials and make sure you have an active account and try again.
Citing articles via
A simple model of a gravitational lens from geometric optics
Bogdan Szafraniec, James F. Harford
Playing with active matter
Angelo Barona Balda, Aykut Argun, et al.
The physics of “everesting” on a bicycle
Martin Bier
The hardest-hit home run?
Donald C. Warren
Related Content
Single-Concept Clicker Question Sequences
Phys. Teach. (September 2011)
Clickers or Flashcards: Is There Really a Difference?
The Physics Teacher (April 2008)
The Monty Hall Problem as a Class Activity Using Clickers
Phys. Teach. (January 2012)
Student Perspectives on Using Clickers in Upper‐division Physics Courses
AIP Conference Proceedings (November 2009)
Examining the Effectiveness of Clickers on Promoting Learning by Tracking the Evolution of Student Responses
AIP Conference Proceedings (October 2008)