Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing?

Leo Porter, C. Lee, B. Simon, Daniel Zingaro
{"title":"Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing?","authors":"Leo Porter, C. Lee, B. Simon, Daniel Zingaro","doi":"10.1145/2016911.2016923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Peer Instruction (PI) is an instructional approach that engages students in constructing their own understanding of concepts. Students individually respond to a question, discuss with peers, and respond to the same question again. In general, the peer discussion portion of PI leads to an increase in the number of students answering a question correctly. But are these students really learning, or are they just \"copying\" the right answer from someone in their group? In an article in the journal Science, Smith et al. affirm that genetics students individually learn from discussion: having discussed a first question with their peers, students are better able to correctly, individually answer a second, conceptually-related question. We replicate their study, finding that students in upper-division computing courses (architecture and theory of computation) also learn from peer discussions, and explore differences between our results and those of Smith et al. Our work reveals that using raw percentage gains between paired questions may not fully illuminate the value of peer discussion. We define a new metric, Weighted Learning Gain, which better reflects the learning value of discussion. By applying this metric to both genetics and computing courses, we consistently find that 85-89% of \"potential learners\" benefit from peer discussion.","PeriodicalId":268925,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education research","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"189","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2016911.2016923","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 189

Abstract

Peer Instruction (PI) is an instructional approach that engages students in constructing their own understanding of concepts. Students individually respond to a question, discuss with peers, and respond to the same question again. In general, the peer discussion portion of PI leads to an increase in the number of students answering a question correctly. But are these students really learning, or are they just "copying" the right answer from someone in their group? In an article in the journal Science, Smith et al. affirm that genetics students individually learn from discussion: having discussed a first question with their peers, students are better able to correctly, individually answer a second, conceptually-related question. We replicate their study, finding that students in upper-division computing courses (architecture and theory of computation) also learn from peer discussions, and explore differences between our results and those of Smith et al. Our work reveals that using raw percentage gains between paired questions may not fully illuminate the value of peer discussion. We define a new metric, Weighted Learning Gain, which better reflects the learning value of discussion. By applying this metric to both genetics and computing courses, we consistently find that 85-89% of "potential learners" benefit from peer discussion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
同侪指导:学生真的能从计算机的同侪讨论中学习吗?
同伴指导(PI)是一种让学生构建自己对概念的理解的教学方法。学生单独回答一个问题,与同学讨论,然后再回答同一个问题。一般来说,PI的同伴讨论部分会导致正确回答问题的学生人数增加。但是这些学生真的在学习吗,还是他们只是在“抄袭”小组中其他人的正确答案呢?在《科学》杂志上的一篇文章中,Smith等人肯定了遗传学专业的学生可以从讨论中学习:在与同学讨论了第一个问题后,学生能够更好地正确、独立地回答第二个与概念相关的问题。我们复制了他们的研究,发现高年级计算机课程(架构和计算理论)的学生也从同行讨论中学习,并探索我们的结果与Smith等人的结果之间的差异。我们的研究表明,使用配对问题之间的原始百分比增益可能无法完全阐明同伴讨论的价值。我们定义了一个新的度量,加权学习增益,它更好地反映了讨论的学习价值。通过将这一指标应用于遗传学和计算机课程,我们一致发现85-89%的“潜在学习者”受益于同侪讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CS majors' self-efficacy perceptions in CS1: results in light of social cognitive theory Personifying programming tool feedback improves novice programmers' learning How CS majors select a specialization Building professional identity as computer science teachers: supporting secondary computer science teachers through reflection and community building Predicting at-risk novice Java programmers through the analysis of online protocols
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1