加强物理同伴教学:了解认知过程并完善规则

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Physical Review Physics Education Research Pub Date : 2024-05-03 DOI:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010134
Vegard Gjerde, Sivert Hagane
{"title":"加强物理同伴教学:了解认知过程并完善规则","authors":"Vegard Gjerde, Sivert Hagane","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Peer Instruction gives practice in the abstract language of physics, addresses common misconceptions among students, and is more effective than traditional lecturing. However, it is not clear what makes Peer Instruction effective nor how we might improve the method. An emerging perspective is that what makes Peer Instruction effective is how it stimulates certain cognitive processes. Research also indicates that providing rules for discussion may improve the effect of peer instruction. Hence, we wanted to answer two research questions in this study: (i) What cognitive learning processes occur during peer discussions? (ii) How do students follow discussion rules? To answer our research questions, we recorded and thematically analyzed peer discussions during Peer Instruction in an introductory physics course. The most prevalent cognitive process during peer discussions was decoding the problem. The most prevalent type of explanation was explanations with physics concepts, which usually led the students to an incorrect answer. The next most prevalent type of explanation was explanation with physics models, which usually led the students to the correct answer. The students also explained with reference to their experience or examples—intuitive or analogical explanations—and it usually added little to the conversation, was wrong, or created confusion. Some discussion rules had limited impact, prompting suggestions for rule improvements to optimize Peer Instruction. Our work contributes to the literature on Peer Instruction with a cognitively based description of the learning processes and how we might further improve and ensure the effectiveness of Peer Instruction.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhancing peer instruction in physics: Understanding cognitive processes and refining rules\",\"authors\":\"Vegard Gjerde, Sivert Hagane\",\"doi\":\"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Peer Instruction gives practice in the abstract language of physics, addresses common misconceptions among students, and is more effective than traditional lecturing. However, it is not clear what makes Peer Instruction effective nor how we might improve the method. An emerging perspective is that what makes Peer Instruction effective is how it stimulates certain cognitive processes. Research also indicates that providing rules for discussion may improve the effect of peer instruction. Hence, we wanted to answer two research questions in this study: (i) What cognitive learning processes occur during peer discussions? (ii) How do students follow discussion rules? To answer our research questions, we recorded and thematically analyzed peer discussions during Peer Instruction in an introductory physics course. The most prevalent cognitive process during peer discussions was decoding the problem. The most prevalent type of explanation was explanations with physics concepts, which usually led the students to an incorrect answer. The next most prevalent type of explanation was explanation with physics models, which usually led the students to the correct answer. The students also explained with reference to their experience or examples—intuitive or analogical explanations—and it usually added little to the conversation, was wrong, or created confusion. Some discussion rules had limited impact, prompting suggestions for rule improvements to optimize Peer Instruction. Our work contributes to the literature on Peer Instruction with a cognitively based description of the learning processes and how we might further improve and ensure the effectiveness of Peer Instruction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54296,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physical Review Physics Education Research\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physical Review Physics Education Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010134\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010134","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

同伴教学法可以让学生练习抽象的物理语言,解决学生中常见的误解,而且比传统的讲授法更有效。然而,同伴教学之所以有效,以及我们如何改进这种方法,目前尚不清楚。一种新的观点认为,同伴教学之所以有效,在于它如何激发某些认知过程。研究还表明,提供讨论规则可以提高同伴教学的效果。因此,我们希望在本研究中回答两个研究问题:(i) 在同伴讨论过程中会出现哪些认知学习过程?(ii) 学生如何遵守讨论规则?为了回答研究问题,我们记录并专题分析了物理入门课程同伴教学过程中的同伴讨论。同伴讨论中最普遍的认知过程是解码问题。最常见的解释类型是对物理概念的解释,这通常会导致学生得出错误的答案。其次是用物理模型进行解释,这通常会让学生得出正确答案。学生们还会参照自己的经验或例子进行解释--直觉式或类比式解释--但这通常对谈话没有什么帮助,或者是错误的,或者会造成混乱。一些讨论规则的影响有限,这促使我们提出改进规则的建议,以优化同伴教学。我们的工作为同伴教学文献做出了贡献,从认知角度描述了学习过程以及如何进一步改进和确保同伴教学的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Enhancing peer instruction in physics: Understanding cognitive processes and refining rules
Peer Instruction gives practice in the abstract language of physics, addresses common misconceptions among students, and is more effective than traditional lecturing. However, it is not clear what makes Peer Instruction effective nor how we might improve the method. An emerging perspective is that what makes Peer Instruction effective is how it stimulates certain cognitive processes. Research also indicates that providing rules for discussion may improve the effect of peer instruction. Hence, we wanted to answer two research questions in this study: (i) What cognitive learning processes occur during peer discussions? (ii) How do students follow discussion rules? To answer our research questions, we recorded and thematically analyzed peer discussions during Peer Instruction in an introductory physics course. The most prevalent cognitive process during peer discussions was decoding the problem. The most prevalent type of explanation was explanations with physics concepts, which usually led the students to an incorrect answer. The next most prevalent type of explanation was explanation with physics models, which usually led the students to the correct answer. The students also explained with reference to their experience or examples—intuitive or analogical explanations—and it usually added little to the conversation, was wrong, or created confusion. Some discussion rules had limited impact, prompting suggestions for rule improvements to optimize Peer Instruction. Our work contributes to the literature on Peer Instruction with a cognitively based description of the learning processes and how we might further improve and ensure the effectiveness of Peer Instruction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Physical Review Physics Education Research
Physical Review Physics Education Research Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
41.90%
发文量
84
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍: PRPER covers all educational levels, from elementary through graduate education. All topics in experimental and theoretical physics education research are accepted, including, but not limited to: Educational policy Instructional strategies, and materials development Research methodology Epistemology, attitudes, and beliefs Learning environment Scientific reasoning and problem solving Diversity and inclusion Learning theory Student participation Faculty and teacher professional development
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Development and validation of a conceptual multiple-choice survey instrument to assess student understanding of introductory thermodynamics [Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020112 (2023)] Reinforcing mindware or supporting cognitive reflection: Testing two strategies for addressing a persistent learning challenge in the context of air resistance How women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer physics doctoral students navigate graduate education: The roles of professional environments and social networks Evolving study strategies and support structures of introductory physics students Effectiveness of conceptual-framework-based instruction on promoting knowledge integration in learning simple electric circuit
×
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