Introduction
Use of Clickers at the University Level
Clicker Effectiveness Studies
Learning Benefits of Peer Discussion During Clicker Questions
Knowledge Co-construction in Peer Discussion
Research Questions
Methods
Data Collection: Participants
Study Design
Qualitative Analysis
Contributions to the Science Content from Multiple Individuals
Acknowledgment of Ideas
Asking a Question About Science Content
Revision of Ideas
Analysis and Results
Analysis I: Gains from Individual and Pooled Data
Students’ Individual Performance
Aggregate Peer Conversations by Gains
Analysis II: Qualitative Analysis of Peer Discussions
Co-construction elements | Total (n = 72) | Increase (n = 26) | Decrease/remained the same (n = 43) | Ceiling (n = 3) | Definition |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Contributing to science content from multiple individuals | 81 % | 92 % | 74 % | 66 % | Statements suggesting that multiple students contributed to the science content |
Acknowledgment of ideas | 78 % | 92 % | 70 % | 66 % | Statements that contained instances when a student mentions his or her own ideas or a peer’s ideas |
Asking a question about science content | 24 % | 31 % | 21 % | 0 % | Statements that included questions explicitly about the science content, not questions about answer choice |
Revision | 49 % | 85 % | 26 % | 66 % | Statements that implied a change in any direction about either the correct answer or the science content |