Quote 1
Reciprocal Teaching
“In a classroom using the Reciprocal Teaching approach, a student
working in a small group reads aloud a brief passage of text and
immediately generates a question, such as, Why did the main character
do what he did? To form the question, the student must make sense of
the text and process information automatically. After other members of
the group have answered several questions, the student tries to clarify
any difficult words or phrases. Clarifying helps a child develop the
ability to self-monitor, an essential component of independent reading.
The student then generates a summary that identifies and describes the
main ideas of the text. Finally, the student predicts what is likely to
occur next and provides evidence from the text to support the
prediction.”
Palinscar and Brown (1984)
Quote 2
Discussion Web
“Too often, only a few students are willing to contribute and as a
result they monopolize the conversation. What starts out as a
discussion ends as a dialogue between the teacher and a handful
of students. Meanwhile the rest of the class sits passively-either
not listening to or not paying attention to what is being said.
However, the Discussion Web (Alvermann, 1991) is a strategy
designed to include all students in active participation in class
discussion.”
Buehl (2001)
Quote 3
Collaborative Concept Mapping
“Concept mapping with slips of paper, or within Inspiration
software, provides an arena for discussion of knowledge. It is a
place where students can point to concepts tangibly, and
discover ways of expressing relationships between ideas. If used
in conjunction with cooperative learning strategies, Inspiration
software provides an opportunity for purposeful student
interaction and movement.”
Roth and Roychoudhury (1992)
Quote 4
Peer Instruction
“Lectures are interspersed with conceptual questions, called
ConcepTests, designed to expose common difficulties in
understanding the material. The students are given one to two
minutes to think about the question and formulate their own
answers; they then spend two to three minutes discussing their
answers in groups of three to four, attempting to reach
consensus on the correct answer. This process forces the
students to think through the arguments being developed, and
enables them (as well as the instructor) to assess their
understanding of the concepts even before they leave the
classroom.”
Mazur Group (2004)
Peer Instruction
(Eric Mazur: Prentice Hall, 1997)
The Method
• Students are given reading assignments for each
class: what was previously covered in a lecture.
• Start class with a ~ 5 minute review of main points
(a) to remind students what was read, and
(b) to emphasize what are the main points.
Peer Instruction
(Eric Mazur: Prentice Hall, 1997)
•
Rest of class time is used for:
(a) usual demonstrations which provide the
connection between the theoretical concept and the
physical world, and
(b) small group discussion of either qualitative
conceptual problems, or simple analytical problems
that require strong conceptual understanding.
Peer Instruction
(Eric Mazur: Prentice Hall, 1997)
• Use overhead to present a short, multiple-choice
question, designed to develop understanding.
– Initially the choices are not presented.
– Students try individually to answer the question,
then try to convince their neighbours in ~ 5 minute
discussion.
– In this time, I address individual concerns one-onone.
– After ~ 5 minutes, I provide the choices and class
votes for the answer.
Peer Instruction
(Eric Mazur: Prentice Hall, 1997)
The Vote
• Display cards with choice A ... F
• Instant feedback on comprehension, to student and me.
• Then I give the correct reasoning, addressing both right
and wrong answers: often generates questions by students
who voted for the incorrect answer, because they have
thought seriously about their answer and are having
conceptual problems.
A group response – even if incorrect – gives confidence to
ask questions.
Quote for Reflection
Think-Pair-Share
“The think-pair-share structure gives all learners the
opportunity to discuss their ideas. This is important
because learners start to construct their knowledge in
these discussions and also to find out what they do and do
not know. This active process is not normally available to
them during traditional lectures.
After several minutes the instructor solicits comments to
be shared with the whole group. The responses received
are often more intellectually concise since learners have
had a chance to reflect on their ideas. The think-pair-share
structure also enhances the student's oral communication
skills as they discuss their ideas with one another and with
the whole group.”
Lymna, F. (1981)
Beyond Peer Instruction
The Peer Instruction method works with
concepts, but it may also be used in other
ways:
– Use Rating Scales to learn about student
viewpoints.
– Use Aikenhead’s Views on Science Technology
Society (VOSTS) to teach students about
connections.
Peer Instruction
Let’s examine Peer Instruction from these perspectives:
Teaching Strategies/Curriculum/Assessment
Teaching Strategies:
Passive
Transmissive
Active
Reflective
Curriculum:
Quantitative
Qualitative
Assessment:
?_________
?_________
Websites
Project Galileo
• http://galileo.harvard.edu/home.html
Mazur Group
• http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/education/educationmenu.php
For further reading
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alvermann, D.E. (1991). The discussion web: A graphic aid for learning across the curriculum. The
Reading Teacher, 45, 92-99
Buehl, D. (2001).Classroom Strategies for Interactive Learning, International Reading Association,
Newark, Delaware, Second Edition.
Crouch, C. and Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results Am. J.
Phys., 69, 970-977.
Lymna, F. (1981). "The responsive classroom discussion." In Anderson, A. S. (Ed.),
Mainstreaming Digest, College Park, MD: University of Maryland College of Education.
Mazur, E., Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
Palinscar, A. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, I (2), p. 117-175.
Roth, W. and Roychoudhury, A. (1992) The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept
map as conscription tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76, 531-557.