how collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect ... · how collaborative learning and...

How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 1

How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry(Physics) as an

Assessment for Learning Approach

Song Edmund

Fulbright Distinguished Teacher 2015/2016, Singapore

Dec 7 2015


Acknowledgements

This work emerges from the Fulbright Distinguished Awards in Teaching Program, funded by the U.S. Department of State, through a grant to the Center for International Education,

Development and Research (CIEDR) in the Indiana University School of Education.


Abstract

Assessment for learning in the day-to-day classroom instruction provides students with the

opportunities that educate for 21st century skills, particularly those of problem solving and

collaboration. Physics by Inquiry (PbI) is a guided inquiry pedagogical approach where

students actively construct their conceptual understanding through a series of carefully

sequenced hands-on activities, supported by peer discussion and teacher questioning. There

are two elements in the PbI Approach that supports its use as an assessment for learning

practice: rich questioning and formative feedback. 54 secondary four students participated in

this study. Cultural norms in collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect inquiry as

an assessment for learning approach. The study consists of 3 parts: (1) quasi experimental

methods to measure effect size of inquiry on learning gains, (2) discourse analysis of

dialogue and conversational patterns and (3) ethnography approach to uncover cultural norms

and values that support student epistemological commitments towards inquiry.

Keywords: collaborative learning, discourse, assessment for learning, rich questioning,

physics by inquiry, formative assessment practices, 21st century competencies.


Content page

1. Introduction 6

2. Problem Statement 6

3. Purpose of Study 8

3.1 Significance of Study 9

4. Literature Review 10

4.1 Formative Assessment 10

4.2 Theoretical framework of formative assessment 10

4.2.1 Questioning & eliciting evidence of understanding 11

4.2.2 Oral & written feedback 12

4.3 Physics by Inquiry and Conceptual Change 13

4.3.1 Instructional Strategies for Conceptual Change 15

4.3.2 Sociocultural factors influencing Collaborative Learning 16

5. Methodology – Part I (Effect of Inquiry(Physics) on Learning gains) 18

5.1 Participants 18

5.2 Data Collection 18

5.3 Sampling, validity & reliability 18

5.4 Implementation of Physics by Inquiry through whiteboards 19


6. Results 20

6.1 Effect Size of Physics by Inquiry (PbI) Approach 20

6.1.2 Non-independence of Dependent Variables 23

6.2 Impact of Rich Questioning and Feedback on Diagnosis of Learning Needs24

6.3 Identifying themes through semi-structured interviews 25

6.4 Impact of Rich Questioning and Feedback on Conceptual Change 27

7. Methodology – Part II (Discourse patterns of two whiteboards groups) 29

7.1 Participants 29

7.2 Measures of discourse patterns 29

7.3 Results 34

8. Methodology – Part III (Ethnography study of Cultural Factors that influence

collaborative learning) 35

8.1 Beetle and The Physics Teacher 35

8.2 Project Lead The Way Classroom in the same school as The Physics Teacher

36

8.3 Look at the Task Card: A story of a classroom in School Y 38

9. Discussion 40

10. Limitations and Recommendations 42

References 43


1. Introduction

Assessment for learning (AfL) in the day-to-day classroom instruction can potentially

provide students with the opportunities to engage in processes that educate for 21st century

skills, particularly those of problem solving and collaboration. PbI is a guided inquiry

pedagogical approach where students actively construct their conceptual understanding

through a series of carefully sequenced hands-on activities, supported by peer discussion and

teacher questioning. The ECR (elicit-confront-resolve) model is used to deliberately elicit

students’ ideas and preconceptions, and guide them to construct their own understanding in a

logical progression. This study examines how the PbI Approach was used as an AfL

practice to uncover alternative conceptions in the topic of 2D-Forces. Cultural norms in

collaborative learning and discursive patterns are also examined to understand its effect on

the inquiry process.

2. Problem Statement

Black and Wiliam (1998) purport that formative assessment has a significant impact

on students’ performance in academic achievement tests:

“… formative assessment does improve learning. The gains in achievement appear to be quite

considerable, and as noted earlier, among the largest ever reported for educational

interventions. As an illustration of just how big these gains are, an effect size of 0.7, if it

could be achieved on a nationwide scale, would be equivalent to raising the mathematics

attainment score of an ‘average’ country like England, New Zealand or the United States into

the ‘top five’ after the Pacific Rim countries of Singapore, Korea, Japan and Hong Kong.”

(Black and Wiliam, 1998, p. 61)


However, it is unclear which aspects of formative assessment have the most

significant impact on academic achievement: is it feedback, eliciting evidence, peer-self

assessment, quality of assessment criteria or a combination of all? Similarly, Kirton et al.

(2007) evaluated the impact of AfL on student attitudes but the strategies employed by

different teachers in AfL were diverse: employing oral feedback, focus on wait time, group

evaluation and correction, improved questioning and design of assessment criteria. Three

outcomes of formative assessment were focused: pupil collaboration and engagement in

learning, self-peer evaluation as well as development of higher order questioning (Kirton et

al., 2007).

Whilst both OECD (2005) and Stiggins (2002) share certain commonalities in

interpreting the purpose and use of formative assessment: a) descriptive feedback for student

improvement, b) establish and make explicit targets and learning goals for students to work

towards to and c) the adaptation of instruction to meet identified needs, there are differences.

First, in peer-self assessment, OECD (2005) emphasized that classroom cultures for

formative assessment are interactive in nature to encourage collaborative problem solving

and clarification of misconceptions. In peer-self assessment, Stiggins (2002) is focused more

on classroom assessment tasks that help students gain confidence so that students’

performance is continually monitored. Second, in active involvement in the learning process,

Stiggins (2002) opines about the role of community to improve engagement of students as

part of regular self-assessment whereas OECD (2005) emphasizes the role of the teacher to

improve engagement through varied instructional methods.

The premise of rich questioning, peer-self assessment is that there is effective

collaboration among peers in a group. Effective collaboration can lead to knowledge

construction as students construct joint explanations and its quality is affected by the nature

of the problem (eg. structure, relevance and interest), the facilitator, the group composition


and experience as well as the nature of participation (Kapur & Kinzer, 2007; Zhang et al,

2008). Ideal collaboration is work that is coordinated and interdependent and that strive to

achieve a shared goal or solving a shared problem (Roscehlle & Teasley, 1995). In the

process, the knowledge is shared with communities of practice when improved ideas and

theories diffuse through the communal knowledge space (Scadamalia, 2002). Do teachers

build communities of practice in the classroom where ideas flourish and students do rich

questioning and co-construct or create knowledge naturally? Perhaps, an alignment of macro

context education policy that emphasizes rich questioning and knowledge creation could

signal meso level changes to support knowledge creation (Chan, K.K, 2011). Teachers’

beliefs about rich questioning, collaborative learning and knowledge creation would need to

evolve as well because teachers do what they value, or not (Shepard et al., 2005).

In this study, PbI is used as an AfL approach to affect deep conceptual change in the

study of 2D Forces. PbI has many elements that are culled from the AfL (i.e. rich

questioning, peer-self assessment and formative assessment through collaborative learning).

The cultural norms of collaborative learning and discursive patterns are also examined to

understand the conditions that influence inquiry in the classroom.

3. Purpose of Study

PbI is a guided-inquiry pedagogical approach where students actively construct their

conceptual understanding through a series of carefully sequenced hands-on activities,

supported by peer discussion and teacher questioning. The ECR model is used to deliberately

elicit students’ ideas and preconceptions, and guide them to construct their own

understanding in a logical progression. This study examines how the PbI Approach through

the use of whiteboards was used as an AfL practice to uncover alternative conceptions in the


topic of 2D Forces. The norms of collaborative learning and discursive patterns are also

examined on how they affect the inquiry process.

The research questions are as follows:

1. What is the effect of Physics by Inquiry on learning through rich questioning and

formative feedback?

2. How can discourse patterns affect collaborative learning in the classroom?

3. How can cultural factors in collaborative learning affect the inquiry process?

3.1 Significance of Study

If formative assessment practices in day-to-day instruction is critical in bringing about

21st century competencies, attitudes and skills in our students: learning how to learn, thinking

about their own thinking and knowing how to plan, monitor and evaluate their own thinking

and understanding, a change in teachers’ classroom practices is required (Shepard et al.,

2005). Instructional practices are underpinned by teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about

students, teaching and learning. This study serves to uncover the two elements in the PbI

Approach that supports its use as an assessment for learning practice: rich questioning and

formative feedback. The study also informs teachers about the need for certain classroom

norms and values to be in place to support cultures of inquiry that result in learning and

engagement.


4. Literature Review

4.1 Formative Assessment

Formative Assessment refers to frequent, interactive assessments of student progress

and understanding to identify learning needs and adjust teaching appropriately (OECD, 2005

p.21). Black and Wiliam (1998) argued that formative assessment or AfL is an essential

component of classroom work that raises standards of achievement. Based on studies (OECD,

2005; Black and William, 1998), educational innovations that include strengthening practice

of formative assessment produce significant learning gains. The groups included in this prior

research range from 5-year olds to university undergraduates, across several disciplines and

countries. Typical standardised effect sizes range between 0.4 and 0.7.

4.2 Theoretical framework of formative assessment

Feedback to students pertaining to right or wrong answers is clearly insufficient to

facilitate learning; feedback need be linked explicitly to clear performance and standards as

well as coupled with strategies for improvement (Sadler, 1998). Setting clear targets require

elaboration of the criteria by which students’ work will be judged (Shepard et al., 2005) and

evaluated based on the gaps between students’ actual understanding and targeted

understanding. Theses gaps mediated by formative assessment steps during the learning

process are closed because the process of learning goals clarification and means to get there

is synonymous with instructional scaffolding. The latter advances a student within his or her

zone of proximal development (ZPD); a region of imaginary learning continuum, between

what a child can do independently and what the child can do with assistance (Vygotsky,

1986). Classroom discourses such as student questioning and explaining of rationale, peer-


self assessment in groups and the norms and ways of speaking in the discipline (Shepard et

al., 2005) by the teacher are some examples of such assistance.

From the juxtaposition of literature, the constructs of AfL are: questioning and

eliciting evidence of understanding (Black & William, 1998; OECD, 2005) for prior

knowledge assessment (Shepard et al., 2005), oral and written feedback (Black & Wiliam,

1998; Shepard et al., 2005; Stiggins, 2002; OECD, 2005) and peer-self assessment (Black &

Wiliam, 1998; Shepard et al., 2005; Stiggins, 2002; OECD, 2005).

4.2.1 Questioning and eliciting evidence of understanding

From Vygotskian social constructivist approaches to learning, Newman et al.(1989)

provided a basis for analysing assessment practices, by providing meaningful and descriptive

feedback to the learner with the intention to teach in the zone of proximal development

(Vygotsky, 1986). Here, Torrance and Pryor (2001) reiterated that instead of finding out if

the learner knows the answers to a set of closed questions characterised in convergent

assessment, the impetus is to discover what the learner knows, understands and can do in

open questioning characterised in divergent assessment. How is open ended questioning

helpful? Open questioning helps to make meaning making explicit so that novice learners

could learn from expert learners in the same group to draw connections, generate arguments,

evaluate, create, analyse and synthesize; which is beyond the ability of the teacher to imagine

(Sadler, 1998). Divergent assessment yields valuable data when students make visible their

thinking: prior knowledge and initial conceptions that teachers use to adapt instruction

effectively (Torrance and Pryor, 2001).


4.2.2 Oral and written feedback

Feedback is not always useful. One third of studies on feedback suggest that

feedback worsens performance, when evaluation focuses on the person rather than the task

(Kluger and DeNisi cited by Shepard, 2008, p.284). Feedback that only provides marks,

grades, scores or proficiency category is not beneficial to learning (Black and William, 1998;

Shepard, 2008). There is no effect of feedback on performance for one third of studies;

leaving just a third of studies that reports a positive effect of feedback (Black and Willam,

1998). Hattie and Timperley (2007) reported from a synthesis of several meta-analyses that

lower effect sizes of feedback corresponded to that of praise, rewards and punishments whilst

that of higher effect sizes corresponded to that of students receiving information about a task

and how to improve it. The list of variables relating to feedback include : cues to perform

task, information about student performance on-task, reinforcement, video or audio feedback,

computer assisted instructional feedback, goals and feedback, student evaluation feedback,

corrective feedback, rewards, punishment, praise and programmed instruction (Hattie, 1999,

cited in Hattie and Timperley, 2007).

In comparing the number of studies by Hattie and Timperley (2007) on feedback with

high effect sizes (ES>0.7), about a third of them have high effect sizes: cues to perform task,

information about student performance on-task and reinforcement. This contrasted with the

claim by Black and William (1998) that only a third of studies show positive effect sizes.

However, what is clear is that some types of feedback are more effective than others. This

concurs with the average effect size of 0.4 (SE = 0.09) (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996 cited in

Hattie and Timperley, 2007).


Positive effect sizes of feedback is specifically about information on task performance

and how student is able to improve his or her own performance based on the difficulty of

goals and tasks. Feedback has the most impact when goals are specific and challenging but

task complexity is low (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Praise for task performance is

ineffective because it contains little learning related information but low threats to self-

esteem are helpful to directing attention to feedback (Hattie and Timperley, 2007).

Feedback needs to be timely and specific and include suggestions for ways to improve

future performance based on explicit criteria regarding expectations (OECD, 2005).

Learning is likely to take place when feedback focuses on the quality of student work in

relation to established criteria, task and learning goals (Shepard et al., 2005) and that gives

pupils specific guidelines on strengths and weaknesses and guidance about what and how to

improve-without any overall marks (Black and William, 1998; Shepard et al., 2005).

Feedback must also occur not at the end when teaching of topic is finished but that takes

place throughout the learning process (Shepard et al., 2005) so that learning is focused on

making thinking visible (Naylor & Keogh, 2007) and allow students to become effective

critics of own and peers’ work.

4.3 Physics by Inquiry and Conceptual Change

Physics by Inquiry is developed for students to experiment, test their assumptions

about the physical phenomena and allow students to develop important physical concepts and

scientific reasoning skills and make evidence based conclusions (McDermott, 1996). Through

an iterative process of questioning, students’ alternative conceptions about the physical

phenomena are elicited and confronted. In our local context, the physics teachers decide to

guide the students in resolving partial conceptions or misconceptions before the end of the

lesson through the use of whiteboards. The whiteboards help to elicit student conceptions


and to confront alternative conceptions within the group before resolution at the class and

teacher level.

Bransford et al (2004) opined that the preconceptions students bring to their

classrooms require teachers to bring about conceptual change.

..people spend considerable time and effort constructing a view of the physical world through

experiences and observations, and they may cling tenaciously to those views – however much

they conflict with scientific concepts – because they help them explain phenomenon and make

predictions about the world. (p.179)

It is these preconceptions that teachers struggle with and the challenge is to help

students navigate through their existing ideas and to present them with new problems that

will challenge their existing notions. Redish (1994) argued that people organize their

experiences into mental models which are a collection of mental patterns that people build to

explain the experiences they have. New information is processed and interpreted that matches

or extends an existing mental model based on assimilation principle i.e. taking new

information to incorporate into existing knowledge. It is only when students realise that their

preconceptions based on existing mental models do not work that new conceptions can start

to take place. The process of being presented with new evidence that challenge their current

way of explaining things, coherent or not, will bring with it a feeling of confusion, but is

necessary for students to recognise that their preconceptions are not sufficient or are incorrect.

(Bransford and Johnson, 1972; Dooling and Lachman, 1971). The clearer the prediction of

the physical phenomena presented and the stronger the conflict, the better is the effect of

changing existing mental model of understanding physics through accommodation (Redish,

1994).


One implication is that students who are not presented with opportunities for this

dissonance between what they have seen and what they know, will come away thinking they

have understood a phenomena when they have not. This is consistent with the observation of

students who are unable to solve problems when the context is changed because they had

preconceptions that worked for some scenarios but not for others. These students have not

been challenged and have thought their ideas were accurate. Schwartz and Bransford (1998)

hence called for teachers to make students’ thinking visible so as to understand their

preconceptions and to find ways to reconceptualise faulty conceptions.

4.3.1 Instructional Strategies for Conceptual Change

Bridging is a successful strategy in helping students overcome persistent misconceptions

(Brown, 1992; Brown and Clement, 1989; Clement, 1993). In bridging, the teacher tries to

bridge students’ misconceptions to their correct conceptions through a series of analogous

situations. A student enters into dialogue with the teacher and is probed for his/her beliefs

before being guided to resolve ideas and eventually comes up with a coherent view that is

applicable across all contexts. The negotiation of ideas and conceptions with peers help to

develop epistemic motivation to know and understand the subject matter (Cornelius,

Herrenkohl and Wolfstone-Hay, 2013)

Interactive lecture demonstrations (Sokoloff and Thornton, 1997; Thorton and

Sokoloff, 1997) is another tried and tested strategy that facilitates conceptual change. Used in

many Physics introductory classes, students are asked to make predictions about how an

experiment would turn out before witnessing a demonstration. The teacher then guides

students in a discussion that incorporates their experiences and what they have just witnessed

before developing together a coherent view of the scientific law through predict-observe-


explain protocol. Teaching as Coaching is also an instructional strategy for conceptual

change. The teacher assumes the role of a coach. He starts a topic in general terms and asks

students for their preconceptions and what the topic means for them. After eliciting their

views, he guides them to a specific example and through a series of questions such as “How

do you know?”, “How did you decide?” and “Why do you believe that”, thus identifying the

erroneous views that stand in the way of conceptual understanding (Minstrell, 1992). These

views, what Minstrell calls facets of knowledge, are then used to devise instructional

strategies. The common thread in all these strategies involve the eliciting of students

preconceptions, presenting opportunities to challenge those conceptions and having a teacher

to facilitate the process of reaching a coherent understanding that can work in multiple

contexts.

4.3.2 Sociocultural factors influencing Collaborative Learning

Culture is foundational to learning. Learners have knowledge structures that are

characterised by discourse, norms and practices of communities of practice, interactions,

negotiation and collaboration (Palinscar, 1998). Students have prior knowledge and have

diverse experiences with the physical phenomena that are used in a persuasive discourse as a

means of creating arguments that peers will find compelling (Cornelius, Herrenkohl and

Wolfstone-Hay, 2013). Interactions in classroom discussion are thought to provide

mechanisms for enhancing higher order thinking (Palinscar, 1998). Learning opportunities

are subject to productive relationships and complex interpersonal contexts of peer-self

assimilation and cognitive conflict. Peer mediation is found to have high effect size on

learning gains (Ashman & Gilles, 2013) and guided peer questioning is integral in effective

collaboration (Hmelo-Silver & DeSimone, 2013). Barron (2000) discussed about joint

attention and shared task alignment in groups that succeeded in learning collaboratively. In

these contexts, students need be taught to work collaboratively i.e. awareness of others,


norms for interaction, helping one another and generating explanations (Palinscar, 1998).

Lee (2001) observed that students were able to generate questions and engage in reasoning

as part of multiparty talk i.e. responding to one another’s statements and questions when the

epistemology of inquiry was evolving as routine practice in the classroom.

Learning to probe, dig deeper, make claims and develop conceptions as a group

requires explicit skills in questioning, norms in working together and an epistemology of

inquiry. Through scientific inquiry, students’ preconceptions and prior knowledge or lived

experiences about the physical phenomena are elicited and confronted amongst peers in a

group. The conflict between alternative conceptions in a group allow students to participate

in scientific argumentation and internalization (Vygotsky, 1978) through the individual use of

shared understanding (intramental) and the shared understanding that is constructed

jointly(intermental) in a social activity. A culture of constructive discussion, questioning,

argumentation and building on each other’s ideas (Palinscar, 1998) influences the ways we

think about the subject matter. It is helpful to identify cultural factors (Vygotsky, 1978) that

influence inquiry on how it engages with the ways of thinking about the subject matter. The

resolution of the alternative conceptions of the students through either peer experts or teacher

allow students to make evidence based conclusions (McDermott, 1996). Hypothesis-

predicting and reflecting on mistakes through rich questioning provide the means for students

to obtain formative feedback (Hodson, 1999) from the teacher or their peers as they learn

collaboratively. Collaborative learning is a matter of expansive transformation of shared

knowledge practices that relies on deliberately cultivated knowledge practices (Hmelo-Silver

& DeSimone, 2013). Practices in collaborative learning include shared routines and

established procedures such as question generation, explication of working theories, search

for information and inquiry practices that can be socialised at the beginning of their

classroom studies (Hakkarainen, 2009; Hewitt, 1996).


5. Methodology – Part I (Effect of Inquiry(Physics) on Learning gains)

In the sections that follow, I discuss the procedures followed to collect data on the effect size

of PbI using white boarding on learning gains compared to the control group.

5.1 Participants

Fifty four grade 10 (or secondary 4) students participated in this study over a 2-week

study in 2015 in a public secondary school in the midwestern U.S. The students’ gender,

ethnicity and social economic status are not taken into consideration in this preliminary study.

5.2 Data collection

In this preliminary study, three types of data were obtained: learning gains due to pre-

post test results, semi-structured interviews with students and self-report questionnaires for

the students. Self-report questionnaires were also developed to measure student perceptions

about their engagement. Semi-structured interview data with students were culled to find out

if students were engaged in the process; details are shown in section 6.3.

5.3 Sampling, Validity & Reliability

Use of convenient (non-probability) sampling in this preliminary study does not seek

generalizability across all schools. It does however seek to uncover how students who make

meaning through PbI using whiteboards have higher test scores and are more engaged. Rich

questioning through PbI using whiteboards enable teachers to elicit evidence of

understanding that facilitates formative feedback leading to conceptual change.


5.4 Implementation of Physics by Inquiry through whiteboards

Physics by Inquiry using whiteboards was conducted to uncover alternative

conceptions in the topic of 2D Forces – the relationship between net force and motion as well

as force representations using the vector triangle and free-body diagram. A pre-test

consisting of 3 tiers of questions: Tier 0 consists of two Multiple Choice Questions and 1

Structured Question which require students to recall and comprehend concepts. Tier 1

questions consist of two structured questions that require the students to comprehend and

apply conceptual understanding. Tier 2 questions consist of two open ended physics

problems that require students to apply their conceptual understanding in a non-familiar

context and qualitatively explain their solution. The pre-tests help students identify what they

do and do not understand about the concepts in 2D forces as well as identify for them what

they are expected to learn in the Physics by Inquiry lessons. The study took place over two

lessons for two classes. Each lesson requires about 1 h 15 min to complete. The treatment

group was organized into subgroups of 3 and 4. Students were give the autonomy and choice

to decide if they chose to learn collaboratively though PbI using white boards or not. White

boards and coloured markers were given to these subgroups i.e. one white board

(approximately 30 cm x 20 cm in size) per subgroup to ensure that students in the treatment

group had access to this cognitive tool.

The whiteboards functioned both as a space for small groups to record and revise their

thinking based on collaborative inquiries and as a means for presenting their findings to the

whole class (Cornelius, Herrenkohl and Wolfstone-Hay, 2013). Based on a series of inquiry

question given to the whole class, student conceptions in the treatment group with the

whiteboards are elicited with a view to have students think and ask questions about predicting

and theorizing, summarizing results and relating predictions and theories to results

(Herrenkohl & Guerra, 1998; Herrenkohl, Palinscar, DeWater, & Kawasaki, 1999). The


control group was not divided into smaller subgroups of 3-4. They did not participate in

collaborative learning of any sort except to mull over the inquiry questions at the start and

read their text or checked their understanding with a peer but it was not structured. They

participated as if it was the I-R-E sequence in a direct instruction class: teacher initiates (I)

and asks a question, students think and respond (R) as well as teacher evaluating (E) student

answer. When the collaborative learning of 3-4 min ended, the whiteboards were shown to

the class and student representatives were encouraged to present their conceptions to the class.

Both treatment and control groups listened and indicated their response for the conception

that they thought was the most robust, accurate and precise. This cycle was repeated for four

times across the span of two lessons.

6. Results

In the sections that follow, I discuss about the results from the data collected. The

assumption of non-independence between dependent variables or post test scores in the

control group is also questioned. Multilevel analysis is used to address hierarchically nested

datasets e.g. groups consisting of two or more students that may interact even though they are

not engaged in the collaborative learning that the PbI group is doing.

6.1 Effect size of Physics by Inquiry

(i) There is a medium effect size (ES=0.4) through the Physics by Inquiry for solving

higher order thinking questions that require application and evaluation of

application of principles in problem solving.


Table 1

Effect Size of Group who underwent Physics by Inquiry on higher order thinking skills

Tier 2 questions (Higher Order Thinking)

Sample Size, N Pre test Post test Mean Standard

deviation Mean Standard

deviation

Gro

ups

PbI Group

26

0.15

0.37

0.88

0.86

Control

28

0.14

0.36

0.54

0.79

T-test (significance 2 tailed)

-

0.91

0.1*

Effect Size

-

0.05

0.42

*Significant at 90% confidence interval, 2 tailed.

Levene’s Equivalence check was conducted between the two groups: Physics by Inquiry

using whiteboards group and the control. They were compared for pre-test scores and the

difference was statistically insignificant. There was no significant difference in the learning

gains between the treatment and control groups for level 0 (recall) and level 1(comprehension)

questions. There is an effect size of 0.42 (medium; Cohen’s d) for level 2 (application and

evaluation) open ended questions. This means that the average student in the treatment group

corresponded to the scores of the 66 percentile of the student in the control group.


(i) There is a small to medium effect size (ES=0.3) through Physics by Inquiry using

whiteboards for solving all kinds of questions i.e. Tier 0, 1 and 2 including recall,

comprehension through to higher order thinking questions.

Table 2

Effect Size of Group who underwent Physics by Inquiry on all question types

Tier 0,1 and 2 questions

Sample Size, N Pre test Post test Mean Standard

deviation Mean Standard

deviation

Gro

ups

PbI Group

26

3.77

2.20

7.08

3.02

Control

28

3.70

1.81

6.15

2.88

T-test (significance 2 tailed)

-

0.91

0.26*

Effect Size

-

0.03

0.32

*Not Significant at 90% confidence interval, 2 tailed.

Levene’s Equivalence test was conducted between the two groups: Physics by Inquiry

Approach group and the control group. They were compared for pre-test scores and the

difference was statistically insignificant. There was no significant difference in the learning

gains between the treatment and control groups for level 0 (recall) and level 1(comprehension)

questions. There is an effect size of 0.32 (small to medium) for all levels of questions. This

means that the average student in the treatment group corresponded to the scores of the 62

percentile of the student in the control group.


6.1.2 Non-independence of Dependent Variables

However, Janssen et al. (2013) reiterated that students within the control group are

likely more similar to each other than are persons from different groups and this non-

independence is caused by the mutual influence group members have on each other while

they are interacting. The degree of non-independence can be estimated using the intraclass

coefficient (ICC, cf., Kashy & Kenny, 2000; Kenny et al., 2002). From table 1, the ICC is

calculated to be at 0.55. This means that 55% of the variance in this measure is accounted for

by the group and thus 45% is accounted for by other factors e.g. individuals. A large positive

value of the ICC indicates that within a group, group members tend to score similarly on the

post-test scores (Janssen et al., 2013). When the assumption of non-independence of

dependent variables is violated, the chance of committing type 1 error increases (Snijders &

Bosker, 1999). To resolve this, the Mixed Models option in SPSS is used to perform Multi

Level Analysis (MLA) and determine the variance caused by random effects in the control

group as well as the variance caused by the residual effects of the white-boarding (treatment)

group.

Table 3

Residual effect of PbI using whiteboards in the treatment group

Residual

effect

Estimate Std error Z Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Upper

Variance 0.830 0.245 3.91 0.001 0.466 1.480

From table 3, the estimate for residual effect of the treatment group is a correlation

coefficient of 0.830 which means that 0.69 or approximately 70% of the variance is

accounted by the effect of the use of physics by inquiry through whiteboards.


Table 4

Random effect of interactions between members in the control group

Random

effect

Estimate Std error Z Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Upper

Variance 0.110 0.277 0.398 0.691 0.001 15.165

From table 4, the estimate for random effect of the control group is a correlation coefficient

of 0.110 which means that 0.0121 or approximately 1% of the variance is accounted by the

random effect of interactions between members in the control group. As a result, type 1 error

is avoided because the results for PbI using whiteboards is statistically significant (p<0.01)

based on MLA.

6.2 Impact of Rich Questioning and Feedback on Diagnosis of Learning Needs

The process of Physics by Inquiry provides ‘minute-by-minute’ feedback through oral

comments to students who participated in the collaborative learning. How students relate one

concept to another is demonstrated through the PbI exercise which requires students to do

iterative questioning, clarify multiple points of view and make evidence based conclusions.

Table 5 shows that students in the PbI group prefer the teacher to question them (ES=0.3) as

part of hands-on learning (ES=0.5) that allow them to form good conclusions (ES=0.3) with

the outcome of developing better conceptual understanding and finding out more about the

topics (ES=0.3).


Table 5

Comparison of survey results between group that underwent Physics by Inquiry through whiteboards and control group

Survey Question

Descriptor PbI (n=28)

Control (n=26)

Mean (max=4)

Standard deviation

Mean (max=4)

Standard Deviation

4 I am confident that my results from the hands-on activities helped me to form good conclusions 3.25 0.65 3.00 0.61

11 Hands-on activities made me want to find out more about the topics 3.07 0.86 2.79 0.79

14

I prefer teacher to tell me the answers to the questions directly rather than trying to figure out my own 1.89 0.79 2.25 0.80

17 I prefer learning from teachers teaching in front of class rather than through hands-on learning 1.93 0.81 2.50 0.84

6.3 Identifying themes through semi-structured interviews

The analysis of the semi-structured interviews of students was culled to reflect a few

key strands about how students learn in the Physics by Inquiry through whiteboards context

as follows. The questions posed to students were as follows:

What do you like about the way the 2D Forces were taught that helped you develop your

understanding of the topics? Give suggestions to improve the way the 2D Forces was taught.


These strands were distinct in the treatment group that were triangulated with

comments that also emerged from the control group. Comments from students about their

engagement and about the pace of learning in the class applied to both groups and shall not

be reflected here eg. “The teacher was super in the subject and really made me feel invested

in what was being taught.” Student X (treatment group). “The high energy and highly

knowledgeable instructor engaged me.” Student Y (control group). The following themes

emerged:

Students clarify or resolve their conceptual understanding through collaborative learning

Student A (treatment): We work in groups to explain concepts to each other and then as a

class. So if I didn't get something, I could just ask the person next to

me.

Student B (treatment): I like the hands-on activities that the class did. I also enjoyed

working and debating in groups to the best possible answer.

Student C(treatment): I liked being able to discuss and debate why these things happen and

have a more physical way of learning rather than just listening to a

lecture. I am also a visual learner, so being able to see physical

example such as the whiteboard helped me a lot.

Student D(treatment): I really liked the group collaboration and the whiteboard. They helped

me think more outside-the-box.

Student E(treatment): The interaction within groups developed my conceptual understanding.

Student F (treatment): I liked how we used groups and created explanations and then voted

as a class which one was most accurate.


Student G (control): Use whiteboards for the whole class and not just half the class.

Student H (control): More discussion by letting the rest of class participate through

whiteboards.

The role of the teacher as a facilitator in rich questioning and formative feedback

Student I (treatment): I liked Mr Song's willingness to make sure everyone understands the

topic.

Student J(treatment): I liked that rather than just use math. I was able to get real-time

feedback through hands on activity.

Student K(treatment): It was so exciting! Fresh! I felt engaged. I felt like I was part of an

ongoing discussion, not some sort of robot that’s expected to memorize

and forget. I go so into it. I started taking notes-not because I had to

but because I really want to get it right!

6.4 Impact of Rich Questioning and Feedback on Conceptual Change

Results from the post-test scores show a qualitative difference in answers from the

two groups. For the Tier 2 open ended question as shown in Figure 1, most students

indicated that the reaction force either increases or decreases without explaining their answers.

Some students in the treatment group show some precise use of scientific language by

relating reaction force to the angle between the two forces by using a cultural tool: vector

triangle diagram as shown in Figure 2, which is necessary to solve higher order questions

Torrance and Pryor (2001).


A ball is held between two plates as shown in the figure below. The angle between the two

plates is 90o.

Explain qualitatively or otherwise, changes in the reaction force of the plate on the ball when the angle between the plate decreases.

Figure 1: Tier 2 question (An open ended 2D force question that requires students to apply

higher order thinking skills in application and evaluation)

Figure 2: A sample of student response from the treatment group


7. Methodology – Part II (Discourse patterns of two whiteboards groups)

Results show that there is medium effect size (ES=0.4) on higher order thinking

questions for the group that participated in PbI through learning collaboratively with the

whiteboards. The effect size could be affected by the type of collaborative learning in the

groups. Putting students together might not translate into learning gains for all students; it

depends on what students do in collaborative learning situations (Chan, 2001). To

understand how students learn collaboratively, analysis was conducted to characterize

different discourse patterns and to examine how successful groups differed in their discourse

patterns.

7.1 Participants

Eight students from two student dyads were selected for in-depth analysis of discourse

patterns. These student dyads were observed to describe the difference in the discourse even

between groups who undergo PbI through whiteboards. We next highlight one as the

successful collaborative learning group and the other as the unsuccessful collaborative

learning group. The other groups’ discourse patterns lie between these two groups.

7.2 Measures of discourse patterns

Student utterances were examined to identify patterns of discourse (Chan, 2001).

Below is an excerpt of a dialogue based on an inquiry question from the teacher. The inquiry

question is about changes in the measurement by the two spring balances. Initially, the two

spring balances are used to support a 5 Newton weight. Each of the measurement scale of the

spring balance reads 2.5 N. The excerpt of the dialogue is shown in Table 6 for the successful

group. The inquiry question by the teacher is as follows: What happens to the reading on the

spring balance when the angle between the spring balance increases? Does it increase or

decrease? Explain your reasoning.


Table 6. Protocol examples illustrating moves in successful group

Lines Student verbal interactions Discourse Moves

1 Joe: Increases. Joe makes a statement

2 Jane: Why? Jane questions

3 Tom: I am not sure but it is kind of hypothenus of

the initial reading of 2.5 N.

Tom develops a conception

4 Joe: Yeah. Hypothenus means more. Joe verifies conception

5 Jane: I still do not understand. Jane makes a statement

6 Jane: How can we apply the use of the vector

triangle that we have learnt recently? How do we

express in diagrammatic form an object at rest?

Jane questions

7 Harry: Let’s see - can we draw the vector triangle

this way?

Harry questions

8 Tom: No, this is the free body diagram not the

vector triangle.

Tom develops a conception

9 Jane: Do we draw a resultant force here? Jane questions

10 Joe: Is there a resultant force? Joe questions

11 Tom: Zero. Tom makes statement

12 Harry: Ok-it could look like this. (Harry draws a

closed triangle).

Harry develops a conception

In collaborative learning, the analysis of the interaction can be based on the categorization of

single events such as the use of sequence analysis for categorical data (Bakeman & Grottman,

1997). In this study, we use the lag-sequential analysis which describes sequences events as

Markov chains and which current events determine the probability of events in the next

period. A coding schema is used to classify the events in the above dialogue as follows: (a)


questions, (b) statement and (c) scientific conception which is shown using a frequency

matrix as shown in Table 7 deduced from Markov chain in the dialogue: ‘ba-cc-ba-ac-aa-bc’:

Table 7 Frequency Matrix (Cress & Hesse, 2013)

Succeeded by Question (a) Statement(b) Conception (c) Total

Question (a) 2 1 2 5 Statement (b) 2 1 3

Scientific conception(c)

1 1 1 3

Total 5 2 4 11

As a second step, these absolute frequencies are converted into relative frequencies that

describe the transitional probability that a question, answer or statement and conception is

succeeded by a question, answer or statement and conception as shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Transitional Probability Matrix (Cress & Hesse, 2013)

Succeeded by Question (a) Statement (b) Conception (c)

Question (a) 0.40 0.20 0.40 Statement(b) 0.67 0.00 0.33


0.33 0.33 0.33

These probabilities are conditional probabilities that describe that an event category occurs if

a preceding event has taken place (Cress & Hesse, 2013). A transition state diagram can be

used to visualize the pattern of event sequences as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Transition state diagram for event sequence (question-statement-scientific conception) for successful collaborative learning group

0.33

0.40

0.33 0.20

question

statement

Scientific conception

0.67

0.33


From Figure 3, there are several pathways that suggest iterative questioning, statement and

concept development. In particular, higher frequencies were highlighted for the question-

conception sequence (0.40) and statement-question (0.67). The discourse for the

unsuccessful group shown in Table 9 is contrasted with that of the discourse in the successful

group.

Table 9. Protocol examples illustrating moves in unsuccessful group

Lines Student verbal interactions Discourse Moves

1 Lennie: Increases. Lennie makes a statement

2 Mary: Yea Mary makes a statement

3 Dick: I ‘m not sure how to explain . Dick makes a statement

4 Susan: Yea Susan makes a statement

5 Lennie: I know but I do not know how to explain Lennie makes a statement

6 Mary: Is it because it has something to do with the

hypothenus?

Mary develops a conception

7 Dick: Yea Dick makes a statement

8 Lennie: Sort of…yea. Lennie makes a statement

9 Susan: Can the free body diagram help us

understand?

Susan questions

10 Lennie: Yea. Let’s just draw it and see how it

represents an object at rest.

Lennie makes a conception.

Similar to the data in table 7, we use the lag-sequential analysis which describes sequences

events as Markov chains and which current events determine the probability of events in the

next period . A coding schema is used to classify the events in the above dialogue as follows:

(a) questions, (b) statement and (c) scientific conception which is shown using a frequency


matrix as shown in Table 10 based on the Markov chain deduced from the dialogue above

‘ab-ac-cb-aa-ca-abc’:

Table 10 Frequency Matrix (Cress & Hesse, 2013)

Succeeded by Question (a) Statement(b) Conception (c) Total

Question (a) 1 1 Statement (b) 1 5 1 7


1 1

Total 1 6 2 9

As a second step, these absolute frequencies are converted into relative frequencies that

describe the transitional probability that a question, answer or statement and conception is

succeeded by a question, answer or statement and conception as shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Transitional Probability Matrix (Cress & Hesse, 2013)

Succeeded by Question (a) Statement (b) Conception (c)

Question (a) 0.00 0.00 1.00 Statement(b) 0.14 0.71 0.14


0.00 1.00 0.00

Similar to Figure 3, a transition state diagram can be used to visualize the pattern of event

sequences as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Transition state diagram for event sequence (question-statement-scientific conception) for unsuccessful collaborative learning group.

1.00

0.14

question

statement

Scientific conception

0.14

1.00


7.3 Results

The discourse patterns of the successful collaborative learning groups and the

unsuccessful collaborative learning groups were compared to examine differences in

discourse between the two groups. Two observations were made about the transition state

diagram between the two groups. First, there were multiple pathways between question,

statement and scientific conception for the successful collaborative learning group compared

to the unsuccessful collaborative learning group. Second, there are no pathway from

scientific conception to question in the unsuccessful collaborative learning group i.e. group

members did not question the conception made by members of the group. They were not

critical about their thinking. Students who learnt more were in groups that engaged in

extensive counterarguments, co-construction of arguments and discussion of whether the

reasons offered by the participants were good reasons or not. Students in groups who

engaged in simpler argumentation e.g. provide simple reasons for claims without engaging

with alternative conceptions and perspectives, learnt less (Chinn & Clark, 2013).

There could be cultural factors that explain why some groups are unsuccessful in

collaborative learning. These factors include: classroom culture, inquiry stance of the teacher,

education policy and school culture. These factors will be discussed as part of an

ethnographic study of culture in four classrooms including the one mentioned in Part I and

Part II study.


8.0 Methodology – Part III (Ethnography study of Cultural Factors that influence

collaborative learning)

In the study of ethnography in education, Mills and Morton (2013) call for an

ethnographic analysis that is both participatory and accountable - the author as a participant

in the context of teaching and learning in the classroom whilst at the same time seeking to be

objective to uncovering the cultural overlays that may affect inquiry in the classroom. As

Fazal Rizvi (2009) puts it:

“It is impossible to look at a place or culture without seeing it as interrelated to other places

and cultures, to history ….”

The teacher’s beliefs affect the curriculum orientation and way of thinking in the classroom.

In this classroom, I retell a compelling narrative about the lead teacher in this classroom. It is

a story that confounds yet inspires. I shall triangulate the personal narrative with

observations in another school known for their progressive education; inquiry and

collaborative learning.

8.1 Beetle and The Physics Teacher

In a typical physics class one day, the physics teacher was busy indicating the

mathematical equations of force and motion when he was interrupted by what seemed like

idle chatter at first glance. The physics teacher did not dismiss the chatter. With a

compassionate glance, he gestured to the students and probed about the nature of the chatter.

Encouraged by his willingness to explore a subject matter outside Physics, they shared

excitedly about the beetle they just caught. The beetle was now let out of the bag, literally.

Instead of feeling agitated and flabbergasted as I would imagine a teacher from another part


of the world where I come from would be, the Physics teacher decided to follow a different

discourse: the discourse of the beetle; its categorization in the natural world, its

characteristics, its adaptation and survival and the like. The students were thrilled. To

confound and yet inspire, the physics teacher decided to devote the rest of the lesson to study

the beetle.

This is part of the culture of the classroom: to explore and see how it goes based on

the students’ interests and passion. An openness to inquiry is certainly one of many factors

that are important to foster a culture of inquiry.

8.2 Project Lead The Way Classroom in the same school as The Physics Teacher

In the same school as the physics teacher, a lesson on Forensic Science through

Project Lead The Way in real-world problem solving (i.e. identification of remains of 5000

war dead in the Korean War), was observed. Sue exclaimed to her friend, Jane: “This bone

must be that of a young female based on the empirical equation.” Jane remarked: “What

makes you say that? Look at the photo and the bone and look at the difference here. It could

be a young man of small build too.” This conversation is evident in different groups across

the classroom. There was student-directed learning to complete the forensic science report as

part of a continuum activities: digging of bones (last week), investigation of bone length and

profile (today) before identifying ‘missing characters’ by relating the bones with the possible

profile of the ‘missing character’ (next week). The task is authentic and seeks to engage

students in real-world problem solving. Students were observed to use their own question

stems (e.g. “what do you think?”, “what do you mean?”) to probe peers for a deeper

understanding of the problem. Students identified parts of bones through searching online

information and clarified with the teacher based on questions that require application of


concepts. The teacher was calm and helped a group of students clarify their doubts whilst the

rest were busy collecting and examining clues. “How do they know what to do and expect if

the teacher is not even facilitating? This is incredible. Learning is taking place without

facilitation and groups working on their own.” I thought to myself. “Is this the “magic of

Project Lead The Way? I knew Project Lead The Way (PLTW) is a national initiative to

encourage students to consider STEM options after high school but for students to direct their

own learning and monitor their learning. This is surely surreal.” I am really puzzled. “Wait

a minute, what is this sheet of paper?” I thought to myself as I examined what looked like

task-analytic rubrics. I was not sure if PLTW also included task-analytic and content-specific

rubrics for students to direct their own learning and monitor their own understanding. The

teacher beamed with pride as she shared how the rubrics she created were well received by

teachers in the same district and nationally as she shared with them during the education

conferences. Students are given the task analytic rubrics to inform them of the success

criteria for completion of main tasks and sub-tasks with a view for students to direct and

monitor their own learning based on interaction with peers.

This looks like a structure for inquiry: students evaluating their own understanding

and that of their peers about clear and explicit group goals, specific tasks and respective

content knowledge to guide them. The use of question stems by the students also helped.

The use of question stems in this class could be norms that were built over time by the

teacher. It was helpful the activity was designed as part of the PLTW initiative and weaved

into the curriculum as part of federal education policy towards encouraging STEM in schools.


8.3 Look at the Task Card: A story of a classroom in School Y

It was a typical day in School Y. As I wondered around the classroom, there was a

hive of activity in the five groups of students in the classroom known as ‘learning hubs’ or

‘learning stations’. “Where is the teacher”, I muttered under my breath. The teacher is not at

the front nor is she at the back. Neither is she walking about looking over her charges. She

was nowhere to be found. “Oh dear, what is going on here?”, I thought to myself. Everyone

in class was busy. But there is a difference from the conventional classroom: everyone in

their respective groups was doing different activities and the teacher was nowhere to be found

until I took a closer look. “Alas, there she is!” I exclaimed. The teacher was teaching one

group of students only. Throughout the lesson, she was teaching only that one group. The

rest of the four stations consisted of different activities across math and language arts

(grammar, comprehension etc.), One group does an activity on the interactive notebook. 1

group write sentences to reflect their learning of math. Each of the students takes turns to

lead, inquire and clarify without the facilitation of the teacher. Teacher facilitates and

anchors only one station or one group of students. In the rest of the stations, there are peer

leaders who guide their peers by reading the task card and ensuring the task is completed by

the group, without teacher supervision or monitoring. The following dialogue is a one such

snapshot:

Student A: Look at the Task Card! (He gestured to his peer, student B)

Student B reads the task card: Turn to page 25 of the Task Assignment and follow the steps.

Student A: What are the steps? (He looked at another peer, student C)

Student C takes out the task assignment and reads the steps.


Enculturation of collaborative learning norms

“How did they do it?”, I am now left puzzled and wondering. At first glance, it seems

a little chaotic because everyone is doing different things. And the teacher only works with

the homogeneous group that requires intervention and mediation in their learning whilst the

rest of the groups are working on their own in heterogeneous groups. However, students are

assigned roles to monitor the group activity. They learn to lead each other to complete the

task indicated on the task card. To build on the ideas of others, they collaborate and work

cooperatively. According to the principal of this school, student habits to learn cooperatively

have been built since kindergarten in school with a similar educational philosophy and

curriculum orientation. There were structures and values that were put in place that

encouraged a culture of inquiry and discovery. Structures that foster cooperative learning;

where students learn to learn in teams and take turns leading each other, clarifying and

probing. I asked the students from the school the following questions during students Q&A

session to clarify the structures that I thought I observed in the class:

Observer: What happens when you do not know what's happening in the task card?

Student L: Ask 3 people first. If they do not know, ask the teacher. Observer: What do you do when somebody does not do the work?

Student M: Roles are assigned: Reporter, Timer, Time Management. The reporter would

inform the teacher.

Observer: What are the highlights of being in a School Y?

Student N: I can work in a group really well because I have been doing it for 6 years.

Stations help because I can learn more because stations reinforce what is taught in

the previous lessons.

Student O: I like stations because I like working in groups. Sometimes, when I mess up,

other people help me and I help others. I learnt new stuff from my friends. I like


stations because some of the stations are challenging to me and I like challenges.

My own inference from the observation is that there is enculturation of group norms in

cooperative learning since young that resulted in high peer leadership and high cooperative

learning. The group norms and ways of thinking in School Y have been established at a

young age, repeated and routinized after several rounds and even years. These norms and

ways of thinking support the culture of inquiry as students probe, clarify and build on each

other’s ideas. School Culture and the cultural capital that was built up since kindergarten

clearly supported structures that encouraged inquiry.

9. Discussion

There is medium effect size (ES=0.4) on learning gains as a result of using the PbI

through use of white boards. After considering the non-independence of dependent variables

using Multilevel Analysis (MLA) due to interaction between members with the control group,

the use of PbI through use of whiteboards is statistically significant (p<0.01). The statistical

significance applies to student attempts at open ended questions that require application and

evaluation of physics concepts. Rich questioning and formative feedback through use of

white boards in PbI Approach provides the basis for students to assess themselves as they

learn. From observations and findings from semi-structured interviews, students are engaged

while using the whiteboards to allow them to delve into the subject matter deeper and

question alternative conceptions amongst their peers as compared to the traditional practice of

waiting for the teacher to provide an answer. Participants’ learning through formative

assessment practices in rich questioning and oral feedback through peers and the teacher help

them to develop deeper conceptual understanding as part of solving higher order questions

(Kirton et al., 2007) and use cultural tools eg. precise scientific language and vector diagrams


of forces. The dialogue for conceptual clarification and focus on student talk allows student

thinking to be made visible for teachers to diagnose and intervene real-time.

PbI through use of whiteboard facilitates conceptual change in students. However, the

challenge in the design of PbI tasks is to find a balance between the time given to exploration

by the students, the discussion time between teacher and students to come to a coherent

explanation and the subsequent design of more questions to assess if student have undergone

conceptual change. One implication is that teachers should decrease number of conceptual

tasks involved or the data collection (if any) in the exploration stage and allow more time for

students to resolve conceptions amongst themselves and the teacher across multiple contexts

different from the PbI tasks. The discursive patterns in two different groups is evidence that

collaborative learning norms need to be structured, rehearsed and routinized for students to

develop the epistemological commitments towards inquiry.

Certain sociocultural factors such as social and cultural capital influence the norms

and values of the school that affect the quality of inquiry in the classroom. Classroom

cultures for formative assessment are interactive in nature to encourage collaborative problem

solving and clarification of misconceptions (OECD, 2005). While there is an openness to

inquiry in the classroom of study, there are other sociocultural factors that could influence the

quality of inquiry is the context. Structures that encourage students to routinize behaviours in

probing, clarifying and inquiring in teams; learning collaboratively in teams to confront

alternative conceptions, could be helpful to improve the quality of inquiry. As shown in

Figure 4, the scientific conception-question pathway is largely absent and reflects the absence

in the epistemological commitments of the unsuccessful collaborative learning group of

students towards precision and accuracy in the inquiry process, which may yield higher effect

size if addressed.


10. Limitations and Recommendations

The sample size could be increased to increase inter-item reliability and consistency

for both instruments e.g. encourage more schools to participate to ascertain if students of all

abilities can benefit from the Physics by Inquiry Approach. The instrumentation in terms of

items in the survey need be improved for higher reliability and the sample sized increased if

findings of the study are to be generalizable. Transcriptions of student dialogue could be

carried out to probe the depth of their discussion with one another as part of a further study to

understand effects of peer-self assessment in Physics by Inquiry. For inquiry to be used as an

assessment for learning approach, professional development could take place along three

planes: pedagogical, sociocultural and epistemological. On a pedagogical plane, the skilful

use of rich questioning and use of wait time is required to facilitate useful formative feedback.

On a sociocultural plane, there is a need to build collaborative learning structures that

facilitate high mutuality and high equality between learners eg. peers routinize questions that

probe, clarify and inquire within their groups for quality inquiry to take place. Three,

educational philosophy of teachers determine the values that support inquiry or otherwise.

From ethnographic analysis, a culture that values accuracy, precision and rigor in

explanations coupled with an openness to inquiry and investigation is likely to result in

quality inquiry.

This is but a preliminary study that needs to take into consideration several other

segments of teachers and students across different schools and settings. If the findings are to

be representative of the population of students learning through Physics by Inquiry using

whiteboard in U.S and Singapore: more data from different type of schools – public, public

charter and private schools need to be collected. In this study, quantitative data were taken

from students and teachers belonging to a public high school in U.S. The elements in the

Physics by inquiry approach: rich questioning and formative feedback premised on


collaborative learning lends itself as an Assessment for Learning approach. Students know

where they are in their conceptual understanding and do self-assessment continually in the

course of the discourse with both their peers and the teacher. Learning is both inter-mental

i.e. construction of shared understanding within a group as well as intra-mental i.e. individual

concept reorganization (Vygotsky, 1978). The values and norms for collaborative learning in

a group influence the quality and nature of inquiry which in turn affects it to be used as an

effective assessment for learning approach. This study is a small but significant step in the

correct direction: to bring about formative assessment practices in day-to-day classroom

instruction and through the process enable every child to learn how to learn and think about

their thinking; basic tenets of a good education for life and living.

References

Ashman, A.F., & Gillies, R. M. (2013). Collaborative Learning for Diverse Learners. In

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (Ed), The international handbook of collaborative

learning. New York: Routledge.

Barron, B. (2000). Achieving Coordination in Collaborative Problem Solving Groups,

The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436

Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box-Raising Standards Through

Classroom Assessment, Phi Delta Kappan, 139-148.

Black, P., & William, D. (1996). Meaning and Consequences: A basis for

distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational

Research Journal, 22, 5, 537-548.


Black, P., & William, D. (2003) In Praise of Educational Research: Formative

Assessment, British Educational Research Journal, 29, 5, 623-637.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B.,& William, D. (2004). Working Inside

the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom, Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 1,

9-21.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking R.R., Donovan, M.S, & Pellegrino, J.W. (2004). How

People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. (exp ed.). Washington D.C:

National Academy Press.

Bransford, J.D., and R. Johnson. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some

investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior 11:717-726.

Brown, D. (1992). Using examples to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors

influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29:17-34.

Brown, D., and J. Clement. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning:

Factors influencing understanding in a teaching experiment. Instructional

Science 18:237-261.

Cornelius, L.L., Herrenkohl, L.R., and Hay, J.W. (2013). Organizing Collaborative Learning

Experiences around Subject Matter Domains. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (Ed), The

international handbook of collaborative learning. New York: Routledge.

Carol, K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible

information. Instructional Science 29(6): 443-479

Chan, K., K.(2013). Collaborative Knowledge Building: Towards a Knowledge Creation

Perspective. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (Ed), The international handbook of collaborative



Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D.B. (2013). Learning through Collaborative Argument. In Hmelo-

Silver, C. E. (Ed), The international handbook of collaborative learning. New York:

Routledge.

Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with

students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

Cress, U. & Hesse, F.W.(2013). Quantitative Methods for Studying Small Groups. An

Instructional Model of Collaborative Learning. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (Ed), The

international handbook of collaborative learning. New York: Routledge.

Dooling, D.J., and R. Lachman. (1971). Effects of comprehension on retention of prose.

Journal of Experimental Psychology 88:216-222.

Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge practice perspective on technology mediated learning.

International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 211-236.

Harlen, W. (2005). On the relationship between assessment for formative and

summative purposes. In Gardner, J. (Ed.), Assessment and Learning (pp

103-117). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback, Review of Educational

Research, 77, 1, 81-112.

Hewitt, J. (1996). Progress toward a knowledge building community (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Department of Education, University of Toronto.


Hmelo-Silver, C.E., & DeSimone, C. (2013). Problem Based Learning: An Instructional

Model of Collaborative Learning. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (Ed), The international

handbook of collaborative learning. New York: Routledge.

Hodson, D. (1999). Building a Case for a Sociocultural and Inquiry-Oriented View of

Science Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 3, 241-249.

Janssen, J., Cress, U., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P.A. (2013). Multilevel Analysis for the

Analysis of Collaborative Learning. An Instructional Model of Collaborative

Learning. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (Ed), The international handbook of collaborative


Kashy, D.A., & Kenny, D.A.(2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H.T.

Reis & C.M. Judd(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality

psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 451-477.

Kenny, D.A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D.A. (2002). The statistical

analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,

126-137.

Kirton, A., Hallam, S., Peffers, J., Robertson, P., & Sobart, G. (2007). Revolution,

evolution or a Trojan horse? Piloting assessment for learning in some Scottish

primary schools, British Educational Research Journal, 33, 4, 605-627.

McDermott, L., C.(1996). Physics by Inquiry Volume I &II. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Mills, D., & Morton, M. (2013). Ethnography in Education. London. SAGE.


Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction.

In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer, (Eds), Proceedings of the International

Workshop on Research in Physics Education: Theoretical Issues and Empirical

Studies, Kiel, Germany: Institüt für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenshaften. 110-128.

Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2007). Active assessment: thinking, learning and

assessment in science, School Science Review, 88(325), 73-79.

Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M.(1989). The Construction Zone: working for

cognitive change in school (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press)

Lee, C, D. (2001) Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modelling activity system for

underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 1,

97 – 141.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). Formative

assessment-improving learning in secondary classrooms, OECD, Paris.

Palinscar (1998) Social Constructivist Perspectives on Teaching and Learning, Annu Rev.

Psychol, 49:345-75.

Redish, E.,F. (1994). Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics.

American Journal of Physics, 62(9): 796-803.

Rizvi, F. (2009). Mobile Minds. In J.Kenway & J.Fahey. (Eds), Globalizing the Research

Imagination. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY, Routledge, 8, 144.

Sadler, R. (1998). Formative Assessment: Revisiting the territory, Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 1.


Schwartz, D., and J.D. Bransford. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction,

16(4):475-522.

Shepard, L.A. (2008). Formative assessment: caveat emptor. In Dwyer, C.A. (Ed.),

The future of assessment: shaping teaching and learning. New York: Lawrence

Elbam Associates, 279-303.

Shepard, L.A., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Rust, F., Snowden, J.B.,

Gordon, E., Gutierrez, C., & Pacheco, A. (2005). In Darling-Hammond, L., &

Bransford, J. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: what teachers should

learn and be able to do (275-325). San Franciso: John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, E., L. & Anderson, C.,W. (1984). Plants as producers: A case study of

elementary science teaching, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 7, 685-698.

Snijders, T.A.B., & Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and

advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.

Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment Crisis: The absence of assessment for learning, Phi

Delta Kappan, June 2002, 758-765.

Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating Formative Assessment: teaching,

learning and assessment in the classroom (Philadelphia, PA Open University Press).

Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing Formative Assessment in the

classroom- using action research to explore and modify theory, British

Educational Research Journal, 27, 5, 615-631.


Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University

Press)

Wiliam, D., & Black, P.(1996). Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for

Distinguishing Formative and Summative Functions of Assessment?, British

Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537-548.

Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing

assessment for learning: impact on student achievement, Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 11:1, 49-65.

Zhang, Z., & Burry-Stock. (2003). Classroom Assessment Practices and Teachers’

Self Perceived Assessment Skills, Applied Measurement In Education, 16(4), 323 -

342.

how collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect ... · how collaborative learning and...

Documents