Skip to main content

Knowledge Building Discourse in Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) Groups in First-Year General Chemistry

Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS,volume 15)

Abstract

To better understand the interactional mechanisms that make PLTL effective, we closely examined videotapes of two PLTL groups as they both solved the same chemistry problem. In one group, students engaged in group knowledge building: intellectual conversations where they asked each other questions, provided procedural and conceptual explanations, and closely monitored each others’ understanding of the problem. This led to an increasingly accurate understanding of the problem. In the contrasting group, their conversations focused on rote application of formulas as they worked to calculate a “correct” solution. Our analyses help us to understand what effective collaborative discourse looks like, and have practical implications for how peer leaders are trained and for how peer groups are organized.

Keywords

  • Work Function
  • Knowledge Building
  • Individual Task
  • Collective Knowledge
  • Conceptual Explanation

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_10
  • Chapter length: 14 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4614-8960-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 10.1

Notes

  1. 1.

    F = Female, M = Male, S = Multiple students in unison, PL = Peer leader.

References

  • Bakeman, R., & Brownlee, J. R. (1980). The strategic use of parallel play: A sequential analysis. Child Development, 51, 873–878.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., Sawyer, R. K., & Frey, R. (2010, June 29–July 2). What are they talking about? Findings from an analysis of the discourse in peer-led team learning in general chemistry. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 471–481.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, T. (2005). What counts as knowing: Constructing a communicative repertoire for student demonstration of knowledge in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 139–165.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition & Instruction, 20(4), 399.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). A discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in Activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanrahan, M. U. (2005). Highlighting hybridity: A critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. Science Education, 90(1), 8–43.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Brown, C., & Crawford, T. (2000). Experiments, contingencies, and curriculum: Providing opportunities for learning through improvisation in science teaching. Science Education, 84(5), 624–657.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Klaassen, C. W. J. M., & Lijnse, P. L. (1996). Interpreting students’ and teachers’ discourse in science classes: An underestimated problem? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 115–134.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lunn, M. (1998). Applying simple k-sample tests to conditional probabilities for competition risks in a clinical trial. Biometrics, 54, 1662–1672.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Analyzing collaborative discourse. In K. R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning science (pp. 187–204). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, E., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227–269.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 239–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 390–408.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith Sawyer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sawyer, K., Frey, R., Brown, P. (2013). Knowledge Building Discourse in Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) Groups in First-Year General Chemistry. In: Suthers, D., Lund, K., Rosé, C., Teplovs, C., Law, N. (eds) Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 15. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_10

Download citation