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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). A discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
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.
Hanrahan, M. U. (2005). Highlighting hybridity: A critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. Science Education, 90(1), 8–43.
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.
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.
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.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lunn, M. (1998). Applying simple k-sample tests to conditional probabilities for competition risks in a clinical trial. Biometrics, 54, 1662–1672.
Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227–269.
Webb, N. M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 239–261.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8959-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8960-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)