Peer Instruction Dialogical Argumentation Model (PIDAM) for Authentic Learning of Science

Aina Jacob Kola

doi:10.26737/jipf.v6i1.1876

Peer Instruction Dialogical Argumentation Model (PIDAM) for Authentic Learning of Science

Aina Jacob Kola

Abstract

The research is a pretest-posttest experimental design that integrated peer instruction into the dialogical argumentative instruction to investigate the authentic learning experience among College students. The participants were pre-service physics students of a College of Education in Nigeria. The mixed-method approach was adopted to obtain data for the study. The research instruments were Electromagnetism Physics Test (EPT) and Semi-structured interviews. The ANOVA and thematic coding were used to analyse the data obtained. The outcome of the research shows that students' authentic learning was enhanced with the integration of PI into the dialogical argumentation instruction. It also shows that the gender difference in academic performance was not significant. The study makes some recommendations; one of them is further studies on PIDAM because this is the first study on PIDAM in a College.

Keywords

Authentic Learning; Dialogical Argumentation; Electromagnetism; Peer Instruction

Full Text:

PDF (English)

References

Alvarez-Alvarado, M. S., Mora, C., & Cevallos-Reyes, C. B. (2019). Peer instruction to address alternative conceptions in Einstein's special relativity. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física, 41(4).

Passeri, S. M. R. R., & Mazur, E. (2019). Peer Instruction-Based Feedback Sessions Improve the Retention of Knowledge in Medical Students. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica, 43(3): 155-162.

Foutz, T. L. (2018). Collaborative Argumentation As A Learning Strategy To Improve Student Performance In Engineering Statics: A Pilot Study. American Journal of Engineering Education (AJEE), 9(1): 11-22.

Rapanta, C. (2018). Potentially argumentative teaching strategies—And how to empower them. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(3): 451-464.

Aina, J. K. Peer Instruction in Electromagnetism: The Gender Academic Performance Difference Among Pre-Service Teachers. Studies (ISSN 2455-2526), 8(1): 80-93.

Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Research-based reform of university physics, 1(1): 40-95.

Koul, R., Lerdpornkulrat, T., & Poondej, C. (2016). Gender compatibility, math-gender stereotypes, and self-concepts in math and physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2): 020115.

Moore, C. G., Carter, R. E., Nietert, P. J., & Stewart, P. W. (2011). Recommendations for planning pilot studies in clinical and translational research. Clinical and translational science, 4(5): 332-337.

Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls in the physics classroom: A review of the research on the participation of girls in physics. London, UK: Institute of Physics.

Kelly, A. M. (2016). Social cognitive perspective of gender disparities in undergraduate physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2): 020116.

Lock, R. M., & Hazari, Z. (2016). Discussing underrepresentation as a means to facilitating female students’ physics identity development. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2): 020101.

Aina, J. K. , & Azeez, A. A. (2018). The Peer Instruction’s Effectiveness as Teaching Pedagogy: Research Reviews. Cross-Currents: An International Peer-Reviewed Journal on Humanities & Social Sciences, 4(4): 63-68.

Pearce, S. (2016). Authentic learning: what, why and how. E-teaching; Management Strategies for the Classroom,10: 1-3.

Rule, A. C. (2006). The Components of Authentic Learning. Journal of Authentic Learning, 3(1): 1-10.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2009). A practical guide to authentic e-learning. New York: Routledge.

Aina, J. K., & Langenhoven, K. R. (2015). The likely implications of active learning in physics through peer instruction (PI) in Nigerian schools. International Journal of Law, Education, Social and Sports Studies (IJLESS), 2(3): 8-15.

Akanbi, A. O., Omosewo, E. O., Abdulraheem, R. F., & Ojediran, A. I. (2017). Misconceptions of electromagnetism held by physics students in Northcentral Nigerian colleges of education. Journal of Science, Technology, Mathematics and Education (JOSTMED), 13(2): 176-185

Tellings, A. (2012). The role of theory in educational research. The Research Council of Norway, UTDANNING.

Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6): 66-70.

Dagar, V., & Yadav, A. (2016). Constructivism: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 7(4): 1-4.

O'Neill, T. A., Hancock, S., McLarnon, M. J., & Holland, T. (2020). When the SUIT Fits: Constructive Controversy Training in Face‐to‐Face and Virtual Teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 13(1): 44-59.

Smith, K. A. (2013). Introduction to Constructive Controversy: The Art of Arguing to Enhance Learning. Lilly Teaching Seminar, Michigan State University. Verfügbar unter http://personal. cege. umn. edu/~ smith/docs/Smith-MSU-4-11-13-controversy. pdf [31.12. 2014].

Hui, F., & Koplin, M. (2011). The implementation of authentic activities for learning: A case study in finance education. E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 5(1): 59-72.

Cox-Petersen, A. M., & Olson, J. K. (2000). Authentic science learning in the digital age. Learning and leading with Technology, 27(6): 32-35.

Cey, T. (2001). Moving towards constructivist classrooms. EdCmm 802.6. Retrieved September 23, 2016, fromhttp://etad.usask.ca/802papers/ceyt/ceyt.pdf

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational technology research and development, 48(3): 23-48.

McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2002). Educational psychology: Constructing Learning (3rd ed.). Frenchs Forest: Prentice-Hall.

Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford review of education, 27(1): 23-35.

Brandon, A. F., & All, A. C. (2010). Constructivism theory analysis and application to curricula. Nursing education perspectives, 31(2): 89-92.

Tichy, M., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Roseth, C. J. (2010). The impact of constructive controversy on moral development. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(4): 765-787.

Deshpande, P., Lee, C. B., & Ahmed, I. (2019, February). Evaluation of peer instruction for cybersecurity education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 720-725).

Pearson, R. J. (2019). Exploring Peer Instruction: Should Cohort Clicker Responses Appear During or After Polling?. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(5): 873-879.

Gok, T. (2012). The Impact of Peer Instruction On College Students’ Beliefs About Physics and Conceptual Understanding of Electricity And Magnetism. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2): 417-436.

Bian, H., Bian, Y., Li, J., Li, Y., Ma, Y., Shao, X., & Xu, J. (2018). Peer instruction in a physiology laboratory course in China. Advances in physiology education, 42(3): 449-453.

Ouko, S., Aurah, C., & Amadalo, M. (2015). Peer Instruction and Secondary School Students' Achievement in Vectors. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(27): 175-180.

Al-Hebaishi, S. M. (2017). The Effect of Peer Instruction Method on Pre-Service Teachers' Conceptual Comprehension of Methodology Course. Journal of Education and Learning: 6(3), 70-82.

Nielsen, K. L., Hansen-Nygård, G., & Stav, J. B. (2012). Investigating peer instruction: How the initial voting session affects students' experiences of group discussion. ISRN education, 2012.

Nitta, H. (2010). Mathematical theory of peer-instruction dynamics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 6(2): 020105.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell‐Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3): 315-347.

Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education. The Science Teacher, 80(5): 30.

Acar, O. (2015). Examination of Science Learning Equity through Argumentation and Traditional Instruction Noting Differences in Socio-Economic Status. Science Education International, 26(1): 24-41.

Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Research-based reform of university physics, 1(1): 40-95.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: a user's manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

Mathers, N., Fox, N., & Hunn, A. (1998). Trent focus for research and development in primary health care: Using interviews in a research project. Trent Focus.

Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Making sense of qualitative research: The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40: 314-321.

Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Educause learning initiative, 1(2007): 1-12.

Herrington, J. A. (1997). Authentic learning in interactive multimedia environments. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1478

Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4): 301-321.

Hilt, L. (2011). What Do We Mean by Authentic Learning? Powerful learning practice. Retrieved from http://plpnetwork.com/2011/04/21/what-do-we-mean-by-authentic-learning/

Andersson, S. B., & Andersson, I. (2005). Authentic Learning in a Sociocultural Framework: A case study on non‐formal learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(4): 419-436.

Hidden curriculum (2014, August 26). In S. Abbott (Ed.). The glossary of education reform. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. xiv-540). American Psychological Association.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2011). Constructive Controversy: Energizing Learning. Small Group Learning in Higher Education: Research and Practice, Cooper, JL & Robinson, P.(editors), New Forums Press, Stillwater, Oklahoma: 114-121.

Har, L. B. (2013). Authentic learning. The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ied.edu.hk/aclass/

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

Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3): 219-236.

Kola, A. J. (2017). The physics authentic learning experience through the peer instruction. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

Gok, T. (2014). Peer instruction in the physics classroom: Effects on gender difference performance, conceptual learning, and problem solving. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6): 776.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26737/jipf.v6i1.1876