Augmented reality meets Peer instruction†

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Daniel Elford, Garth A. Jones and Simon J. Lancaster
{"title":"Augmented reality meets Peer instruction†","authors":"Daniel Elford, Garth A. Jones and Simon J. Lancaster","doi":"10.1039/D3RP00093A","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Peer Instruction (PI), a student-centred teaching method, engages students during class through structured, frequent questioning, facilitated by classroom response systems. The central feature of PI is the ConcepTest, a question designed to help resolve student misconceptions around the subject content. Within our coordination chemistry PI session, we provide students two opportunities to answer each question – once after a round of individual reflection, and then again after a round of augmented reality (AR)-supported peer discussion. The second round provides students with the opportunity to “switch” their original response to a different answer. The percentage of right answers typically increase after peer discussion: most students who answer incorrectly in the individual round switch to the correct answer after the peer discussion. For the six questions posed, we analysed students’ discussions, in addition to their interactions with our AR tool. Furthermore, we analyse students’ self-efficacy, and how this, in addition to factors such as ConcepTest difficulty influence response switching. For this study, we found that students are more likely to switch their responses for more difficult questions, as measured using the approach of Item Response Theory. Students with high pre-session self-efficacy switched from right-to-wrong (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05) and wrong-to-different wrong less often, and switched from wrong-to-right more often than students with low self-efficacy. Students with a low assessment of their problem solving and science communication abilities were significantly more likely to switch their responses from right to wrong than students with a high assessment of those abilities. Analysis of dialogues revealed evidence of the activation of knowledge elements and control structures.</p>","PeriodicalId":69,"journal":{"name":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","volume":" 3","pages":" 833-842"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/rp/d3rp00093a?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/rp/d3rp00093a","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Peer Instruction (PI), a student-centred teaching method, engages students during class through structured, frequent questioning, facilitated by classroom response systems. The central feature of PI is the ConcepTest, a question designed to help resolve student misconceptions around the subject content. Within our coordination chemistry PI session, we provide students two opportunities to answer each question – once after a round of individual reflection, and then again after a round of augmented reality (AR)-supported peer discussion. The second round provides students with the opportunity to “switch” their original response to a different answer. The percentage of right answers typically increase after peer discussion: most students who answer incorrectly in the individual round switch to the correct answer after the peer discussion. For the six questions posed, we analysed students’ discussions, in addition to their interactions with our AR tool. Furthermore, we analyse students’ self-efficacy, and how this, in addition to factors such as ConcepTest difficulty influence response switching. For this study, we found that students are more likely to switch their responses for more difficult questions, as measured using the approach of Item Response Theory. Students with high pre-session self-efficacy switched from right-to-wrong (p < 0.05) and wrong-to-different wrong less often, and switched from wrong-to-right more often than students with low self-efficacy. Students with a low assessment of their problem solving and science communication abilities were significantly more likely to switch their responses from right to wrong than students with a high assessment of those abilities. Analysis of dialogues revealed evidence of the activation of knowledge elements and control structures.

增强现实与同伴教学的结合
同伴教学法(PI)是一种以学生为中心的教学方法,它通过有组织的、频繁的提问,在课堂应答系统的帮助下,让学生在课堂上参与进来。同伴教学法的核心是 "概念测试"(ConcepTest),该问题旨在帮助学生解决对学科内容的误解。在协调化学 PI 课程中,我们为学生提供了两次回答每个问题的机会--一次是在一轮个人思考之后,另一次是在一轮增强现实(AR)支持的同伴讨论之后。第二轮为学生提供了将其原始答案 "转换 "为不同答案的机会。在同伴讨论之后,正确答案的比例通常会增加:大多数在个人回合中回答错误的学生在同伴讨论之后会转向正确答案。对于提出的六个问题,我们分析了学生的讨论情况,以及他们与 AR 工具的互动情况。此外,我们还分析了学生的自我效能感,以及这种效能感和 ConcepTest 难度等因素如何影响答案转换。在这项研究中,我们发现,根据项目反应理论(Item Response Theory)的测量方法,学生更有可能对较难的问题转换回答。与自我效能感低的学生相比,会前自我效能感高的学生从对到错(p <0.05)和从错到不同错误的转换频率较低,而从错到对的转换频率较高。对自己的问题解决能力和科学交流能力评价较低的学生,其回答由对到错的频率明显高于对这些能力评价较高的学生。对对话的分析显示了激活知识要素和控制结构的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
26.70%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal for teachers, researchers and other practitioners in chemistry education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信