how collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect ... · how collaborative learning and...
TRANSCRIPT
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 2
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 3
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 4
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 5
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 6
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)
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 7
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 8
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 9
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 10
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-
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 11
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).
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 12
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).
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 13
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 14
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).
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 15
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-
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 16
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,
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 17
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).
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 18
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 19
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 20
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 21
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 22
(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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 23
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 24
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).
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 25
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 26
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 27
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).
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 28
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 29
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 30
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)
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 31
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
Scientific conception(c)
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 32
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 33
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
Scientific conception(c)
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
Scientific conception(c)
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 34
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 35
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 36
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 37
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 38
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 39
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 40
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 41
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 42
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
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 43
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 44
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
learning. New York: Routledge.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 45
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 46
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
learning. New York: Routledge.
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 47
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 48
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.
How collaborative learning and discourse patterns affect Inquiry 49
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.