X hits on this document

48 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

15 / 16

46                                                                                                           Learning science in small groups

Findings of this study also reveal that students’ nature of participation is dominated by asymmetric interaction. Besides, at IER, a same grade usually goes to all of the group members regardless of individual contribution. These practices may not ensure everyone’s accountability to the group. It could be concluded that to ensure individual’s accountability teachers need to be concerned whether students can be involved in any other approach for group interaction (e.g., symmetric, shifting asymmetric) or assess individual performance within a group.

This paper explores the nature of small group learning from students’ perspectives. Many of the findings of this research trigger our thinking to know these issues from teachers’ perspectives. Further research is recommended in this respect.  

References

Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E. & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37-40.

Brewer, S. & Klein, J. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynshronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 331-354.

Brown, G. & Atkins, M. (1991). Effective teaching in higher education. London: Routledge.

Carlsmith, K. M. & Cooper, J. (2002). A persuasive example of collaborative learning. Teaching of Psychology, 29(2), 132-135.

Carroll, D. W. (1986). Use of the jigsaw technique in laboratory and discussion classes. Teaching of Psychology, 13, 208-210.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). LA: SAGE.

Crook, C. (1994). Computer and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.

Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9-19.

Dickinson, M. (2000). Giving undergraduates meaningful experience. Education and Training, 42, 159-170.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples images of science. Bristol: Open University Press.

Duek, J. E. (2000). Whose group is it, anyway? Equity of student discourse in problem-based learning (PBL). In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 75-107). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Hackling, M. (2003). Current issues in science education: Guide. Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.

Harkins, S. G. & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214-1229.

Hendry, G. D., Heinrich, P., Lyon, P. M., Barratt, A. L., Simpson, J. M., Hyde, S. J., et al. (2005). Helping students understand their learning styles: Effects on study seelf-

Document info
Document views48
Page views48
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 19:54:38 UTC 2016
Pages16
Paragraphs315
Words7832

Comments