Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction and the understanding of floating and sinking

Howe, Christine; Tolmie, Andrew; Rodgers, Catherine

doi:10.1007/bf03173132

Cited by 87 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in the field of formal reasoning, Moshman and Geil (1998) have demonstrated that peer interaction in Wason's classic 'selection task' propositional reasoning problem resulted in greatly superior performance vis-à-vis individuals. Likewise, peer interaction is widely used to promote conceptual change in science learning (for example, Anderson, Howe and Tolmie, 1996;Howe, Rodgers and Tolmie, 1990;Tolmie, Howe, Mackenzie and Greer, 1993). Thus, to the extent that critical thinking (as defined above) encompasses a conceptual element (and it surely must, for example, in thinking about evidence and its relation to theories), peer interaction ought to be helpful in promoting improvement.…”

Section: Enhancing the Quality Of Critical Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Interaction and the Learning of Critical Thinking Skills

Anderson

Soden

2001

Psychology Learning & Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Enhancing the Quality Of Critical Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Interaction and the Learning of Critical Thinking Skills

Anderson

Soden

2001

Psychology Learning & Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, when Mugny and Doise [1978] paired children whom they termed partial compensators with children whom they termed non-compensators to work in dyads on perspective-taking tasks, they found progress in both groups of children. When Howe, Rodgers, and Tolmie [1990] and Howe, Tolmie, and Rodgers [1992] observed children working in foursomes on object flotation and on motion down an inclined plane, respectively, they found that group members with relatively good understanding made as much progress as group members with relatively poor understanding. This is not to say that Type 2 joint constructions are necessarily irrelevant with relatively advanced children.…”

Section: Type 2 Joint Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, even when pre-to post-test progress is comparable to what was achieved during group work, some studies have detected little relation between group and post-test performance. For instance, in research addressing conceptual change in three areas of science [Howe, Rodgers, & Tolmie, 1990;Howe, Tolmie, Duchak-Tanner, & Rattray, 2000;Howe & Tolmie, 2003], group performance was, on average, superior to pretest performance and post-test performance was, again on average, equivalent to group performance. However, correlations between group and post-test performance were consistently non-significant.…”

Section: Unresolved Contradictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative Group Work in Middle Childhood

Howe¹

2009

Human Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence exists that children’s understanding can be facilitated through collaborative group work with peers, but little is known about the underlying processes. When processes are discussed, they are typically assumed to involve the assimilation of superior ideas that are constructed jointly. However, the assimilation of joint constructions cannot provide a complete account, and recent work suggests that unresolved contradiction during group interaction may contribute. Research is reported that examines the balance between unresolved contradiction and joint construction, via analyses of collaborative group work where 8- to 12-year-old children explored motion down an incline, rates of cooling, and floating in water. Results are consistent with processes stimulated by unresolved contradiction, but not with the assimilation of joint constructions.

show abstract

“…In fact, empirical evidence clearly supports the effect of discussion of contradictory views among peers on science learning (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2009;Howe & Tolmie, 2003;Howe, Tolmie, & Rodgers, 1990Howe et al, 2007). Moreover, Asterhan and Schwarz (2009) failed to find a relation between one-sided argumentation, or collaborative argumentation in favour of one idea, and science learning.…”

Section: Argumentation For Science Learningmentioning

confidence: 97%

Argumentation in Whole-Class Teaching and Science Learning

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peers' discussion of contradictory ideas has been proven to promote students' learning. Some empirical evidence suggests that whole-class argumentation has similar benefits, but there is no clarity yet on whether discussion accounts for this effect. This study aimed at testing the effects of different aspects of whole-class argumentation on science learning. A non-probabilistic sample of 220 students (aged 10 to 11 years) from 18 public schools in Santiago, Chile, participated in the study. Eleven teachers delivered lessons according to a teaching programme especially developed to foster argumentation (intervention group) and 7 teachers delivered lessons in their usual way (control group). Students were assessed individually using pre-and post-measures of learning, argumentative skills and attitudes toward science. The two formers were tests and the latter was a questionnaire. Lessons were videotaped. Factorial analysis and linear regression were conducted. Results showed that 2 factors predict a portion of the variance on learning: one factor composed of justificatory utterances and the other of students' counter-arguments. These results suggest that contradiction among peers is not the only aspect of classroom argumentation that prompts learning.Keywords: argumentation, science learning, discussion, dialogic teaching, effective teaching La discusión de ideas contrarias entre estudiantes promueve el aprendizaje en ciencias. Existe evidencia que sugiere que la argumentación en clase completa tendría el mismo efecto, pero no está claro aún que se deba a la discusión. Este estudio evaluó el efecto de distintos aspectos de la argumentación en clase completa en el aprendizaje de ciencias. En una muestra no probabilística participaron 220 estudiantes (10 y 11 años de edad) de 18 escuelas municipales de Santiago, Chile. Once profesores dieron clases diseñadas para promover argumentación (grupo intervención) y 7 profesores lo hicieron en su forma habitual (grupo control). Los estudiantes fueron evaluados individualmente antes y después con pruebas de aprendizaje y argumentación y cuestionario de actitud hacia la ciencia. Se grabaron las clases. A través de análisis factoriales y regresiones lineares, los resultados mostraron que 2 factores predicen una parte de la varianza del aprendizaje: uno compuesto por enunciados justificativos y otro, por contra-argumentos de los estudiantes. Estos resultados sugieren que la contradicción entre pares no es el único aspecto de la argumentación en clase completa que promueve el aprendizaje.

show abstract

Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction and the understanding of floating and sinking

Cited by 87 publications

References 23 publications

Peer Interaction and the Learning of Critical Thinking Skills

Peer Interaction and the Learning of Critical Thinking Skills

Collaborative Group Work in Middle Childhood

Argumentation in Whole-Class Teaching and Science Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About