Quote 1 Reciprocal Teaching

1
Quote 1Reciprocal Teaching

• In a classroom using the Reciprocal Teaching
  approach, a student working in a small group
  reads aloud a brief passage of text and
  immediately generates a question, such as, Why
  did the main character do what he did? To form
  the question, the student must make sense of the
  text and process information automatically. After
  other members of the group have answered several
  questions, the student tries to clarify any
  difficult words or phrases. Clarifying helps a
  child develop the ability to self-monitor, an
  essential component of independent reading. The
  student then generates a summary that identifies
  and describes the main ideas of the text.
  Finally, the student predicts what is likely to
  occur next and provides evidence from the text to
  support the prediction.
• Palinscar and Brown (1984)

2
Quote 2Discussion Web

• Too often, only a few students are willing to
  contribute and as a result they monopolize the
  conversation. What starts out as a discussion
  ends as a dialogue between the teacher and a
  handful of students. Meanwhile the rest of the
  class sits passively-either not listening to or
  not paying attention to what is being said.
  However, the Discussion Web (Alvermann, 1991) is
  a strategy designed to include all students in
  active participation in class discussion.
• Buehl (2001)

3
Quote 3 Collaborative Concept Mapping

• Concept mapping with slips of paper, or within
  Inspiration software, provides an arena for
  discussion of knowledge. It is a place where
  students can point to concepts tangibly, and
  discover ways of expressing relationships between
  ideas. If used in conjunction with cooperative
  learning strategies, Inspiration software
  provides an opportunity for purposeful student
  interaction and movement. 
• Roth and Roychoudhury (1992)

4
Quote 4Peer Instruction

• Lectures are interspersed with conceptual
  questions, called ConcepTests, designed to expose
  common difficulties in understanding the
  material. The students are given one to two
  minutes to think about the question and formulate
  their own answers they then spend two to three
  minutes discussing their answers in groups of
  three to four, attempting to reach consensus on
  the correct answer. This process forces the
  students to think through the arguments being
  developed, and enables them (as well as the
  instructor) to assess their understanding of the
  concepts even before they leave the classroom.
• Mazur Group (2004)

5
Peer Instruction (Eric Mazur Prentice Hall,
1997)

• The Method
• Students are given reading assignments for each
  class what was previously covered in a lecture.
• Start class with a 5 minute review of main
  points
• (a) to remind students what was read, and
• (b) to emphasize what are the main points.

6
Peer Instruction (Eric Mazur Prentice Hall,
1997)

• Rest of class time is used for
• usual demonstrations which provide the
  connection between the theoretical concept and
  the physical world, and
• (b) small group discussion of either qualitative
  conceptual problems, or simple analytical
  problems that require strong conceptual
  understanding.

7
Peer Instruction (Eric Mazur Prentice Hall,
1997)

• Use overhead to present a short, multiple-choice
  question, designed to develop understanding.
• Initially the choices are not presented.
• Students try individually to answer the
  question, then try to convince their neighbours
  in 5 minute discussion.
• In this time, I address individual concerns
  one-on-one.
• After 5 minutes, I provide the choices and
  class votes for the answer.

8
Peer Instruction (Eric Mazur Prentice Hall,
1997)

• The Vote
• Display cards with choice A ... F
• Instant feedback on comprehension, to student
  and me.
• Then I give the correct reasoning, addressing
  both right and wrong answers often generates
  questions by students who voted for the incorrect
  answer, because they have thought seriously about
  their answer and are having conceptual problems.
• A group response even if incorrect gives
  confidence to ask questions.

9
Quote for Reflection Think-Pair-Share

• The think-pair-share structure gives all
  learners the opportunity to discuss their ideas.
  This is important because learners start to
  construct their knowledge in these discussions
  and also to find out what they do and do not
  know. This active process is not normally
  available to them during traditional lectures.
• After several minutes the instructor solicits
  comments to be shared with the whole group. The
  responses received are often more intellectually
  concise since learners have had a chance to
  reflect on their ideas. The think-pair-share
  structure also enhances the student's oral
  communication skills as they discuss their ideas
  with one another and with the whole group.
• Lymna, F. (1981)

10
Beyond Peer Instruction

• The Peer Instruction method works with concepts,
  but it may also be used in other ways
• Use Rating Scales to learn about student
  viewpoints.
• Use Aikenheads Views on Science Technology
  Society (VOSTS) to teach students about
  connections.

11
Peer Instruction
Lets examine Peer Instruction from these
perspectives Teaching Strategies/Curriculum/Asses
sment

• Teaching Strategies Passive
  Active
• Transmissive Reflective
• Curriculum Quantitative Qualitative
• Assessment ?_________ ?_________

12
Websites

• Project Galileo
• http//galileo.harvard.edu/home.html
• Mazur Group
• http//mazur-www.harvard.edu/education/educationme
  nu.php

13
For further reading

• Alvermann, D.E. (1991). The discussion web A
  graphic aid for learning across the curriculum.
  The Reading Teacher, 45, 92-99
• Buehl, D. (2001).Classroom Strategies for
  Interactive Learning, International Reading
  Association, Newark, Delaware, Second Edition.
• Crouch, C. and Mazur, E. (2001). Peer
  Instruction Ten Years of Experience and Results
  Am. J. Phys., 69, 970-977.
• Lymna, F. (1981). "The responsive classroom
  discussion." In Anderson, A. S. (Ed.),
  Mainstreaming Digest, College Park, MD
  University of Maryland College of Education.
• Mazur, E., Peer Instruction A Users Manual.
  Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
• Palinscar, A. Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal
  teaching of comprehension-fostering and
  comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition
  and Instruction, I (2), p. 117-175.
• Roth, W. and Roychoudhury, A. (1992) The social
  construction of scientific concepts or the
  concept map as conscription tool for social
  thinking in high school science. Science
  Education, 76, 531-557.