Instructional Science

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 405–433 | Cite as

Challenges of peer instruction in an undergraduate student-led learning community: bi-directional diffusion as a crucial instructional process

  • Spencer E. Carlson
  • Daniel G. Rees Lewis
  • Elizabeth M. Gerber
  • Matthew W. Easterday
Article

Abstract

Learning communities (LCs) can provide authentic, social learning experiences but require an extensive amount of time and effort to orchestrate, often more than instructors can provide in typical university courses. Extracurricular, undergraduate, student-led learning communities (SLLCs) overcome this cost through volunteer peer-instructors. Unfortunately, LCs theory is based exclusively on teacher-led LCs. Here we ask what instructional processes emerge in SLLCs? We conducted a qualitative case study of SLLC student leaders’ attempts to teach a project management practice (StandUp) to student innovation teams. We found that instruction in SLLCs takes the form of a bi-directional diffusion process, in which peer-instructors influence students’ decisions about what practices to participate in, and students influence peer-instructors’ decisions about advocating for practices. Three major findings support the bi-directional diffusion model. First, students’ participation in StandUp hinged on whether they saw the practice as valuable with respect to their social, learning, and/or performance goals. Second, peer-instructors struggled to persuade and scaffold students to participate in StandUp. Third, students influenced peer-instructors to stop advocating for StandUp. The bi-directional diffusion model highlights the practical importance of persuading students to participate in the community’s practices. The model suggests that we might support peer-instruction by promoting peer-instructors’ content knowledge about practices, their persuasion skills, and their motivation to advocate for practices.

Keywords

Learning communities Peer instruction Diffusion Extracurricular learning environments Authentic learning environments Peer learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Natalia Smirnov, Emily Harburg, Serene Yu, David Rapp, Penelope Peterson, Tracy Dobie, Bruce Sherin, Christina Krist, Julie Hui, Leesha Maliakal, Pryce Davis, and Delta Lab for their feedback on this paper. We thank Sameer Srivastava for providing access. This work is supported by US National Science Foundation Grants No. IIS-1320693 and No. IIS-1217225, and the Undergraduate Research Grant Program at Northwestern University. An earlier version of this study was presented at the 17th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction 2017.

References

  1. Andriessen, J. H. E. (2005). Archetypes of knowledge communities. In P. Van Den Besselaar, G. De Michelis, J. Preece, & C. Simone (Eds.), Communities and technologies (pp. 191–213). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3591-8_11.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Zvi, D., Bielaczyc, K., & Hod, Y. (2015). Call for papers: Special issue on “revisiting learning communities: innovations in theory and practice.” Retrieved from http://lc.edtech.haifa.ac.il/special-issue/call-for-papers.
  3. Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing design research: Learning from teachers’ designs of social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258–311.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.691925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. Instructional-design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 269–292.Google Scholar
  6. Bielaczyc, K., Kapur, M., & Collins, A. (2013). Cultivating a community of learners in K-12 classrooms. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, A. M. O’Donnell, C. Chan, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 233–249). New York: Taylor & Francis, Inc.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837290.ch13.Google Scholar
  7. Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. The Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x032006003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dale, A. T., Hess, J. L., Best, R. E., & Lennox, E. R. (2015). Beyond professional development: The value proposition of multi-disciplinary networks for creating global engineers. Paper Presented in the QScience Proceedings of Engineering Leaders Conference 2015.  https://doi.org/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.11.Google Scholar
  13. DeBarger, A. H., Choppin, J., Beauvineau, Y., & Moorthy, S. (2013). Designing for productive adaptations of curriculum interventions. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 298–319.Google Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New Science of Learning (pp. 525–552). New York, NY: Springer New York.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunning, D. (2012). Self-insight: Roadblocks and detours on the path to knowing thyself. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  17. Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2016). The logic of the theoretical and practical products of design research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2464.
  18. Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2017). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2017.1286367.
  19. Easterday, M.W., Gerber, E.M., & Rees Lewis, D.G. (2018). Social innovation networks: A new approach to social design education and impact. Design Issues, 34(2).Google Scholar
  20. Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816833.021.Google Scholar
  21. Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2014). Toward a model of influence in persuasive discussions: Negotiating quality, authority, privilege, and access within a student-led argument. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 245–268.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.883979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer, G., Rohde, M., & Wulf, V. (2007). Community-based learning: The core competency of residential, research-based universities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 9–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9009-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerber, E. (2014). Design for America: Organizing for civic innovation. Interactions, 21(2), 42–47.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2567840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 287–300). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hod, Y., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2014). A group psychotherapeutic perspective on transforming participation in a learning community. Instructional Science, 42(6), 949–970.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9321-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hong, H.-Y., Chang, Y.-H., & Chai, C. S. (2013). Fostering a collaborative and creative climate in a college class through idea-centered knowledge-building. Instructional Science, 42(3), 389–407.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9289-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., et al. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning.  https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1080.Google Scholar
  29. Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 490–536.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.896254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kafai, Y. B., Burke, W. Q., & Fields, D. A. (2009). What videogame making can teach us about access and ethics in participatory culture. Paper in the proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association (DIGRA) 2009. London, UK.Google Scholar
  31. Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  32. Kullenberg, T., & Pramling, N. (2016). Learning and knowing songs: a study of children as music teachers. Instructional Science, 44(1), 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9361-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. London: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.050.Google Scholar
  36. O’Neill, D. K. (2001). Knowing when you’ve brought them in: Scientific genre knowledge and communities of practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 223–264.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1003_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000226.Google Scholar
  38. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rees Lewis, D. G., Easterday, M. W., Harburg, E., Gerber, E. M., & Riesbeck, C. K. (2017). Overcoming barriers between volunteer professionals advising project-based learning teams with regulation tools. British Journal of Educational Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12550.
  40. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Roosevelt Institute. (2016). Our National network. Retrieved from http://rooseveltinstitute.org/national-network/.
  42. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slack. (2017). Slack: Where work happens. Retrieved from https://slack.com.
  44. Small, M. L. (2009). How many cases do I need? On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5–38.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smirnov, N., Easterday, M. W., & Gerber, E. M. (2017). Infrastructuring distributed studio networks: A case study and design principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1409119.
  46. Stewart, O. G., & Jordan, M. E. (2017). “Some explanation here”: A case study of learning opportunities and tensions in an informal science learning environment. Instructional Science, 45(2), 137–156.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9396-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sullivan, F. R., & Wilson, N. C. (2013). Playful talk: Negotiating opportunities to learn in collaborative groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 5–52.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.839945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sutherland, J. (2014). Scrum: The art of doing twice the work in half the time. New York, NY: Crown Business.Google Scholar
  49. Wang, S., & Murota, M. (2016). Possibilities and limitations of integrating peer instruction into technical creativity education. Instructional Science, 44(6), 501–525.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9385-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Yadav, A., Shaver, G. M., & Meckl, P. (2010). Lessons learned: Implementing the case teaching method in a mechanical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 55–69.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01042.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundeberg, M. A., & Bunting, C. F. (2011). Problem-based learning: Influence on students’ learning in an electrical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 253–280.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00013.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang, H., Easterday, M. W., Gerber, E. M., Lewis, D. R., & Maliakal, L. (2017). Agile research studios: Orchestrating communities of practice to advance research training. Paper in the proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. Portland, OR, USA.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998199.
  54. Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.528317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang, J., & Sun, Y. (2010). Reading for idea advancement in a grade 4 knowledge building community. Instructional Science, 39(4), 429–452.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9135-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Delta LabNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations