Advertisement

Students’ Perceptions of Group Communication Skills in an Active Learning Environment

  • Alexandra YeungEmail author
  • Suzanne Ahern
Chapter

Abstract

Curtin University uses an active learning framework in its first-year chemistry units to help students engage better with content, compared with traditional didactic lectures. It is intended that students develop other skills such as communication. However, these skills are not always explicitly taught and we assume students are proficient communicators when they enter the classroom. This study aimed to create activities targeting development of group communication. An examination of how students communicate with each other within their group as they completed their learning activities was conducted. The Talk Science Primer was used as a framework for the learning design of the activities where students work through four goals to develop communication skills (Michaels and O’Connor in Talk science primer. TERC, Cambridge, 2012). Students (n = 452) enrolled in an introductory-level chemistry unit who had very little chemistry background were divided into two groups—intervention and non-intervention. The interventions were activities conducted in class throughout the semester. Students’ perceptions of the interventions were determined, particularly the usefulness of the interventions in developing their communication skills.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the IC unit coordinator, Lise Fouché, who allowed us to research her unit, all the workshop facilitators who supported us running the interventions in their classes and the students who participated in our study. This study was approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project Number SCI-54-14).

References

  1. Alexander, P. A. (2007). Bridging cognition and socioculturalism within conceptual change research: Unnecessary foray or unachievable feat? Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhattacharyya, G., & Bodner, G. M. (2005). “It gets me to the product”: How students propose organic mechanisms. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(9), 1402–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodner, G. M., MacIsaac, D., & White, S. (1999). Action research: Overcoming the sports mentality approach to assessment/evaluation. University Chemistry Education, 3(1), 31–36.Google Scholar
  5. Bowers, J. S., & Nickerson, S. (2001). Identifying cyclic patterns of interaction to study individual and collective learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(1), 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL0301_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, Grades K-6 (2nd ed.). Math Solutions.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, G., Clarke, S. N., & Resnick, L. B. (2014). An analytic tool for supporting teachers’ reflection on classroom talk. In Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 583–590).Google Scholar
  9. Coe, E. M., McDougall, A. O., & McKeown, N. B. (1999). Is peer assisted learning of benefit to undergraduate chemists? University Chemistry Education, 3(2), 72–75.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, R. S., Becker, N., Towns, M. H., Towns, M., Sweeney, G., Wawro, M., et al. (2011). Adapting a methodology from mathematics education research to chemistry education research: Documenting collective activity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 193–211.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9284-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cole, R. S., Becker, N., & Stanford, C. (2014). Discourse analysis as a tool to examine teaching and learning in the classroom. In Tools of chemistry education research (Vol. 1, pp. 61–81).  https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2014-1166.ch004.Google Scholar
  12. Colthorpe, K., Rowland, S., & Leach, J. (2013). Good practice guide (science) threshold learning outcome 4 communication. http://www.chemnet.edu.au/sites/default/files/files/GoodPracticeGuideScienceTLO4.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
  13. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (1999). A guided inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 570–574.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A. F., & Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Springer US.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70892-8.Google Scholar
  18. Hennessy, S., Drummond, S. R., Higham, R., Marquez, A. M., Maine, F., Rios, R. M., et al. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 16–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hitchcock, D., & Verheij, B. (2006). Introduction. In D. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model (pp. 1–23). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5.Google Scholar
  20. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, A. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/152522X05282260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, S., Yates, B., & Kelder, J.-A. (2011, September). Learning and teaching academic standards project science learning and teaching academic standards statement.Google Scholar
  23. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Östman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom the interplay between teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical epistemology. Science Education, 90(1), 148–163.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mason, L. (2007). Introduction: Bridging the Cognitive and Sociocultural Approaches in Research on Conceptual Change: Is It Feasible? Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.Google Scholar
  26. Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC. www.terc.edu. Accessed December 2018.
  27. Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (2008). Chapter 1 POGIL: An overview. ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society, 1–13.Google Scholar
  28. Oxford Dictionaries. (2015).Google Scholar
  29. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Journal of Education, 130(2), 241–250.Google Scholar
  33. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2011). (Well-structured) talk builds the mind. In R. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications (pp. 163–194). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schultz, M., Mitchell, J., & O’Brien, G. (2013). Outcomes of the chemistry discipline network mapping exercises: Are the threshold learning outcomes met? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(1), 81–91.Google Scholar
  37. Spencer, J. N. (1999). New directions in teaching chemistry: A philosophical and pedagogical basis. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 566.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tong, Y., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. C. W. (2018). Developing productive discourse among low-achievers in a knowledge building environment. In Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018 (Vol. 2, pp. 879–886).Google Scholar
  39. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Towns, M. H. (2009). Mixed methods designs in chemical education research. In D. M. Bunce & R. S. Cole (Eds.), Nuts and bolts of chemical education research (Vol. 976, pp. 135–148). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2008-0976.ch009.Google Scholar
  41. von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In R. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Warfa, A. R. M., Roehrig, G. H., Schneider, J. L., & Nyachwaya, J. (2014). Role of teacher-initiated discourses in students’ development of representational fluency in chemistry: A case study. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(6), 784–792.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed4005547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zeidler, D. L., Lederman, N. G., & Taylor, S. C. (1992). Fallacies and student discourse: Conceptualizing the role of critical thinking in science education. Science Education, 76(4), 437–450.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations