Collaborative Learning Strategy in the Classroom: The Progressive Peer Group

Anne-Marie A. Lerner

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Publication Date: June 24, 2017
Start Date: June 24, 2017
End Date: June 28, 2017
Conference Session: Programming, Virtual Reality, and Dynamic Systems
Tagged Division: Mechanical Engineering
Page Count: 8
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--28047
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/28047
Download Count: 571

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Anne-Marie A. Lerner University of Wisconsin, Platteville

visit author page

Anne-Marie Lerner is an associate professor in mechanical engineering at the University of Wisconsin - Platteville. Her professional interests include inclusive in-class and out-of-class supports, investigating effective teaching pedagogy for remote delivery as well as to nontraditional students, and education assessment. She received her PhD in mechanical engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology in 2008.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

A peer-interaction strategy was developed to maximize meaningful small-group work interactions with students in the class, modeled after a progressive dinner. A progressive dinner is a meal in which participants travel to different locations for each course, thereby interacting with many more people in an intimate setting than they otherwise could in a traditional dining scenario. This paper discusses a collaborative learning strategy developed for a dynamical systems class using largely the same concept: students move around in groups to solve different problems. This technique was used for a dynamical systems class to 1) help students gain familiarity with key concepts, 2) give the instructor an opportunity to correct misconceptions in-class, 3) expose students to multiple instances of the same concept to promote pattern recognition in the class, and 4) promote peer learning for each student. Students were assigned randomly into groups of 3, and each group was given one of 4 similar problems. The group worked collaboratively to solve a problem reinforcing concepts discussed in class. The instructor assigned a number to this group’s problem, which was then referred to as the home problem. After solving the home problem, the group was dispersed. One member would move to the next problem up, another would move to the next problem down, and the third would stay with the original problem to serve as a peer mentor to the two new students arriving to the group. After solving the new problem, every student moved to the next problem up. That meant that one student from the original group rotated back to the home problem. After working the new problem, every student moved to the next problem up unless they hadn’t yet mentored, in which case they moved back to their home problem. At the end of this exercise, every student in class had solved three different problems, and had been a mentor for one problem. Minor modifications were made for times when the class wasn’t divisible by three. For a class with reasonable confidence on the subject, a group of two was assigned, with the understanding that there may not always be a mentor sitting at the group of two’s station for every rotation. The instructor kept a closer eye on that group for additional guidance as needed. For more challenging subjects, a group of four was put together, and two students rotated through the stations together. Several assessments were conducted to investigate the efficacy of the progressive peer group. The progressive peer group was used for inverse Laplace transforms, but not Laplace transforms. Both topics were covered as part of a lecture, had assigned homework problems, and were covered in the exam review. Student exam question grades associated with both topics were graded and compared. Despite the inverse transform being typically more challenging, students performed statistically significantly worse with the Laplace transform. Differences in performance were also measured for sections offered the progressive problem for different topics.

Citation
Format

Lerner, A. A. (2017, June), Collaborative Learning Strategy in the Classroom: The Progressive Peer Group Paper presented at 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. 10.18260/1-2--28047

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - A peer-interaction strategy was developed to maximize meaningful small-group work interactions with students in the class, modeled after a progressive dinner. A progressive dinner is a meal in which participants travel to different locations for each course, thereby interacting with many more people in an intimate setting than they otherwise could in a traditional dining scenario. This paper discusses a collaborative learning strategy developed for a dynamical systems class using largely the same concept: students move around in groups to solve different problems. This technique was used for a dynamical systems class to 1) help students gain familiarity with key concepts, 2) give the instructor an opportunity to correct misconceptions in-class, 3) expose students to multiple instances of the same concept to promote pattern recognition in the class, and 4) promote peer learning for each student.
Students were assigned randomly into groups of 3, and each group was given one of 4 similar problems. The group worked collaboratively to solve a problem reinforcing concepts discussed in class. The instructor assigned a number to this group’s problem, which was then referred to as the home problem. After solving the home problem, the group was dispersed. One member would move to the next problem up, another would move to the next problem down, and the third would stay with the original problem to serve as a peer mentor to the two new students arriving to the group. After solving the new problem, every student moved to the next problem up. That meant that one student from the original group rotated back to the home problem. After working the new problem, every student moved to the next problem up unless they hadn’t yet mentored, in which case they moved back to their home problem. At the end of this exercise, every student in class had solved three different problems, and had been a mentor for one problem.
Minor modifications were made for times when the class wasn’t divisible by three. For a class with reasonable confidence on the subject, a group of two was assigned, with the understanding that there may not always be a mentor sitting at the group of two’s station for every rotation. The instructor kept a closer eye on that group for additional guidance as needed. For more challenging subjects, a group of four was put together, and two students rotated through the stations together.
Several assessments were conducted to investigate the efficacy of the progressive peer group. The progressive peer group was used for inverse Laplace transforms, but not Laplace transforms. Both topics were covered as part of a lecture, had assigned homework problems, and were covered in the exam review. Student exam question grades associated with both topics were graded and compared. Despite the inverse transform being typically more challenging, students performed statistically significantly worse with the Laplace transform. Differences in performance were also measured for sections offered the progressive problem for different topics.
AU  - Anne-Marie A. Lerner
CY  - Columbus, Ohio
DA  - 2017/06/24
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Collaborative Learning Strategy in the Classroom: The Progressive Peer Group
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/28047
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--28047
ER  -