skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Student Behaviors and Interactions Influence Group Discussions in an Introductory Biology Lab Setting
Past research on group work has primarily focused on promoting change through implementation of interventions designed to increase performance. Recently, however, education researchers have called for more descriptive analyses of group interactions. Through detailed qualitative analysis of recorded discussions, we studied the natural interactions of students during group work in the context of a biology laboratory course. We analyzed multiple interactions of 30 different groups as well as data from each of the 91 individual participants to characterize the ways students engage in discussion and how group dynamics promote or prevent meaningful discussion. Using a set of codes describing 15 unique behaviors, we determined that the most common behavior seen in student dialogue was analyzing data, followed by recalling information and repeating ideas. We also classified students into one of 10 different roles for each discussion, determined by their most common behaviors. We found that, although students cooperated with one another by exchanging information, they less frequently fully collaborated to explain their conclusions through the exchange of reasoning. Within this context, these findings show that students working in groups generally choose specific roles during discussions and focus on data analysis rather than constructing logical reasoning chains to explain their conclusions.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1711348
PAR ID:
10286336
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Editor(s):
Gardner, Grant Ean
Date Published:
Journal Name:
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Volume:
19
Issue:
4
ISSN:
1931-7913
Page Range / eLocation ID:
ar58
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; (, 2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings)
    Frank, B. W.; Jones, D. L.; and Ryan, Q. X. (Ed.)
    In this paper, we analyze video recordings of students working on tutorials in Zoom breakout rooms in an upper-division quantum mechanics course. We investigate group behaviors in this virtual environment, including the effects of instructor presence. To this end, we modify the Color Frames coding scheme introduced by Scherr to suit the virtual nature of the interactions. By broadening the frames and allowing for multiple overlapping frames, we are able to describe some group behaviors not otherwise captured. For example, in some instances, students take on an authoritative role in the group, and in other instances, groups engage in overtly casual behavior while nonetheless having on-topic discussions. We observe significant variation in how much time each group spends in each frame, but find that all groups spend some time in all frames. Instructors can be present without dominating or eliminating discussion between students, and their presence need not significantly impact the time students spent in an "informal/friendly'' frame. However, instructor presence significantly reduces time spent working individually. Our findings will support additional research into the dynamics of student discussions during tutorials and aid ongoing development of online tutorials that can, e.g., be assigned for use outside of class. 
    more » « less
  2. ; (, Annual ASEE Conference and Exhibition)
    There have been increased calls to include sociotechnical thinking–grappling with issues of power, history, and culture–throughout the undergraduate engineering curriculum. One way this more expansive framing of engineering has been integrated into engineering courses is through in-class discussions. There is a need to understand what students are attending to in these conversations. In particular, we are interested in how students frame and justify their arguments in small-group discussions. This study is part of an NSF-funded research project to implement and study integrating sociotechnical components throughout a first-year computing for engineers course. In one iteration of the revised course, each week students read a news article on a current example of the uneven impacts of technology, then engaged in in-class small-group discussions. In this study, we analyze students’ discourse to answer the research questions: What arguments do students use to argue against the use of a technology? How do these arguments relate to common narratives about technology? In this qualitative case study, we analyzed videorecordings of the small group discussions of two focus groups discussing the use of AI in hiring. We looked closely at the justifications students gave for their stated positions and how they relate to the common narratives of technocracy, free market idealism, technological neutrality, and technological determinism. We found all students in both groups rejected these common narratives. We saw students argue that (1) AI technology does not solve the hiring problem well, (2) it is important to regulate AI, (3) using AI for hiring will stagnate diversity, and (4) using AI for hiring unfairly privileges some groups of people over others. While students in both groups rejected the common narratives, only one group explicitly centered those who are harmed and how this harm would likely occur, and this group did so consistently. The other group managed to consistently reject the narratives using vague, safe language and never explicitly mentioned who is harmed by the technology. As a result, only one group’s discussion was clearly centered on justice concerns. These results have implications for how to scaffold small group sociotechnical discussions, what instructors should attend to during these discussions, and how to support students to orient toward systemic impacts and sustain a focus on justice. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; (, Education Sciences)
    During group activities, instructors expect that students will ask each other questions. Therefore, in this study, we looked at the nature and role of peer-to-peer questions during an in-class activity. During the activity, students worked collaboratively to respond to five prompts about an acid–base neutralization reaction. We examined the questioning behavior in groups and the nature and types of questions asked. We then looked specifically at the content questions, analyzing how they varied by prompt, as well as the level of those content questions using Bloom’s taxonomy. Finally, we looked at the role that the peer-to-peer questions played as the students completed the activity. The results revealed that the students broadly asked each other social questions, process questions, and content questions, with content questions being the most frequently posed. The prompts that required students to make a prediction, sketch a graph, and explain their reasoning elicited most of the content questions asked. Furthermore, most of the peer-to-peer content questions asked across the five prompts ranked at the two lowest levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Finally, the posed peer-to-peer questions were found to play many roles in the discussion, including initiating and sustaining conversations, seeking consensus, challenging each other, and promoting social metacognition. The implications for instruction and research are discussed. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; (, CBE—Life Sciences Education)
    Gardner, Stephanie (Ed.)
    Stronger metacognition, or awareness and regulation of thinking, is related to higher academic achievement. Most metacognition research has focused at the level of the individual learner. However, a few studies have shown that students working in small groups can stimulate metacognition in one another, leading to improved learning. Given the increased adoption of interactive group work in life science classrooms, there is a need to study the role of social metacognition, or the awareness and regulation of the thinking of others, in this context. Guided by the frameworks of social metacognition and evidence-based reasoning, we asked: 1) What metacognitive utterances (words, phrases, statements, or questions) do students use during small-group problem solving in an upper-division biology course? 2) Which metacognitive utterances are associated with small groups sharing higher-quality reasoning in an upper-division biology classroom? We used discourse analysis to examine transcripts from two groups of three students during breakout sessions. By coding for metacognition, we identified seven types of metacognitive utterances. By coding for reasoning, we uncovered four categories of metacognitive utterances associated with higher-quality reasoning. We offer suggestions for life science educators interested in promoting social metacognition during small-group problem solving. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; (, CourseSource)
    Hicks, Jenna (Ed.)
    The ability to interpret and create an argument from data is a crucial skill for budding scientists, yet one that is seldom practiced in introductory courses. During this argumentation module, students in a large lecture class will work in groups to understand how a single mutation can lead to an obvious phenotypic change among tomatoes. Before the module begins, students are provided with background information on mutations and techniques to give them a starting point to explain what they will see in the data. In class, students will use data from the primary literature to understand the relationship between single amino acid mutations and phenotypic variation within the context of a “big question” about garden tomatoes that ripen without turning red. Over two days, small groups will negotiate data, create and evaluate hypotheses, and consolidate their understanding through clicker questions and writing tasks. Together, they will craft an argument for how mutations can lead to phenotypic changes, even if they do not lead to disease like in many common examples. Through this activity, the instructor and students work together to understand an engaging and relevant example of the central dogma. During our implementation of this activity, we observed high engagement with the in-class and out-of-class aspects of the argumentation activities to explain how a single mutation could result in a visible change to the flesh of a tomato. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email