Educational research enquiry by Jarod locke

Jarod Locke of 73

University of Brighton School of Education BA (Hons) Professional Studies in Learning and Development Name Jarod Locke

Title Investigation into Peer Collaborative Learning groups: Do they provide an opportunity for students to help each other understand particularly difficult units of work.

Supervisor Jeremy Burton

Date May 2012

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of BA (Hons) Professional Studies in Learning and Development

Jarod Locke of 73

s

BA (Hons) Professional Studies in

Learning and Development

The Enquiry

Declaration

I declare that this enquiry is my own work arising from the sources in the bibliography. It may be made available for photocopying, reference purposes and interlibrary loan.

* Signed ……………………………………………… Name Jarod Locke Date 1st May 2012

* Please sign the above declaration and submit as part of your Enquiry

Jarod Locke of 73

Abstract

This enquiry investigated the use of argumentation and non-verbal behaviour

within the peer collaborative learning groups I've set up on the higher

education course I teach. The learning groups were set up so the students

could meet and discuss the more particularly difficult coursework. These

groups provide a valuable resource for the students in times when tutor

contact hours are reducing on university courses.

Three pairs of students were observed and then four students from the

observations were interviewed. The use of argumentation was observed as

such dialogue is needed for students to engage in socio-cognitive conflict,

which in turn leads to higher cognitive understanding of the subject matter.

This enquiry found that the students did engage in some argumentation.

However it was evident that the distribution of use and the understanding was

not sufficient to provide the necessary socio-cognitive conflict.

Therefore it is recommended that students receive a tutorial at the beginning

of their first year at university on the use of argumentation within peer

collaborative learning groups.

Jarod Locke of 73

Contents

Title Page .......................................................................................................................1 Declaration.....................................................................................................................2 Abstract ..........................................................................................................................3 Contents .........................................................................................................................4 Introduction:...................................................................................................................5 Literature Review: .........................................................................................................7

Aims:........................................................................................................................17 Methodology:...............................................................................................................17

Sample: ....................................................................................................................18 Enquiry objectives: ..................................................................................................19

Table one:.............................................................................................................20 Table two .............................................................................................................22

Resources: ................................................................................................................25 Data Analysis: ..........................................................................................................25 Validity and Reliability:...........................................................................................26 Ethical considerations: .............................................................................................28

Results - Data Analysis................................................................................................29 Inter-rater reliability:................................................................................................29

Figure one ............................................................................................................31 Chart one:.............................................................................................................33 Chart two:.............................................................................................................34 Figure two ............................................................................................................35 Figure three ..........................................................................................................36 Figure four ...........................................................................................................38 Figure five:...........................................................................................................40

Non-verbal behaviour analysis: ...............................................................................42 Figure six .............................................................................................................42

Summary of results: .................................................................................................44 Data Analysis: ..........................................................................................................45

Conclusion: ..................................................................................................................47 Strengths and limitations: ........................................................................................48 Extending the enquiry: .............................................................................................50

References:...................................................................................................................53 Appendix......................................................................................................................56

Appendix 1...............................................................................................................57 Appendix 2...............................................................................................................59 Appendix 3...............................................................................................................60 Appendix 4...............................................................................................................61 Appendix 5...............................................................................................................62 Appendix 6...............................................................................................................63 Appendix 7...............................................................................................................64 Appendix 8...............................................................................................................65 Appendix 9...............................................................................................................66 Appendix 10.............................................................................................................68 Appendix 11.............................................................................................................69 Appendix 12.............................................................................................................70 Appendix 13.............................................................................................................71

Jarod Locke of 73

Introduction:

This enquiry will investigate the use of argumentation within peer collaborative

learning groups (PCLG). Argumentation is an activity in which a person within

a dialogue with another attempts via reasoning to change the others

understanding of a concept (Asterhan and Schwarz, 2009). Peer collaborative

learning groups are a small group of students on the same university course

who meet weekly to discuss work with each other. Within these groups

students help each other to understand areas of work which they are finding

difficult to understand. This process of learning is termed by Vygotsky (1978)

as scaffolding, when a more capable other helps another individual to

understand a concept. Scaffolding leads to sociocognitive conflict, a process

that occurs when a student realises their understanding of the same

knowledge is different from one another's. This compels the individual to

challenge each others understanding, which in turn, promotes higher

understanding of the topic at hand (Van der Meer and Scott, 2008).

Sociocognitive conflict amongst group members is by no means a new

concept. However, more recently, researchers have shown an increased

interest in the role of argumentation in sociocognitive conflict (Skoumios,

2009).

I myself have set up such groups within my higher education (H.E.) course. I

felt as class contact hours are being progressively reduced on college

courses, which in turn reduces the amount of staff to student scaffolding that

can take place. Students being able to engage in the PCLG's could provide

Jarod Locke of 73

the opportunity for student to student scaffolding to take place, given the

reduced contact hours with staff.

Therefore I intend to find out, if the students belonging to my PCLG's, are

engaging in sociocognitive conflict via the use of argumentation, therefore

gaining a higher cognitive understanding. This will be done by observing the

occurrence of argumentative dialogue between pairs of students belonging to

PCLG's when completing a task, using an adapted version of Asterham and

Schwarz (2009) coding scheme. At the time of observation 'on the spot'

coding of non-verbal behaviour will also take place. After the observations a

selection of students will be interviewed in order to establish their level of

understanding relating to argumentation.

Since my role as a lecturer is to educate students it is important to me that my

teaching methods are incorporating all possible ways to facilitate learning. If

the PCLG's do offer a way to help my students in their academic learning, it

will do so without the need of timetabled hours or tutor contact. So it seems to

me to be a valuable resource to be using in a time when contact hours with

students are reducing. If this enquiry finds the PCLG's are aiding my students,

then perhaps it could be a basis to recommend such groups are set up on

other courses across the college.

Jarod Locke of 73

Literature Review:

In today’s education system we find many changes in teaching methods,

specifically those involved in collaborative peer groups and the use of group

work in the classroom. We find, in most learning institutions there is great

emphasis put on group work, group learning and thinking. Amongst our

academic learning we are now posed with learning how to work in a group,

learning the concepts of group dynamics, and even learning how to learn. The

benefits of such group work is described by Slavin (1987):

‘Research has established that under certain circumstances the use of co-operative learning methods increases student achievement more than traditional instructional practices’. (Slavin, 1987, P1161)

Learning and motivation are both developed in a social context (Blatchford,

Kutnick, Baines and Galton, 2003). Therefore we need to look at the context

of classrooms in order to establish the ideal environment for motivation and

learning. These contexts as Blatchford, Kutnick, Baines and Galton state; can

include the size of groups within a class, the type of learning assignment the

student is to undertake, and the nature of the interaction between the students

within the groups. Therefore it is not sufficient to put groups together in an

unplanned manner, by doing so the 'Social Pedagogic' potential of the

classroom learning is more often unrealised (Kutnick, Blatchford and Baines,

2007). Social pedagogy refers to the relationship between individuals and

society. In fact Kutnick et al (2007) state that some groupings can inhibit

learning and the motivation to learn.

Jarod Locke of 73

Research has shown student engagement is linked to positive academic

experiences within the first year of study (Van der Meer and Scott, 2009).

Such student engagement refers to activities that add to their learning for

example, interaction between staff and students and participating in peer

learning activities. These positive academic experiences thus lead to better

retention rates as well as better student grades (Yorke and Longden, 2008).

Why is group peer collaborative learning so important? One answer lies in the

early theoretical work of Vygotsky. Throughout Vygotsky's (1978)

developmental theory there is a theme that stands out amongst the others.

This is his belief that our ability to think and reason by ourselves is as a net

result of previous ‘social processes’.

Vygotsky believed our intelligence does not start ‘within our own heads’, but it

is mediated through an externalised social process. This social process of

learning, can be observed by the individual and then internalised so another’s

observed actions become part of their own.

For Vygotsky there are two types of learning, interpsychological and

intrapsychological. The child first learns through interpsychological means,

this is based on social input from others or other things. The second is

intrapsychological learning, which is an internalised state of cognitive

processes, which are confined within the individual. It is in this order that the

learning process takes place, one must make the transformation from the

interpsychological to the intrapsychological.

Jarod Locke of 73

Vygotsky termed this process of learning the Zone of Proximal Development

(ZPD). This is essentially the difference between what an individual can

accomplish now, and what an individual can accomplish with the aid of

collaboration with more capable others. Therefore the developmental level of

an individual is determined by the intellectual level, the ability to carry out

activities etc. However the ZPD includes all the individual could do with the

aid of a more capable other. This intervention by another is called scaffolding,

this serves as an integral part of group learning.

An example of scaffolding is when a student begins a learning curve for

example, university, they are at first given a great deal of support. After a

while this support is reduced allowing the student to try learning

independently. In this context we look at scaffolding as a process between

lecturer and student. However much scaffolding takes place between peers, a

process referred to as peer collaborative or cooperative learning, the terms

are used interchangeably. Piaget's (1976) cognitive development theory sees

human development as a social process between peers. In that individuals

develop and extend their cognitive ability by interactions with peers. However

as the scaffolding is reduced, the students need to be using the most efficient

learning skills. So what lies between the greater lecturer input in the first year

and the subsequent independent learning in the last year?

If learning as a child is, as Vygotsky believes dependent on social processes,

then surely as we learn throughout life emphasis should be placed on

Jarod Locke of 73

collaborative learning. One way in which such peer collaborative learning can

take place is within a group structure. By using such group structures,

according to Vygotsky's theory, one should learn more from more capable

others within a group. To add to Vygotsky's theory, one could say the peer

collaborative learning experience is more personal, as one faces the

problems, and engages in the issues on a first hand basis. With such personal

learning we learn better, and find more gratification in knowledge, which we

ourselves discover.

Research on collaborative learning is far reaching, and many studies have

shown such group methods improve the academic achievements of students

(Van der Meer and Scott, 2009), as well as improving the quality of students

interpersonal relationships (Slavin, 1991). Increasingly today's students have

less timetabled contact hours on their university courses so their learning

environment and the way it is organised has changed. There is a much higher

use of on-line learning tools which decreases face-to-face interaction both

with staff and fellow students. Van der Meer and Scott (2008) argue that the

increase in use of on-line learning tools and decrease in teacher contact

hours leaves peer groups as essential tools for promoting sociocognitive

conflict. Sociocognitive conflict occurs when students realise their

understanding of the same knowledge is different from one another's. This

compels the individuals to challenge each others understanding, which in turn

promotes higher understanding of the topic at hand.

Jarod Locke of 73

Van der Meer and Scott (2008) also note that this learning is being facilitated

by the students alone, therefore not needing lecturer's input and time. This

sociocognitive learning becomes internalised (King, 1997). In that this joint

new thinking actually changes the individuals own knowledge. Vygotsky

(1978) described this internalisation of 'actual dialogue' during sociocognitive

conflict as inner speech. The individual then uses / considers this new

knowledge when faced with a similar task or activity. This co-constructed

knowledge becomes internalised so the individual is then able to deal with

complex cognition independently (King, 1997).

Traditionally research has focused on the socio-cognitive conflict paradigm

inspired largely by Piaget (Asterhan and Schwarz, 2009). However research

has since shown that simply putting two people together is not enough to elicit

socio-cognitive conflict (Kutnick, Blatchford and Baines, 2007). Research is

now looking at peer argumentation as an essential process in socio-cognitive

conflict (Asterhan and Schwarz, 2009). Argumentation is an activity in which a

person within a dialogue with another attempts via reasoning to change the

others understanding of a concept (Asterhan and Schwarz, 2009). Two of the

most dominant contributors to the study of argumentation are Perelman and

Toulmin. They both developed theories which examined argumentation

occurring in the natural process of everyday argument (Eemere and

Goodendorst, 1994). More recently Eemere and Goodendorst have produced

a more modern theoretical stance towards argumentation called 'pragma-

dialectics'. Rather than being a theory of logic, pragma-dialectics is a theory of

Jarod Locke of 73

argumentative discourse (Eemere and Goodendorst, 1994). In the words of

Eemere and Goodendorst:

'Argumentation theory studies the production, analysis, and evaluation of argumentation with a view to developing adequate criteria for determining the validity of the point of departure and presentational layout of argumentative discourse'. (Eemere and Goodendorst, 1994, pp.43-44).

The end goal of argumentation is to justify ones' standpoint and to get the

other person to change their standpoint to yours, or to refute someone else's

(Eemeren, Houtlosser and Henkemans, 2010).

We shall look first at the study 'The skill of identifying argumentation'

(Eemeren, Gootendorst and Meuffels, 1989). This study had two aims, firstly,

was to find out if 14 year old school children could identify argumentation

without having had systematic instruction. Secondly, was to find out if

argumentation is an independent skill, in relation to traditional cognitive

intellectual skills. The students were given four tests, one test measured their

ability to identify argumentation, aim one. The other three tests used the

Groninger Intelligence Test (GIT). They measured verbal ability, verbal ability

to reason and general ability to reason. These latter three tests allowed the

researchers to find or not find correlations with the argumentation test, so their

second aim could be answered. In conclusion they found that a large number

of the 14 year old students were able to identify argumentative moves. They

also found that evidence is strong to suggest identifying argumentation is a

relatively independent skill. So in relation to this enquiry, it would be fair to say

that the academic level of the H.E students, should mean they are able to

Jarod Locke of 73

identify argumentation. However, will they actively use argumentation it in

their PCLG's? We will now look at some more recent studies which have

looked at argumentation within collaborative groups.

A symposium entitled 'Motivation and affect in peer argumentation and socio-

cognitive conflict' was set-up to gain a better understanding of the way

students learn from and interact in collaborative learning tasks that are

designed to create socio-cognitive conflict. There are three independent

papers set out, for the purpose of this enquiry we are looking at the second

paper 'On competitive and co-constructive dialectical argumentation'

(Asterhan, Schwarz and Butler, 2010).

Asterhan and Schwarz (2007) have found that not all forms of dialectical

argumentation necessarily produce positive outcomes in terms of higher

cognitive understanding. For example competitive debating. However they did

find students who worked critically, yet constructively looked at different ideas

and maintained a pleasant and supportive atmosphere. This type of dialogue

was called 'co-constructive, dialectical argumentation' (Asterhan and

Schwarz, 2009). The Asterhan et al 2010 study looked at the different

outcomes on learning when using dialectical argumentation as a competition.

For example, creating an adversarial win-loose situation where-by the student

has to persuade the other to adopt their understanding. The other condition

was getting students to use dialectical argumentation to gain a better

understanding through discussion 'co-constructive as well as dialectical

Jarod Locke of 73

argumentation'. Although not significant in its findings they concluded the

following:

'Even though it is difficult to generalise from this first study, the data seemed to support the claim that co-constructive dialectical argumentation fosters the learning of complex concepts, whereas adversarial argumentation does not'. (Asterhan, Schwarz and Butler, 2010, p.215)

The Peer Collaborative learning groups I have set up on my H.E. course are a

supplement to the students normal lecture and tutorial time, they meet outside

of timetabled contact hours. As we have seen from previous studies (Van der

Meer and Scott, 2009., Slavin, 1991., King, 1997) peer collaborative learning

groups not only increase academic achievement but they also aid retention

(Yorke and Longden, 2008). However, this enquiry is not looking at the

learning outcomes, but looking at the process occurring within the peer

groups, namely that of argumentation. The Clark and Sampson (2008) study

took the same tact and focused on the conceptual quality of comments within

the dialog, rather than measuring the quality of students' argumentative

moves before and after interventions. Their study assessed the use of

argumentation in online science learning environments. Rather than using a

coding system that just looked at argumentation structure, they developed a

coding system which also looked at the students' conceptual understanding of

the topic at hand (Clark and Sampson, 2008).

Most research to date has tended to focus on argumentation structure rather

than conceptual understanding within the argumentation. It is pointed out in

Jarod Locke of 73

this study that both are important especially within a scientific subject (Clark

and Sampson, 2008).

In this study they used an online environment for students to work in. Which

addressed issues such as the lack of opportunity in timetables for students to

engage in argumentation (Driver, Newton and Osborne, 2000), and reducing

the need for teachers' training and time (Linn, Davis and Bell, 2004). This

reflects the ideas within this enquiry whereby the PCLG's (rather than an

online environment) allow student to student scaffolding outside of timetabled

hours without the need of tutor contact time.

This enquiry will observe if my peer groups are using such argumentation

dialects at this level of study without any prior information about

argumentation. So unlike other studies where they gave their sample

examples of argumentative moves (Asterhan and Schwarz, 2009) this enquiry

will not. If the results of this enquiry suggests that the students are using

argumentation in their peer groups, then the subsequent interviews will aim to

identify how they have come to be using such dialogue. However, if this

enquiry suggests that students are not using argumentation then a

recommendation would be put forward. The recommendation would be to

setup an initial tutorial at the beginning of the academic year, to teach

students about the concepts of argumentation. Since research suggests that

argumentation amongst pairs of learners aids higher cognitive understanding.

Jarod Locke of 73

It was also considered important not only to observe the dialect occurring

within the groups but also the non-verbal behaviours. Most studies in the past

have researched verbal and non-verbal behaviour separately. However, to

gain a more holistic understanding of verbal and non-verbal behaviour they

should be studied together since they occur together (Jones and LeBaron,

2002). In the Eemeren, Houtlosser and Henkemans (2008) study it's pointed

out that argumentation is being looked at from a communicative approach.

This communication is normally via verbal interaction. However, they also

point out that non-verbal interaction, such as, gestures and images may also

have an impact on argumentative moves (Eemeren, Houtlosser and

Henkemans, 2008). As Benzer (2012) states:

'Verbal messages reflect our thoughts whereas non-verbal messages reflect more realistically the inner world of thoughts and feelings'. (Benzer, 2012, p.467)

For the purpose of this enquiry the non-verbal behaviour being observed is

linked to positive and negative body language gestures, such as: palms open

indicates honesty, or, hand over mouth indicates the person who is speaking

is lying (Pease and Pease, 2004). By observing these non-verbal behaviours

it will be possible to interpret the positive or negative student engagement,

and therefore, the subsequent perception of participating in the PCLG's. As

well as looking for physical movements, the tone of voice will also play an

important part in accurately observing the verbal behaviour occurring. Tone of

voice in relation to other verbal or non-verbal cues is relatively uncontrollable

by an individual. Therefore, tone of voice will give away the true meaning of

the spoken word (LaPlante and Ambady, 2002).

Jarod Locke of 73

Aims:

• Investigate if the Collaborative Peer Learning groups on my H.E course

provide sociocognitive conflict amongst its members via dialectical

argumentation.

• Explore the students perceptions of participating in the Peer

Collaborative Learning groups.

Methodology:

This enquiry approach falls within the interpretive paradigm as opposed to the

positivist paradigm (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011). A paradigm is the

research standpoint we use to understand the social world around us and

consequently use to investigate this social world (Descombe, 2008). The

interpretivist approach seeks to understand the individuals viewpoint of the

situation being studied.

This enquiry will obtain only qualitative data by means of observation and

interview. Qualitative data analysis allows the researcher to look at the data in

terms of the participants' account of the situation (Cohen et al, 2011). So in

this enquiry the qualitative approach will allow me to gain a more in-depth

understanding of the students experiences of being in a PCLG. As well as

being subject rich It also follows the qualitative method in that the enquiry will

be carried out in the students domain, within the university building, which

Jarod Locke of 73

provides a naturalistic setting. This should allow more natural behaviour to

occur and so provide more reliable data.

Sample:

Students from my H.E group in their first year of study will be asked to

participate in this enquiry. These participants are all members of the peer

collaborative learning groups (PCLG). These groups are constructed and

managed by the students belonging to them. Due to the fact that this enquiry

is looking at the PCLG's set up on my H.E course, the sample used is limited

to a small number of students. For example, out of the 16 students enrolled

on my course, 14 are male and 2 are female. Therefore my sample is perhaps

not representative of a standard HE course, however, the findings should be

transferable to a wider population of students (Denscombe, 2008). For this

same reason it is not possible to control for age, gender and ethnicity. The

course I teach on takes in a predominantly male cohort, therefore I can not

match for gender in this enquiry. Since I have taught this course over the last

11 years, the cohort has remained pretty much the same, predominantly

male, mixed age and ethnicity range. I believe if this same enquiry took place

next year the cohort and therefore sample would be largely the same.

Therefore my sample is representative of my H.E group. Also the scale of this

enquiry does not allow the time to look into these aspects.

Jarod Locke of 73

Enquiry objectives:

The observations will be carried out on 3 groups of 2 students, all the students

being members of a PCLG, and represents 33% of the students on this

course. The students will be asked a week before the observations to select a

module then a specific topic within that module to work on as their task in their

pairs for the observations. It was decided that the students should pick the

task material for the observations, as it reflects the normal way the PCLG's

work. Given that when the students meet in their PCLG they decide what they

are going to collaboratively work on. It was also felt that letting the students

choose the task material would promote more motivation while carrying out

the task, as well as being subject specific to their current course of study. The

task is necessary to produce group work, which can then be observed and

analysed.

To evaluate the effectiveness of learning in the groups, the verbal

argumentation and non-verbal behaviour is being observed. By Audio

recording and taking detailed timed notes of the groups verbal and non-verbal

interactions, detailed observations will be made and it will be possible to

observe who made the comments and to whom. The audio recordings of the

verbal behaviour will be assessed and transposed using the categories shown

in table one. The on the spot observed non-verbal behaviours will be

assessed and transposed using the categories shown in table two. At this

point a decision needed to be made whether to video or audio record the

groups. The video would allow the non-verbal behaviour to be recorded,

therefore analysis could take place after the event allowing time and the ability

Jarod Locke of 73

to re-check elements. However, the implications of students agreeing to being

video recorded and the potential risk of affecting the behaviour of the students

(Davis, 2007) outweighed the positives. Therefore the non-verbal behaviours

were observed in real time or 'on-the-spot'.

Table one:

The 10 categories used to code the verbal argumenta tion and non-

argumentation between the peer collaborative learni ng group.

Observations and transcriptions of group behaviours:

The audio recordings of the group's interactions will be transcribed using the

categories shown in table one. This allows each individuals verbal interaction

to be recorded as using or not using argumentative dialog (Asterhan and

Schwarz, 2009). The codes in the first column represent the following: A

codes, are all examples of behaviours which support argumentation or

argumentative moves. These are considered behaviours which will promote

socio-cognitive conflict and therefore produce higher cognitive understanding

Category code

Description of argumentative and non argumentative moves observed

1 Claims, Request for Claims 2 Simple agreements, Supports 3 Challenges, rebuttals

A

4 Simple oppositions and Concessions 5 Elaboration 6 Clarification 7 Requests for information 8 Information providing

B

9 Simple agreement C 10 Off task

Jarod Locke of 73

of the subject at hand. Whereas B codes, are all examples of behaviours

which do not support argumentation or non-argumentative moves, and will not

produce higher cognitive understanding. The C code is an example of dialog

which contains incomprehensible language or that cannot be recorded under

any of the other categories. The numbers in the second column are there to

allow the coding process to take place, for example, if an individual is

observed challenging another individual the following code would be recorded

- A3. (full descriptions can be found in appendix 1)

Because of the nature of the dialog being observed it is possible to assess the

conceptual quality (Clark and Sampson, 2008) of the argumentation.

Conceptual quality referring to the correct understanding of the subject being

discussed. This will be achieved by adapting Clark and Sampson's (2008)

coding framework. Due to time limitations it is only possible to implement the

overall ideology of their concept. Therefore only conceptually correct

argumentative dialog will by decoded from the observations, using the

adapted version of Asterham and Schwarz's (2009) coding scheme.

This will be a direct observation, in that I will not take part in the activities of

the group, but will observe from a distance. The following instructions will be

given at the beginning the observation: I shall explain that although I am in the

room I will not be available to answer any questions, or get involved in any

way other than my observing them. I will reinforce the fact that they should

behave as they normally would within their PCLG. The period of observation

will last 10 minuets and I will notify them when this time period is up. If at any

Jarod Locke of 73

point they wish to withdraw from the observation, they are free to do so. The

session will be audio recorded for analysis.

I will only observe the specific verbal and non-verbal behaviour linked to the

coding sheets, in order to keep the observation focused on the issue of Peer

Collaborative learning. Also in relation to the scope of this enquiry it would be

too time consuming to analyse all the verbal and non-verbal behaviour taking

place in the observations. I am using observation as a method as it will allow

me to see the PCLG working together and therefore allows me to study the

interaction between the members of the group. I believe this richness of

observation will outweigh any observer bias.

Table two

The 14 categories used to code the positive and neg ative non-verbal

group interactions.

Category Code Description of non-verbal behaviour o bserved 1 Palms Open 2 Hand Resting on Cheek, Index Finger Pointing Upwards 3 Chin Stroking 4 Head Tilted To One Side 5 Mirror Images 6 Touching

Positive

7 Smiling 8 Shoulder Shrug 9 Palm Closed Into Fist and Pointing Finger 10 Hands Clenched 11 Head Fully Supported By The Hand / s 12 Scratching Neck Several Times 13 Hand Over Mouth

Negative

14 Ear Rub

Jarod Locke of 73

The non-verbal behaviour will be transcribed using the categories shown in

table two above. This allows each individuals non-verbal interaction to be

recorded as positive or negative (Pease and Pease, 2004). Categories one to

seven are positive and categories eight to fourteen are negative. (full

descriptions can be found in appendix 2)

The transcription of one of the verbal observations will be made by two

coders, which will allow the observation to be a 100% co-observed, therefore

the observation will be recorded independently and simultaneously by both

observers. The interpretations of the coder's verbal behaviours from the

recording will be checked for reliability using Cohen's (1968) Kappa inter -

rater reliability test. This test measures the inter - rater agreement reliability of

the observations made. Providing the Cohen's Kappa shows reliability the

results will be represented in table form as percentages.

After the observations, four of the students who took part in the observations

will be asked to participate in a semi-structured / open interview. The purpose

for this is twofold, one to find out the students perceptions of working in a peer

collaborative learning group. Secondly to find out if the student understands

the concept of argumentation.

I have decided to use semi-structured interviews as a second method as they

will allow me to gain information directly from the sample. In doing this I will

gain the students interpretations on being in a PCLG from their own viewpoint

(Cohen et al, 2011). I considered carrying out questionnaires rather than

Jarod Locke of 73

interviews however I felt the questionnaire would be constrictive and would

not allow me to use the other multi-sensory channels occurring (Cohen et al,

2011). This refers to verbal, non-verbal cues, the way a response is given for

example tone of voice, all this will help to understand the students response

as a whole. An interview as apposed to a questionnaire will also allow the

discussion to develop more depth and may bring up topics which have not

been thought about.

The interviews will be carried out on a one to one basis with four of the

students who took part in the observations. The interviews will be carried out

on a one-to-one basis as apposed to a group interview. This is to help ensure

I gather each individuals thoughts, as a stronger character may influence the

opinions of the other group members. This may lead to other group members

being reluctant to give their original thoughts. The interviews will be semi-

structured and therefore allow the conversation to flow more naturally.

Although I will have a list of semi-structured questions (see appendix 3) to

ensure I cover all the areas of interest (Davis, 2007). I will set out to do one

interview after the first observation, then two more interviews after the second

observation and the last interview after the third observation. However this

may change depending on the outcome of the first interview and observation.

All the interviews will be audio recorded, allowing me to maintain complete

concentration on the student and the conversation (Davis, 2007).

Jarod Locke of 73

Resources:

Within the university a study room in the learning resource centre will be

booked for all the observations. This area is particularly quiet and is familiar to

the students. By booking the room this will mean disturbances should not

occur. The room will contained a table and chairs for the students to work at in

their pair groups.

The recording of the observations will be carried out using an audio recorder.

The recorder will be tested prior to the observations to ensure good working

order. For each of the observations a brief recording of the students

introducing the topic for the session will be made. This recording will be

stopped and played back to ensure both students voices are clearly audible

before the main recording commences. After each observation the audio

recordings will be backed up to guard against any technical malfunction.

The same room and audio recording procedure used in the observations will

also be used in the interviews.

Data Analysis:

By using the 12 categories shown in table one it will be possible to record the

verbal argumentation and non-argumentation occurring between the pairs in

the observation. Before further analysis the one co-observation will be

checked for reliability using Cohen's Kappa. I will then be able to discuss the

Jarod Locke of 73

occurrences of these behaviours and how they relate to the enquiry using

descriptive analysis.

The interviews will produce word-based accounts (Cohen et al, 2011).

Appropriate accounts will be presented as quotes and then put into the

context of the research question and literature.

At all times the data will be ammonised, no student names or other I.D will be

presented in the enquiry data analysis.

Validity and Reliability:

It is important at this stage to critically examine the procedures involved in the

collection of data for this enquiry. This is to ensure that measures are taken to

provide reliability and validity (Bell, 2010).

Denscombe (2008) describes reliability in the following way:

'Reliability relates to the methods of data collection and the concern that they should be consistent and not distort the findings. Generally it entails an evaluation of the methods and techniques used to collect the data' (Denscombe, 2008. p.100)

He describes validity as follows:

'Validity concerns the accuracy of the questions asked, the data collected and the explanations offered. Generally it relates to the data and the analysis used in the research'. (Denscombe, 2008. p.100)

Jarod Locke of 73

With this in mind this enquiry used more than one method of data collection:

interview and observation. It will therefore be possible to cross-check findings,

this approach is known as triangulation (Bell, 2010). This will help prevent

biases and weaknesses which might occur if only one method was used, and

allows some assurance of validity.

With regards to ensuring reliability it is important to look at the social theory of

reflexivity (Davis, 2007). In essence reflexivity means an individual, in this

case the researcher, cannot have a completely objective stance on an issue

within the social world, as they themselves are part of the world they research

(Denscombe, 2008). Therefore, the researcher, without meaning to will

influence the situation of an interview or observation and in this enquiry the

students perceptions (Davis, 2007). As I set up the PCLG and teach the

students I intend to observe and interview, reflexivity is likely to occur in this

enquiry. However, to lower the occurrences of such events several

preventative measures have been put in place.

One problem I envisage is the students feeling my observing and interviewing

them might lead to implications in their subsequent grades on my course. I will

therefore emphasise that my enquiry is in no way related to their course of

study and disclose the purpose of my being there. Likewise in order to

encourage the students to be themselves and share their experiences and

opinions I will confirm the confidentiality of their input. There also lies a risk of

researcher bias on my behalf. As I am exploring issues which I already have

preconceptions about I have to be careful I do not just look for the outcome I

Jarod Locke of 73

want or expect to find. It is important I look at the data with an open mind, so

to allow any patterns to emerge from the sample and not from my

assumptions (Davis, 2007). In the case of the coding system, one of the

observations will be co-observed, allowing reliability to be checked for using

Cohen's Kappa inter-rater reliability test.

Ethical considerations:

Throughout, the enquiry followed all codes of conduct set out by the British

Educational Research Association (BERA) 2011. For example BERA states

that:

'All educational research should be conducted within an ethic of respect for: The Person, Knowledge, Democratic Values, The quality of educational research and Academic freedom'. (BERA, 2011. p. 4).

With this in mind I shall gain written consent from the college, as the

gatekeeper, to carry out this enquiry using my H.E. students (see appendix 4

for written consent). Valid consent will also be obtained from the students

taking part, after they are fully aware of the nature of the enquiry and their

participation within it (Davies, 2007). The students will be required to complete

a participant consent form (appendix 5). This explains the nature of the

enquiry and their part within it. It also states that confidentiality and privacy will

be paramount. The consent form will also inform the students they are free to

withdraw from the enquiry at any point.

Jarod Locke of 73

When completing observations and interviews they will be told neither they

nor I shall record or write down their names or any other identifying I.D,

therefore giving them anonymity. At no point in the enquiry will any individuals

identity be disclosed therefore ensuring confidentiality and privacy. The

students will be identified in this enquiry as sA, sB, sC, sD, sE and sF. The

students will be informed that this enquiry will not be published and is being

carried out as fulfilment for my own university studies. Their participation is

voluntary and holds no financial or educational gains.

All the audio recordings made throughout the enquiry will be stored on a

password protected computer. This will prevent a third party from accessing

the data. Once this enquiry is completed all the recordings will be deleted.

These measures will help to ensure confidentiality.

Results - Data Analysis

Inter-rater reliability:

To address any potential rating bias, inter-rater reliability was tested for using

Cohen's Kappa (K). Cohen's Kappa coefficient is a measure of inter-rater

agreement for qualitative (categorical) items. K acts as a measure of

agreement between two raters, rating the same observation with the same

coding categories, and takes into account agreements based on chance alone

(Warrens, 2012).

Jarod Locke of 73

Figure one shows the confusion matrix which was drawn up for the Student

pair E and F. The coding schedule has 10 different categories A1 to C10,

coding has taken place 35 times. There are two observers, if they both agree

on the behaviour observed then the same code is recorded for that occasion.

However if different codes are used there has been a disagreement between

the two observers (see appendix 6 for observation grid).

The diagonal line, which goes from the top left to the bottom right of the

confusion matrix (highlighted in red, in figure one), shows the agreement

between the two observers. The points above and below this line show the

disagreements between the two observers, this is known as noise. This noise

is interfering with the results that we actually want to study, and it indicates

errors in the methodology, or the level of reliability of the observation.

Jarod Locke of 73

Figure one

Inter-rater reliability matrix - Student pair E and F

The following shows the full calculation for Cohen's Kappa (K):

P (O) = The proportion of agreement, this is given by

(number of agreements)

(number of agreements + number of disagreements)

Which in this case is

(8+4+1+3+1+1+1+0+6+1)

(35)

=0.42

A1 A2 A3 A4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C10 Total

A1 8 1 1 10

A2 4 4

A3 1 1

A4 3 3

B5 1 1 1 3

B6 1 1

B7 1 1 1 3

B8 1 0 1 2

B9 1 6 7

C10 1 = 26

1

Total 10 5 2 3 2 1 2 0 9 1 35

Observer One

Obse r ve r

Two

Jarod Locke of 73

P(C) = The proportion expected by chance, this is given by

(P1A x P2A)


P(C) = (0.10x0.10) + (0.04x0.05) + (0.01x0.02) + (0.03x0.03) + (0.03x0.02) +

(0.01x0.01) + (0.03x0.02) + (0.02x0.00) + (0.07x0.09) + (0.01x0.01) = 0.0208

K = Cohen's Kappa formula:

K = (P(O) - P (C)) / (1 - P (C))


K = (0.42 - 0.0208) / (1 - 0.0208) = 0.40

The value of K ranges between -1 and +1, with +1 being perfect agreement

and -1 being perfect disagreement. In this case the result is 0.40 which is a

fair agreement (Cohen, 1968). This shows that the coding by the two

observers has reliability, therefore further analysis of the data can be carried

out. Based on this result it was considered acceptable to observe the other

two pairs with one observer (see appendix 7 and 8 for observation grids).

Observation reliability is not available for the non-verbal coding, due to the

observation being carried out by one individual.

The qualitative approach of this enquiry allows for analysis using descriptive

data. The following provides a numerical summary on the sample data for four

aspects. 1) The total percentage of argumentative verses non-argumentative

moves used in each observation (figure two) (see appendix 9 for raw data and

Jarod Locke of 73

full calculations). 2) The percentage of argumentative (figure three) and non-

argumentative (figure four) moves used by each individual within a pair. 3)

The Comparison of the percentage of argumentative moves verses non-

argumentative moves made and the total percentage of moves made between

and within pairs. This involved observation of argumentative and non-

argumentative moves in accord with the adapted Asterhan and Schwarz

(2009) coding scheme. These dialogue moves are given in chart one. At the

same time the narrative from the interviews will be interspersed to back up the

observed data.

Chart one:

The 10 Categories used to code the verbal argumenta tion and non-

argumentation between the peer collaborative learni ng group pairs.

Category code



A


B


Jarod Locke of 73

And 4) the nature of the interactions observed for all three pairs in relation to

non-verbal behaviour (see appendix 10, 11 and 12 for observation grids). The

positive and negative non-verbal behaviours are given in chart two.

Chart two:

The 14 categories used to code the positive and neg ative non-verbal

behaviours between the peer collaborative learning group pairs.

1) Argumentation and non-argumentation analysis:

Figure two allows comparison of argumentative and non-argumentative

moves used by each pair of students observed. (see appendix 13 for raw data

and full calculations)

Category Code

Description of non-verbal behaviour observed

1 Palms Open 2 Hand Resting on Cheek, Index Finger Pointing

Upwards 3 Chin Stroking 4 Head Tilted To One Side 5 Mirror Images 6 Touching

Positive


negative

14 Ear Rub

Jarod Locke of 73

Percentage of argumentative verses non-argumentativ e moves used in

each observation.

Figure two

Argumentative moves 21% Observation 1

Students C & D Non-argumentative moves 10%


Students E & F Non-argumentative moves 17%


Students A & B Non-argumentative moves 20%

Looking at figure two, all three observations reveal fairly different results. We

can see both students C&D and students E&F produced more argumentative

than non-argumentative moves 21% and 18% as apposed to 10% and 17%,

respectively, compared to student pair A&B who produced less argumentative

moves, 14%, as apposed to 20% non-argumentative moves.

If we look at figure's three and four we can see the breakdown of

argumentative and non-argumentative moves used by each individual within a

pair. (appendix 9)

Jarod Locke of 73

The percentage of argumentative moves used by each individual within

a pair.

Figure three

% Argumentative moves

Student C (sC)

Student D (sD)

12

9

Student E (sE)

Student F (sF)

9

9

Student A (sA)

Student B (sB)

10

4

In figure three we can see that there is only one instance where there has

been an equal contribution of argumentative moves within a pair, sE and sF,

produced 9% each. sC and sD produced a similar amount of argumentative

moves, with sC producing 12%, and sD 9%. However, there is a large

difference between sA and sB. Were sA produced 10% argumentative

dialogue and sB only 4%. Interestingly when reviewing the interviews, sA

appeared to have a good understanding of argumentative language. For

example, when asked to provide an example of argumentative language the

following responses were recorded:

"If you suggest something is done one way, it would be to dismiss that

and do it another way."

Jarod Locke of 73

"No, I think that is wrong, I think you should do i t this way instead".

Although this provides only a basic understanding of argumentative language,

in that it represents only a claim and does not elaborate to include any

support for that claim. When later asked what language might be used to

make a claim the following was recorded:

"The way I would have done it is..."

"What I have read is..."

This provides a claim "The way I would have done it is..." then sA has

included support to the claim with "What I have Read is...". When sA was

asked for an example of a challenge, the following was recorded:

"Have you considered..."

"My understanding was that..."

These responses do provide an understanding of argumentation, which might

account for the higher percentage use in the observation.

Jarod Locke of 73

The percentage of non-argumentative moves used by e ach individual

within a pair.

Figure four

% Non-argumentative

moves

Student C (sC)

Student D (sD)

4

6

Student E (sE)

Student F (sF)

5

12

Student A (sA)

Student B (sB)

11

9

Figure four consistently shows an unequal contribution of non-argumentative

moves from each individual within the pairs. sC produced 4% of the non-

argumentative moves, sD 6%. A similar result was found between sA and sB,

were, sB produced 9% and sA 11%. However sE and sF show a greater

difference with sE only producing 5% of the non-argumentative dialogue and

sF producing the majority with 12%. When interviewed student E displayed a

fair understanding of a claim but a good understanding of both a challenge

and an opposition. For example:

"Ask why or how that works"

"I would want a reason why it works that way"

Jarod Locke of 73

These are two good examples of a challenge, student E also provided a good

example of an opposition, for example:

"I will try and get my point across, if I do not ag ree with the other

person"

The following is an exert from students E & F's observation. It provides an

example of students engaging in both dialectical argumentation and non-

argumentation.

sF: Compound key is the 3 primary keys. [Argumentative move]

sE: Umm, they don't have to be primary keys. But they are usually 2 or

3 attributes, you join them up to make 1... [Argumentative move]

sF: Sure. [Non-argumentative move]

sF: Oh Ok, ok. [Non-argumentative move]

Student F starts with a claim ("Compound key is the 3 primary keys"). Student

E comes straight in with a rebuttal by offering a counterclaim ("Umm, they

don't have to be primary keys"), which is backed up by another statement of

factual description ("But they are usually 2 or 3 attributes, you join them up to

make 1...") . Then Student F responds with a simple agreement ("Sure") and

then after a short pause another ("Oh Ok, ok"). It is possible to see in this

exert that both sE and sF use one argumentative move each, but sF also

uses two non-argumentative moves, and does not follow up with any

argumentative dialogue.

Jarod Locke of 73

Figure five shows the percentage of argumentative moves verses non-

argumentative moves and the total percentage of moves made between each

pair observed.

Comparison of percentage argumentative moves verses non-

argumentative moves and total percentage of moves m ade between

pairs.

Figure five:

Student pairs % Argumentative

moves

% Non-

argumentative

moves

%

Total moves

12 4 16 C

D 9 6 15

9 5 14 E

F 9 12 21

10 11 21 A

B 4 9 13

Total = 53 = 47

Figure five shows that only one student pair (A and B) had one student who

produced the most argumentative and non-argumentative moves, this being

sA, 10% and 11% respectively. With sA also producing the most moves in

total 21%. In pair C and D it is possible to see that sC produced the most

argumentative moves 12%, but fewer non-argumentative moves 4%

compared to sD 9% and 6% respectively. In this case sC produced the most

Jarod Locke of 73

moves in total 16%. Student pair E and F produced the same percentage of

argumentative moves, 9% each, with sF producing the majority of non-

argumentative moves, 12% compared to sE 5%. Therefore sF produced the

most moves in total, 21%.

It is interesting to note at this point that the student who produced the overall

majority of argumentative moves sC, 12% also produced overall the least

amount of non-argumentative moves, 4%. sC and sD are also the closest

match in overall moves produced out of all the pairs with only 1% difference,

sC 16% and sD 15%. Whereas sE and sF had a difference of 7% and sA and

sB a difference of 8%. The following will compare the interview answers sC

and sD provided when asked if they could give an example of argumentative

language:

sC - "Not really, I don't know. Is it something as simpl e as its the

way you are speaking...umm...I'm not sure"

sD - "Umm...I'm not too sure"

Both students' failed to give an example of argumentative language. However,

sC went on to provide a good understanding of a claim, challenge, rebuttal

and concession, where as sD provided a weak understanding.

Overall there were more argumentative moves made by all three pairs, 53%

than non-argumentative moves, 47%.

Jarod Locke of 73

Non-verbal behaviour analysis:

The following provides an analysis of the non-verbal behaviour observed

during the student paired sessions. Figure six provides a comparison of the

positive and negative non-verbal behaviour observed between and within the

three pairs of students. (appendix 13)

Comparison of the percentage positive and negative non-verbal

behaviour for each student and total non-verbal beh aviour recorded.

Figure six

Student pair % Positive non-

verbal behaviour

% Negative non-

verbal behaviour

Total % of non-

verbal behaviour

14 2 16 C

D 7 7 14

14.5 0 14.5 E

F 14.5 0 14.5

17 7 24 A

B 12 5 17

Total = 79 = 21

Data from figure six can be compared with the data in figure five which shows

both sE and sF produced the same % of positive non-verbal behaviour, 14.5%

each. Likewise both students produced an equal amount of argumentation 9%

each. The other two pairs show one student in each case produces the

majority of the positive behaviour and that same student also produced the

Jarod Locke of 73

most argumentative moves. sC producing 14% positive non-verbal behaviour,

sD producing only 7%, sC also produced more argumentative moves 12%

than sD, 9%. sA produced 17% positive non-verbal behaviour and 10%

argumentative moves were as sB produced only 12% positive non-verbal

behaviour and 4% argumentative moves. The negative non-verbal behaviours

do not follow any patterns with the non-argumentative moves. However, it is

interesting to note that neither sE or sF produced any negative non-verbal

behaviour. The other pairings show that sD produced more negative non-

verbal behaviour 7% than sC, 2%, and sA produced more negative non-verbal

beahviour 7% than sB, 5%.

It is apparent from figure six that the majority of non-verbal behaviour

observed was positive, 79% than negative, 21%. When each student was

interviewed they were asked if they gained a better understanding of the topic

area discussed in the peer support session. All the responses were positive,

for example:

sC - "Yes, I do, I always find that these things sink in a lot better when

you teach someone else how to do it, so, yes absolu tely"

sD - "Yes that was when I was off College, so I missed h alf the lesson,

so yeah, it was good to catch-up on what we did"

sE - "Umm, yeah, I think so. It's helpful when you can ' ping' ideas off

each other"

Jarod Locke of 73

Summary of results:

With analysis of the results there appears to be a pattern occurring which

depicts all but one student pair as producing more argumentative moves than

non-argumentative moves. Also all three student pairs as producing more

positive than negative non-verbal behaviour.

However, on further analysis it is found that only one student pair (E and F)

produced the same amount of argumentative moves. The other two pairs

produced imbalanced amounts between them. Although student pair E and F

produced the same percentage of argumentative moves they also produced

the biggest percentage difference of non-argumentative moves.

It was also found that the student who produced the most argumentative

moves did not necessarily produce the least non-argumentative moves, as

might be expected. In fact this only occurred once, with student pair C and D.

Where sC produced the most argumentative moves and the least non-

argumentative moves. In the case of student pair A and B, sA produced the

most argumentative moves and the most non-argumentative moves. It was

this pair that also produced more non-argumentation overall.

The non-verbal behaviour analysis found a much higher percentage of

positive behaviour was observed than negative, which was backed up by the

Jarod Locke of 73

students positive responses in interview. When comparing the positive non-

verbal behaviour with the argumentative moves an interesting trend was

found. Student pair E and F produced an equal percentage of argumentative

moves and an equal percentage of positive non-verbal behaviour. The other

two pairs show one student in each case produces the majority of the positive

non-verbal behaviour and that same student also produced the most

argumentative moves.

However, the overall lack of pattern to the results suggests that there is

possible methodological problems with the coding scheme. This shall be

looked at in more detail in the conclusion.

Data Analysis:

The purpose of this enquiry was to observe if my peer groups are using

argumentation dialects at this level of study without any prior information

about argumentation. These results show that all three student pairs are using

a degree of argumentation in their peer dialogue. If we refer back to the

Eemeren, Gootendorst and Meuffels (1989) study, which found that a large

number of 14 year old students were able to identify argumentative moves,

after instruction. Then it is evident that the H.E students' in this enquiry are

using argumentative moves without prior instruction. However, the percentage

use of argumentative dialogue is not very high in comparison with the non-

argumentative moves being used. Also when the students were interviewed

their understanding of argumentation as a concept was weak to non-existent.

Jarod Locke of 73

Further observation of the results brings to light another important finding: that

there is an imbalance in the use of argumentation within the pairs. In all but

one case, one student had a higher percentage use of argumentative moves

than the other pairing student. However, it is necessary for both students to

be using argumentative dialogue to create the socio-cognitive conflict, so in

the case of sA and sB the lack of argumentative moves on sB's behalf would

suggest higher cognitive understanding is not occurring. This is also reflected

in student pairing E and F. Where, sE provided less non-argumentative

dialogue because sE was more authoritative over sF in asserting claims,

leaving sF providing more non-argumentative dialogue in the form of simple

confirmation. Again this imbalance between the pairs supports the notion that

simply putting two people together is not enough to elicit socio-cognitive

conflict (Kutnick, Blatchford and Baines, 2007). It also backs the ideas of

Clark and Sampson (2008), that it is necessary to look at the conceptual

understand as well as the structural components of the argument. In this

example, although sF was agreeing with sE claim, it was not coded as a

concession [argumentative move], but coded as a simple agreement [non-

argumentative move]. As it was clear from the tone of voice in the recording

that the student was just agreeing, as apposed to agreeing with

understanding. This demonstrates the importance of studying verbal and non-

verbal behaviour together (Jones and LeBaron, 2002, Eemeren, Houtlosser

and Henkemans, 2008, LaPlante and Ambady, 2002).

Jarod Locke of 73

The most striking result to emerge from the data is the overall high

percentage of positive non-verbal behaviour displayed. This seemed to tally

with the student responses in interview, which were all positive when asked if

the peer support sessions helped topic understanding. As mentioned in the

literature review research has shown student engagement is linked to positive

academic experiences, such as participating in peer learning (Van der Meer

and Scott, 2009). These positive academic experiences thus lead to better

retention rates as well as better student grades (Yorke and Longden, 2008).

This result indicates the students have a positive perception towards the

PCLG's.

So although it was found that the H.E students were producing argumentative

dialogue it is evident from the data that distribution of use is not sufficient to

provide the necessary 'co-constructive, dialectical argumentation' (Asterhan

and Schwarz, 2009). For example, sC and sD appeared to be unfamiliar with

the concept of argumentation when interviewed, however, unbeknown to them

they are using it within their PCLG pair observation. Taking together both the

results from the observations and the interview transcripts, it is evident there

is a low, uneven use and understanding of argumentation. This enquiry would

therefore recommend: that the H.E students on joining the first year of study

are given a tutorial on argumentation dialogue and its affective use within peer

groups.

Conclusion:

Jarod Locke of 73

This enquiry has found that although students are using argumentation in their

PCLG dialogue, it is not thought to be at sufficient levels to elicit socio-

cognitive conflict. This conclusion has been reached as the results do not

show a high use of argumentative moves. Secondly, where argumentation

has been observed between the pairs it is imbalanced in it's use. Thirdly,

when interviewed the students' conceptual understanding of argumentation

was limited. However, the observed non-verbal moves revealed a high

percentage of positive behaviours. This was backed up by the positive

interview responses when the student's were asked if the peer session had

provided useful to them. Therefore it was concluded that the PCLG's are

providing a positive experience for the students belonging to them.

Based on the findings of this enquiry it would appear the students would

benefit from a tutorial regarding the use of argumentation dialogue in peer

groups.

Strengths and limitations:

This enquiry benefited from the use of several methods of data collection,

know as triangulation (Bell, 2010). The interviews allowed me to interpret

some of the observed behaviour more accurately, than would have been

possible if only observation was used. For example, some students were

observed using argumentation in their paired sessions, however when

interviewed they did not understand the concept of argumentation. This

highlighted an important finding, that students are using argumentation.

Jarod Locke of 73

However it is thought not to be at a level that allows it to be effective in

learning. Another important finding, observed that the non-verbal behaviour

was predominantly positive. The interviews backed up this finding, as the

answers were all positive from the students.

This enquiry has proved very useful for me to gain a better understanding of

the workings of my peer collaborative learning groups. It has allowed me to

find a way to improve how the PCLG's work, for the better of the students

learning.

At this point a number of important limitations need to be considered. First,

the small sample size of six students did not allow for a broad cross section of

results to be compared. However, due to the time constraints of this enquiry it

would not have been possible to observe a large enough sample to produce

these results. As is pointed out in the methodology the sample used had to

come from my cohort of students, however this meant I could not control for

age, sex or gender. Again this may reduce the reliability of the results, if the

sample proved not to be transferable to a wider population of students

(Denscombe, 2008). The only way to test this would be to carry out this

enquiry on a bigger sample of more evenly match students. This would

therefore be a suggestion for further research.

The result for Cohen's Kappa for the co-observed observation showed a fair

result. So although it was in the positive range it was at the bottom of the

scale. This could indicate a problem with the coding scheme used for the

Jarod Locke of 73

observation of the argumentative moves. However, it was noted in the results

that by also using the non-verbal coding scheme it was possible to give a

wider interpretation of the situation being observed. For example, the tone of

voice the student used when answering 'yes' was interpreted as a non-

argumentative move as it lacked understanding. On the other hand this could

be an example of reflexivity (Davis, 2007), where by the observer is

influencing the situation. A suggestion for further research would be to co-

observe all the verbal and non-verbal observations. This would allow all the

observations to be rated for reliability using Cohen's Kappa. Also using two

observers would allow for discussion of what is being observed, which again

would allow for a more robust interpretation.

Another limitation of this enquiry was the decision to audio record the student

groups rather than video record them. It would have been a real advantage to

be able to look back at the non-verbal behaviours displayed in order to link

them to the verbal behaviours. As it was, far fewer non-verbal behaviours

were observed than verbal due to the pressure of the on-the-spot observation.

Extending the enquiry:

I believe the decreasing lecture time that students receive at university needs

to be addressed. If we refer back to the literature review, scaffolding, when a

more capable other helps another individual to understand (Vygotsky, 1978) is

essential in promoting higher cognitive understanding. So it is essential that

the decreasing lecture time is replaced by peer to peer group interactions.

However, as pointed out in the literature review putting groups together in an

Jarod Locke of 73

unplanned manner is not necessarily going to produce learning (Kutnick,

Blatchford and Baines, 2007). In particular and the focus of this enquiry the

use and understanding of argumentation within groups is considered vital to

the production of socio-cognitive conflict; in turn resulting in higher cognitive

understanding of the subject at hand. Which leads to this enquires purpose, to

find out if the students on my degree course are using argumentation without

prior instruction.

Since it was considered the argumentation being produced was not sufficient,

the recommendation was to provide first year university students with a

tutorial, on the use of argumentation dialogue in peer groups. This tutorial

might be constructed in order to introduce and demonstrate the use of

effective argumentation. The concept of creating situations where one student

must persuade another student to adopt their understanding, as seen in the

Asterhan et al (2010) study, may be a practical exercise to use and definitely

an area for further research. After this tutorial the observations would be

carried out again with the amended methods discussed above. It would then

be possible to compare the sets of results to see if the tutorial does increase

the appropriate use of argumentation. If this proved to be the case, then for

me as a tutor I would know that my students are benefiting from these peer

sessions.

If the extended research did provide positive results then the PCLG's could be

recommended to fellow professionals as good practice. A staff development

session would be the ideal opportunity to deliver these findings. This session

Jarod Locke of 73

would focus on PCLG's and the effects of argumentation being used within

them. Subsequently highlighting the importance of first year students being

given a tutorial that teaches them the effective use of argumentative

language.

WORD COUNT: 9,926

Jarod Locke of 73

References:

Asterhan, C.S.C and Schwarz B.B. (2009). Argumentation and Explanation in Conceptual Change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33, 374-400. Asterhan, C.S.C and Schwarz B.B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626-639. In: Asterhan, C.S.C., Schwarz, B.B., Butler, R. (2010). On competitive and co-constructive dialectical argumentation. International conference of the learning sciences 2010. Chicago. 2, 213-215. Asterhan, C.S.C., Schwarz, B.B. and Butler, R. (2010). On competitive and co-constructive dialectical argumentation. International conference of the learning sciences 2010. Chicago. 2, 213-215. Bell, J. (2010). Doing your research project: a guide for first time researchers in education. 5th edition. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Open University Press. Benzer, Ahmet. (2012) "Teachers' opinions about the use of body language." Education 132.3 (2012): 467+. Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E. and Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research. Vol.39. Issues 1-2, 153-172. British Educational Research Association. (2011). New Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research 2011. http://www.bera.ac.uk/files/2011/08/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf Clark, D.B. and Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of research in science teaching. Vol.45, No.3, pp.293-321 Cohen, J. (1968). Weighten Kappa, nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin. 70, 213-220 Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods In Education.7th edition. London. Routledge. Davies, M. B. (2007), Doing a Successful Research Project, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Denscombe, M. (2008). Ground Rules for Good Research, a 10 point guide for social researchers. Buckingham. Open University Press.

Jarod Locke of 73

Diver, R., Newton,P., and Osborne,J.(2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. In: Clark, D.B. and Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of research in science teaching. Vol.45, No.3, pp.293-321 Eemeren, F.H. van and Grootendorst, R. (1994). Developments In Argumentation Theory. In: Andriessen, J., and Coirier, P. (1999). Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. Eemeren, F.H. van., Grootendorst, R. and Meuffels, B. (1989). Journal of the American Forensic Association. Vol.25., pp. 239-245. Eemeren, F.H. van., Houtlosser, P., and Henkemans, F.S. (2008). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol.40. Issue 3. pp.475-493 Eemeren, F.H. van., Houtlosser, P., and Henkemans, F.S. (2010). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Cogency. Vol.2, No.1., pp 123-133. Jones, S.E. and Le Baron, C.D. (2002). Research on the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication: Emerging Integrations. Journal of communication. Vol, 52. Issue 3, pp 499-521 King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32, Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P. and Baines, E. (2007). Pupil grouping for learning in classrooms: Results from the UK SPRinG study. 'International perspectives on effective groupwork: Theory, evidence and implications', American Educational Research Annual Meeting, Chicago, April 2007. LaPlante, D. and Ambady, N. (2002), Saying It Like It Isn't: Mixed Messages From Men and Women in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32: 2435–2457. Linn, M.C., Davis,E.A. and Bell,P.(2004). Internet environments for science education. In: Clark, D.B. and Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of research in science teaching. Vol.45, No.3, pp.293-321 Pease, A. and Pease, B. (2004). The definitive book of body language. Orion, London.

Jarod Locke of 73

Piaget, J. (1923). Le langage et al pensee chez I’enfant. In Tryphon, A. and Voneche, J. (1996). Piaget - Vygotsky: The social genesis of thought. Hove: Psychology Press. Skoumios, M. (2009). The effect of sociocognitive conflict on students' dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. International journal of environmental and science education. Vol.4, No.4. pp.381-399 Slavin, R. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 58, 1161-7. In Cowie, H., and Rudduck, J. (1988). Cooperative group work an overview. Ed.BP educational services.London. Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of Research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48, 71-82. Tryphon, A. and Voneche, J. (1996). Piaget - Vygotsky: The social genesis of thought. Hove: Psychology Press. Van der Meer,J. and Scott, C. (2008) Shifting the Balance in First-Year Learning Support: from Staff Instruction to Peer- Learning Primacy. Journal of Peer Learning. Vol.1. No.1. 70-79. Van der Meer,J. and Scott, C. (2009) Students’ Experiences and Perceptions of Peer Assisted Study Sessions: Towards Ongoing Improvement, Journal of Peer Learning, Vol.2. No.1. 3-22. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Warrens, M,J. (2012). Cohen's quadratically weighted Kappa is higher than linearly weighted Kappa for tridiagonal agreement tables. Statistical Methodology, Vol.3. No.3. 440-444. Yorke, M. and Longden, B. (2008). The first-year experience of higher education in the UK. The Higher Education Academy. York.

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix 1 The 10 Categories used to code the verbal argumentation and non-argumentation between the peer collaborative learning group pairs. Examples of categories: A1) Claims, Request for Claims : A statement that you are asking the other person to accept, or an action you want them to accept and enact.

For example: 'You should use a computer' A2) Simple agreements, Supports : This claim then needs to be supported by another statement in the form of a reason, the most common being definitions, factual descriptions and statistical evidence.

For example: '[Because] using a computer is faster'

A3) Challenges, Rebuttals : Also known as counterargument. The opponent will refute the claim, often by offering opposing evidence or arguments.

For example: 'I disagree because I write faster than I type'

A4) Simple oppositions and Concessions : Verbal disagreement with what the other has said, but providing no reason why. Or verbal agreement to what the other has said when previously having disagreed. B5) Elaboration : Expanding / embellishing the details already accounted for in the discussion. B6) Clarification : Making the statement clearer so the other person understands better. B7) Requests for information : Asks for more information for clarification so not intended in a critical way towards the information provided.

Category code



A


B


Jarod Locke of 73

B8) Information providing : Providing information about the topic, normally supplied when in response to a question. Appendix 1 (continued) B9) Simple agreement : Yes, No answers C10) Off task : Does not fit into any of the other categories.

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix 2 The 14 categories used to code the positive and negative non-verbal behaviours between the peer collaborative learning group pairs. Category Code Description of non-verbal behaviour o bserved

1 Palms Open 2 Hand Resting on Cheek, Index Finger Pointing Upwards 3 Chin Stroking 4 Head Tilted To One Side 5 Mirror Images 6 Touching

Positive


Negative

14 Ear Rub The following gives an explanation as to why the non-verbal behaviours one to seven are positive and why the non-verbal behaviours eight to fourteen are negative. These are based on Pease (2004). Positive non-verbal behaviours: 1 - Palms open - indicates honesty. 2 - Hand resting on cheek, index finger pointing upwards - Indicates interest. 3 -Chin stroking - Indicates making a decision. 4 - Head tilted to one side - Indicates concentration. 5 - Mirror images - Indicates agreement. 6 - Touching - Indicates friendship, encouragement. 7 - Smiling - Indicates enjoyment, at ease with the situation. Negative non-verbal behaviours: 8 - Shoulder shrug - Indicates unknowing, not understanding. 9 - Palm closed into fist and pointing finger - Indicates authority over others. 10 - Hands clenched - Indicates frustration, holding back a negative attitude. 11 - Head fully supported by the hand/s - Indicates boredom. 12 - Scratching neck several times - Indicates doubt, uncertainty. 13 - Hand over mouth - Indicates the person who is speaking is lying. 14 - Ear rub - Indicates the person has heard enough or wants to speak.

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix 3 Semi structured Interview prompts

1. Explore the students perceptions of participating in the PCLG's (Enquiry Aim 2) 2. Establish the students understanding of argumentative dialogue (Enquiry Aim 1)

a) Claims b) Challenge c) Rebuttals d) Oppositions and Concessions

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix 4

Dear... I am carrying out an enquiry as part fulfilment for my BA (Hons) Professional Studies in Learning and Development with the University of Brighton. My supervisor for this enquiry is ..... phone no..... email.... I would like to ask permission to approach the students on my H.E. course to invite them to take part in my enquiry. My enquiry is entitled: 'Investigation into Peer Collaborative Learning Groups: Do they provide an opportunity for students to help each other to understand particularly difficult units of work'. I aim to observe the students working in their peer collaborative learning groups and to interview them regarding their experience of being in such a group. I hope this enquiry will provide me with evidence that these groups are aiding the students in their studies. If permission is given, I shall gain valid consent from the students taking part, after they are fully aware of the nature of the enquiry and their participation within it. They will also be informed they are free to withdraw from the enquiry at any point if they wish to do so. The students will be ensured complete anonymity and therefore will ensure confidentiality and privacy. Throughout, this enquiry will follow all codes of conduct set out by the British Educational Research Association (bera) 2004. If further information is needed before permission is grated please contact me on..... Yours sincerely

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix 5

School of Education Participant Consent Form

Investigation into Peer Collaborative Learning groups: Do they provide an opportunity for students to help each other to understand particularly difficult units of work.

• I agree to take part in this research which is to investigate if Peer Collaborative Learning groups help students academic achievement.

• The researcher has explained to my satisfaction the purpose of the

study and the possible risks involved.

• I have had the principles and procedures explained to me and I have

also read the information sheet. I understand the principles and procedures fully.

• I am aware that I will be required to take part in a group observation

and also a one to one interview which shall be tape recorded.

• I understand that confidentiality will be given the highest possible

priority • I understand that I am free to withdraw from the research at any time.

• I am happy for any data collected by Jarod Locke to be used in an

anonymised form in his subsequent dissertation. Name: (please print) Signed:

Jarod Locke of 73

Date:

Appendix 6 Verbal Co-observation of student pair E and F Below shows the time the recording was coded and the code recorded by each observer. Time Observer 1 Observer 2 Time Observer 1 Observer 2 00:16 A1 A1 03:27 B9 B9 00:20 B9 B5 03:28 B6 B6 00:21 A1 A1 03:35 A1 A1 00:25 B9 B9 03:43 B9 B9 00:26 B7 A1 03:59 A1 B7 00:27 A1 A1 04:02 A3 B8 00:33 A2 A2 04:10 B9 B9 00:44 A1 B9 04:15 A4 A4 00:48 B9 B9 04:18 A3 A3 00:49 A1 A1 05:14 B9 B8 00:52 B9 B7 05:45 A1 A1 01:16 B7 B7 05:50 B5 B5 01:18 A1 A1 05:54 A4 A4 02:18 A4 A4 05:55 A1 A1 02:25 A2 A2 05:58 B9 B9 02:26 A2 B5 06:10 C10 C10 02:48 A2 A2 03:01 A2 A2 03:25 B5 A1

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix 7 Verbal Observation of student pair C and D Below shows the time the recording was coded and the code recorded by the observer. Coding sheet: Observation number: 1 Date: 15/03/2012 Time: 11:50 Transcribed 16/03/2012 @ 14:40 STUDENT CODE TIME NOTES C A1 00:16 C A2 00:34 C A1 01:10 C A2 01:14 C A1 01:23 D B7 01:28 C B6 01:30 C A2 01:40 C B8 02:00 D A4 02:02 C A1 02:04 D A4 02:14 C A1 02:16 D B9 02:29 C B5 02:40 C A2 03:30 D B9 03:37 D A1 04:40 C A3 04:47 D A1 05:22 C A4 05:22 D B6 06:30 C A4 06:30 C A1 06:52

Jarod Locke of 73

D A3 06:56 D B6 07:09 C A1 07:13 D B9 07:14 C A3 07:17 D A3 07:20 C A3 07:22 D B9 08:30

Appendix 8 Verbal Observation of student pair A and B Below shows the time the recording was coded and the code recorded by the observer. Coding sheet: Observation number: 3 Date: 15/03/2012 Time: 12:20 Transcribed 15:03/2012 @ 14:30 STUDENT CODE TIME NOTES A A1 00:36 B B9 00:38 A A1 00:58 A B5 01:01 B A2 01:06 A B9 01:07 A A2 01:08 B A4 01:09 A B5 01:19 A B6 01:33 A B5 01:45 B B9 01:51 A A1 01:52 A A2 01:52 B B9 01:55 A B6 02:01 A B5 02:10 A B6 02:23 B B6 02:37 A A1 04:20 B B9 04:24 A B5 04:27 A A1 04:34 B B9 04:36 A A1 04:50

Jarod Locke of 73

B A4 04:57 A A1 04:58 B B7 05:02 A B6 06:15 B B9 06:23 A B5 07:08 B B9 07:10 A A1 09:13 B A2 09:16 A A2 09:21 A B5 09:22

Appendix 9 Raw results from verbal observations: Observation of student pair C and D.

A1 A2 A3 A4 Total B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 Total C10 Total Student

C 7 4 2 0 13 1 2 0 1 0 4 0 0

Student D

3 0 3 3 9 0 1 1 0 4 6 0 0

Total 10 4 5 3 22 1 3 1 1 4 10 0 0 Observation of student pair E and F.


E 6 2 2 0 10 1 0 0 0 4 5 1 1

Student F

4 3 0 3 10 1 1 2 0 9 13 1 1

Total 10 5 2 3 20 2 1 2 0 13 18 2 2 Observation of student pair A and B.


A 8 3 0 0 11 7 4 0 0 1 12 0 0

Student B

0 2 0 2 4 0 1 1 0 7 9 0 0

Total 8 5 0 2 15 7 5 1 0 8 21 0 0 Total of argumentative and non-argumentative moves made:

Jarod Locke of 73

Pair one (C and D) = 32 Pair two (E and F) = 38 (C10 code not included) Pair three (A and B) = 36 Therefore: 32+38+36 = 106 total moves made for all pairs. Percentage argumentative moves made by: Student C - 13/106 x 100 = 12% Student D - 9/106 x 100 = 9% Student E - 10/106 x 100 = 9% Appendix 9 (continued) Student F - 10/106 x 100 = 9% Student A - 11/106 x 100 = 10% Student B - 4/106 x 100 = 4% Percentage non-argumentative moves made by: Student C - 4/106 x 100 = 4% Student D - 6/106 x 100 = 6% Student E - 5/106 x 100 = 5% Student F - 13/106 x 100 = 12% Student A - 12/106 x 100 = 11% Student B - 9/106 x 100 = 9%

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix 10 Non-Verbal Observation of student pair C and D. Below shows the time the recording was coded and the code recorded by the observer. Coding sheet: Observation number: One Student pair C and D Date: 15/03/2012 Time: 11:50 STUDENT CODE TIME NOTES

C 2 00:35 D 11 00:40 C 2 00:46 C 1 01:12 D 4 01:28 D 4 03:10 C 1 03:37 D 1 04:35 C 12 04:40 C 1 05:00 D 13 07:40 D 11 08:13 C 2 08:29

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix 11 Non-Verbal Observation of student pair E and F. Below shows the time the recording was coded and the code recorded by the observer. Coding sheet: Observation number: two Student pair E and F Date: 15/03/2012 Time: 12:05 STUDENT CODE TIME NOTES

F 1 00:21 E 5 00:30 F 5 00.30 F 4 00:46 E 1 01:30 E 1 02:30 F 4 03:25 E 2 04:05 E 4 04:21 F 4 05:10 E 7 05:56 F 7 05:56

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix 12 Non-Verbal Observation of student pair A and B. Below shows the time the recording was coded and the code recorded by the observer. Coding sheet: Observation number: three Student pair A and B Date: 15/03/2012 Time: 12:20 STUDENT CODE TIME NOTES

B 10 00:30 A 4 01:03 A 13 01:16 B 7 01:29 A 7 01:29 A 1 02:16 A 2 02:40 A 2 04:05 A 13 04:13 A 12 05:00 B 2 06:30 A 7 06:35 B 7 06:35 B 10 08:20 B 2 08:35 A 4 09:14 B 5 09:20

Jarod Locke of 73

Appendix 13 Raw results from non-verbal observations: Observation of student pair C and D.

Positive non-verbal behaviour

Total Negative non-verbal behaviour

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Student

C 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Student D

1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3

Total 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 Observations of student pair E and F.



Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Student

E 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Student F

1 0 0 3 1 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3 1 0 4 2 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Observations of student pair A and B.



Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Student 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3

Jarod Locke of 73

A Student

B 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

Total 1 4 0 2 1 0 4 12 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 5 Total of non-verbal interactions made: Pair one (C and D) - 13 Pair two (E and F) - 12 Pair three (A and B) - 17 Therefore: 13+12+17 = 42 total non-verbal interactions made. Appendix 13 (continued) Percentage positive non-verbal interactions made by: Student C - 6/42 x 100 = 14% Student D - 3/42 x 100 = 7% Student E - 6/42 x 100 = 14.5% Student F - 6/42 x 100 = 14.5% Student A - 7/42 x 100 = 17% Student B - 5/42 x 100 = 12% Percentage negative non-verbal interactions made by: Student C - 1/42 x 100 = 2% Student D - 3/42 x 100 = 7% Student E - 0/42 x 100 = 0% Student F - 0/42 x 100 = 0% Student A - 3/42 x 100 = 7% Student B - 2/42 x 100 = 5%

Jarod Locke of 73

Educational research enquiry by Jarod locke

Education

Transcript of Educational research enquiry by Jarod locke