We report data from ten years of teaching with Peer Instruction (PI) in the calculus- and algebra-based introductory physics courses for nonmajors; our results indicate increased student mastery of both conceptual reasoning and quantitative problem solving upon implementing PI. We also discuss ways we have improved our implementation of PI since introducing it in 1991. Most notably, we have replaced in-class reading quizzes with pre-class written responses to the reading, introduced a research-based mechanics textbook for portions of the course, and incorporated cooperative learning into the discussion sections as well as the lectures. These improvements are intended to help students learn more from pre-class reading and to increase student engagement in the discussion sections, and are accompanied by further increases in student understanding.

## REFERENCES

*Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom*(Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN, 1991);

*Students and Science Learning: Papers from the 1987 National Forum for School Science*(AAAS, Washington, DC, 1987), and references therein.

*Tutorials in Introductory Physics*(Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998);

*Workshop Physics*(developed by P. W. Laws, R. Thornton, D. Sokoloff, and co-workers, and published by John Wiley);

*Active Learning Problem Solving Sheets*(developed by A. van Heuvelen, Ohio State University);

*Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual*(Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).

*Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning and Web Technology*(Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999), and http://webphysics.iupui.edu/jitt/jitt.html.

*Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual*and can also be obtained from Professor Hestenes at Arizona State University. For nationwide data that have been gathered on student performance on the test, see Hake (Ref. 1). To maintain the validity of the tests, we do not use materials in class that duplicate FCI questions.

*t*-test (two-tailed) was performed to determine the likelihood that the difference in average pretest scores is due to real differences between the populations of students rather than simply variation within the population of students. The

*p*value was 0.26; a

*p*value of 0.05 or less is generally agreed to indicate a statistically significant difference.

*t*-test was performed to determine the likelihood that this increase in mean score was simply due to variation within the population of students rather than genuine improvement in understanding. The

*p*value was 0.001, well below the threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance, indicating a statistically significant increase in mean score.

*Problem-Based Learning: How to Gain the Most from PBL*(self-published, 1994);

*American Journal of Physics*and

*The Physics Teacher*as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.