We compare the effectiveness of a first implementation of peer instruction (PI) in a two-year college with the first PI implementation at a top-tier four-year research institution. We show how effective PI is for students with less background knowledge and what the impact of PI methodology is on student attrition in the course. Results concerning the effectiveness of PI in the college setting replicate earlier findings: PI-taught students demonstrate better conceptual learning and similar problem-solving abilities than traditionally taught students. However, not previously reported are the following two findings: First, although students with more background knowledge benefit most from either type of instruction, PI students with less background knowledge gain as much as students with more background knowledge in traditional instruction. Second, PI methodology is found to decrease student attrition in introductory physics courses at both four-year and two-year institutions.

1.
C. H.
Crouch
and
E.
Mazur
, “
Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results
,”
Am. J. Phys.
69
,
970
977
(
2001
).
2.
A.
Fagen
,
Assessing and Enhancing the Introductory Science Course in Physics and Biology: Peer Instruction, Classroom Demonstrations, and Genetics Vocabulary
(
Harvard U. P.
,
Cambridge, MA
,
2003
), p.
186
.
3.
A.
Fagen
,
C. H.
Crouch
, and
E.
Mazur
, “
Peer Instruction: Results from a range of classrooms
,”
Phys. Teach.
40
,
206
209
(
2002
).
4.
E.
Mazur
,
Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual
(
Prentice Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
,
1997
).
5.
I. A.
Halloun
 et al, in
Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual
, edited by
E.
Mazur
(
Prentice Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
,
1995
).
6.
D.
Hestenes
,
M.
Wells
, and
G.
Swackhammer
, “
Force concept inventory
,”
Phys. Teach.
30
,
141
151
(
1992
).
7.
R. R.
Hake
, “
Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,”
Am. J. Phys.
66
,
64
74
(
1998
).
8.
V. P.
Coletta
and
J. A.
Phillips
, “
Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability
,”
Am. J. Phys.
73
,
1172
1182
(
2005
).
9.
V. P.
Coletta
,
J. A.
Phillips
, and
J.
Steinert
, “
Interpreting force concept inventory scores: Normalized gain and SAT scores
,”
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
3
,
010106
1
(
2007
).
10.
K.
Diff
and
N.
Tache
, “
From FCI to CSEM to Lawson’s Test: A report on data collected at a community college
,” in
2007 Physics Education Research Conference
.
Greensboro, NC
.
11.
S.
Tobias
,
They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier
(
Research Corporation
,
Tucson, AZ
,
1990
).
12.
E.
Etkina
and
A.
Van Heuvelen
, “
Author response
,”
Phys. Teach.
41
,
68
(
2003
).
13.
R.
Felder
,
G.
Felder
, and
E. J.
Dietz
, “
A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students
,”
Bell J. Econom.
87
,
469
480
(
1998
).
AAPT members receive access to the 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.