Peer Instruction (PI) is a widely used student-centered pedagogy, but one that is used differently by different instructors. While all PI instructors survey their students with conceptual questions, some do not allow students to discuss with peers. We studied the effect of peer discussion by polling three groups of students (N = 86) twice on the same set of nine conceptual questions. The three groups differed in the tasks assigned between the first and second poll: the first group discussed, the second reflected in silence, and the third was distracted so they could neither reflect nor discuss. Comparing score changes between the first and second poll, we find minimal increases in the distraction condition (3%), sizable increases in the reflection condition (10%), and significantly larger increases in the peer discussion condition (21%). We also examined the effect of committing to an answer before peer discussion and reaching a consensus afterward. We compared a lecture-based control section to three variations of PI that differed in their requirement to commit to an answer or reach consensus (N = 108). We find that all PI groups achieve greater conceptual learning and traditional problem solving than lecture-based instruction. We find one difference between these groups: the absence of consensus building is related to a significant decrease in expert views and beliefs. Our findings can therefore be used to make two recommendations: always use peer discussions and consider asking students to reach a consensus before re-polling.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
August 2016
PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH|
August 01 2016
Effective variations of peer instruction: The effects of peer discussions, committing to an answer, and reaching a consensus
Nathaniel Lasry;
Nathaniel Lasry
Department of Physics
, John Abbott College, Montreal, QC, Canada
H9X 3L9 and Center for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University
, Montreal, QC, Canada
H3G 2V8
Search for other works by this author on:
Elizabeth Charles;
Elizabeth Charles
Center for the Study of Learning and Performance,
Concordia University
, Montreal, QC, Canada
H3G 2V8 and Learning Sciences Researcher, Dawson College
, 3040 Rue Sherbrooke W, Montreal, QC, Canada
H3Z 1A4
Search for other works by this author on:
Chris Whittaker
Chris Whittaker
Department of Physics,
Dawson College
, 3040 Rue Sherbrooke W, Montreal, QC, Canada
H3Z 1A4
Search for other works by this author on:
Am. J. Phys. 84, 639–645 (2016)
Article history
Received:
July 13 2013
Accepted:
June 17 2016
Citation
Nathaniel Lasry, Elizabeth Charles, Chris Whittaker; Effective variations of peer instruction: The effects of peer discussions, committing to an answer, and reaching a consensus. Am. J. Phys. 1 August 2016; 84 (8): 639–645. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4955150
Download citation file:
Sign in
Don't already have an account? Register
Sign In
You could not be signed in. Please check your credentials and make sure you have an active account and try again.
Pay-Per-View Access
$40.00
Citing articles via
Playing with active matter
Angelo Barona Balda, Aykut Argun, et al.
A simple model of a gravitational lens from geometric optics
Bogdan Szafraniec, James F. Harford
All objects and some questions
Charles H. Lineweaver, Vihan M. Patel
A simplified relativity experiment
David P. Jackson, Fedya Grishanov, et al.
Related Content
Faculty Perspectives On Using Peer Instruction: A National Study
AIP Conference Proceedings (October 2010)
Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results
American Journal of Physics (September 2001)
When Talking Is Better Than Staying Quiet
AIP Conference Proceedings (November 2009)
Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college
Am. J. Phys. (November 2008)
Sixteen years of collaborative learning through active sense-making in physics (CLASP) at UC Davis
Am. J. Phys. (February 2014)