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.
References
1.
C.
Crouch
and E.
Mazur
, “Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
(9
), 970
–977
(2001
).2.
C.
Crouch
, J.
Watkins
, A.
Fagen
, and E.
Mazur
, Reviews in Physics Education Research
, edited by E. F.
Redish
and P. J.
Cooney
(Research-Based Reform of University Physics 1.1
, 2007
).3.
E.
Mazur
, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual.
(Prentice Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ
, 1997
).4.
E.
Mazur
, “Education farewell, lecture?
,” Science
323
(5910
), 50
–51
(2009
).5.
M.
Smith
, W.
Wood
, W.
Adams
, C.
Wieman
, J.
Knight
, N.
Guild
, and T.
Su
, “Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions
,” Science
323
(5910
), 122
–124
(2009
).6.
C.
Henderson
, “Promoting instructional change in new faculty: An evaluation of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop
,” Am. J. Phys.
76
, 179
–187
(2008
).7.
E.
Mazur
and N.
Lasry
, in 2009 AAPT Winter Meeting
, Chicago, IL (2009
).8.
N.
Lasry
, “Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference?
,” Phys. Teach.
46
, 242
–244
(2008
).9.
A.
Fagen
, “Assessing and Enhancing the Introductory Science Course in Physics and Biology: Peer Instruction, Classroom Demonstrations, and Genetics Vocabulary
,” PhD (Harvard University
, Cambridge, MA
, 2003
).10.
A.
Fagen
, C.
Crouch
, and E.
Mazur
, “Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms
,” Phys. Teach.
40
(4
), 206
–209
(2002
).11.
N.
Lasry
, E.
Mazur
, and J.
Watkins
, “Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college
,” Am. J. Phys.
76
(11
), 1066
–1069
(2008
).12.
C.
Turpen
and N.
Finkelstein
, “Understanding Physics Faculty's Use of Peer Instruction,” in Proceedings of the 2007 Physics Education Research Conference 951 (PERC)
(AIP Press
, Melville, NY
, 2007
).13.
C.
Turpen
and N. D.
Finkelstein
, “Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors implementation of Peer Instruction
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res.
5
(2
), 020101
(2009
).14.
T.
Vickrey
, K.
Rosploch
, R.
Rahmanian
, M.
Pilarz
, and M.
Stains
, “Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review
,” CBE-Life Sci. Educ.
14
(1
), es3
(2015
).15.
M.
Dancy
and C.
Henderson
, “Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty
,” Am. J. Phys.
78
(10
), 1056
–1063
(2010
).16.
C.
Henderson
and M. H.
Dancy
, “Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res.
3
(2
), 020102
(2007
).17.
18.
K.
Cotton
and W.
Savard
, Time Factors in Learning
(Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
, Portland, OR
, 1981
).19.
C. W.
Fisher
and D. C.
Berliner
, Perspectives on Instructional Time
(Longman
, New York
, 1985
).20.
W. C.
Fredrick
and H. J.
Walberg
, “Learning as a function of time
,” J. Educ. Res.
73
, 183
–194
(1980
).21.
22.
N.
Karweit
, “Time-on-task reconsidered: Synthesis of research on time and learning
,” Educ. Leadership
41
(8
), 32
–35
(1984
).23.
N.
Karweit
and R. E.
Slavin
, “Measurement and modeling choices in studies of time and learning
,” Am. Educ. Res. J.
18
(2
), 157
–171
(1981
).24.
J.
Stallings
, “Allocated academic learning time revisited, or beyond time on task
,” Educ. Res.
9
(11
), 11
–16
(1980
).25.
26.
C.
Crouch
, A.
Fagen
, J.
Callan
, and E.
Mazur
, “Classroom demonstrations: Learning tools or entertainment?
,” Am. J. Phys.
72
(6
), 835
–838
(2004
).27.
D. R.
Sokoloff
and R. K.
Thornton
, paper presented at the AIP Conference Proceedings
(1997
).28.
D. R.
Sokoloff
and R. K.
Thornton
, Interactive Lecture Demonstrations
(Wiley-VCH
, New York
, 2004
), Vol. 1, p. 374
.29.
R.
Thornton
and D.
Sokoloff
, “Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
(4
), 338
–351
(1998
).30.
M.
Baker
, Argumentation and Education
(Springer
, Boston, MA
, 2009
), pp. 127
–144
.31.
J.
Roschelle
and S. D.
Teasley
, Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
, edited by C.
O'Malley
(Springer Verlag
, Berlin, Germany
, 1995
), pp. 69
–97
.32.
D.
Hestenes
, M.
Wells
, and G.
Swackhamer
, “Force concept inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
(3
), 141
–158
(1992
).33.
N.
Lasry
, S.
Rosenfield
, H.
Dedic
, A.
Dahan
, and O.
Reshef
, “The puzzling reliability of the Force Concept Inventory
,” Am. J. Phys.
79
(9
), 909
–912
(2011
).34.
E.
Redish
, J.
Saul
, and R.
Steinberg
, “Student expectations in introductory physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
(3
), 212
–224
(1998
).35.
E.
Kim
and S.
Pak
, “Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems
,” Am. J. Phys.
70
, 759
–765
(2002
).36.
L.
McDermott
and E.
Redish
, “Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research
,” Am. J. Phys.
67
, 755
–767
(1999
).37.
L.
Bao
, “Theoretical comparisons of average normalized gain calculations
,” Am. J. Phys.
74
, 917
–922
(2006
).38.
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
(1
), 64
–74
(1998
).39.
D.
Kuhn
and W.
Udell
, “The development of argument skills
,” Child Dev.
74
(5
), 1245
–1260
(2003
).40.
G. M.
Sinatra
and P. R.
Pintrich
, Intentional Conceptual Change
(Psychology Press
, Mahwah, N.J.
, 2002
).41.
R.
Hausmann
, M.
Chi
, and M.
Roy
, “Learning from collaborative problem solving: An analysis of three hypothesized mechanisms,” in 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2004
.42.
J.
Karpicke
and H.
Roediger
III, “The critical importance of retrieval for learning
,” Science
319
(5865
), 966
–968
(2008
).43.
K.
Nader
, G.
Schafe
, and J.
Le Doux
, “Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval
,” Nature
406
, 722
–725
(2000
).44.
N.
Lasry
, E.
Levy
, and J.
Tremblay
, “Making memories, again
,” Science
320
(5884
), 1720
(2008
).45.
W.
Adams
, K.
Perkins
, N.
Podolefsky
, M.
Dubson
, N.
Finkelstein
, and C.
Wieman
, “A new instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res.
2
(1
), 010101
(2006
).© 2016 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2016
American Association of Physics Teachers
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.
