Peer instruction: An interactive approach for large lecture classes

Optics and Photonics News

Volumn 9, Issue 9, 1998, Pages 37-41

  Crouch, Catherine Hirshfeld ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 11344277506     PISSN: 10476938     EISSN: None     Source Type: Trade Journal    
DOI: 10.1364/OPN.9.9.000037     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. A. van Heuvelen, "Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies," Am. J. Phys. 59, 891-907 (1991); E.F. Redish, "Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics," Am. J. Phys. 62, 796-803 (1994).
2. A. van Heuvelen, "Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies," Am. J. Phys. 59, 891-907 (1991); E.F. Redish, "Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics," Am. J. Phys. 62, 796-803 (1994).
3. For example, I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1043 (1985); McDermott, "Millikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned-closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 61 (4), 295 (1993).
4. For example, I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1043 (1985); McDermott, "Millikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned-closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 61 (4), 295 (1993).
5. Examples include Workshop Physics (developed by P.W. Laws, R. Thornton, D. Sokoloff, and coworkers; published by John Wiley & Sons), in which students learn physics primarily through carefully guided but open-ended laboratory experiments; Tutorials in Introductory Physics (developed by L.C. McDermott, P.S. Shaffer, and coworkers; published by Prentice Hall), in which students work in groups through worksheets designed to uncover and correct common difficulties with the material; Active Learning Problem Solving Sheets (developed by A. van Heuvelen, Ohio State Univ.), which lead students through expert problem solving strategies; and numerous forms of Socratic dialogue (for exampie, the Socratic Dialogue Inducing Labs of R.R. Hake and coworkers) or guided group problem-solving (for example, the cooperative group problem solving strategies of P. Heller, K. Heller, and coworkers of the Univ. of Minn.). Materials for these innovations are available by contacting the publishers or developers (for unpublished materials).
6. Examples include Workshop Physics (developed by P.W. Laws, R. Thornton, D. Sokoloff, and coworkers; published by John Wiley & Sons), in which students learn physics primarily through carefully guided but open-ended laboratory experiments; Tutorials in Introductory Physics (developed by L.C. McDermott, P.S. Shaffer, and coworkers; published by Prentice Hall), in which students work in groups through worksheets designed to uncover and correct common difficulties with the material; Active Learning Problem Solving Sheets (developed by A. van Heuvelen, Ohio State Univ.), which lead students through expert problem solving strategies; and numerous forms of Socratic dialogue (for exampie, the Socratic Dialogue Inducing Labs of R.R. Hake and coworkers) or guided group problem-solving (for example, the cooperative group problem solving strategies of P. Heller, K. Heller, and coworkers of the Univ. of Minn.). Materials for these innovations are available by contacting the publishers or developers (for unpublished materials).
7. Examples include Workshop Physics (developed by P.W. Laws, R. Thornton, D. Sokoloff, and coworkers; published by John Wiley & Sons), in which students learn physics primarily through carefully guided but open-ended laboratory experiments; Tutorials in Introductory Physics (developed by L.C. McDermott, P.S. Shaffer, and coworkers; published by Prentice Hall), in which students work in groups through worksheets designed to uncover and correct common difficulties with the material; Active Learning Problem Solving Sheets (developed by A. van Heuvelen, Ohio State Univ.), which lead students through expert problem solving strategies; and numerous forms of Socratic dialogue (for exampie, the Socratic Dialogue Inducing Labs of R.R. Hake and coworkers) or guided group problem-solving (for example, the cooperative group problem solving strategies of P. Heller, K. Heller, and coworkers of the Univ. of Minn.). Materials for these innovations are available by contacting the publishers or developers (for unpublished materials).
8. Examples include Workshop Physics (developed by P.W. Laws, R. Thornton, D. Sokoloff, and coworkers; published by John Wiley & Sons), in which students learn physics primarily through carefully guided but open-ended laboratory experiments; Tutorials in Introductory Physics (developed by L.C. McDermott, P.S. Shaffer, and coworkers; published by Prentice Hall), in which students work in groups through worksheets designed to uncover and correct common difficulties with the material; Active Learning Problem Solving Sheets (developed by A. van Heuvelen, Ohio State Univ.), which lead students through expert problem solving strategies; and numerous forms of Socratic dialogue (for exampie, the Socratic Dialogue Inducing Labs of R.R. Hake and coworkers) or guided group problem-solving (for example, the cooperative group problem solving strategies of P. Heller, K. Heller, and coworkers of the Univ. of Minn.). Materials for these innovations are available by contacting the publishers or developers (for unpublished materials).
9. R.P. Feynman, Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1963), p. 5. I am grateful to AI Altman, who has used Peer Instruction for many years at the Univ. of Mass.-Lowell, and has collaborated extensively with us, for pointing out this quote.
10. See Ref. 3.
11. For further information on Peer Instruction, see E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1997).
12. While it is impossible to identify exactly how many instructors use Peer Instruction, Prentice Hall has distributed over 10,000 copies from four printings of Peer Instruction: A User's Manual since its first printing in July 1996. Of the 93 applicants for a recent NSF Faculty Enhancement Conference held at Harvard Univ., 15 mentioned their use of Peer Instruction in teaching introductory physics. We personally know at least 50 instructors using Peer Instruction at other institutions, and we receive a constant stream of requests for information and materials as well as invitations to speak. Peer Instruction is being used at a wide range of institutions, i.e., Univ. of Calif, at Berkeley; Univ. of Mass./Lowell; Quinnebaugh Valley Comm. Tech. College; Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech.; and Harvey Mudd College. ConcepTests have also been developed for other fields such as chemistry, astronomy, and business.
13. It is critical that students read before class so that class time can build on previous exposure to the ideas being covered. Students are more able to reason about the situations posed in the ConcepTests when they have done the reading. To encourage them to read, we give bonus points for completing a writing assignment about the reading before class.
14. Students can report their answers by raising their hands or showing flashcards, by filling out scanning forms, or by entering answers through a classroom network. Public reporting of answers (show of hands or flashcards) should only be used after group discussion or it will bias the discussion; with anonymous reporting, such as scanning forms and classroom networks, it is helpful to collect initial answers as well. For the first four years of using Peer Instruction at Harvard, we collected all answers on scanning forms and used a show of hands to learn the revised answers immediately. We then installed a classroom network system in 1995. The network is convenient because it allows us to learn students' individual answers, as well as group answers right away, rather than waiting until after class to scan forms. However, it is not necessary to have such technology to implement Peer Instruction.
15. Statistics are from Physics 11, Fall 1996.
16. Questions with few correct first answers can still have a positive effect. First, they do point out to the teacher and the class that something is not well understood; too many such questions are likely to have a demoralizing effect, but an occasional such question should not be a problem. Second, the instructor can provide some guidance to the class and then pose the question again. Students are not graded on their responses to ConcepTests: we compute this score solely to examine learning dynamics in our class.
17. The FCI is a multiple-choice test designed to assess student understanding of the most basic concepts in Newtonian mechanics. The original test and a discussion of its development can be found in Hestenes et al., "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30 (3), 141-151 (1992) . The test was revised in 1995 by I. Halloun et al.; the revised version is printed in Peer Instruction: A User's Manual and can also be obtained from D. Hestenes at Arizona State Univ. For more information on the FCI, see D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 33 (8), 502-506 (1995); I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1043-1055 (1985); and I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1056-1065 (1985). For data gathered on student test performance, consult R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66 (1), 64 (1998).
18. The FCI is a multiple-choice test designed to assess student understanding of the most basic concepts in Newtonian mechanics. The original test and a discussion of its development can be found in Hestenes et al., "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30 (3), 141-151 (1992) . The test was revised in 1995 by I. Halloun et al.; the revised version is printed in Peer Instruction: A User's Manual and can also be obtained from D. Hestenes at Arizona State Univ. For more information on the FCI, see D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 33 (8), 502-506 (1995); I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1043-1055 (1985); and I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1056-1065 (1985). For data gathered on student test performance, consult R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66 (1), 64 (1998).
19. The FCI is a multiple-choice test designed to assess student understanding of the most basic concepts in Newtonian mechanics. The original test and a discussion of its development can be found in Hestenes et al., "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30 (3), 141-151 (1992) . The test was revised in 1995 by I. Halloun et al.; the revised version is printed in Peer Instruction: A User's Manual and can also be obtained from D. Hestenes at Arizona State Univ. For more information on the FCI, see D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 33 (8), 502-506 (1995); I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1043-1055 (1985); and I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1056-1065 (1985). For data gathered on student test performance, consult R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66 (1), 64 (1998).
20. The FCI is a multiple-choice test designed to assess student understanding of the most basic concepts in Newtonian mechanics. The original test and a discussion of its development can be found in Hestenes et al., "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30 (3), 141-151 (1992) . The test was revised in 1995 by I. Halloun et al.; the revised version is printed in Peer Instruction: A User's Manual and can also be obtained from D. Hestenes at Arizona State Univ. For more information on the FCI, see D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 33 (8), 502-506 (1995); I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1043-1055 (1985); and I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1056-1065 (1985). For data gathered on student test performance, consult R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66 (1), 64 (1998).
21. The FCI is a multiple-choice test designed to assess student understanding of the most basic concepts in Newtonian mechanics. The original test and a discussion of its development can be found in Hestenes et al., "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30 (3), 141-151 (1992) . The test was revised in 1995 by I. Halloun et al.; the revised version is printed in Peer Instruction: A User's Manual and can also be obtained from D. Hestenes at Arizona State Univ. For more information on the FCI, see D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 33 (8), 502-506 (1995); I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1043-1055 (1985); and I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1056-1065 (1985). For data gathered on student test performance, consult R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66 (1), 64 (1998).
22. The FCI is a multiple-choice test designed to assess student understanding of the most basic concepts in Newtonian mechanics. The original test and a discussion of its development can be found in Hestenes et al., "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30 (3), 141-151 (1992) . The test was revised in 1995 by I. Halloun et al.; the revised version is printed in Peer Instruction: A User's Manual and can also be obtained from D. Hestenes at Arizona State Univ. For more information on the FCI, see D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 33 (8), 502-506 (1995); I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1043-1055 (1985); and I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 (11), 1056-1065 (1985). For data gathered on student test performance, consult R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66 (1), 64 (1998).
23. D. Hestenes and M. Wells, "A Mechanics Baseline Test," Phys. Teach. 30 (3), 159-166 (1992). This test is available from the same sources as the FCI.
24. Additional information on FCI and MBT scores from Physics 11 can be found at http://galileo.harvard.edu/galileo/ Igm/pi/results.html and Peer Instruction: A User's Manual.
25. In 1994 we changed from the original 29-question version of the FCI to a revised version that eliminated some ambiguities in the original and added one question. An informal survey of instructors using the FCI through the e-mail list-serv PhysLrnR found that at institutions that have given the FCI for a number of years, instructors typically see both pre- and post-test scores drop by roughly 3% with the introduction of this version of the test. We saw this drop in our pre-test, but not in our post-test, scores. We are grateful to L. McCullough of the Univ. of Minn. for alerting us to this survey.
26. Since 1995, we have replaced some of the textbook readings on mechanics with a draft text written by Eric Mazur. This text gives special attention to explaining concepts prior to introducing the mathematical formalism used with those ideas. It also develops the ideas of momentum and energy conservation before introducing forces.
27. The t-statistic is 3.37, corresponding to a probability of less than 0.1% that this difference in means arose by chance variation.
28. A full set of ConcepTests for a year-long introductory physics course is available at http://galileo. harvard.edu/galileo/lgm/pi/resources.html : those developed at Harvard before 1996 are also found in Peer Instruction: A User's Manual.
29. A full set of ConcepTests for a year-long introductory physics course is available at http://galileo. harvard.edu/galileo/lgm/pi/resources.html : those developed at Harvard before 1996 are also found in Peer Instruction: A User's Manual.