Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Vickrey, Trisha ^a   Rosploch, Kaitlyn ^a   Rahmanian, Reihaneh ^a   Pilarz, Matthew ^a   Stains, Marilyne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SCIENCE; LEARNING; MALE; PHYSICS; PROBLEM SOLVING; TEACHING; THINKING; UNIVERSITY;

BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATICS; LEARNING; MALE; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; PHYSICS; PROBLEM SOLVING; TEACHING; THINKING; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84981191129     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198     Document Type: Review

References (74)

1. Andrews TM, Leonard MJ, Colgrove CA, Kalinowski ST (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE Life Sci Educ 10, 394–405.
2. Beatty ID, Gerace WJ, Leonard WJ, Dufresne RJ (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. Am J Phys 74, 31.
3. Borrego M, Cutler S, Froyd J, Prince M, Henderson C (2011). Faculty use of research based instructional strategies. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference 2011: Developing Engineers for Social Justice: Community Involvement, Ethics & Sustainability 5–7 December 2011, Fremantle, Western Australia. Barton, ACT: Engineers Australia, 448–453.
4. Boyle JT, Nicol DJ (2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Assoc Learn Technol J 11, 343–57.
5. Brady M, Seli H, Rosenthal J (2013). “Clickers” and metacognition: a quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Comput Educ 65, 56–63.
6. Brooks BBJ, Koretsky MDM (2011). The influence of group discussion on students’ responses and confidence during peer instruction. J Chem Educ 88, 1477–1484.
7. Bruck AD, Towns MH (2009). Analysis of classroom response system questions via four lenses in a general chemistry course. Chem Educ Res Pract 10, 291–295.
8. Caldwell JE (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ 6, 9–20.
9. Chase A, Pakhira D, Stains M (2013). Implementing process-oriented, guided-inquiry learning for the first time: adaptations and short-term impacts on students’ attitude and performance. J Chem Educ 90, 409–416.
10. Cortright RN, Collins HL, DiCarlo SE (2005). Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: ability to solve novel problems. Adv Physiol Educ 29, 107–111.
11. Crossgrove K, Curran KL (2008). Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE Life Sci Educ 7, 146–154.
12. Crouch CH, Mazur E (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 69, 970.
13. Crouch C, Watkins J (2007). Peer instruction: engaging students one-on-one, all at once. In: Reviews of Research-Based Reform Curricula in Introductory Physics, ed. EF Redish and P Cooney, College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers, 1–55.
14. Duncan DK, Hoekstra AR, Wilcox BR (2012). Digital devices, distraction, and student performance: does in-class cell phone use reduce learning? Astron Educ Rev 11, 1.
15. Fagen AP (2003). Assessing and Enhancing the Introductory Science Course in Physics and Biology: Peer Instruction, Classroom Demonstrations, and Genetics Vocabulary. http://mazur.harvard.edu/sentFiles/Mazurpubs_537.pdf (accessed 5 October 2014).
16. Fagen AP, Crouch C, Mazur E (2002). Peer instruction: results from a range of classrooms. Phys Teach 40, 206.
17. Felder RM, Brent R (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. Coll Teach 44, 43–47.
18. Ghosh S, Renna F (2006). Technology in Support of Good Pedagogy: Electronic Response Systems and Peer Instruction in an Economics Classroom, 22. http://ssrn.com/abstract=888544 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.888544.
19. Giuliodori MJ, Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE (2006). Peer instruction enhanced student performance on qualitative problem-solving questions. Adv Physiol Educ 30, 168–173.
20. Gok T (2012). The effects of peer instruction on student’s conceptual learning and motivation. Asia-Pacific Forum Sci Learn Teach 13, article 10.
21. Gray K, Owens K, Liang X, Steer D (2011). Assessing multimedia influences on student responses using a personal response system. J Sci Educ Technol 21, 392–402.
22. Hake R (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66, 64–74.
23. Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R, Bruns P, Chang A, DeHaan R, Gentile J, Lauffer S, Stewart J, Tilghman SM, et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science 304, 521–522.
24. Henderson C, Dancy M, Niewiadomska-Bugaj M (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 8, 020104.
25. Hestenes D, Wells M, Swackhamer G (1992). Force Concept Inventory. Phys Teach 30, 141–158.
26. James MC (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction. Am J Phys 74, 689.
27. James MC, Barbieri F, Garcia P (2008). What are they talking about? Lessons learned from a study of peer instruction. Astron Educ Rev 7, 37–43.
28. James MC, Willoughby S (2011). Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: what you have not heard might surprise you! Am J Phys 79, 123.
29. Jones ME, Antonenko PD, Greenwood CM (2012). The impact of collaborative and individualized student response system strategies on learner motivation, metacognition, and knowledge transfer. J Comput Assist Learn 28, 477–487.
30. Knight JK, Wise SB, Southard KM (2013). Understanding clicker discussions: student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 645–654.
31. Lasry N (2008). Clickers or flashcards: is there really a difference? Phys Teach 46, 242.
32. Lasry N, Charles E, Whittaker C, Lautman M (2009). When talking is better than staying quiet. In: Physics Education Research Conference, ed. M Sabella, C Henderson, and C Singh, Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 181–184.
33. Lasry N, Mazur E, Watkins J (2008). Peer instruction: from Harvard to the two-year college. Am J Phys 76, 1066.
34. Libarkin JC, Anderson SW (2005). Assessment of learning in entry-level geoscience courses: results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory. J Geosci Educ 53, 394–401.
35. Lorenzo M, Crouch CH, Mazur E (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. Am J Phys 74, 118.
36. Lucas A (2009). Using peer instruction and i-clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. Primus 19, 219–231.
37. MacArthur J, Jones L, Suits J (2011). Faculty viewpoints on teaching large-enrollment science courses with clickers. J Comput Math Sci Teach 30, 251–270.
38. Mazur E (1997). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
39. McConnell DA, Steer DN, Owens KD, Knott JR, Dick J, Heaney PJ (2006). Using ConcepTests to assess and improve student conceptual understanding in introductory geoscience courses. J Geosci Educ 54, 61–68.
40. Miller K, Lasry N, Lukoff B, Schell J, Mazur E (2014). Conceptual question response times in peer instruction classrooms. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 10, 020113.
41. Miller RLR, Santana-Vega E, Terrell MS (2006). Can good questions and peer discussion improve calculus instruction? Probl Resour Issues Math Undergrad Stud 16, 193–203.
42. Mora G (2010). Peer instruction and lecture tutorials equally improve student learning in introductory geology classes. J Geosci Educ 58, 286.
43. National Research Council (NRC) (2011). Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
44. NRC (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
45. National Science Foundation (2010). Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators: Identifying and Developing Our Nation’s Human Capital, Arlington, VA.
46. Nicol DJ, Boyle JT (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Stud High Educ 28, 458–473.
47. Nielsen KL, Hansen G, Stav JB (2013). Teaching with student response systems (SRS): teacher-centric aspects that can negatively affect students’ experience of using SRS. Res Learn Technol 21, 18989.
48. Nielsen KL, Hansen G, Stav JB (2014). How the initial thinking period affects student argumentation during peer instruction: students’ experiences versus observations. Stud High Educ 3, 1–15.
49. Nielsen KL, Hansen-Nygård G, Stav JB (2012). Investigating peer instruction: how the initial voting session affects students’ experiences of group discussion. ISRN Educ 2012, article 290157.
50. Novak GM (1999). Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology, Prentice Hall Series in Educational Innovation, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 188.
51. Perez KE, Strauss EA, Downey N, Galbraith A, Jeanne R, Cooper S, Madison W (2010). Does displaying the class results affect student discussion during peer instruction? CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 133–140.
52. Pilzer S (2001). Peer Instruction in physics and mathematics. Probl Resour Issues Math Undergrad Stud 11, 185–192.
53. Porter L, Bailey-Lee C, Simon B (2013). Halving fail rates using peer instruction: a study of four computer science courses. In: SIGCSE’13: Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, New York: ACM Press, 177–182.
54. Porter L, Bailey-Lee C, Simon B, Cutts Q, Zingaro D (2011a). Experience report: a multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, New York: ACM Press, 138–142.
55. Porter L, Bailey-Lee C, Simon B, Zingaro D (2011b). Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In: ICER’11: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research, New York: ACM Press.
56. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010). Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future, Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
57. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012). Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Office of Science and Technology.
58. Ramalingam V, Wiedenbeck S (1999). Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. J Educ Comput Res 19, 367–381.
59. Rao SP, DiCarlo SE (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Adv Physiol Educ 24, 51–55.
60. Richardson J (2005). Concept inventories: tools for uncovering STEM students’ misconceptions. In: Invention and Impact: Building Excellence in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education, Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 19–25.
61. Simkins S, Maler M (2009). Just in Time Teaching: Across the Disciplines, and across the Academy, Sterling, VA: Stylus, 224.
62. Simon B, Esper S, Porter L, Cutts Q (2013a). Student experience in a student-centered peer instruction classroom. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research—ICER’13, New York: ACM Press, 129.
63. Simon B, Kohanfars M, Lee J (2010). Experience report: peer instruction in introductory computing. SIGCSE’10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, New York: ACM Press, 341–345.
64. Simon B, Parris J, Spacco J (2013b). How we teach impacts student learning: peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0. SIGCSE’13: Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, New York: ACM Press, 41.
65. Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323, 122–124.
66. Smith MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sci Educ 10, 55–63.
67. Steer D, Mcconnell D, Gray K, Kortz K, Liang X (2009). Analysis of student responses to peer-instruction conceptual questions answered using an electronic response system: trends by gender and ethnicity. Sci and Educ 18, 30–38.
68. Theobald R, Freeman S (2014). Is it the intervention or the students? using linear regression to control for student characteristics in undergraduate stem education research. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 41–48.
69. Turpen C, Finkelstein N (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 5, 20101.
70. Turpen C, Finkelstein ND (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: students perceive differences. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 6, 020123.
71. Williams K (2014). Concept Inventories/Conceptual Assessments in Biology San Diego State University Center for Teaching and Learning. http://go.sdsu.edu/dus/ctl/cabs.aspx (accessed 6 November 2014).
72. Zingaro D (2014). Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1. SIGCSE’14: Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, New York: ACM Press, 373–378.
73. Zingaro D, Porter L (2014a). Peer instruction in computing: the value of instructor intervention. Comput Educ 71, 87–96.
74. Zingaro D, Porter L (2014b). Peer instruction: a link to the exam. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, New York: ACM Press, 255–260.