The effects of peer instruction on students’ conceptual learning and motivation

Physics educators have realized that many students learn very little physics from traditional lectures. Several researchers have carefully documented college physics students’ understanding of a variety of topics, and have concluded that traditionally taught courses do little to improve students’ understanding of the central concepts of physics, even if the students successfully learn problem-solving algorithms (Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Crouch, Watkins, Fagen, & Mazur, 2007; Mazur, 1997). Simultaneously, researchers studying learning in higher education have established that students develop complex reasoning skills most effectively when actively engaged with the material they are studying, and have found that cooperative activities are an excellent way to engage students effectively. In response to these findings, many methods have been devised to improve student understanding of physics, ranging from modifications of traditionally taught courses to complete redesign of courses. One of the methods is peer instruction “PI” (Mazur, 1997).

PI is a student-centered approach to teaching. PI modifies the traditional lecture format to include questions designed to engage students and uncover difficulties with the material (Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Mazur, 1997; Porter, Bailey, Simon, Cutts, & Zingaro, 2011). PI provides a structured environment for students to voice their ideas and resolve misunderstandings by talking with their peers. By working together to learn new concepts and skills in a discipline, students create a more cooperative learning environment that emphasizes learning as a community in the classroom (Hoekstra, 2008; Kalman, Bolotin, & Antimirova, 2010; Turpen & Finkelstein, 2009). Research studies suggested that this type of cooperative learning environment could help promote deeper learning, as well as greater interest and motivation (Cross, 1998; Keiner & Burns, 2010; Simon & Cutts, 2012). Other research studies also showed that experts are able to monitor and regulate their own understanding (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Schoenfeld, 1992). When students were taught to apply peer instruction on how to learn effectively, they engaged in a process called metacognition which was an ability to evaluate and monitor one’s own cognitive process, so that a reasonable assessment could be done about future performance (Desoete, 2009; Shimamura, 2000). These metacognitive abilities enabled expert to employ different strategies to improve their learning. PI could also help students develop better metacognitive skills, as they checked their own understanding during pre-class reading and in-class questions. The method helped students when they did not understand a concept, when they were unable to answer a question on the reading, or when they could not give complete explanations to their peers during in-class discussion (Turpen & Finkelstein, 2010). With this formative, internal feedback, students could learn how to better assess their own understanding during the learning process.
PI encourages students to take responsibility for their own learning and emphasize understanding over simple task completion. Crouch & Mazur (2001) investigated the attitudes of students in the class performed of PI by the help of Maryland Physics Expectation Survey. The results revealed insignificant change in class attitudes over the semester. The convince-your-neighbor discussions systematically increased both the percentage of correct answers and the confidence of the students. Also the survey showed that student’ satisfaction -an important indicator of student success- increased as well.

A great deal of research studies on cognition and learning indicated that students learned by using their existing knowledge, beliefs, and skills to create new knowledge (Bransford et al., 2000). Therefore, pedagogies in which instructors are made aware of students’ incoming knowledge can enhance learning. PI provides opportunities for instructors and students to recognize background knowledge relevant to the pre-class reading, their initial vote, and discussion.

PI structures time during class around short, conceptual multiple-choice questions, known as ConcepTests. The best in-class ConcepTests often take advantage of the experiences and thinking students bring to the classroom about the material so that students can recognize their ideas and build on them. These questions are targeted to address student difficulties and promote student thinking about challenging concepts (Mazur, 1997).

The ConcepTests procedure is depicted in Fig. 1. After a brief presentation by the instructor, the focus shifts from instructor to student, as the instructor encourages students to think about the material by posing a ConcepTest. After 1-2 minutes of thinking, students commit to an individual answer. If too few students respond with the correct answer, the instructor may revisit the concept using lecture or try a different ConcepTest. If a large majority of students responded correctly, the instructor typically gives a brief explanation and moves on the next topic or ConcepTest. If an appropriate percentage of students answer ConcepTest correctly, the instructor asks students to turn to their neighbors and discuss their answers.

Figure 1. A peer instruction implementation procedure (Lasry et al., 2008)

Students talk in pairs or small groups and are encouraged to find someone with a different answer. The instructor circulates throughout the room to encourage productive discussions and guide student thinking. After several minutes, students answer the same ConcepTest again. The instructor then explains the correct answer and, depending on the student answers, may pose another related ConcepTest or move on to a different topic.

With the constant feedback from the reading assignments (the reading of a passage assigned by the instructor) and ConcepTests, the instructor can monitor student progress and help guide students to use their previously held ideas to understand new concepts and theories. Additionally, the flexibility of a PI lecture makes it easy for instructors to spend more time on concepts that are difficult for students by giving more focused, short presentations or asking more ConcepTests. In an interactive classroom, instructors are paying attention to student thinking throughout the learning process.