Peer instruction in chemistry education: Assessment of students’ learning strategies, conceptual learning and problem solving

Results of Research

Results of CAT
The descriptive statistics (Table 3) at the beginning of the research indicate the similarity between the EG and the CG.

Table 3. CAT Results of the Students in the Groups

Group	N	Pretest		Posttest		Fractional Gain
Group	N	M	SD	M	SD	g
EG	22	5.13	1.24	19.36	1.09	0.71
CG	25	5.16	1.62	11.28	1.10	0.30

ANOVA shows that the difference between the experimental group students’ CAT pretest results and the control group students’ CAT pretest results was not significant (p>0.001) while the difference between the experimental group students’ CAT posttest results and the control group students’ CAT posttest results was significant with F(1,45) = 635.69, p<0.001. It was also found that the fractional gain of the experimental group (g=0.71) was high while the fraction gain of the control group (g=0.30) was medium. These findings indicated that peer instruction was more effective for improving the experimental group students’ learning performance.

Results of LSS
Table 4 indicates the descriptive statistics of the LSS components for the pretest and posttest results. When the pretest and posttest results of the groups were evaluated, the pretest results for both groups appeared to be similar while the EG posttest result was higher than the CG posttest results.

ANOVA shows that the difference between the experimental group students’ LSS pretest results and the control group students’ LSS pretest results was not significant (p>0.001) while the difference between the experimental group students’ LSS posttest results and the control group students’ LSS posttest results was significant with F(1,45) = 1137.97, p<0.001. A series of ANOVAs was applied to test the main effects on the component results (rehearsal [R], organization [O], elaboration [E], critical thinking [CT], help seeking [HS], peer learning [PL], metacognitve self-regulation [MSR], effort regulation [ER], time and study environment [TSE]) between the experimental and control groups. The results indicate that the difference between the experimental group students’ LSS pretest component results and the control group students’ LSS pretest component results was not significant (p>0.001) while the difference between the experimental group students’ LSS posttest component results and the control group students’ LSS posttest component results was significant (p<0.001).

Table 4. LSS Results of the Students in the Groups

	EG-Pretest		CG-Pretest		Statistical Value		EG-Posttest		CG-Posttest		Statistical Value
Components	M	SD	M	SD	F(1,45)	p	M	SD	M	SD	F(1,45)	p
R	18.81	2.34	18.72	1.94	0.02	0.876	36.95	4.79	19.36	1.49	303.73	p<0.001
O	18.54	1.50	18.72	1.98	0.11	0.739	38.13	3.96	19.40	1.70	461.47	p<0.001
E	8.27	2.79	8.96	1.36	1.18	0.281	23.68	1.21	9.40	1.60	1157.77	p<0.001
CT	10.63	1.78	11.52	2.69	1.70	0.198	24.36	2.42	11.84	1.49	468.07	p<0.001
HS	14.36	3.15	13.80	2.29	0.49	0.483	30.90	2.34	14.08	1.75	786.37	p<0.001
PL	8.09	1.90	8.32	1.51	0.21	0.649	19.22	1.34	8.56	0.65	1247.75	p<0.001
MSR	8.95	1.93	8.96	1.13	0.00	0.991	19.18	1.50	9.20	0.76	856.30	p<0.001
ER	5.90	1.06	5.72	1.83	1.80	0.674	18.40	1.84	5.96	0.61	1016.61	p<0.001
TSE	5.27	1.45	5.72	1.83	0.84	0.364	12.50	1.76	5.96	0.61	302.48	p<0.001

Problem Solving Performance Results
The students included in the groups were asked four quantitative problems to evaluate their problem solving performance at the end of the research. Problems asked in the examination were the similar to the handout problems and solved problems in terms of difficulty level. When the students’ problem solving performance as presented in Table 5 was evaluated according to problem solving strategy steps (identifying the fundamental principles-IFP, solving-SLV, and checking-CHK) by percentage, the students’ problem solving performance in the experimental group was higher than the students’ problem solving performance in the control group.

Table 5. Problem Solving Performance Results of the Students in the Groups

Problems	Group	IFP	SLV	CHK
1. Problem (Properties of Matter)	EG	91% (20/22)	82% (18/22)	64% (14/22)
1. Problem (Properties of Matter)	CG	56% (14/25)	40% (10/25)	40% (10/25)
2. Problem (Atomic Structure)	EG	86% (19/22)	86% (19/22)	64% (14/22)
2. Problem (Atomic Structure)	CG	52% (13/25)	44% (11/25)	36% (9/25)
3. Problem (Atomic Structure)	EG	91% 20/22	82% (18/22)	59% (13/22)
3. Problem (Atomic Structure)	CG	56% (14/25)	36% (9/25)	32% (8/25)
4. Problem (Periodic Table)	EG	91% (20/22)	77% (17/22)	68% (15/22)
4. Problem (Periodic Table)	CG	56%(14/25)	48% (12/25)	36% (9/25)

When the students’ problem solving strategy steps were generally evaluated, it was observed that approximately 90% of the experimental group students identified the fundamental principles/concepts in asked problems regarding to the properties of matter, atomic structure and periodic table. The rate (55%) for the control group students was lower. Roughly 80% of the experimental group students solved the quantitative problems while 42% of the control group students solved them. After the fundamental principles were determined, the experimental group students easily solved the problems. The control group students only focused on problem solving without understanding the problems. It could be said that the students had difficulty in comprehension.

Finally, almost 65% of the experimental group students checked the problem solution ways (unit, sign, magnitude, etc.), but this rate (36%) for the control group students was lower. Peer instruction provided to the students to monitor problem solving procedures logically. Besides the students could evaluate themselves while problem solving with the help of peer instruction. The students in the control group did not watch out checking of the problem solution ways.

Results of the Student Evaluation Questionnaire
The questionnaire data in Table 6 indicates that peer instruction had a significant effect on the students’ affective and cognitive ideas. With respect to affective ideas, most of the students included in the experimental group reported that peer instruction was understandable and easy to follow, allowed them to express their ideas during peer discussion, enhanced interaction between the students and instructor, and encouraged them to attend in class. Furthermore, the students enjoyed peer instruction. With respect to cognitive ideas, the students reported that peer instruction helped them understand the course materials, stimulated them to think about the questions and answers, helped them to evaluate themselves, and provided an interactive learning environment.

Table 6. Opinions of the Students in the Experimental Group

Questionnaire Items		Responses
Affective Ideas
1.	I enjoyed this learning method.	4.8 ± 0.08
2.	I was attentive in class.	4.5 ± 0.10
3.	I interacted with classmates and instructor.	4.7 ± 0.09
4.	I liked to express my ideas during peer discussion.	4.8 ± 0.09
5.	The method was understandable and easy to follow.	4.7 ± 0.08
6.	It was good to use the flashcards anonymously.	4.6 ± 0.11
Cognitive Ideas
7.	The method helped me to comprehend the subjects.	4.8 ± 0.08
8.	The immediate feedback provided by the instructor was impressive.	4.7 ± 0.09
9.	The method provided an interactive learning environment during the course.	4.7 ± 0.08
10.	The method helped me to evaluate myself through the questions and answers.	4.6 ± 0.08
11.	The method encouraged me to think about the questions and answers carefully.	4.5 ± 0.10
12.	It was essential to answer and report the questions individually before peer discussion.	4.6 ± 0.09