User Tools

Site Tools


peer_instruction

Peer Instruction

  • 2014: Vickrey et al., Research-Based Implementation of Peer Instruction: A Literature Review (CBE–Life Sciences Education, 14(1), 2015). PI can boost learning gains by 2x, but you can't skip any steps in the Mazur protocol–every step has value. A flowchart suggests how to handle varying levels of student correct answers: if <35% correct, give hint before peer consultation, or give detailed explanation and start over; 35-70% correct, engage with peer; >70% correct, skip peer consultation and go straight to explanation.
  • 2001: Catherine H. Crouch and Eric Mazur Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69 (9), September 2001
  • 2009: Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions (Science, 323(5910), Jan 2009; free account required for article access). Students' understanding improves with peer discussion even when _none_ of the peers in a discussion group knew the right answer initially. This is confirmed by both the students' answers post-discussion as well as their non-peer-discussed answer to a harder question on the same concept after the peer learning activity has occurred.
  • 2013: Multiple-choice questioning is an efficient instructional methodology that may be widely implemented in academic courses to improve exam performance. Glass & Sinha, Current Directions in Psych. Sci. (22). This is a meta-analysis of 9 Within-subjects/within-item expts using “distributed” (ie repeated various times throughout course) MCQs to review material before it appears on exams.
    • Protocol: questions appear in prelesson, postlesson, monthly “review quiz” (1-2 days before real quiz), real monthly quiz, and final (1-3 mos later); either identical q or variants covering same concept.
    • Control: present question + correct answer w/o distractors, at same point(s) in course.
    • Repetition is important! When review quiz was given 1-2 days before monthly quiz, quiz scores were 5-10 points higher, final exam scores (1-3 MONTHS later) were 5-10 pts higher on novel but related questions, and 4 mos. after final, performance was better on q's that appeared on final AND reviews vs appeared on reviews only.
    • …and, students who used clickers outperformed those who wrote down answer themselves. Hypothesis: social interaction makes learning activity more memorable than solitary writing. (source: Mayer et al 2009, Clickers in college classrooms…, Contemporary Edu. Psych. 34)
    • Using variants vs identical question, performance declined on review, but INCREASED on final with novel question. Possible explanation: this obstacle resulted in a generalization.
    • MCQs also improve performance on subsequent novel short-answer q's. Possible explanation: general consensus that “recognition and recall are result of same retrieval process”.
peer_instruction.txt · Last modified: 2018/02/28 17:02 (external edit)