Research-Based Implementation of Peer Instruction: A Literature Review

Vickrey, Trisha L.; Rosploch, Kaitlyn; Rahmanian, Reihaneh; Pilarz, Matthew; Stains, Marilyne

doi:10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198

Cited by 150 publications

(173 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(108 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

142

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These ten COPUS profiles represent different instructional strategies, ranging from teacher-centered to student-centered pedagogies. The profiles include the following: lecture (with slides or at the board), transitional lecture (primarily consisting of lecturing, but with a small percentage of time spent on student-student interactions), Socratic (with slides or at the board), limited peer instruction (with slides or at board; peer instruction is an instructional strategy that has students answer conceptual questions individually, vote, further discuss the question with peers, and then revote (Vickrey 2015), extensive peer instruction, student-centered peer instruction, and group work. These ten instructional strategies can be categorized into four general instructional styles as follows: lecturing, Socratic instruction, peer instruction, and collaborative learning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Research at the secondary and postsecondary levels has clearly demonstrated the critical role that individual and contextual characteristics play in instructors' decision to adopt educational innovations. Although recent research has shed light on factors influencing the teaching practices of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty, it is still not well understood how unique departmental environments impact faculty adoption of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) within the context of a single institution. In this study, we sought to characterize the communication channels utilized by STEM faculty, as well as the contextual and individual factors that influence the teaching practices of STEM faculty at the departmental level. Accordingly, we collected survey and observational data from the chemistry, biology, and physics faculty at a single large research-intensive university in the USA. We then compared the influencing factors experienced by faculty in these different departments to their instructional practices. Results: Analyses of the survey data reveal disciplinary differences in the factors influencing adoption of EBIPs. In particular, the physics faculty (n = 15) had primarily student-centered views about teaching and experienced the most positive contextual factors toward adoption of EBIPs. At the other end of the spectrum, the chemistry faculty (n = 20) had primarily teacher-centered views and experienced contextual factors that hindered the adoption of student-centered practices. Biology faculty (n = 25) fell between these two groups. Classroom observational data reflected these differences: The physics classrooms were significantly more student-centered than the chemistry classrooms. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that disciplinary differences exist in the contextual factors teaching conceptions that STEM faculty experience and hold, even among faculty within the same institution. Moreover, it shows that these differences are associated to the level of adoption of student-centered teaching practices. This work has thus identified the critical need to carefully characterize STEM faculty's departmental environment and conceptions about teaching before engaging in instructional reform efforts, and to adapt reform activities to account for these factors. The results of this study also caution the overgeneralization of findings from a study focused on one type of STEM faculty in one environment to all STEM faculty in any environment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Os artigos de Vickrey et al [21] e Araujo e Mazur [24] não foram contabilizados por se tratarem de um trabalho de revisão da literatura e de divulgação da metodologia, respectivamente. Há enorme predomínio no número de publicações cujo contexto de pesquisaé a universidade (aproximada-mente 90%).…”

Section: Contexto De Aplicação Do Piunclassified

“…De maneira sintetizada, e corroborando com a análise de Vickrey et al [21], podemos perceber que o PI tem produzido, em diversasáreas do conhecimento, resultados extremamente positivos quanto a aprendizagem conceitual dos estudantes. Tal impactoé acompanhado por um aumento nas habilidades dos estudantes em resolverem problemas.…”

Section: Pesquisas Referentes Aos Elementos Que Compõem O Piunclassified

“…Recentemente, Vickrey et al [21] publicaram uma ampla revisão da literatura, que abarca estudos sobre a eficiência do PI e sobre as atitudes de estudantes e professores em relação a ele, identificam aspectos críticos da implementação do método, assim como uma breve síntese dos principais contextos acadêmicos em que o PI tem sido adotado. Tal revisão inclui publicações em revistas especializadas e em anais de eventos.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uma revisão da literatura acerca da implementação da metodologia interativa de ensino Peer Instruction (1991 a 2015)

Müller

Araújo

Veit

et al. 2017

Rev. Bras. Ensino Fís.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este trabalho apresenta resultados de uma revisão da literatura acerca da implementação da metodologia interativa de ensino Peer Instruction (PI). Respondemos às seguintes questões de pesquisa: Em quais contextos de ensino (nível de ensino, país, área de ensino e disciplinas) pesquisadores têm investigado o PI? Que impactos o PI tem produzido na aprendizagem dos estudantes? Quais são os resultados instrucionais da implementação do PI em termos das atitudes dos professores em relação à metodologia e das modificações feitas na estrutura original da metodologia? Quais são os principais aspectos teóricos e metodológicos que pesquisadores utilizam para investigar implementações do PI? Os resultados da literatura apontam que grande parte das publicações foram conduzidas em universidades norte americanas, em disciplinas da área STEM, com destaque à disciplina de Física. A adoção do PI apresenta impactos positivos na aprendizagem conceitual dos estudantes, na habilidade de resolução de problemas e no desempenho acadêmico. Desenvolve sentimentos positivos relacionados à aprendizagem dos conteúdos e à metodologia. Professores realizam modificações ao implementar o PI integrando-o com outras metodologias, demonstrando sua flexibilidade. A maioria dos estudos é apoiada por análises empíricas e estatísticas, mas não por estruturas conceituais ou referenciais teóricos. Esta lacuna apresenta oportunidades para contribuições futuras.

show abstract

“…Second, a large body of education research has shown that teaching exclusively by lecturing is not the most effective way to help undergraduate students master STEM concepts (reviewed in Handelsman et al 2004;Wood 2009; American Association for the Advancement of Science 2011). A recent, comprehensive meta-analysis (Freeman et al 2014) indicates that student learning is substantially increased and the drop-out rate decreased in STEM courses that devote class time to "active learning" through student-centered instructional techniques, such as clicker questions with peer discussion and other group activities requiring analytical thinking (Mazur 1997;Wood 2004;Vickrey et al 2015). Although systematic collection of data on undergraduate faculty instructional practices is still in its infancy (Wieman and Gilbert 2014), recent surveys and observation studies show that STEM faculty are gradually moving toward supplementing or replacing lectures with active-learning activities in their classrooms (Eagan et al 2014;Smith et al 2014;Lewin et al 2016).…”

Section: A Growing Awareness Of Problems With Traditional Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Genetics: Past, Present, and Future

Smith

Wood

2016

Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetics teaching at the undergraduate level has changed in many ways over the past century. Compared to those of 100 years ago, contemporary genetics courses are broader in content and are taught increasingly differently, using instructional techniques based on educational research and constructed around the principles of active learning and backward design. Future courses can benefit from wider adoption of these approaches, more emphasis on the practice of genetics as a science, and new methods of assessing student learning.

show abstract

Research-Based Implementation of Peer Instruction: A Literature Review

Cited by 150 publications

References 55 publications

The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty

The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty

Uma revisão da literatura acerca da implementação da metodologia interativa de ensino Peer Instruction (1991 a 2015)

Teaching Genetics: Past, Present, and Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About