The Importance of Concept Test Questions and Response Time in Peer Discussion
Peer instruction is quite important to discuss and answer posed concept test questions. The learning of students instructed with peer instruction during in-class discussion depends on both the quality of concept test questions and the robust background knowledge of the students (Mazur & Watkins, 2010). The concept test questions should be especially designed and chosen based on selecting and defining target behaviors. Concept test questions should be also designed for higher-level thinking and plausible distracters to evaluate students' thinking processes. Butchart, Handfield, & Restall (2009) expressed that the right level of difficulty is the main target for a high quality question. Alternative question types (isomorphic, multiple-choice, open-ended, short, true/false, etc.) besides concept test questions were used in the application of peer instruction (Bruck & Towns, 2009; Porter et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2009; Zingaro & Porter, 2014).
Some studies (Rao & DiCarlo, 2000; Smith et al., 2009; Turpen & Finkelstein, 2009) reported that student learning gains mostly increased with higher-level intellectual questions rather than basic recall questions. Knight, Wise, & Southard (2013) revealed that " the majority of student discussions included exchanges of reasoning that used evidence and that many such exchanges resulted in students achieving the correct answer. Students also had discussions in which ideas were exchanged, but the correct answer not achieved. Importantly, instructor prompts that asked students to use reasoning resulted in significantly more discussions containing reasoning connected to evidence than without such prompts" (p.645). Crouch & Mazur (2001, p. 973) stated "the choice of questions, the amount of time devoted to each question, the amount of lecturing, and the number of questions per class can and should be adapted to best suit a particular context and teaching style."
Smith et al. (2009) and Zingaro & Porter (2014) used the isomorphic (assessment of the same concept by using two different questions) questions on the same concept in order to evaluate the performance of the students. They revealed that isomorphic questions before and after discussion were very effective on conceptual understanding. Lasry, Charles, & Whittaker, (2016) stated that peer instruction enhanced the probability of getting a correct answer for similar questions.
Vickrey, Rosploch, Rahmanian, Pilarz, & Stains (2015) claimed that peer instruction improved students' learning which could be approved by the difference between first and second vote. Perez et al. (2010) examined the effect of displaying a bar graph of the student responses on students’ second vote regarding concept test question after peer discussion. They revealed that when students monitored the most common response, the second responses of some students were affected. This could cause pseudo increase in the performance. They reported that the tendency of the students was found 38% for true/false questions, and 28% for multiple-choice questions. The display of voting for first responses were crucial for voting of the second responses after discussion among peers. Because many students could likely be influenced from displaying the bar graph of the first responses, this influence could be prevented students’ thought on concept test questions (Brooks & Koretsky, 2011; Nielsen, Hansen- Nygard, & Stav, 2012; Perez et al., 2010). Therefore the responses of the students may be showed without identifying options.
Porter et al. (2011) developed a new metric, "Weighted Learning Gain", which reflects better the learning value of discussion and evaluates student learning gains for isomorphic questions in order to solve the evaluation process during peer discussion. They firstly used the new metric in genetic and computing courses. They found 85-89% of "potential learners" benefit from discussion among peers. Porter et al. (2011) presented a suggestion for future research: using the isomorphic questions for only critical course concepts, where misconceptions are necessary.
Miller, Lasry, Lukoff, Schell, & Mazur (2014) examined response time differences between correct and incorrect answers both before and after peer discussion for concept test questions of varying difficulty with two different student population in introductory electricity and magnetism courses at the Queens University (N=48) and Harvard University (N=93). They also identified the relationship between the response time and the performance of the students on the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism of incoming physics knowledge, pre-course self-efficacy, and gender. Miller et al. (2014) revealed three conclusions at the end of their research. Firstly, response time of the students for correct answers was significantly faster than response time of the students for incorrect answers on concept test questions both before and after peer discussion. Lasry, Watkins, Mazur, & Ibrahim (2013) supported the findings with the similar results. Secondly, the students constructed logical connections between existing knowledge and new constructing information. They had higher self-efficacy with faster response times both before and after peer discussion. Lastly, there was not gender difference in response rate on concept test questions, although the male students registered considerably more attempts before submitting a final response than did female students. If the students know the response of a concept test question, they can instantly answer the correct response without thinking on the concept test question or if they do not know the response of concept test, they would like to think the correct/incorrect responses based on misconceptions at a given time without knowing the concept. These results demonstrated that the students should not be given too much time to respond in order to prevent distractions of the students in an interactive environment classroom. Turpen & Finkelstein (2009) determined the average voting time (from 100±5s to 153±10s) for answering concept test questions given by students.
Miller, Schell, Ho, Lukoff, & Mazur (2015) examined response switching over one semester of an introductory electricity and magnetism course instructed with peer instruction at Harvard University. They reported the correlations between response switching and academic self-efficacy. The students with low self-efficacy switched more frequently their responses than the students with high efficacy students. The study revealed the correlations between switching and the difficulty of the questions. Besides they indicated that when the difficulty level of the questions was higher, the students generally altered their responses. The results showed that " instructors may need to provide greater support for difficult questions" (p.1). The research result of Zingaro (2014) supported their research results and he also reported that peer instruction increased self-efficacy.
Lasry et al. (2013) investigated response time differences between correct and incorrect answers of conceptual questions both before and after instruction. They explained the relations between response time and confidence. They reported that if the students had lack of confidence, their response time was longer. Peer instruction positively changed the students’ approach to concept test questions
The Using of Low and Higher Technological Tools
The response of the students could be evaluated with several different ways such as classroom response system or "clicker", show of hands, and flashcards. There are advantages and disadvantages of these assessment tools as noted below. The simplest of the them is to use "show of hands". Students read the concept test question and think about it. Instructors say firstly "hands up everyone who thinks the answer is A", secondly "hands up everyone who thinks the answer is B", and so on. There are two fundamental problems in the assessment. The first problem is that the students are influenced other students' response during voting and some of the students are embarrassed giving incorrect answer by raising their hands. The participation of the students to the course in relation to this situation could reduce. The instructors should encourage students to think about the answer to the posed concept test question to overcome this drawback. The second problem is that the instructors have difficulty in collecting answer of the students and the instant feedback could take time in terms of the instructors.
The other alternative for voting is to use flashcards. These flashcards have reasonable price and simple to design and prepare for the instructors. Each student is provided with a set of flashcards ("A", "B", "C", "D", "E" or colored flashcards "Red", "Yellow", "Blue", "Green", "Black"). The students vote simultaneously by holding up the flashcards indicating to their response. The instructors could easily count the flashcards and provide the instant feedback to the students. The students cannot easily see other responses because they raise their cards at the same time and the flashcards are single-sided.
The last alternative for voting is to use classroom response systems or clickers. The disadvantage of the classroom response systems is being more expensive than the others. However there are some useful properties of these systems. The usage of the systems is quite easy and practical for not only students but also instructors. The students' responses are submitted anonymously, the results of the students can be displayed in graphical form and the responses of the students could be recorded in the systems, the instructors also might provide instantly feedback to the students.
Pollock, Stephanie, Dubson, & Perkins (2010) conducted peer instruction in the form of clicker questions in many upper-division courses (electricity and magnetism, and quantum mechanics) at the University of Colorado. They examined and discussed the purpose of concept tests, the sustainability of the clicker questions, the difficulty of this activity, and the supply of classroom logistics for many upper-division and junior-level courses. Consequently, they came to an agreement at the end of discussion. Generally the implementation of the clicker questions between 2 and 5 was suitable for upper-division courses (20-60 students) in 50 minutes throughout peer instruction. Beatty, Gerace, Leonard, & Dufrense (2006) indicated designing effective questions for classroom response systems or clickers.
Several studies (Brady, Seli, & Rosenthal, 2013; Lindstrom & Schell, 2013; Edwards, Aris, Shukor, & Mohammed, 2015; Sayer et al., 2016b; Schmidt, 2011) mentioned that the moving from low technology tools (e.g., flashcards or show of hands) to higher technological tools (e.g., classroom response systems, smart phone, laptops, etc.) was efficient to save time and energy, it was helpful to present the display of statistical data graphically, and it encouraged the anonymous students to participate in the classes. Gok (2011) indicated that clickers were necessary in large-class environment for saving time and energy, and providing real time feedback and flashcards were also useful in small-class environment.
Mazur & Watkins (2010) suggested that higher technological tools made formative feedback easier for instructors to evaluate and interpret the response of students in a large classroom. But Lasry (2008) showed that peer instruction was an effective teaching approach solely and it did not depend on the use of higher technological tools such as classroom response systems. He indicated that low technology tools such as flashcards required taking class time to present response of the students or to analyze the distribution of answers, therefore higher technological tools allowed instructors to save time and energy, provided instructors to get precise real-time student feedback, and easily permitted instructors to store the answer of the students concerning concept test questions. The success of peer instruction originated from giving feedback to students by the instructors, readiness of the students, designing of the concept test questions, supplying financial or technological resources, etc.
II. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Peer Instruction
The Advantages of Peer Instruction
Many studies (Antwi, Raheem, & Aboagye, 2016; Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Gok, 2015; Lasry, Mazur, & Watkins, 2008, Lasry et al., 2016; Puente & Swagten, 2012; Suppapittayaporn et al., 2010) indicated that peer instruction was effective on decision-making skills, meaningful learning, conceptual learning, quantitative/qualitative problem solving, and critical thinking. Lasry et al. (2008) reported that peer instruction declined the number of students who dropped the physics course. Schell, Lukoff, & Mazur (2013) reported that peer instruction enhanced the conceptual learning of the students on concept test questions and open-ended questions. Edwards et al. (2015) reveled that peer instruction improved performance, motivation, and interest of 42 postgraduate students from different disciplines (science, engineering, and social) quantitatively and qualitatively.
There are some fundamental advantages of peer instruction in terms of instructors and students as follows. Peer instruction increases the conceptual understanding, problem solving performance, critical thinking, decision-making procedure and reasoning scientific ability of the students from the point of cognitive domain. PI improves the interactions between students and instructors, develops the concentration of the students, and enhances retention of the students. PI also increases the satisfaction and attendance of the students towards courses from the point of affective domain. The instructors also evaluate and record the performance of students with the help of instant feedback in and out of classroom activities. They prefer to use peer instruction because it is economic and easy to apply the different levels of education.
The Disadvantages of Peer Instruction
There are some disadvantages of peer instruction in terms of the instructors and students and these disadvantages could be listed as indicated below: Some students, especially weaker students, need more time to think over concept test questions therefore instructors could not solve more concept test questions during a course. Some students do not like to discuss about concept test questions or taught subjects with peers. Besides they may be embarrassed by their classmates when they answer an incorrect response posed a concept test question therefore peer instruction might not reach the desirable levels.
The instructors have difficulty in the engagement of the students which might fully be difficult during peer discussion in the classroom (Brooks & Koretsky, 2011; Lucas, 2009; Michinov et al., 2015). Fagen, Crouch, & Mazur (2002, p.208) expressed "challenge is the difficulty in fully engaging students in class discussions." Therefore the instructors should motivate the students on concept test questions, walk around the class during peer discussion, and encourage students to share their thoughts with peers. The instructors have also difficulty in evaluating the performance of the students if the number of the students is more than 50 in the classroom and/or if they do not use higher-technological devices such as classroom response systems. Besides the instructors have problem if they do not prepare and design concept test questions related to desired academic goals and objectives.
Beichner & Saul (2003) and Smith, Wood, Krauter, & Knight (2011) revealed that high-achieving (stronger) students more benefited from interactive approaches according to low-achieving (weaker) students. Thus, instructors should consider high and low achieving students uniformly while composing structured peer groups before and after peer discussion. James & Willoughby (2011) found that 38% of student conversations between peers were standard conversations. The remaining proportion (62%) was nonstandard conversations. At this point, the instructors should better structure and organize peer discussion performed between peers. Michinov et al. (2015) reported that the learning gain of the students usually remains at a medium level and this learning gain is quite difficult to reach from this level to high level in interactive learning methods. Mentioned problem may be arisen from students. Because some students do not like to participate actively in and out classroom activities. In this case, the instructors may combine peer instruction with another techniques (e.g., stepladder, just in time teaching, think pair share, etc) if it is needed.
Michinov et al. (2015) compared the effectiveness of individual instruction, classic peer instruction, and stepladder peer instruction on easy and difficult questions of students' performance. Normalized gains of individual instruction and stepladder peer instruction were calculated to be 0.49 for both and normalized gain of classic peer instruction was found to be 0.43 in easy questions. The gains of individual instruction, classic peer instruction, and stepladder peer instruction were calculated to be 0.23, 0.53, and 0.80 respectively in difficult questions. From these data, it could be concluded that classic peer instruction and individual instruction according to stepladder peer instruction were not effective in difficult questions. As a result of this, the instructors may consider the difficulty level of concept test questions or problems.
III. The Applications of Peer Instruction in Different Disciplines
The Applications of Peer Instruction in Science and Engineering Research
Peer instruction has been performed on many different disciplines. For example, Astronomy (James, 2006), Upper-division Biology (Knight et al., 2013), Calculus (Lucas, 2009), Chemical Thermodynamics (Brooks & Koretsky, 2011), Chemistry (Bruck & Towns, 2009), Computing (Porter et al., 2011), Entomology (Jones, Antonenkot, & Greenwood, 2012), Genetic (Smith et al., 2009), Geosciences (McConnell et al., 2006), Information and Communication Technology (Wang & Murota, 2016), Mechanical Engineering (Schmidt, 2011) etc. The results of accessible studies in the literature are summarized as follows.
Crouch & Mazur (2001) reported the results of a 10-year study. The result of study showed that peer instruction enhanced the conceptual reasoning skills and quantitative problem-solving performance of the students in different time and contexts.
Peer instruction, in similar study, was applied during two semesters in calculus course. Pilzer (2001) revealed that there was a significant improvement in the reasoning skill and retention of the students and the students gave approximately 90% correct response the conceptual problems. Besides, the attitude and confidence of the students positively improved toward calculus course. There was only problem reading of the chapters in terms of the students before coming to the class.
A study report was also conducted to 384 PI users on the Project Galileo website. According to survey results, 303 PI users certainly planned to apply peer instruction again, 29 PI users probably would like to conduct again, and finally 7 PI users did not explain their thoughts regarding re-using peer instruction. Cumming & Roberts (2008) also obtained the similar results concerning students’ FCI gain factors with teaching of five different instructors in high school classrooms. It could be said that many instructors would like to use the peer instruction again in their courses in the light of the above findings (Fagen et al., 2002).
Peer instruction improved engineering students' physics conceptual understanding, enhanced problem solving skills of the students by solving traditional numerical problems, increased the final examination scores of the students, encouraged class participation of the students, and fostered the confidence of the students at Ghent University (Lenaerts, Wieme, & Zele, 2003).
McCreary et al. (2006) examined and compared the effects of peer-led teaching and learning model and traditional instruction on students' learning and understanding in general chemistry laboratory course at the University of Pittsburgh. They revealed that new instructional approach improved four separate higher-level thinking skills (the consideration of organization structure of a new experiment, the assessment of the experiment process, the explanation of the results, and finally the application of gained skills to a new problem or situation) of the students. It could be said that peer-led teaching and learning like peer instruction may influence the performance of the students on the laboratory studies based on learning by doing.
Lorenzo, Crouch, & Mazur (2006) investigated the effectiveness of interactive engagement methods on gender gap in conceptual learning of the students in an introductory university physics course. Interactive engagement methods not only significantly decreased the gender gap in conceptual learning of the students but also effectively increased the conceptual understanding of the female and male students, besides interactive engagement methods promoted in-class interaction, enhanced collaborations between peers and instructors, and reduced competition between peers. The research of Gok (2014) supported the findings of Lorenzo et al. (2006). He revealed that the gender difference in physics conceptual learning of female and male students instructed with peer instruction was not statistically significant.
The effectiveness of peer instruction for two different levels which are a two-year college (John Abbott College) and a top-tier four-year research institution (Harvard University) were compared (Lasry et al., 2008). The research results indicated that the performance differences between college students and university students by using a standardized test “Force Concept Inventory” were not statistically significant in terms of Hake (1998)’ gain factors (high gain, medium gain, and low gain). Peer instruction showed the same effect on college and university students’ conceptual learning and quantitative problems solving abilities regardless of their academic background knowledge.
Suppapittayaporn et al. (2010) examined the effectiveness of peer instruction with structured inquiry (PISI) on learning activities of the students by using a standardized test "Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation". The research was conducted to two groups. The first group including 156 secondary school students was instructed with PISI while the other group including 119 secondary school students was instructed with traditional instruction (TI). They calculated Hake's normalized gains as 0.45 (medium gain) for PISI and as 0.14 (low gain) for TI. It could be said that physics learning gain of the students instructed with PISI was higher than physics learning gain of the students instructed with TI.
Mora (2010) compared the effectiveness of two active learning methods on students' cognitive knowledge and learning gain in introductory physical geology course. He indicated a similar level of effectiveness for both peer instruction and lecture tutorials. Kalman, Bolotin, & Antimirova (2010) compared two different teaching approaches. One of the approaches was collaborative group. The other approach was the modified peer instruction. Two instructors taught the introductory physics course with the help of these approaches in university level. The learning gain of the students was compared by using a standardized test "Force Concept Inventory". They revealed that collaborative group approach was more effective than peer instruction approach and besides they reported that the effectiveness of both teaching approaches did not depend on the instructors' experience as long as they follow the same procedures.
Gok (2012a) examined conceptual learning, problem solving skills, and beliefs about physics and physics learning of the students. The performance of the students was evaluated by using a standardized test "Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism" and beliefs about physics and physics learning of the students were appraised by asking a survey "Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey" which comprises of eight categories. The research was organized according to Solomon four- group design. Peer instruction was conducted to the experimental groups while traditional instruction was performed to the control groups. Besides the problem solving skills of the students by using five common problems in final examination were evaluated and analyzed according to problem solving strategy steps which consist of three steps (identifying the fundamental principles, problem solving and checking). He revealed that the problem solving skills and conceptual learning (g=0.62 "high gain") of the students in the experimental group were higher than the problem solving skills and conceptual learning (g=0.36 "medium gain") of the students in the control group. Besides the results of CLASS for five subscales (conceptual understanding, applied conceptual understanding, problem solving general, problem solving confidence, and problem solving sophistication) supported the findings of the CSEM in favor of the experimental group.
Gok (2012b) practiced peer instruction strategy on classical mechanics by using a different standardized test "Force Concept Inventory". He reported that the conceptual learningof the students instructed with peer instruction was quite higher than the conceptual learning of the students instructed with traditional instruction. But the difference of motivation between experimental group and control group was not found statistically significant. Fagen et al. (2002) calculated the fractional gain as medium for the interactive engagement courses by using FCI.
Morgan & Wakefield (2012) revealed the effectiveness of peer conversation on students' physics examination performance. They did not observe any relationship between peer conversation and students' examination performance. But they reported that peer conversation enhanced the interactivity between peers in the course. They finally stated "interaction may be more important than arriving at the correct answer" (p.51).
Miller-Young (2013) investigated the evaluation process of peer instruction on students’ deep learning strategies and attitudes towards learning with pre-class reading quizzes in engineering dynamics course. Peer instruction had positive effect on learning of the students. The performances of higher achieving students, medium achieving students, and low achieving students were enhanced with pre-class reading quizzes and the perception of the students also improved towards learning.
The differences in learning gain of students between peer instruction and traditional instruction were also searched by using two different standardized tests which are Force Concept Inventory and Force Motion Concept Evaluation (Harvey, 2013). The results of the research indicated that the differences between peer instruction and traditional instruction was not statistically significant in the comparison of test scores. Besides, the attitude, confidence, belief and expectation of the students instructed with peer instruction were more positively enhanced relative the students instructed with traditional instruction.
Trent (2013) examined the effects of think pair share technique based on peer instruction on the performance of the students. The research was conducted to two groups with 57 students enrolled in chemistry course. The 20 students in control group were instructed with traditional teaching methods while the 37 students in experimental group were instructed with think pair share. The performance of the students in the groups was evaluated with chemistry achievement test. However, the differences between students’ performance and learning gain in the groups were not statistically significant.
Spacco et al. (2013) examined the impacts of peer instruction on students' performance in Computer Science Principles course by using the same teaching materials at the University of California. The study was conducted to two groups. The first group was instructed with peer instruction including student-centered learning while the other group was instructed with traditional teaching methods including teacher-centered teaching. The final examination achievement of the students instructed with peer instruction was averagely 5.7% higher than the final examination achievement of the students instructed with traditional teaching methods. Besides they revealed that the interaction between applied teaching strategies and background of the students was very strong.
Nishimura & Nitta (2014) evaluated the preparation and reflection effects of peer instruction on students' conceptual learning by using a standardized test "Force Concept Inventory" during two years. The reflection was especially helpful in the monitoring of high school students' understanding and it was efficient to change/modify the lesson plans based on students' understanding in terms of the instructors.
Atasoy, Ergin & Sen (2014) examined the effects of peer instruction on the attitude of the students. The research conducted to 46 high school students. The attitude of the students instructed with peer instruction was evaluated with Physics Attitude Scale. The scale consisted of four factors which are “physics course perception”, “appreciating the value of physics course”, “expectations about physics course” and finally “hesitations about physics course”. According to the research results, the differences between “appreciating the value of physics course”, and “expectations about physics course” were statistically significant.
Morice, Michinov, Delaval, Sideridou, & Ferriéres (2015) compared the learning gains and subjective benefits between peer instruction and individual learning during chromatography course. Peer instruction enhanced subjective benefits (engaging, learning transfer, motivation, regulation of cognition, satisfying, etc.), but it failed to illustrate a greater learning gain.
Zingaro & Porter (2014) examined the value of a PI question in an introductory computer science course from beginning to end: sole vote, group discussion, group vote, and instructor-led classwide discussion. They revealed that "the value of the instructor-led classwide discussion was evident in increased students performance over peer-discussion alone". Besides the instructor-led classwide discussion was quite considerably for weak, average, and strong of students and was of particular value for weak students.
The effects of peer instruction on conceptual understanding and problem solving skills of the students were examined with the help of standardized tests (Mechanics Baseline Test "MBT" and Force Concept Inventory "FCI") (Antwi et al., 2016). The research conducted to two groups in the senior high school. One of the groups was the experimental group instructed with peer instruction. The other group was the control group instructed with traditional teaching methods. The results of the research indicated that the FCI and MBT scores of the experimental group students were higher than the FCI and MBT scores of the control group students. The conceptual learning and problem solving skills of the students in the experimental group were found higher than the conceptual learning and problem solving skills of the students in the control group.
Lasry et al. (2016) designed three variations (discussed, reflected, and distracted) of peer instruction by three instructors on three groups (totally 108 students). The data of the research were collected by using conventional final examination, a standardized test (Force Concept Inventory), and a survey (Maryland Physics Expectations). The Hake' normalized gains of the groups instructed with peer instruction were averagely calculated to be 0.46 for FCI while this value for the control group was found to be 0.33, the final examination score of experimental groups was calculated to be 75 in average while this value for the control group was found to be 63 and finally the decrease in the MPEX scores for three experimental groups was observed but this decline was statistically significant for conventional peer instruction. When the results of the research were specifically evaluated for the experimental groups, the success rate of correct answers more observed in the reflection group according to the others. They indicated that the effects of peer instruction on conceptual understanding, attitude, expectation, and problem solving skills of the students were not dependent on instructors. But, Turpen & Finkelstein (2010) and Turpen & Finkelstein (2009) explained that the construction of different classroom norms and the different implementation of peer instruction with different instructors could change the sense-making of students in introductory physics courses.
Gok & Gok (2016) investigated the effectiveness of peer instruction on learning strategies, conceptual learning, and problem solving performance of the university students in chemistry course. They reported that the learning gains, learning strategies (cognitive/metacognitive strategies and resource management strategies), and problem solving performance of the students instructed with peer instruction were higher than those of the students instructed with traditional instruction.
Sayer et al. (2016a) examined the effectiveness of just-in-time teaching based on peer instruction in quantum mechanics course. They analyzed the performance of the students "on pre lecture reading quizzes, in class clicker questions answered individually, and clicker questions answered group discussion" (p.1), and compared the performance of the students by using "open-ended retention quizzes administered after all instructional activities on the same concepts" (p.1). Asking questions after the lecture enhanced student performance compared to reading quizzes. After group discussion following individual responses, the performance of the students on the clicker questions also increased.
The belief and attitude of students enrolled in introductory physics course according to gender were investigated with four groups including 441 students according to gender (Zhang, Ding, & Mazur, 2017). The first group was instructed with traditional teaching methods and the others were instructed with peer instruction. The students in the first two groups (variable groups) of peer instruction were consistently changed during the semester and the students in the other group were fixed throughout the semester. The belief and attitude of the students on physics and physics learning enhanced in peer instruction groups of the research. The results of the fixed group were more positive relative to the results of the variable groups. Besides, female students in the peer instruction groups were higher the belief and attitude about physics learning than male students.
The Applications of Peer Instruction in Social Science
Peer instruction has also been performed on many social science disciplines (e.g., English (Al-Hebaishi, 2017), Philosophy (Butchart et al., 2009), Physiology (Cortright et al., 2005, etc.).
Rao & DiCarlo (2000) revealed that peer instruction enhanced the performance of the students on quizzes in medical physiology course. Cortright et al. (2005) also investigated the impact of peer instruction on meaningful learning. The research was conducted to 38 students enrolled in Exercise Physiology course at East Carolina University. They revealed the positive effects of peer instruction on meaningful learning and problem solving skills of the students. Giuliodori et al. (2006) examined the effectiveness of peer instruction on qualitative problem-solving questions of the student performance based on a scenario in Veterinary Physiology course. They reported that peer instruction significantly enhanced attention of the students. They especially stated that there was a 35% progress in the qualitative problem solving performance of the students after peer discussion between peers.
The achievement of the two group students enrolled in Textiles courses was compared (Yaoyuneyong & Thornton, 2011). Students including the control group only used classroom response systems in combination with traditional instruction while the other students including the experimental group used classroom response systems in combination with peer instruction. They revealed that the examination achievements and final scores of the students in the experimental group were higher than those of the students in the control group, but the performance of the students in the control group on class project was better than that of students in the experimental group. There was not any statistically significant difference between the quiz performances of the two groups. Durmont (2013) investigated the conceptual reasoning, learning experience, and satisfaction of the students in English course at the Yverdon University of Applied Sciences. The researcher found the positive effects of peer instruction on teaching foreign language.
