Peer instruction’s Achilles’ heel: An analysis of its ineffectiveness in confronting counterintuitive physics questions

Yerbol Ospanbekov; Samat Maxutov; Yerbol Sandybayev; Aknur Boranbekova; Nuri Balta

doi:10.29333/ejmste/14778

Full Text (PDF)

Yerbol Ospanbekov ¹ , Samat Maxutov ² , Yerbol Sandybayev ³ , Aknur Boranbekova ¹ , Nuri Balta ² ^*

More Detail

¹ Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Almaty, KAZAKHSTAN² SDU University, Kaskelen, KAZAKHSTAN³ Nazarbayev Intellectual School of Biology and Chemistry, Almaty, KAZAKHSTAN^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This paper examines peer instruction, an educational technique that enhances student-student interaction and student-teacher interaction, influencing students’ performance on counterintuitive physics questions. The study employed a quantitative approach with 40 participants, 22.5% of whom were male and 77.5% were female. The counterintuitive dynamics test was used to measure students’ counter intuitions in dynamics. The study results on counterintuitive questions showed no noticeable effect from peer instruction. Surprisingly, more students shifted from correct to incorrect responses after group discussions, leading to a decrease in the overall accuracy rate. Although peer instruction did not show a clear impact on counterintuitive physics questions, it is important for educators to recognize the complexity of peer instructions. Exploring different teaching methods that use peer interaction might help improve learning outcomes for counterintuitive physics questions.

Keywords

counterintuitive physics questions
group discussions
peer instruction
student performance

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 20, Issue 8, August 2024, Article No: em2480

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14778

Publication date: 01 Aug 2024

Online publication date: 09 Jul 2024

Article Views: 233

Article Downloads: 90

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Al-Hebaishi, S. M. (2017). The effect of peer instruction method on pre-service teachers’ conceptual comprehension of methodology course. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(3), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n3p70
Alvermann, D. E., Hynd, C. E., & Qian, G. (1995). Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(3), 146-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1995.9941293
Balta, N., & Asikainen, M. A. (2019). A comparison of Olympians' and regular students' approaches and successes in solving counterintuitive dynamics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1644-1666. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1624990
Balta, N., & Eryılmaz, A. (2017). Counterintuitive dynamics test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9694-6
Balta, N., & Güversin, S. (2016). Increasing undergraduate students' exam performances in statistics course using software Socrative. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Special Issue, 314-321.
Balta, N., Japashov, N., Abdulbakioglu, M., & Oliveira, A. W. (2019). High-school students’ cognitive responses to counterintuitive physics problems. Physics Education, 55(1), 015003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab4df9
Balta, N., Kaymak, S., Almas, A, & Nurbavliyev, O. (2021). The impact of peer instruction on ninth grade students’ trigonometry knowledge. Bolema: Boletim de Educação Matemática, 35, 206-222. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v35n69a10
Balta, N., & Moğol, S. (2016). Sezgiye ters fizik soruları ve bu soruların öğrenci başarısına etkisi [Counterintuitive physics questions and their impact on student success]. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 6(1), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2016.008
Bian, H., Bian, Y., Li, J., Li, Y., Ma, Y., Shao, X., & Xu, J. (2018). Peer instruction in a physiology laboratory course in China. Advances in Physiology Education, 42(3), 449-453. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00153.2017
Brooks, B. J., & Koretsky, M. D. (2011). The influence of group discussion on students’ responses and confidence during peer instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(11), 1477-1484. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed101066x
Campanario, J. M. (1998). Using counterintuitive problems in teaching physics. The Physics Teacher, 36(7), 439-441. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.879917
Carter, G., Jones, M. G., & Rua, M. (2003). Effects of partner’s ability on the achievement and conceptual organization of high-achieving fifth-grade students. Science Education, 87(1), 94-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10031
Chien, Y. T., Lee, Y. H., Li, T. Y., & Chang, C. Y. (2015). Examining the effects of displaying clicker voting results on high school students’ voting behaviors, discussion processes, and learning outcomes. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 1089-1104. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1414a
Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2005). Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: ability to solve novel problems. Advances in Physiology Education, 29(2), 107-111. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00060.2004
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249
Cummings, K., & Roberts, S. G. (2008). A study of peer instruction methods with high school physics students. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1064(1), 103-106. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3021227
Dancy, M., Henderson, C., & Turpen, C. (2016). How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of peer instruction. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), Article 010110. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010110
DeSoto, K. A., & Roediger III, H. L. (2014). Positive and negative correlations between confidence and accuracy for the same events in recognition of categorized lists. Psychological Science, 25(3), 781-788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516149
Elizabeth, O., Mutsotso, A. N., & Masibo, E. N. (2016). Effect of peer teaching among students on their performance in mathematics. International Journal of Scientific Research and Innovative Technology, 3(12), 10-24.
El-Sayed, S. H. (2013). Effect of peer teaching on the performance of undergraduate nursing students enrolled in nursing administration course. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 3(9), 156-166
Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4), 206-209. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1474140
Fall, R., Webb, N. M., & Chudowsky, N. (2000). Group discussion and large-scale language arts assessment: Effects on students’ comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 37(4), 911-941. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037004911
Giuliodori, M. J., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2006). Peer instruction enhanced student performance on qualitative problem-solving questions. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 168-173. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00013.2006
Gok, T. (2012a). The effects of peer instruction on students’ conceptual learning and motivation. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(1), Article 10.
Gok, T. (2012b). The impact of peer instruction on college students’ beliefs about physics and conceptual understanding of electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9316-x
Gok, T. (2013). A comparison of students’ performance, skill and confidence with peer instruction and formal education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(6), 747-758. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/13.12.747
Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16(2), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/105735600277971
Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American journal of Physics, 76(11), 1066-1069. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2978182
Mallow, J. V. (1995). Students’ confidence and teachers’ styles: A binational comparison. American Journal of Physics, 63(11), 1007-1011. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18046
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: Getting students to think in class. AIP Conference Proceedings, 399(1), 981-988. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.53199
Miller, K., Schell, J., Ho, A., Lukoff, B., & Mazur, E. (2015). Response switching and self-efficacy in Peer Instruction classrooms. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 11(1), Article 010104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010104
Parsons, S., Croft, T., & Harrison, M. (2009). Does students’ confidence in their ability in mathematics matter? Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 28(2), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrp010
Pilzer, S. (2001). Peer instruction in physics and mathematics. PRIMUS, 11(2), 185-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970108965987
Porter, L., Bailey Lee, C., Simon, B., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In Proceedings of the 7^th International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 45-52). https://doi.org/10.1145/2016911.2016923
Porter, L., Bouvier, D., Cutts, Q., Grissom, S., Lee, C., McCartney, R., Zingaro, D., & Simon, B. (2016). A multi-institutional study of peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 47^th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 358-363). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844642
Porter, L., Garcia, S., Glick, J., Matusiewicz, A., & Taylor, C. (2013). Peer instruction in computer science at small liberal arts colleges. In Proceedings of the 18^th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 129-134). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2465587
Pratama, M. A. (2018). Factors affecting students’ confidence in public speaking. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 5(2), 67-70. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v5i2.357
Royce, C. S., Hayes, M. M., & Schwartzstein, R. M. (2019). Teaching critical thinking: a case for instruction in cognitive biases to reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient safety. Academic Medicine, 94(2), 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002518
Simon, B., Parris, J., & Spacco, J. (2013). How we teach impacts student learning: Peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0. In Proceeding of the 44^th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 41-46). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445215
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122-124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919
Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2020). Why does peer instruction benefit student learning? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5
Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), Article 020101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020101
Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2008). The linear imperative: An inventory and conceptual analysis of students’ overuse of linearity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 311-342.
Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 14(1), Article es3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
Zhang, P., Ding, L., & Mazur, E. (2017). Peer instruction in introductory physics: A method to bring about positive changes in students’ attitudes and beliefs. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1), Article 010104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010104
Zingaro, D. (2014). Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1. In Proceedings of the 45^th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 373-378). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538878

How to cite this article

APA

Ospanbekov, Y., Maxutov, S., Sandybayev, Y., Boranbekova, A., & Balta, N. (2024). Peer instruction’s Achilles’ heel: An analysis of its ineffectiveness in confronting counterintuitive physics questions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(8), em2480. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14778

Vancouver

Ospanbekov Y, Maxutov S, Sandybayev Y, Boranbekova A, Balta N. Peer instruction’s Achilles’ heel: An analysis of its ineffectiveness in confronting counterintuitive physics questions. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2024;20(8):em2480. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14778

AMA

Ospanbekov Y, Maxutov S, Sandybayev Y, Boranbekova A, Balta N. Peer instruction’s Achilles’ heel: An analysis of its ineffectiveness in confronting counterintuitive physics questions. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2024;20(8), em2480. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14778

Chicago

Ospanbekov, Yerbol, Samat Maxutov, Yerbol Sandybayev, Aknur Boranbekova, and Nuri Balta. "Peer instruction’s Achilles’ heel: An analysis of its ineffectiveness in confronting counterintuitive physics questions". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2024 20 no. 8 (2024): em2480. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14778

Harvard

Ospanbekov, Y., Maxutov, S., Sandybayev, Y., Boranbekova, A., and Balta, N. (2024). Peer instruction’s Achilles’ heel: An analysis of its ineffectiveness in confronting counterintuitive physics questions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(8), em2480. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14778

MLA

Ospanbekov, Yerbol et al. "Peer instruction’s Achilles’ heel: An analysis of its ineffectiveness in confronting counterintuitive physics questions". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 20, no. 8, 2024, em2480. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14778