- PLTL Approach and Benefits
- In the PLTL approach, the instruction phase takes place in the traditional classroom, often in the form of lecture, and the problem-solving phase takes place as students work in collaborative groups (typically ranging from 6-10 students) facilitated by a trained undergraduate peer leader for 90−120 minutes each week.
- This approach provides facilitated help to students in their courses, improves students’ problem-solving skills, enhances students’ communication abilities, and provides an active-learning experience for students.
- The peer leader should not help solve the problems with the students in the group, but guides them to discuss their reasoning by asking probing questions and to equally participate by using different collaborative learning strategies (such as round robin, scribe, and pairs). Students decide as a group whether the answer is correct or not, which encourages the students to consider the problem more deeply.
- PLTL is used in many STEM undergraduate disciplines including biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, psychology, and computer science, and in all types of institutions. It has been used at all different levels of undergraduate courses. If done well, PLTL can improve course grades, course and series retention, standardized and course exam performance, and DWF rates.
- PLTL can also be beneficial to peer leaders, self-reporting greater content learning, improved study skills, improved interpersonal skills, increased leadership skills, and confidence.
- Social constructivism provides the theoretical framework.
- In the constructivist framework, teaching is not the transmission of knowledge from the instructor to the student. The instructor is a facilitator or guide, giving structure to the learning process.
- Students construct meaning (e.g., develop concepts and models) through active involvement with the material and by making sense of their experiences.
- Social constructivism assumes that students’ understanding and sense-making are developed jointly in collaboration with other students.
- Social constructivism emphasizes the role of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Vygotsky stated that learning moves from one’s current intellectual level to a higher level that is most close to one’s potential to learn. That is, ZPD is defined as the difference between what a student can do without assistance and what a student can do in collaboration with a more capable peer.
- The peer leader is considered to be an effective guide because they are in the ZPD of the students in their PLTL group.
- Optimal benefits from PLTL require the use of several design principles:
- The PLTL program is integral to the course and integrated with other course components.
- Course instructors are closely involved with organizing the program and selecting, training, and supervising the peer leaders. Training should include:
- how to effectively create a community of practice within their group such that students will make joint decisions while solving the problems, discuss multiple approaches to solve the problems, and practice professional social and communication skills;
- practice with questioning strategies to support students in deepening their discussion to include explanations for their ideas and problem-solving processes;
- learning about how students learn based on psychology and education research, and how to apply this information while facilitating their group.
- Materials are challenging at an appropriate level, written to encourage collaboration and active learning. Materials should:
- require students to work collaboratively to solve problems;
- encourage students to engage deeply with the content (i.e., include prompts asking them to explain their reasoning or process), disciplinary vocabulary (i.e., include prompts asking them to define terms in their own words), and essential skills;
- become more complex throughout the problem set while ensuring that the students are always within their Zone of Proximal Development.
- Organizational arrangements promote active learning via focus on group size, room space, length of session, and low noise level.
- The institution and department encourage and support innovative teaching.
Frey, R. F., Fink, A., Cahill, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., & Solomon, E. D. (2018). Peer-led team learning in general chemistry I: Interactions with identity, academic preparation, and a course-based intervention. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(12), 2103-2113. This research article describes the findings of a quasi-experimental study using 5 years of data (2012-2016) involving N = 1254 first-year students in first-semester general chemistry. The authors analyzed exam performance of students who participated in the peer-led team learning program (PLTL) (N=847) versus those who did not participate in the PLTL program (N=407), disaggregated by demographics, academic preparation including college-preparatory coursework, and participation in a growth-mindset intervention. The PLTL implementation followed the standard model, which incorporates collaborative group work that is facilitated by a trained undergraduate peer leader using collaborative learning strategies, except in this implementation the students self-selected into the program, which has mandatory attendance (see supplemental material for this article for program details). For this study, it is important to note that all students, whether they were in PLTL or not, had access to the weekly PLTL problem set after the groups met. The PLTL effect was 5 percentage points across demographic identity groups. PLTL gave a larger benefit to students with less college-preparatory coursework (8 points for students with no AP; 2 points for students with 4 AP scores) but was not correlated with their math or chemistry knowledge.
Instructors should note that five years of performance data from General Chemistry I revealed the robustness of the PLTL effect on exam performance. The findings suggest that PLTL may assist in students’ self-management or scientific-reasoning skills, as opposed to differences in their basic knowledge. Hence, PLTL may foster equity when situated within an array of evidence-based resources targeting students’ unique academic and personal backgrounds.
Preszler, R. W. (2009). Replacing lecture with peer-led workshops improves student learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 182-192. PLTL in first-semester introductory biology at an institution predominantly serving Hispanic and Native American students was examined by comparing 7 semesters before implementing PLTL with 3 semesters after implementing PLTL. Specifically, one of three 50-minute lectures was replaced with a 65-minute required PLTL session focused on case studies. The implementation differed from the standard PLTL model in three ways: the PLTL sessions contained 19 students instead of the normal 6-10 students; the PLTL sessions were 65 minutes versus the recommended 90-120 minutes; peer leaders graded the PLTL problem sheets where in the PLTL model peer leaders do not grade. The authors studied course grades and student performance on exam questions in pre-PLTL and PLTL semesters. They found that students in PLTL semesters scored higher on paired exam questions and that course grades were higher in PLTL semesters. Notably, student scores on exam questions that required higher-level thinking increased from pre-PLTL to PLTL semesters. Females had a larger improvement in grades and increased retention than males, and African Amercian, Latino, and Native American students had a larger improvement in grades than Asian American and Caucasian students. Students in all declared majors benefited from the PLTL sessions, but undeclared students did not improve from pre-PLTL to PLTL semesters. It should be noted that this study did not use any covariates of student preparation, such as ACT/SAT or pre-semester knowledge assessment.
Instructors should note that this study shows that PLTL can be implemented in an introductory biology course in which the problems are case-based or model based and not quantitative. It also shows that implementing PLTL can improve student learning by replacing one of the lectures. It is important to keep the following key elements: sessions are mandatory, peer leaders are trained, course instructors write the PLTL problems, and students are prompted via questions to solve the problems together, not shown the solutions.
Snyder, J. J., Sloane, J. D., Dunk, R. D., & Wiles, J. R. (2016). Peer-led team learning helps minority students succeed. PLoS Biology, 14(3), e1002398. This study describes the effect of PLTL in a large second-semester introductory biology course where enrollment in a concurrent lab course was optional. The DFW rates of underrepresented minorities (URM) versus non-URM students were compared dependent on PLTL participation and concurrent lab enrollment. The standard PLTL model, which incorporates collaborative group work that is facilitated by a trained undergraduate peer leader using collaborative learning strategies, was followed except that PLTL participation was optional and considered supplemental to the lecture sessions. The authors found that course retention was higher for students in PLTL than not in PLTL, independent of concurrent laboratory enrollment. There was a decrease from 40% to 15% in the DFW rates of URM students in PLTL compared to URM students not in PLTL, and PLTL participation led to a small but significant decrease in DFW rates among non-URM students as well. No difference emerged in the DFW rates between URM and non-URM students in PLTL, meaning that PLTL closed the DFW gap between racial/ethnic groups. Non-lab students in PLTL earned average grades equivalent to lab students. For non-lab URM students, 50% who did not engage in PLTL withdrew from the course; those who did engage in PLTL completed with at least a C grade.
Instructors should note that this study shows that PLTL benefits all students but has a larger impact for URM students and for students not enrolled in a laboratory component.
Repice, M. D., Sawyer, R. K., Hogrebe, M. C., Brown, P. L., Luesse, S. B., Gealy, D. J., & Frey, R. F. (2016). Talking through the problems: A study of discourse in peer-led small groups. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 555-568. This paper describes the discourse students use while working together to solve problems in a peer-led small-group setting. Interactions of students solving three different problem types (calculation, data analysis, and model building) were studied across one semester. Importantly, prompts did not contain explicit information about progressive steps to take or about what information was needed for problem solving. The authors found that the most common discourse structures observed included True Dialogue (leaders or students ask questions without knowing or seeking the ‘‘correct” answer), Cross-Discussion (conversation between students moderated by the peer leader), Groupwork (small groups work on shared tasks), confirming results from Lemke (1990). According to Lemke, these discourse structures give students more practice in ‘‘talking science’’ than the typical instructor-student discourse, the Triadic Dialogue, in which the instructor controls the interaction. Study results revealed students: 1) used regulative language to promote discussion, exchange information, and manage their and group-members’ learning; 2) used instructional discourse to practice “talking science” and develop shared understanding of chemistry knowledge and vocabulary; 3) communicated by focusing on the process of complex problem solving to move through the problems together; 4) engaged in little deeper-meaning-making discourse unless prompted. This paper shows that communication is a crucial aspect of learning in small-group settings and the facilitator should encourage equal participation within the group.
Instructors should note that “talking science’’ in a small group creates a community of practice around the subject, in which students talk through problems to make joint decisions, solve problems in multiple ways, discuss ideas, learn about their own learning, and learn professional social and communicative skills. However, students do not, on their own, often engage in open questioning, deeper conceptual explanations, and self-monitoring of their learning. Hence, instructors need to have carefully constructed activities and well-trained peer leaders who prompt students to engage in effective discourse.
Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., Rentsch, J., & Furtak, E. M. (2015). Cues matter: Learning assistants influence introductory biology student interactions during clicker-question discussions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar41. All instructional practices that involve active problem solving are based on constructivism, in which students jointly engage in sensemaking through discussion and collaboration. Hence it is essential to understand how peer leaders can facilitate students to discuss ideas and justify reasoning during problem solving. This paper describes how students in small groups engage in discussion, examining the interplay between student and peer leader statements. In particular, it focuses on student reasoning and questioning and on the effect peer leaders (in this case, learning assistants (LAs)) had on stopping or encouraging discussion in a first-year introductory molecular and cell biology course. Groups of 4 students were recorded (6/23 groups), and student discussions and the effect that LAs’ interactions had on these discussions were examined. Results revealed that 1) when prompted, students explained their reasoning to others, but infrequently used claims logically connected to evidence; 2) students spent a short time (averaged ~1 minute) discussing ideas, and spent ~1.5 minute with LAs present; 3) students articulated reasoning for multiple answers if the clicker question was at a lower-order Bloom’s level rather than a more complex question; 4) the presence of LAs shifted student questioning from requesting information to requesting feedback; 5) LAs giving explanations to students as feedback stopped further student discussion, while LAs using prompting questions encouraged further student discussion and encouraged students to collaboratively discuss their reasoning and understand the material in more depth. This paper shows that peer leaders can increase students’ ability to use reasoning and participate in discussions that encourage deeper thinking in large introductory courses.
Instructors should note that to increase the use of reasoning in student discussion in small groups, instructors should add cues to small-group questions that state how students should discuss together (e.g., Explain your reasoning in your groups and explain your reasoning for not selecting other answers), and then ask for these explanations during the whole-class discussion. LAs or other peer leaders (e.g., PLTL leaders) should learn about and have the chance to practice using questioning strategies that encourage student discussion that includes reasoning.
Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma‐Nelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science. Biochemistry and molecular biology education, 36(4), 262-273. This article compares and contrasts the key features of three collaborative pedagogies: PLTL (peer-led team learning), POGIL (process-oriented, guided-inquiry learning), and PBL (problem-based learning). The paper describes each pedagogy in general as well as the theoretical framework, classroom characteristics, problem characteristics, scalability, assessment, and faculty/student acceptance. In the standard PLTL model, six critical criteria have been identified to ensure the long-term success of implementation: integration with the course, course instructors actively involved with the PLTL component, trained peer leaders, appropriately challenging problems that require group interaction, rooms arranged to facilitate group work, and department and institutional support. Two clear distinctions between PLTL and the other two (i.e., POGIL and PBL) are that 1) PLTL is supplemental to the lecture although integrally incorporated into the course, and 2) PLTL is developed around the importance and use of trained peer leaders, who are upper-level undergraduates and have successfully completed the course of interest. This reliance on peer leaders is based on the social-constructivist ideas of Vygotsky that focus on the zone of proximal development (ZPD) in which students are solving challenging problems that they can solve only with interaction with their PLTL group facilitated by the peer leader.
Instructors should note that this paper provides an excellent summary of the key features of PLTL and the related pedagogies, POGIL and PBL. This allows an instructor new to these pedagogies to decide which one would best fit into their course learning objectives and departmental environment.
Wilson, S. B., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2016). Small groups, significant impact: A review of peer-led team learning research with implications for STEM education researchers and faculty. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(10), 1686-1702. This review describes key features of PLTL, the theoretical framework, and the current literature grouped into the following 5 categories: student success measures, student perceptions, reasoning and critical thinking skills, research on peer leaders, and variations of the traditional PLTL model. In the standard PLTL model, groups of approximately eight students are facilitated by a trained peer leader and collaboratively solve problems for 90−120 minutes each week. Problem sets are written by the course instructors and are active-learning activities designed to be collaborative. The review discusses PLTL’s basis in social constructivism and the implications it has for implementation. For example, in PLTL peer leaders provide support for effective collaboration by encouraging students to discuss their ideas and decide together how to solve problems. Peer leaders decrease support as the students become independent learners who can work collaboratively. PLTL is used in many STEM undergraduate disciplines including biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, psychology, and computer science, and in all types of institutions. Performance outcomes that have been evaluated include course grades, course and series retention, standardized and course exam performance, and DWF rates. Discourse studies have been performed to better understand the types of language that students use while they are discussing the problems, their process, and their solutions. Research on peer leaders examines how leaders translate their training into practice; their effect on student discourse; and the benefits of being a peer leader. Last, the review discusses different variations on the traditional PLTL approach.
Instructors should note that this review provides an excellent overview of the key features and philosophy of the PLTL approach, as well as the variations that have been implemented in the PLTL model. In addition, it has a robust discussion about the effect that PLTL has on multiple student performance outcomes in a variety of the disciplines.
https://pltlis.org/This is the website for the PLTL International Society. It is an open community of educators who are fostering student learning via PLTL and are interested assisting others in implementing PLTL at their institutions. This community has an annual conference in June, and the proceedings of these conferences are posted on this website. In addition, the website contains a newsletter, resources for starting a PLTL program and training peer leaders, and a list of publications about PLTL.