Reference List
Benefits, Definitions, and Underpinnings
- Brooks BJ, Koretsky MD (2011). The influence of group discussion on students’ responses and confidence during peer instruction. J Chem Educ 88, 1477–1484.
- Chi MTH, Bassok M, Lewis MW, Reimann P, Glaser R (1989). Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cogn Sci 13, 145–182.
- Chi MTH, de Leeuw N, Chiu M-H, Lavancher C (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cogn Sci 18, 439–477.
- Cortright RN, Collins HL, DiCarlo SE (2005). Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: ability to solve novel problems. Adv Physiol Educ 29, 107–111.
- Crouch CH, Mazur E (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 69, 970–977.
- Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA (2014). Cooperative learning: improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. J Excellence Coll Teach 25, 85–118.
- McDonnell L, Mullally M (2016). Research and teaching: teaching students how to check their work while solving problems in genetics. J Coll Sci Teach 46, 68–75.
- Osborne J (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 328, 463–466.
- Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323, 122–124.
- Smith MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sci Educ 10, 55–63.
- Springer L, Stanne ME, Donovan SS (1999). Effects of small-group learning in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 69, 21–51.
- Vickrey T, Rosploch K, Rahmanian R, Pilarz M, Stains M (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: a literature review. CBE Life Sci Educ 14, 1–11.
Question Structure and Purpose
- Agile Learning. Derek Bruff’s blog on Teaching and Technology.
- Beatty ID, Leonard WJ, Gerace WJ, Dufresne RJ (2006). Question driven instruction: teaching science (well) with an audience response system. In Banks, DA (Ed), Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases (pp 96–115). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
- Coley JD, Tanner K (2015). Relations between intuitive biological thinking and biological misconceptions in biology majors and nonmajors. CBE Life Sci Educ 14, 1–19.
- Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP (2008). Biology in bloom: implementing bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 7, 368-381.
- Hubbard JK, Potts MA, Couch BA (2017). How question types reveal student thinking: an experimental comparison of multiple-true-false and free-response formats. CBE Life Sci Educ 16, 1-13.
- Knight JK, Wise SB, Southard KM (2013). Understanding clicker discussions: student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 645–654.
- Lemons PP, Lemons JD (2013). Questions for assessing higher-order cognitive skills: it’s not just bloom’s. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 47–58.
- Modell H, Michael J, Wenderoth MP (2005). Helping the learner to learn: the role of uncovering misconceptions. Am Biol Teach 67, 20-26.
- Quillin K, Thomas S (2015). Drawing-to-learn: a framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 14, 1–16.
- Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323, 122–124.
- Turn to Your Neighbor: The Official Peer Instruction Blog.
- Turpen C, Finkelstein ND (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 5, 020101.
Instructional Interactions
Accountability Instructional Cues Instructor Explanation & Modeling Technology
- Chou C-Y, Lin P-S (2015). Promoting discussion in peer instruction: discussion partner assignment and accountability scoring mechanisms. Br J Educ Technol 46, 839–847.
- James MC (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction. Am J Phys 74, 689–691.
- James MC, Barbieri F, Garcia P (2008). What are they talking about? Lessons learned from a study of peer instruction. Astron Educ Rev 7, 37-43.
- Knight JK, Wise SB, Sieke S (2016). Group random call can positively affect student in-class clicker discussions. CBE Life Sci Educ 15, 1-11.
- Len P (2007). Different reward structures to motivate student interaction with electronic response systems in astronomy. Astron Educ Rev 5, 5–15.
- Willoughby SD, Gustafson E (2009). Technology talks: clickers and grading incentive in the large lecture hall. Am J Phys 77, 180–183.
- Brooks BJ, Koretsky MD (2011). The influence of group discussion on students’ responses and confidence during peer instruction. J Chem Educ 88, 1477–1484.
- Knight JK, Wise SB, Rentsch J, Furtak EM (2015). Cues matter: Learning assistants influence introductory biology student interactions during clicker-question discussions. CBE Life Sci Educ 14, 1-14.
- Knight JK, Wise SB, Southard KM (2013). Understanding clicker discussions: student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 645–654.
- Miller K, Schell J, Ho A, Lukoff B, Mazur E (2015). Response switching and self-efficacy in peer instruction classrooms. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 11, 010104.
- Perez KE, Strauss EA, Downey N, Galbraith A, Jeanne R, Cooper S (2010). Does displaying the class results affect student discussion during peer instruction? CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 133–140.
- Turpen C, Finkelstein ND (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 5, 020101.
- Turpen C, Finkelstein ND (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: students perceive differences. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 6, 020123.
- Smith MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sci Educ 10, 55–63.
- Zingaro D, Porter L (2014). Peer instruction in computing: the value of instructor intervention. Comput Educ 71, 87–96.
- Stowell JR, Nelson JM (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teach Psychol 34, 253-258.
- Zayac RM, Ratkos T, Frieder JE, Paulk A (2016). A comparison of active student responding modalities in a general psychology class. Teach Psychol 43, 43-47.
Challenges
Differences in Implementation Unproductive Peer Discussion
- Turpen C, Finkelstein ND (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 5, 020101.
- Turpen C, Finkelstein ND (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: students perceive differences. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 6, 020123.
- DeMorgan TP, Wakefield C (2012). Who benefits from peer conversation? Examining correlations of clicker question correctness and course performance. J Coll Sci Teach 41, 51-56.
- James MC, Willoughby S (2011). Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: what you have not heard might surprise you. Am J Phys 79, 123-132.
- Jensen M, Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2002). Impact of positive interdependence during electronic quizzes on discourse and achievement. J Educ Res 95, 161–166.
- Miller K, Schell J, Ho A, Lukoff B, Mazur E (2015). Response switching and self-efficacy in peer instruction classrooms. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 11, 010104.
- Relling AE, Giuliodori MJ (2015). Effect of peer instruction on the likelihood for choosing the correct response to a physiology question. Adv Physiol Educ 39, 167-171.
Cite this guide: Knight JK, Brame CJ. (2018) Evidence Based Teaching Guide: Peer Instruction. CBE Life Science Education. Retrieved from http://lse.ascb.org/evidence-based-teaching-guides/peer-instruction/