Is Peer Instruction in Primary School Feasible? : The Case Study in Slovenia
An evidence-based, interactive teaching method peer instruction (PI) is promoted to support effectiveness over more commonly used teaching methods. Us.
- Pub. date: April 15, 2021
- Pages: 785-798
- 223 Downloads
- 378 Views
- 3 Citations
An evidence-based, interactive teaching method peer instruction (PI) is promoted to support effectiveness over more commonly used teaching methods. Usually it is proposed for the university and upper secondary school. The research reports on the implementation of the PI approach in teaching subject Science and Technology (S&T) in the 4th grade of primary school. The aim of this research was to verify the feasibility of this approach for much younger students in primary school by evaluating the students’ progress in the subject S&T, identifying the differences in individual progress in relation to students’ general learning success, and determining students’ opinions about the approach and where no desired progress has been made. In a selected Slovenian primary school, a classroom with 26 students (age 9 – 10) was included in the study and 5 different content areas (Earth’s motion, Matter, Magnetism, Forces and motion, and Electricity) were taught using this PI approach. Results show that students made progress in all content areas and no differences were identified in the progress of individual students in terms of general learning success. Students were satisfied with the approach, although more than half of them found the multiple-choice questions as too difficult. Although the PI approach is successful, teachers must be aware that some persistent and widespread misunderstandings may still remain and require additional intervention.
Keywords: Misconceptions in physics and chemistry, peer instruction approach, primary education, science and technology subject.
References
Allen, M. (2010). Misconceptions in primary science. Open University Press.
American Institute of Physics. (1998). Children's misconceptions about science. Brookhaven National Laboratory. https://www.bnl.gov/education/static/pdf/Childrens_Misconceptions_about_Science.pdf
Arthurs, L. A., & Kreager, B. Z. (2017). An integrative review of in-class activities that enable active learning in college science classroom settings. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2073–2091. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1363925
Atasoy, S., Ergin, S. & Sen, A. I. (2014). The effects of peer instruction method on attitudes of 9th grade students toward physics course. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 6(1), 88–98.
Balon, A., Gostinčar Blagotinšek, A., Papotnik, A., Skribe Dimec, D., & Vodopivec, I. (2011). Učni načrt, program osnovna šola, naravoslovje in tehnika [Curriculum, program of primary school, science and technology]. National Education Institute Slovenia.
Balta, N., Michinov, N., Balyimez, S., & Ayaz, M. F. (2017). A meta-analysis of the effect of peer instruction on learning gain: Identification of informational and cultural moderators. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.009
Barrow, L. H. (2012). Helping students construct understanding about shadows. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 188–191. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v1n2p188
Buber, A., & Coban Unal, G. (2017). The effects of learning activities based on argumentation on conceptual understanding of 7th graders about “force and motion” unit and establishing thinking friendly classroom environment. European Journal of Educational Research, 6(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.6.3.367
Bulut, B. (2019). The impact of peer instruction on academic achievements and creative thinking skills of college students. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(3), 503–512. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.3.503
Campbell, R., & Schell, J. (2012, June 19). Does peer instruction work in high schools? Turn to your neighbor. The Official Peer Instruction Blog. https://blog.peerinstruction.net/2012/06/19/does-peer-instruction-work-in-high-schools-2/
Correia, C. F., & Harrison, C. (2020). Teachers’ beliefs about inquiry-based learning and its impact on formative assessment practice. Research in Science and Technological Education, 38(3), 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1634040
Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fager, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Harvard University.
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
Dawes, L. (2015). Discussion and science learning. In R. Gunstone (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Science Education (pp. 339–346). Springer.
Dewi, M. S., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2020). Analysis of kindergarten teachers on pedagogical content knowledge. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(4), 1701–1721. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.4.1701
Eryilmaz, H. (2004). The effect of peer instruction on high school students' achievement and attitudes towards physics. Doctoral Thesis. The Middle East Technical University. https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12604702/index.pdf
Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4674-x_1
Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C., & 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
Geršak, V., Smrtnik Vitulić, H., Prosen, S., Starc, G., Humar, I., & Geršak, G. (2020). Use of wearable devices to study activity of children in classroom: Case study - learning geometry using movement. Computer Communications, 150, 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2019.12.019
Giuliodori, M. J., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2006). Peer instruction enhanced student performance on qualitative problem-solving questions. Advanced Physiology Education, 30(4), 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00013.2006
Glauert, E. B. (2009). How young children understand electric circuits: Prediction, explanation and exploration. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1025–1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802101950
Gok, T. (2011). 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(2), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9316-x
Gok, T. (2012). The effects of peer instruction on students’ conceptual learning and motivation. Asia-Pacific Forum of Science Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 1–17.
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.
Gok, T. (2014). Peer instruction in the physics classroom: Effects on gender difference performance, conceptual learning, and problem solving. Journal of Baltic Science Education 13(6), 776–788.
Gok, T. (2015). An Investigation of Student's Performance after Peer Instruction with Stepwise Problem-Solving Strategies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(3), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9546-9
Grubelnik, V., Marhl, M., & Repnik, R. (2018). Determination of the size and depth of craters on the Moon. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 8(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.322
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/doi:10.1119/1.18809
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hickey, R., & Schibeci, R. A. (1999). The attraction of magnetism. Physics Education, 34(6), 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/34/6/408
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601007549
Iverstine, W. (2010). Application of peer instruction in the high school setting [Master's thesis, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College]. Louisiana State University Archive. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2309&context=gradschool_theses
James, J. (2013). Have words, will understand? Primary Science, 127, 10–13.
Jarvis, T., Pell, A., & Hingley, P. (2011). Variations in primary teachers’ responses and development during three major science in- service programmes. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(1), 67–92.
Kaya, S., & Kablan, Z. (2013). Assessing the relationship between learning strategies and science achievements at the primary school level. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(4), 525–534.
Ketonen, L., Hähkiöniemi, M., Nieminen, P., & Viiri, J. (2020). Pathways through peer assessment: Implementing peer assessment in a lower secondary physics classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1465–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10030-3
Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features in peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9005-2
Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas (2nd ed.). Durham University, School of Education. https://edu.rsc.org/download?ac=15564
Kiray, S. A., & Simsek, S. (2020). Determination and evaluation of the science teacher candidates’ misconceptions about density by using four-tier diagnostic test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10087-5
Kolar, M., Krnel, D., & Velkavrh, A. (2011). Učni načrt, program osnovna šola, spoznavanje okolja [Curriculum, program of primary school, environmental studies]. National Education Institute Slovenia.
Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glažar. (2005). The development of the concept of “matter”: A cross‐age study of how children describe materials. International Journal of Science Education 27(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690412331314441
Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? The Physics Teacher, 46(4), 242–244. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2895678
Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year old college. American Journal of Physics, 76(11), 1066–1069. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2978182
Liu, G., & Fang, N. (2016). Student misconceptions about force and acceleration in physics and engineering mechanics education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(1), 19–29.
Logar, A., Peklaj, C., & Ferk Savec, V. (2017). Effectiveness of student learning during experimental work in primary school. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 64(3), 661–671. https://doi.org/10.17344/acsi.2017.3544
Lucas, A. (2009). Using peer instruction and i-clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. Primus, 19(3), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970701643970
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Prentice Hall.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2013). The Impact of Reading Ability on TIMSS Mathematics and Science Achievement at the Fourth Grade: An Analysis by Item Reading Demands. In M. O. Martin & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships among Reading, Mathematics, and Science Achievement at the Fourth Grade – Implications for Early Learning (pp. 67–110). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement .
Olpak, Y. Z., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2017). Development of a student evaluation form toward peer instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, (Special Issue for INTE 2017), 839–845.
Pilzer, S. (2001). Peer instruction in physics and mathematics. Primus, 11(2), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970108965987
Pine, K., Messer, D., & St. John, K. (2001). Children’s misconceptions in primary science: A survey of teachers’ views. Research in Science and Technological Education 19(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120046240
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Smith, K. V., Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Dimitrakopoulos, C. (2012). Developing scientific literacy in a primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.565088
Suppapittayaporn, D., Emarat, N., & Arayathanitkul, K. (2010). The effectiveness of peer instruction and structured inquiry on conceptual understanding of force and motion: A case study from Thailand. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903513573
Susman, K., & Pavlin, J. (2020). Improvements in teachers’ knowledge and understanding of basic astronomy concepts through didactic games. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(6), 1020–1033. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.1020
Šestakova, J. (2013). Peer Instruction for the Age Group 12–15. ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings Prague: Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University. https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/5487483/5049463.pdf
Šestakova, J. (2016). Case study of using peer instruction at upper secondary school. Scientia in Educatione, 7(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.298
Tao, P. K. (1999). Peer collaboration in solving qualitative physics problems: The role of collaborative talk. Research in Science Education, 29(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02461599
Taštanoska, T. (2017). The Education System in the Republic of Slovenia 2016. Tiskarna Radovljica. https://eng.cmepius.si/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Education-System-in-the-Republic-of-Slovenia-2016-17.pdf
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (2007). Matematične in naravoslovne naloge za nižje razrede osnovne šole [Mathematics and Science Tasks for Primary Schools]. The Educational Research Institute.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (2011). Naravoslovne naloge raziskav TIMSS [Science Tasks from TIMSS Research]. The Educational Research Institute.
Thurston, A., Van de Keere, K., Topping, K. J., Kosack, W., Gatt, S., Marchal, J., Mestdagh, N., Schmeinck, D., Sidor, W., & Donnert, K. (2007). Peer learning in primary school science: Theoretical perspectives and implications for classroom practice. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5(13), 477–496. https://doi.org/10.25115/EJREP.V5I13.1242
Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. (2007). Fourth-grade elementary students' conceptions of standards-based lunar concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600779932
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) 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevstper.5.020101
Tüysüz, C. (2009). Development of two-tier diagnostic instrument and assess students’ understanding in chemistry. Scientific Research and Essay, 4(6), 626–631.
Ugur, G., Dilber, R., Senpolat, Y., & Duzgun, B. (2012). The effects of analogy on students’ understanding of direct current circuits and attitudes towards physics lessons. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), 211–223
Vickery, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. Life Science Education, 14(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
Vogrinc, J. (2008). Kvalitativno raziskovanje na pedagoškem področju [Qualitative research in the field of education]. Faculty of Education.