Student experience in a student-centered peer instruction classroom

Although studies have shown Peer Instruction (PI) in computing courses to be beneficial for learning and retention, study of the student experience has been limited to attitudinal survey results. This study provides a preliminary evaluation of student experiences in a PI course -- specifically asking them to reflect on their role as a student in a PI lecture compared to a standard university lecture. Student responses to this question are first analyzed using Chi's Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive framework which categorizes student activities by their value in a constructivist learning framework. This analysis finds that the majority of students reported activity in a PI lecture as "interactive" in contrast with "active" (e.g. taking notes) in a standard lecture. Additionally, a grounded theory open-coding analysis provides an initial examination of student perceptions of the PI lecture experience. Although students positively value learning-related aspects (feedback and increased understanding) a surprising breadth of value was noted around issues of affect and increased sense of community. In particular, these experiences invite discussion about PI and issues of STEM retention in post-secondary education.

[1]  C. Dweck Self-theories and goals: their role in motivation, personality, and development. , 1990, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[2]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  Exploratory homeworks: an active learning tool for textbook reading , 2012, ICER '12.

[3]  Beth Simon,et al.  Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? , 2011, ICER.

[4]  Beth Simon,et al.  How we teach impacts student learning: peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0 , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[5]  Beth Simon,et al.  Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1 , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[6]  Catherine H. Crouch,et al.  Classroom Demonstrations: Learning Tools Or Entertainment? , 2004 .

[7]  Jeffrey E. Froyd,et al.  Fidelity of Implementation of Research‐Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS) in Engineering Science Courses , 2013 .

[8]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[9]  C. Atman,et al.  How people learn. , 1985, Hospital topics.

[10]  E. Seymour,et al.  Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave The Sciences , 1997 .

[11]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Do They See It Coming? Using Expectancy Violation to Gauge the Success of Pedagogical Reforms. , 2010 .

[12]  Cynthia Taylor,et al.  Peer instruction in computer science at small liberal arts colleges , 2013, ITiCSE '13.

[13]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  Experience report: a multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction , 2011, ITiCSE '11.

[14]  Beth Simon,et al.  Halving fail rates using peer instruction: a study of four computer science courses , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[15]  C. Wieman,et al.  Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions , 2009 .

[16]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Information‐processing analysis of college teaching , 1979 .

[17]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[18]  Noah D. Finkelstein,et al.  Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors' implementation of Peer Instruction , 2009 .

[19]  Zdeslav Hrepic,et al.  Comparing Students’ and Experts’ Understanding of the Content of a Lecture , 2007 .

[20]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Stephanie D. Teasley Talking about reasoning : How important is the peer in peer collaboration? , 1997 .

[22]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning , 2008, Science.

[23]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  Experience report: peer instruction in introductory computing , 2010, SIGCSE.

[24]  Herbert S. Lin,et al.  They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier , 1991 .

[25]  R. Hake Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[26]  R. Hake Interactive-engagement vs Traditional Methods in Mechanics Instruction* , 1998 .