Abstract
The article describes the results of the case study “Implementation of the Peer Instruction method into education in the Czech Republic”, trying to answer one main question: “How is the Peer Instruction method implemented into physics teaching at upper secondary Czech school?”.The data was collected through interviews with the teacher, lesson observation and questionnaires for the teacher and students. The teacher involved in the study had been interested in the method since 2009. The research findings resulting from lesson observation and students’ opinions are from the 2014/2015 school year, when the method was implemented with students aged 17–18 years in three physics classes taught at an upper secondary school, with the respective numbers of students being 28, 16 and 13. The research generated the following conclusions, among other things: (1) the method should ideally be used immediately after a presentation of a new topic, therefore e.g. once a month, (2) a maximum of two ConcepTest questions should be used within one 45-minute lesson, and (3) students’ responses should be collected by means of ï¬ashcards rather than by an electronic voting system. The teacher starting with the method expected that ConcepTest questions would be simple for students and the work pace would be faster. She tried to hasten the work and therefore sometimes did not give students enough time to think about their responses, occasionally even failing to provide the option of a second answer. Nevertheless, the participating students gave positive feedback on this method, strongly indicating that that they had learned more while using this method. They admitted that using ï¬ashcards during the first answering was a strong incentive that boosted their motivation towards thinking about the answers. This article is intended for people interested in the Peer Instruction method, teachers and researchers in active learning.
References
Crouch, C. H. & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics , 69(9), 970–977.
Dvořáková, I. (2014). Active learning in the Heureka Project — teachers in the role of students. ICPE-EPEC 2013 Conference Proceedings. 47–62. Available from http://iupap-icpe.org/publications/proceedings/ICPE-EPEC 2013 proceedings.pdf
Ghosh, S. & Renna, F. (2006). Technology in support of good pedagogy: Electronic response systems and Peer Instruction in an economics classroom. Social Science Research Network . Available from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=888544
Harvard.edu. (2016). APPHY 50A: Physics as a Foundation for Science and Engineering, Part I . Available from https://canvas.harvard.edu/courses/13398
Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or Flashcards: Is There Really a Difference? The Physics Teacher , 46, 242–244.
Lepil, O. & Široká, M (2001). Sbírka testových úloh k maturitě z fyziky. Prometheus.
Mazur, E. (2014). Peer Instruction: A user’s manual. Pearson Education Limited.
Pearson (2016). Learning Catalytics. Available from https://learningcatalytics.com/
Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K. & Crawrord, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survay study. Educational Technology, Research and Development , 55(4), 315–346. Available from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-006-9023-4
Rao, S. P. & DiCarlo, S. E. (2000). Peer Instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advantage in Physiology Education , 24(1), 51–55.
Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002). Using the Force Concept Inventory to monitor student learning and to plan teaching. Physics Education , 37(1), 53–58.
Schell, J. (2016). Turn to your neighbor. The oï¬cial Peer Instruction blog. Available from http://blog.peerinstruction.net/
Šestáková, J. (2016). Peer Instruction. Available from http://peerinstruction.cz/
Švaříček, R. & Šeďová, K. (2007). Kvalitativní výzkum. Portál.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).