Cited by 153Innovative Teaching MethodsInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Why does peer instruction benefit student learning?

Open access
Tullis, Jonathan G., Goldstone, Robert L.·2020·Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

Abstract

In peer instruction, instructors pose a challenging question to students, students answer the question individually, students work with a partner in the class to discuss their answers, and finally students answer the question again. A large body of evidence shows that peer instruction benefits student learning. To determine the mechanism for these benefits, we collected semester-long data from six classes, involving a total of 208 undergraduate students being asked a total of 86 different questions related to their course content. For each question, students chose their answer individually, reported their confidence, discussed their answers with their partner, and then indicated their possibly revised answer and confidence again. Overall, students were more accurate and confident after discussion than before. Initially correct students were more likely to keep their answers than initially incorrect students, and this tendency was partially but not completely attributable to differences in confidence. We discuss the benefits of peer instruction in terms of differences in the coherence of explanations, social learning, and the contextual factors that influence confidence and accuracy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5

Cites

113 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When students talk through their answers with a peer, they think more carefully about their reasoning, making assessment more collaborative and learning oriented.

    “Prior research on peer instruction shows that when students can talk through their answers with a peer, they think more carefully about their reasoning, and this makes the assessment more collaborative and learning oriented (Tullis and Goldstone, 2020).”

    From Generative AI-Enhanced Oral Exams in Economics Education (2026) · cites this paper as Tullis and Goldstone, 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 117 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Steiner ID Group processes and productivity 1972 New York Academic Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
Tullis, Jonathan G.
Venue
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
Published
2020-04-09
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
15-15
ISSN
2365-7464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3015961046
Cited by
153
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
FWCI
22.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Research Principles and Implications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
peer instruction, student learning, confidence, accuracy, peer discussion, social learning, misconceptions, metacognition, undergraduate science education
MeSH terms
Academic Performance, Adult, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Peer Group, Students, Universities, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review