CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 153Innovative Teaching MethodsInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 117 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Why does peer instruction benefit student learning?

Open access
Tullis, Jonathan G., Goldstone, Robert L.·2020·Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
DOI 10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5PMC PMC7145884
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

Overview

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

110 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 The relationship between pre-discussion accuracy (x axis) and post-discussion accuracy (y axis). Each point represents a single question. The solid diagonal line represents equal pre-discussion and post-discussion accuracy; points above the line indicate improvements in accuracy and points below represent decrements in accuracy. The dashed line indicates the line of best fit for the observed data
Fig. 1 The relationship between pre-discussion accuracy (x axis) and post-discussion accuracy (y axis). Each point represents a single question. The solid diagonal line represents equal pre-discussion and post-discussion accuracy; points above the line indicate improvements in accuracy and points below represent decrements in accuracy. The dashed line indicates the line of best fit for the observed dataCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 The pathways of answers from pre-discussion (top row) to post-discussion (bottom row). Percentages indicate the portion of items from the category immediately above in that category, the numbers in brackets indicate the raw numbers of items, and the numbers at the bottom of each entry indicate the confidence associated with those items. In the middle, white row, confidence values show the peer’s confidence. Turquoise indicates incorrect answers and yellow indicates correct answers
Fig. 2 The pathways of answers from pre-discussion (top row) to post-discussion (bottom row). Percentages indicate the portion of items from the category immediately above in that category, the numbers in brackets indicate the raw numbers of items, and the numbers at the bottom of each entry indicate the confidence associated with those items. In the middle, white row, confidence values show the peer’s confidence. Turquoise indicates incorrect answers and yellow indicates correct answersCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 The probability of keeping one’s answer in situations where one’s partner initially disagreed as a function of the difference between partners’ levels of confidence. Error bars indicate the standard error of the proportion and are not shown when the data are based upon a single data point
Fig. 3 The probability of keeping one’s answer in situations where one’s partner initially disagreed as a function of the difference between partners’ levels of confidence. Error bars indicate the standard error of the proportion and are not shown when the data are based upon a single data pointCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 The relationship between pre-discussion and post-discussion confidence as a function of the accuracy of an answer when partners agreed. Each dot represents a student
Fig. 4 The relationship between pre-discussion and post-discussion confidence as a function of the accuracy of an answer when partners agreed. Each dot represents a studentCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 117 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Newbury, P., & Heiner, C. (2012). Ready, set, react! getting the most out of peer instruction using clickers. Retrieved October 28, 2015, from http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/Files/ReadySetReact_3fold.pdf.
  2. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
  3. Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning: A study on processes and effects of cooperation between primary school children. Westerhaven: Rijkuniversiteit Groningen.
  4. Wieman, C., Perkins, K., Gilbert, S., Benay, F., Kennedy, S., Semsar, K., et al. (2009). Clicker resource guide: An instructor’s guide to the effective use of personalresponse systems (clickers) in teaching. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Available from http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/files/Clicker_guide_CWSEI_CU-SEI.pdf.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 153

Related

Metadata

Authors
Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
Tullis, Jonathan G.
ORCID
Venue
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-04-09
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
15-15
ISSN
2365-7464 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5
PMC
PMC7145884
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
Licence
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