Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr 9;5(1):15.
doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5.

Why does peer instruction benefit student learning?

Affiliations

Why does peer instruction benefit student learning?

Jonathan G Tullis et al. Cogn Res Princ Implic. .

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.

Keywords: Confidence; Decision making; Group decisions; Metacognition; Peer instruction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
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. 2
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. 3
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. 4
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

References

    1. Aleven V, Koedinger KR. An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science. 2002;26:147–179. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2602_1. - DOI
    1. Atkinson RK, Renkl A, Merrill MM. Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003;95:774–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.774. - DOI
    1. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language. 2008;59:390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005. - DOI
    1. Bangert-Drowns RL, Kulik JA, Kulik C-LC. Effects of frequent classroom testing. Journal of Educational Research. 1991;85:89–99. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1991.10702818. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources