Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of Classrooms

By Adam P Fagen, C. H. Crouch, E. Mazur. 2002

427 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c580ab39ec2ce9aac04ae7c46fce16aa660419ad

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations (2006, background): “uccessful; (3) make recommendations for modifications in different contexts, for example, how the curriculum could be modified for different sized classes, or for schools with less prepared students; (4) articulate why some aspects transfer better than others to guide instructors in their modificati”
The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university‐level courses using student response systems (2007, background): “As developed in the late 1980s by Eric Mazur, PI consists of lectures that ‘are interspersed with short conceptual questions (ConcepTests) designed to reveal common misunderstandings and to actively engage students in lecture courses’ (Fagen et al., 2002, p. 206; see also Crouch & Mazur, 2001).”
Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college (2008, background): “[1-4] In PI, the progression of any given class depends on the outcome of real-time student feedback to ConcepTests — multiple-choice conceptual questions.”
Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results (2001, background): “…in large lec tures, many instructors have found it to be an effective proach for engaging students in small classes as well.6 A class taught with PI is divided into a series of sh presentations, each focused on a central point and follo by a related conceptual question, called a ConcepTest ~Fig.”
The Intellectual Development of Science and Engineering Students. Part 2: Teaching to Promote Growth (2004, methodology): “The positive effects on knowledge and skill acquisition of interspersing brief active learning exercises in a lecture class are well established [27,33,36–38], and techniques for incorporating”
Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature (2009, background): “While resistance to using ARSs is relatively uncommon (Fagan et al., 2002), it is important note these concerns.”
Handbook Of Design Research Methods In Education: Innovations In Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics Learning And Teaching (2018, background): “c h2 6 (1997), and Tobias and Hake (1988), SDI laboratories were inspired by the astute empirical observations of Arnold Arons (1973, 1974, 1983, 1986, 1997) who had the uncommon sense to “shut up and listen to what students say” in response to probing Socratic questions.”
Teaching more by lecturing less. (2005, background): “Normalized learning gain is defined as the actual gain divided by the possible gain, expressed as a percentage [100 3 (posttest pretest)/(100 pretest); (Fagan et al., 2002)].”
Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature (2006, methodology): “Subsequent work on the effectiveness of PI includes instructor surveys administered by the Mazur group (Crouch and Mazur, 2001; Fagen et al, 2002), the results of which indicate that student engagement and learning outcomes are both improved in connection with PI pedagogy.”
A Review of Literature Reports of Clickers Applicable to College Chemistry Classrooms (2008, methodology): “In a survey of 384 PI users, 303 definitely planned to use it again, while only seven indicated that they did not plan to use it again (Fagen et al., 2002).”
Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics (2005, background): “Replication studies have been reported for of some of the best-known reforms in the physics education research (PER) community, including: Studio Physics, SCALE-UP, Workshop Physics,[4][6] Real-Time Physics,[5] Interactive Lecture Demonstrations,[4] Cooperative Group Problem Solving,[4] and Peer Ins”