Student Attitudes to an Online, Peer-instruction, Revision Aid in Science Education

Authors

  • Aaron Mac Raighne CREATE Research Group, School of Physics, Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
  • Morag M Casey School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G128QQ, U.K
  • Robert Howard CREATE Research Group, School of Physics, Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
  • Barry Ryan c) School of Food Science and Environmental Health, Dublin Institute of Technology, Cathal Brugha St., Dublin 1, Ireland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v3i1.135

Keywords:

, Peer-instruction, PeerWise, peer-learning, web-tool, student perspectives

Abstract

Peer instruction has been shown to have a positive effect on students’ engagement and learning. However, many of the techniques designed to incorporate peer instruction into the student experience are very heavy on resources. PeerWise is a free, low-maintenance, web-tool designed to allow peer instruction between students within a large class group. Students can write, answer and discuss Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) based on their work in-class.

In this study, we introduce PeerWise to a wide and varied cohort of science students (N=509) across different disciplines, undergraduate years, levels (certificate to honours degree) and institutes. The attitudes of the students to PeerWise are probed using a questionnaire (356 respondents). This includes responses to Likert-style questions and thematic analysis carried out on free-text responses.

It is found that the students are positive about the addition of PeerWise and recognise the advantages of the software in their learning. They recognise, and articulate, the advantages of PeerWise as an active-learning, peer-instruction revision tool. Further advantages and disadvantages are discussed, such as the flooding of system with easy and/or repetitive questions. Overall, the results are positive and are very similar across the varied class groups. In this study, PeerWise performs as free and low-maintenance software that allows the addition of (another) peer-instruction aspect to modules.

Author Biographies

  • Aaron Mac Raighne, CREATE Research Group, School of Physics, Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
    Dr Mac Raighne is an Assistant Lecturer at the Dublin Institute of Technology and a recipient of a Teaching Fellowship and Learning and Teaching Award from the Dublin Institute of Technology.
  • Morag M Casey, School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G128QQ, U.K
    Dr Casey is a University Teacher at the University of Glasgow. She is also the Treasurer of the Higher Education Group in the Institute of Physics, UK. Her interests are in the areas of student academic performance, peer-learning and retention in higher-education.
  • Robert Howard, CREATE Research Group, School of Physics, Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
    Dr Robert Howard is a lecturer at the Dublin Institute of Technology. His interests are in the areas of problem-based learning, peer instruction and physics education research.
  • Barry Ryan, c) School of Food Science and Environmental Health, Dublin Institute of Technology, Cathal Brugha St., Dublin 1, Ireland
    Dr Ryan is an applied biochemist whose pedagogic research focuses on the integration of novel technology into the teaching and learning environment and the effect of assessment, feedback and blended learning on undergraduate learning.

References

Bates, S. P., Galloway, R. K., McBride, K. L., Bates, S. P., Galloway, R. K., & McBride, K. L. (2012). Student-generated content: Using PeerWise to enhance engagement and outcomes in introductory physics courses. In C. Singh & C. Singh (Eds.), 2011 Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 123–126). Melville: Amer Inst. Physics.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3680009

Bates, S. P., Galloway, R. K., Riise, J., & Homer, D. (2014). Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020105.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020105

Bottomley, S., & Denny, P. (2011). A participatory learning approach to biochemistry using student authored and evaluated multiple-choice questions. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(5), 352–361.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20526

Bulte, C., Betts, A., Garner, K., & Durning, S. (2007). Student teaching: Views of student near-peer teachers and learners. Medical teacher, 29(6), 583–590.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590701583824

Casey, M. M., Bates, S. P., Galloway, K. W., Galloway, R. K., Hardy, J. A., Kay, A. E., . . . McQueen, H. A. (2014). Scaffolding student engagement via online peer learning. European Journal of Physics, 35(4).

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/35/4/045002

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological bulletin, 132(3), 354.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1095–1102.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x

Chen, Z., Stelzer, T., & Gladding, G. (2010). Using multimedia modules to better prepare students for introductory physics lecture. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 6(1), 010108.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.010108

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249

Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(4), 346–355.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135580000750052955

Denny, P. (n.d.). PeerWise-Community.org. Retrieved 23 July 2014 from http://www.peerwise-community.org/

Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Hamer, J. (2008). The PeerWise system of student contributed assessment questions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the tenth conference on Australasian computing education – Volume 78, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.

Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Simon, B. (2009). Quality of student contributed questions using PeerWise. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education – Volume 95, Wellington, New Zealand.

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783

Edgar, S. D. (2013). New Approaches to Problem-Based Learning: Revitalising Your Practice in Higher Education. Edited by Terry Barrett and Sarah Moore . New York, N.Y.: PB - Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group , 2011. xiv + 295 pages. ISBN 978-0-415-87149-5. $48.95. Teaching Theology & Religion, 16(2), 196–197.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/teth.12040

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Hardy, J., Bates, S. P., Casey, M. M., Galloway, K. W., Galloway, R. K., Kay, A. E., . . . McQueen, H. A. (2014). Student-generated content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions. International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), 2180–2194.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.916831

Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 157–163.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721412443552

Kitsantas, A., Robert, A. R., & Doster, J. (2004). Developing self-regulated learners: Goal setting, self-evaluation, and organizational signals during acquisition of procedural skills. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(4), 269–287.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.72.4.269-287

McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301–315.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.16539

National Framework of Qualifications – Homepage. Retrieved 23 July 2014 from http://www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/

Nicol, D. (2011a). Developing students' ability to construct feedback. Graduates for the 21st Century: Integrating the Enhancement Themes. Scotland: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Nicol, D. (2011b). The foundation for graduate attributes: Developing self-regulation through self and peer-assessmet Graduates for the 21st Century: Integrating the Enhancement Themes. Scotland: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457–473.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000122297

Sadaghiani, H. R. (2012). Controlled study on the effectiveness of multimedia learning modules for teaching mechanics. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010103.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010103

Sahin, M. (2010). Effects of problem-based learning on university students’ epistemological beliefs about physics and physics learning and conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(3), 266–275.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9198-7

Seery, M. K., & Donnelly, R. (2012). The implementation of pre-lecture resources to reduce in-class cognitive load: A case study for higher education chemistry. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 667–677.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01237.x

Stevenson, K., & Sander, P. (2002). Medical students are from Mars – business and psychology students are from Venus – University teachers are from Pluto? Medical teacher, 24(1), 27–31.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00034980120103441

Downloads

Published

2015-03-23

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2015)

Section

Studies on Student Perceptions

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.