Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Investigating the effects of peer instruction on preservice mathematics teachers’ achievements in statistics and probability

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of two different accountability scoring mechanisms (ASMs), which were used during the peer instruction (PI) process, on preservice middle school mathematics teachers’ (PSTs) achievements in statistics and probability. In the spring semester of 2016–2017 academic year, 46 third-year PSTs, who had been attending a statistics and probability course, participated in the study. Based on their pre-test scores, the PSTs were randomly divided into two equally achieving groups (Group 1 and Group 2). The data of this study were collected using an academic achievement test and PI and course evaluation forms. A learning management system (LMS), which was a web-based application designed by the first author, was used in collecting the PSTs’ responses to the given conceptual questions. Two different ASMs were used in calculating the PSTs’ PI scores. The findings showed that the PSTs in Group 1 obtained significantly higher overall academic, PI, and post-test scores than the PSTs in Group 2. Therefore, the PSTs’ PI and overall academic achievement scores differed based on the ASM used. Thus, using an ASM during a PI process found to be effective in increasing the PSTs’ engagement in the peer discussion. Finally, the analysis of the PSTs’ opinions regarding to the PI, learning process, and learning environment indicated their overall satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Adawi, T., Burden, H., Olsson, D., & Mattiasson, R. (2016). Characterizing software engineering students’ discussions during peer instruction: Opportunities for learning and implications for teaching. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(2), 927–936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arteaga, I. L., & Vinken, E. (2013). Example of good practice of a learning environment with a classroom response system in a mechanical engineering bachelor course. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(6), 652–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulut, S., Ekici, C., & İşeri, İ. A. (1999). Bazı olasılık kavramlarının öğretimi için çalışma yapraklarının geliştirilmesi [The Development of worksheets for teaching some probability concepts]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, 129–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou, C. Y., & Lin, P. H. (2015). Promoting discussion in peer instruction: Discussion partner assignment and accountability scoring mechanisms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 839–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2005). Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: Ability to solve novel problems. Advances in Physiology Education, 29(2), 107–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 40–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Celik, D., & Gunes, G. (2007). 7 8 ve 9. sınıf öğrencilerinin olasılık ile ilgili anlama ve kavram yanılgılarının incelenmesi [Investigating 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students' understanding of probability and misconceptions]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 173, 361–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4), 206–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliodori, M. J., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2006). Peer instruction enhanced student performance on qualitative problem-solving questions. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 168–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latulippe, J. (2016). Clickers, ipad, and lecture capture in one semester: My teaching transformation. Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 26(6), 603–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. B., Garcia, S., & Porter, L. (2013). Can peer instruction be effective in upper-division computer science courses? ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 13(3), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Len, P. M. (2007). Different reward structures to motivate student interaction with electronic response systems in astronomy. Astronomy Education Review, 5(2), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, A. (2009). Using peer instruction and i-clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. Primus, 19(3), 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, J. R., & Jones, L. L. (2008). A review of literature reports of clickers applicable to college chemistry classrooms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michinov, N., Morice, J., & Ferrières, V. (2015). A step further in peer instruction: Using the Stepladder technique to improve learning. Computers & Education, 91, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. K. (2013). Pre-service elementary teachers’ perceptions of a modified peer instruction implementation of clickers in their mathematics content course. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 3, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morice, J., Michinov, N., Delaval, M., Sideridou, A., & Ferrières, V. (2015). Comparing the effectiveness of peer instruction to individual learning during a chromatography course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 722–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olpak, Y. Z., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2017). Development of a student evaluation form toward peer instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, (Special Issue for INTE 2017), 839–845.

  • Rao, S. P., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advances in Physiology Education, 24(1), 51–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2017). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from: https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students. Accessed 1 February 2018.

  • Trout, M. J., Borges, N., & Koles, P. (2014). Modified peer instruction improves examination scores in pharmacology. Medical Education, 48(11), 1112–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S., & Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Parts of this study were presented at the 2017 International Congress on Social Sciences, Madrid/Spain.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Education and Instructional Technology Department, Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey

    Yusuf Ziya Olpak

  2. Mathematics and Science Education Department, Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey

    Serdal Baltaci & Muhammet Arican

Authors
  1. Yusuf Ziya Olpak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Serdal Baltaci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muhammet Arican
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammet Arican.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olpak, Y.Z., Baltaci, S. & Arican, M. Investigating the effects of peer instruction on preservice mathematics teachers’ achievements in statistics and probability. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2323–2340 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9717-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9717-3

Keywords