USING RESPONSE SYSTEM THROUGH VOTING IN PEER INSTRUCTION FOR LEARNING SUSTAINABILITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6371Keywords:
Peer Instruction, Learning Engagement, Voting, Student Response SystemsAbstract
Sustainable education must employ strategies that promote lifelong and meaningful learning. Peer Instruction (PI) is an active learning pedagogy specifically designed to achieve this. There are a number of elements involved in the various steps of the PI pedagogy which contributes to its effectiveness. However, most research studies reported in Peer Instruction focused on its use in science education and mainly on the whole pedagogy. The significance of the individual elements of the model have not been fully explored. Reports are also scarce on the use and benefits of PI in non-science classrooms. This study evaluates the pedagogical benefits of one of the elements of the PI model; the use of automated feedback based on students’ voting. 42 students in a postgraduate teacher education class were taken through sessions of Peer Instruction and traditional lectures; learning outcomes were compared in terms of student performance and student engagement and motivation. Performance tests (pre-tests and post-tests), live classroom observations and students’ reflections were monitored to determine the level of performance and engagement. Results show that students reported increased interest, motivation and engagement and the ability of the voting sessions to foster metacognition. Active learning and learning readiness were also emphasized while the lecture sessions were reported as normal or usual. The result validates the usefulness of voting component of the PI model for fostering improved learning; noting that students are able to benefit more from personal evaluation when voting results are displayed after voting.
References
Drexhage, J. and D. Murphy. 2010. Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012. Paper Prepared for the High Level Panel on Global Sustainability 1st meeting, 19 September. United Nations Headquarters, New York. [Online]. From: http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/gsp/docs/GSP1-6_Background%20on%20Sustainable%20Devt.pdf [Accessed on 7 December 2013].
Gerald, D., R. Jucker and S. Martin. 2005. Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Current Practice and Future Developments. A Report to the Higher Education Academy, York (UK) [Online]. From: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/tla/sustainability/sustdevinHEfinalreport.pdf [Accessed on 7 December 2013].
Connell, J. P. and J. G. Wellborn. 1991. Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness: A Motivational Analysis of Self-Esteem Processes. In: Gunnar, M. R., Sroufe, L. A. (eds) Self Processes in Development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
Skinner, E. A. and M. J. Belmont. 1993. Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement Across the School Year. Journal of Educational Psychology. 85: 571-581.
Fredricks, J. A., P. C. Blumenfeld and A. Paris. 2004. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research. 74(1): 59-119.
Liao, L. 2006. A Flow Theory Perspective on Learner Motivation and Behaviour in Distance Education. Distance Education. 27(1): 45-62
Aguilar, E. 2014. Beyond Student Engagement: Achieving a State of Flow. Edutopia.org. Posted April 13. [Online]. From: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-engagement-elena-aguilar [Accessed on 21 April 2013].
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2004. Flow, the Secret to Happiness. TED Talk, February 2004. [Online] from http://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow#t-975704 [Accessed 21 April, 2013].
Nakamura, J., and M. Csikszentmihalyi. 2002. The Concept of Flow. Handbook of Positive Psychology. 89-105.
Whitson, C. and J. Consoli. 2009. Flow Theory and Student Engagement. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education. 2 (1): 40-49.
Johnson, B. 2012. How Do We Know When Students Are Engaged? EDUTOPIA: Efficient Ways to Check for Understanding. What Works in Education. The George Lucas Educational Foundation
Appleton, J. J., S. L. Christenson, D. Kim and A. L. Reschly. 2006. Measuring Cognitive and Psychological Engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology. 44: 427-445.
Schunk, D., J. Meece and P. Pintrich. 2014. Motivation in Education, Theory, Research and Applications. 4th Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Legault, L., I. Green-Demers and L. Pelletier. 2006. Why do High School Students Lack Motivation in the Classroom? Toward an Understanding of Academic Amotivation and The Role of Social Support. Journal of Educational Psychology. 98(3): 567.
Maehr, M. and C. Midgley. 1991. Enhancing Student Motivation: A Schoolwide Approach. Educational Psychologist. 26(3&4): 399-427.
Schunk, D. H., and B. J. Zimmerman. 2008. Motivation and Self-regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah.
Pintrich, P. 2003. A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology. 95(4): 667-686.
Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. 2011. Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary through High School: A Description of 21 Instruments. Issues & Answers. REL 2011-No. 098. Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
Fagen A., Crouch C. and Mazur E. 2002. Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of Classrooms. The Physics Teacher. 40.
Mazur, E. and Watkins, J. 2009. Teaching and Peer Instruction. Simkins, Chp3, p39. [Online]. From: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic666323.files/02-2Peer_Just_in_time_03_Simkins09_C03.pdf [Accessed on 14 April 2014].
Slavin, A. 2001. Peer Instruction in the Lecture Setting. Journal of Positive Pedagogy.
Wilson, J. (Ed.). 1997. Conference on the Introductory Physics Course: On the Occasion of the Retirement of Robert Resnick. New York: Wiley
Mazur, E. 1997. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, 1/e. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jarrett, L., G. Takacs, and B. Ferry. 2010. Adding Value to Physics Laboratories for Pre-Service Teachers. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education. 18(1): 26-42.
Price, J. and J. Cybulski. 2006. The Importance of IS Stakeholder Perspectives and Perceptions to Requirements Negotiation. Development. 13.
Breslow, L. 2007. Methods of Measuring Learning Outcomes and Value Added. Learning Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Online]. From https://tll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/guidelines/a-e-tools-methods-of-measuring-learning-outcomes-grid-2.pdf [Accessed on 17 June 2014].
Creswell, J. W. 2012 Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage.
Johnson, B. and L. Christensen. 2008. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Sage.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright of articles that appear in Jurnal Teknologi belongs exclusively to Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Penerbit UTM Press). This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions, or any other reproductions of similar nature.
