Evaluating the Effectiveness of Modified Peer Instruction in Large Introductory Physics Classes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>[Introduction]: "This report presents the results of research into the use of collaborative, multiple-choice format questionwriting activities as a supplement to standard peer instruction (PI) methods in a large introductory physics course. </p> <p> </p> <p>The standard PI method includes posing questions for student reflection and challenging students to identify gaps in their own understanding. A typical PI class session consists of brief lecture segments interposed with short quizzes consisting of conceptual questions, mostly in a multiple-choice format. In large classes, students’ responses are usually collected with the aid of a personal response system. After a first poll of quiz results, students spend a few minutes discussing their choices with two to four peers, attempting to agree on the correct answer. Students in classes that use PI show significant gains in conceptual understanding, as measured by standardized tests. Moreover, the gain in conceptual understanding that results from PI translates into better problem solving skills than for students in traditional lecture-based classes. However, PI pedagogy relies heavily on multiple-choice format questions (MCFQs). Therefore, despite the effectiveness of the PI method, the advantages and disadvantages of using MCFQs for both teaching and evaluation have been a topic of ongoing debate. Although many of the critiques of MCFQs can be surmounted, one fundamental limitation of MCFQs is hard to dismiss. Even proponents of PI acknowledge that using MCFQs means that students do not learn to formulate or articulate their own ideas, and instead select from among the provided responses. </p> <p>In response to this limitation, we developed and tested a modified form of PI that includes a supplementary activity prompting students to formulate and articulate their own ideas clearly. The new activity has students work collaboratively in small groups to write MCFQs similar to those used for PI. These activities took place both in class and online. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the introduction of these MCFQ-writing activities enhanced students’ understanding of fundamental concepts in physics, students’ attitudes towards physics and the degree of student engagement, as compared to the standard PI pedagogy. This study was implemented in PCS120 (Physics I), a required introductory physics course for undergraduate science program students at Ryerson University in Toronto, Ontario. PI supported by a personal response system (i.e., clickers) has been used in the course since 2006 and has had a documented positive effect on students’ learning outcomes."</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it