Sistematik Derlemeler ve Meta Analiz
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Review of Trends in Peer Instruction: Bibliometric Mapping Analysis and Systematic Review

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 42 - 50, 13.01.2022

Yusuf Ziya Olpak Ramazan Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.978824
Cited By: 1

Öz

This research aims to reveal the trend in peer instruction that many researchers around the world have been working on for over 20 years. In this context, 58 papers published in journals indexed in SSCI were examined in terms of different variables (e.g., research methods, courses, and response technologies). The bibliometric results showed that the most used keyword and the most used word in the abstract sections of the studies was peer instruction. Systematic review results revealed that the continent and country with the most studies among 17 countries in four continents is North America and the USA, respectively. Moreover, the majority of studies were published in 2016. It was also found that studies are generally carried out with numerical courses such as physics, chemistry, and computer science. Other findings provided from the researches were discussed in detail, and various suggestions were made for teachers and researchers in line with the findings obtained from the study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

peer instruction PI systematic review bibliometric mapping analysis clicker classroom response system

Kaynakça

  • Abowitz, D. A., & Toole, T. M. (2010). Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000026
  • 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.
  • Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2016). Research trends in social network sites’ educational use: A review of publications in all SSCI journals to 2015. Review of Education, 4(3), 293–319.
  • Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
  • Aricò, F. R., & Lancaster, S. J. (2018). Facilitating active learning and enhancing student self-assessment skills. International Review of Economics Education, 29, 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2018.06.002
  • Balta, N., Michinov, N., Balyimez, S., & Ayaz, M. F. (2017). A meta-analysis of the effect of peer instruction on learning gain: Identification of informational and cultural moderators. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.009
  • Brown, M. (2020). Seeing students at scale: How faculty in large lecture courses act upon learning analytics dashboard data. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 384–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1698540
  • Chien, Y.-T., Chang, Y.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.003
  • Chien, Y.-T., Lee, Y.-H., Li, T.-Y., & Chang, C.-Y. (2015). Examining the effects of displaying clicker voting results on high school students’ voting behaviors, discussion processes, and learning outcomes. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 1089–1104.
  • 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.
  • Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2018). The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 53–64.
  • Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063.
  • Ghosh, S., & Renna, F. (2009). Using electronic response systems in economics classes. Journal of Economic Education, 40(4), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480903297651
  • Gok, T. (2015). An investigation of students’ performance after peer instruction with stepwise problem-solving strategies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(3), 561–582.
  • Henderson, J. B. (2019). Beyond “active learning”: How the ICAP framework permits more acute examination of the popular peer instruction pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 89(4), 611–634.
  • Hubbard, J. K., & Couch, B. A. (2018). The positive effect of in-class clicker questions on later exams depends on initial student performance level but not question format. Computers & Education, 120, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.008
  • Hung, H.-T. (2017). The integration of a student response system in flipped classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 16–27.
  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
  • Jones, M. E., Antonenko, P. D., & Greenwood, C. M. (2012). The impact of collaborative and individualized student response system strategies on learner motivation, metacognition, and knowledge transfer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00470.x
  • Kalman, C. S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Antimirova, T. (2010). Comparison of the effectiveness of collaborative groups and peer instruction in a large introductory physics course for science majors. Canadian Journal of Physics, 88(5), 325–332.
  • Kim, G. C., & Gurvitch, R. (2020). Online education research adopting the community of inquiry framework: A systematic review. Quest, 72(4), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2020.1761843
  • Knight, J. K., & Brame, C. J. (2018). Peer instruction. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 17(2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-02-0025
  • Liao, S. N., Zingaro, D., Thai, K., Alvarado, C., Griswold, W. G., & Porter, L. (2019). A robust machine learning technique to predict low-performing students. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3277569
  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.007
  • Nitta, H. (2010). Mathematical theory of peer-instruction dynamics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020105
  • Olpak, Y. Z., Baltacı, S., & Arıcan, M. (2018). Investigating the effects of peer instruction on preservice mathematics teachers’ achievements in statistics and probability. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2323–2340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9717-3
  • Pearson, R. J. (2017). Tailoring clicker technology to problem-based Learning: What’s the best approach? Journal of Chemical Education, 94(12), 1866–1872. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00270
  • Pearson, R. J. (2019). Exploring peer instruction: Should cohort clicker responses appear during or after polling? Journal of Chemical Education, 96, 873–879. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00035
  • Perez, K. E., Strauss, E. A., Downey, N., Galbraith, A., Jeanne, R., & Cooper, S. (2010). Does displaying the class results affect student discussion during peer instruction? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09–11–0080
  • Porter, L., Bailey Lee, C., Simon, B., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on computing education research (pp. 45–52) ACM.
  • Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2020). Why does peer instruction benefit student learning? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5
  • Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: Students perceive differences. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020123
  • Versteeg, M., van Blankenstein, F. M., Putter, H., & Steendijk, P. (2019). Peer instruction improves comprehension and transfer of physiological concepts: A randomized comparison with self-explanation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24(1), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9858-6
  • Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, 1–11.
  • Wang, S., & Murota, M. (2016). Possibilities and limitations of integrating peer instruction into technical creativity education. Instructional Science, 44(6), 501–525.
  • Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. (2010). Just-in-time teaching and peer instruction. In S. Simkins & M. H. Maier (Eds.), Just in time teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy (pp. 39–62). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
  • Wood, A. K., Galloway, R. K., Donnelly, R., & Hardy, J. (2016). Characterizing interactive engagement activities in a flipped introductory physics class. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010140
  • Yıldırım, T., & Canpolat, N. (2019). An investigation of the effectiveness of the peer instruction method on teaching about solutions at the high-school level. Education and Science, 44, 127–147. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7966
  • Zhang, P., Ding, L., & Mazur, E. (2017). Peer instruction in introductory physics: A method to bring about positive changes in students’ attitudes and beliefs. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010104
  • Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2014). Peer instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention. Computers & Education, 71, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.015
  • Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2019). Flipping an English writing class with technology-enhanced just-in-time teaching and peer instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1127–1142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495654
  • Zu, T., Munsell, J., & Rebello, N. S. (2019). Comparing retrieval-based practice and peer instruction in physics learning. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010105

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 42 - 50, 13.01.2022

Yusuf Ziya Olpak Ramazan Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.978824
Cited By: 1

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Abowitz, D. A., & Toole, T. M. (2010). Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000026
  • 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.
  • Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2016). Research trends in social network sites’ educational use: A review of publications in all SSCI journals to 2015. Review of Education, 4(3), 293–319.
  • Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
  • Aricò, F. R., & Lancaster, S. J. (2018). Facilitating active learning and enhancing student self-assessment skills. International Review of Economics Education, 29, 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2018.06.002
  • Balta, N., Michinov, N., Balyimez, S., & Ayaz, M. F. (2017). A meta-analysis of the effect of peer instruction on learning gain: Identification of informational and cultural moderators. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.009
  • Brown, M. (2020). Seeing students at scale: How faculty in large lecture courses act upon learning analytics dashboard data. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 384–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1698540
  • Chien, Y.-T., Chang, Y.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.003
  • Chien, Y.-T., Lee, Y.-H., Li, T.-Y., & Chang, C.-Y. (2015). Examining the effects of displaying clicker voting results on high school students’ voting behaviors, discussion processes, and learning outcomes. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 1089–1104.
  • 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.
  • Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2018). The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 53–64.
  • Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063.
  • Ghosh, S., & Renna, F. (2009). Using electronic response systems in economics classes. Journal of Economic Education, 40(4), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480903297651
  • Gok, T. (2015). An investigation of students’ performance after peer instruction with stepwise problem-solving strategies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(3), 561–582.
  • Henderson, J. B. (2019). Beyond “active learning”: How the ICAP framework permits more acute examination of the popular peer instruction pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 89(4), 611–634.
  • Hubbard, J. K., & Couch, B. A. (2018). The positive effect of in-class clicker questions on later exams depends on initial student performance level but not question format. Computers & Education, 120, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.008
  • Hung, H.-T. (2017). The integration of a student response system in flipped classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 16–27.
  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
  • Jones, M. E., Antonenko, P. D., & Greenwood, C. M. (2012). The impact of collaborative and individualized student response system strategies on learner motivation, metacognition, and knowledge transfer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00470.x
  • Kalman, C. S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Antimirova, T. (2010). Comparison of the effectiveness of collaborative groups and peer instruction in a large introductory physics course for science majors. Canadian Journal of Physics, 88(5), 325–332.
  • Kim, G. C., & Gurvitch, R. (2020). Online education research adopting the community of inquiry framework: A systematic review. Quest, 72(4), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2020.1761843
  • Knight, J. K., & Brame, C. J. (2018). Peer instruction. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 17(2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-02-0025
  • Liao, S. N., Zingaro, D., Thai, K., Alvarado, C., Griswold, W. G., & Porter, L. (2019). A robust machine learning technique to predict low-performing students. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3277569
  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.007
  • Nitta, H. (2010). Mathematical theory of peer-instruction dynamics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020105
  • Olpak, Y. Z., Baltacı, S., & Arıcan, M. (2018). Investigating the effects of peer instruction on preservice mathematics teachers’ achievements in statistics and probability. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2323–2340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9717-3
  • Pearson, R. J. (2017). Tailoring clicker technology to problem-based Learning: What’s the best approach? Journal of Chemical Education, 94(12), 1866–1872. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00270
  • Pearson, R. J. (2019). Exploring peer instruction: Should cohort clicker responses appear during or after polling? Journal of Chemical Education, 96, 873–879. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00035
  • Perez, K. E., Strauss, E. A., Downey, N., Galbraith, A., Jeanne, R., & Cooper, S. (2010). Does displaying the class results affect student discussion during peer instruction? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09–11–0080
  • Porter, L., Bailey Lee, C., Simon, B., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on computing education research (pp. 45–52) ACM.
  • Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2020). Why does peer instruction benefit student learning? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5
  • Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: Students perceive differences. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020123
  • Versteeg, M., van Blankenstein, F. M., Putter, H., & Steendijk, P. (2019). Peer instruction improves comprehension and transfer of physiological concepts: A randomized comparison with self-explanation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24(1), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9858-6
  • Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, 1–11.
  • Wang, S., & Murota, M. (2016). Possibilities and limitations of integrating peer instruction into technical creativity education. Instructional Science, 44(6), 501–525.
  • Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. (2010). Just-in-time teaching and peer instruction. In S. Simkins & M. H. Maier (Eds.), Just in time teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy (pp. 39–62). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
  • Wood, A. K., Galloway, R. K., Donnelly, R., & Hardy, J. (2016). Characterizing interactive engagement activities in a flipped introductory physics class. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010140
  • Yıldırım, T., & Canpolat, N. (2019). An investigation of the effectiveness of the peer instruction method on teaching about solutions at the high-school level. Education and Science, 44, 127–147. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7966
  • Zhang, P., Ding, L., & Mazur, E. (2017). Peer instruction in introductory physics: A method to bring about positive changes in students’ attitudes and beliefs. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010104
  • Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2014). Peer instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention. Computers & Education, 71, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.015
  • Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2019). Flipping an English writing class with technology-enhanced just-in-time teaching and peer instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1127–1142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495654
  • Zu, T., Munsell, J., & Rebello, N. S. (2019). Comparing retrieval-based practice and peer instruction in physics learning. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010105
Toplam 42 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Bilgisayar Yazılımı, Alan Eğitimleri
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Yusuf Ziya Olpak 0000-0001-5092-252X

Ramazan Yılmaz 0000-0002-2041-1750

Yayımlanma Tarihi 13 Ocak 2022
Gönderilme Tarihi 5 Ağustos 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022 Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Olpak, Y. Z., & Yılmaz, R. (2022). Review of Trends in Peer Instruction: Bibliometric Mapping Analysis and Systematic Review. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 7(1), 42-50. https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.978824

Cited By

Effects of peer instruction on academic achievement: a meta-analysis
Pedagogies: An International Journal
https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2023.2246447
 Kapak Resmi İndir

Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age 2023. © 2023. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 19195

Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age. Tüm hakları saklıdır, 2023. ISSN:2458-8350