M. Cronhjort, L. Filipsson, M. Weurlander
(2013). Can Peer Instruction in Calculus Improve Student Learning?.
9. We report on an experiment in which we used Peer Instruction instead of traditional lectures in a Calculus course for beginning engineering students at KTH Royal Institute of Technology. In order to enable evaluation in a controlled experiment setting, we kept the rest of the course – text book, tutorials and examination – unchanged. The student’s pre-knowledge was measured by a diagnostic test, and their post-knowledge was measured by the written exam of the course. Our data indicate that the Peer Instruction group learned more than the control group, who had traditional lectures. In questionnaires at the beginning of the course and at the end, we asked for the students’ perceptions of Peer Instruction as teaching method and if they had found it useful as a tool for learning calculus. The answers show that the students appreciated being more active and motivated with Peer Instruction, but also that they found the method challenging and somewhat frustrating. A major problem was that the textbook was difficult to read in advance.

*Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 9 – 13, 2013. *

Authors (New):

Mikael Cronhjort

Lars Filipsson

Maria Weurlander

Affiliations:

KTH Royal Institute of Technology,Sweden

Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Keywords:

Peer instruction

calculus

Student learning

students’ perceptions

Reference:

Biggs J. and Tang C., Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 4th edition, Open University Press, Maidenhead, 2011. :

Entwistle N., Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2009.:

Brandell, G., Hemmi, K. and Thunberg, H., The widening gap – a Swedish perspective, Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20:2, 2008, 38-56:

Lithner, J., “A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 2008, 255-276:

Engelbrecht, J. Bergsten, C. and Kågesten, O., ”Undergraduate students’ preference for procedural to conceptual solutions to mathematical problems,“ International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40:7, 2009, 927-940. :

Halloun, I.A. and Hestenes, D., “The initial knowledge state of collage physics students,” American Journal of Physics, 53:11, 1985, 1043-48. :

Mazur E., Peer instruction: a user’s manual, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1997:

Deslauriers L., Schelew E. and Wieman C., “Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class,” Science 332, 2011, 862-864. :

Gok T, “The impact of peer instruction on college students’ beliefs about physics and conceptual understanding of electricity and magnetism,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 2012, 417-436:

Pilzer, S., “Peer instruction in physics and mathematics,” PRIMUS: Problems, Resources and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 11:2, 2001, 185-192.:

Lucas A., “Using peer instruction and i-clickers to enhance student participation in Calculus,” PRIMUS: Problems, Resources and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 19:3, 2009, 219-231.:

Miller R.L., Santana-Vega E., and Terrell M.S., ”Can good questions and peer discussion improve calculus instruction?,” PRIMUS: Problems, Resources and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 16:3, 2006, 193-203. :

Epstein J., "Calculus concept inventory," electronic publication in Proceedings of the National STEM Assessment Conference 2006, retrieved from http://www.openwatermedia.com/downloads/STEM(for-posting).pdf#page=64, Jan 25, 2013. :

Brandell L., “Matematikkunskaperna 2012 hos nybörjarna på civilingenjörsprogrammen och andra program vid KTH: Bearbetning av ett förkunskapstest,” electronic publication in Swedish on the diagnostic test in mathematics at KTH, retrieved from http://www.lilahe.com/KTH2012.pdf, Jan 16, 2013. :