An easy and effective teaching method that raises standards

Dr. Eric Mazur, from Harvard has developed and refined the concept of Peer Instruction - a straightforward method for teaching classes interactively. The method has developed a large following, both nationally and internationally, and research indicates the very positive impact of his approach on rasing standards.

Essentially, his method involves asking students a question, then asking them how confident they are of their answer. Once the results are in the correct answer is NOT given - but instead the class is asked to debate any discrepancies and convince each other of the “correct” answer. The test is then taken again and the answer revealed. The impact of the method on standards is profound with gains of over 20% when applied consistantly as an approach and where the students adapt to the ‘peer instruction’ model.

So how does it work in an example….

Working with Grant Wiggins, author of Understanding by Design and innovative curricula based on “Backwards Design” and “Essential Questions”, Promethean performed exactly this method using Activote to an audience at his conference at Princeton.

When first asked, the physics question about the forces acting on a steel ball that was thrown in the air revealed a spread of responses but a fair level of confidence from the group. After some lively debate and the second asking of the question - the responses had clearly narrowed onto one option and the group confidence was very high. It was then revealed that the group was in fact wrong and had convinced themselves that they were correct. By now they were very emotionally engaged and desperate to know what they had got wrong… The answer that the bulk of the group had setlled on was in fact incorrect because of a common misinterpretation about forces and the nub of it related to a short phrase in the question.

So… most of them got the wrong answer…?

So the method is not making them get the correct answer… How can that be good…?

Well that is the best thing about this method.

If they had got it correct the teacher would move on knowing just how secure the class and the individuals in it were in their ideas… but in this case the teacher had all the information they needed to intervene most effectively and correct the students misconception while building on their emotional engagement to ensure it sticks. In fact the teacher could just say they were wrong - and ask them to “think again” and get them to solve it themselves and justify it back to the teacher.

Of course this raises deeper questions about the role of the teacher as facilitator and the power of group based teaching and learning. If the students were working in a box, independently, online and relying on the University of google for their facts and with little or no immediate feedback and discussion from a facilitator - would they be in danger of reinforcing the misconception to a point where it would be a challenge to unlearn it?

This is a very simple idea to apply with either Activote or Expression which has instant click “Confidence Check” and “Agreement Check” options to support exactly this kind of interaction.

You do not need a voing system to do this - but it really helps - and you get all the data for making fully informed decisions if you do.