Volume 6 Issue 3 (2017)

A Review of the Importance of Peer Instruction Argumentative Strategy (PIAS) in Science Learning

pp. 42-55  |  Published Online: September 2017  |  DOI: 10.22521/edupij.2017.63.4

Aina Jacob Kola

Abstract

The paper believes the method a teacher employed in science class for instruction makes students’ learning difficult. A literature review of some common methods of teaching in science was done. The paper highlighted the conceptual framework of the Peer Instruction Argumentative Strategy (PIAS) and discussed the importance of PIAS to science learning. The paper recommended PIAS for science education classes based on its perceived advantages over the other teaching strategies.

Keywords: peer instruction, authentic learning, coaching and scaffolding, constructivism

References

Abell, S. K., Anderson, G., & Chezem. J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 65-79). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Acar, O. (2015). Examination of science learning equity through argumentation and traditional instruction noting differences in socio-economic status. Science Education International, 26(1), 24-41.

Afolabi, A., Izuagba, A., Obiefuna, C., & Ifegbo, P. (2015). Effects of the use of lecture method and wordle on the performance of students taught curriculum studies 1: EDU222. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(18), 142-149.

Aina, J. K. (2017a). An investigation of incorporating dialogical argumentation into peer instruction (PI) for pre-service teacher learning of current electricity. Üniversitepark Bülten, 6(1), 7-19.

Aina, J. K. (2017b). Developing a constructivist model for effective physics learning. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 1(4), 59-67.

Al-Fadhli, S., & Khalfan, A. (2009). Developing critical thinking in e-learning environment: Kuwait University as a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 529-536.

Al-Rawi, I. (2013). Teaching methodology and its effects on quality learning. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(6), 100-105.

Ameh, I-Ei., Daniel, B. P., & Akus, Y. (2007). Research and Methods in the Social Sciences. Ankpa: Rowis press.

Andersson, S. B., & Andersson, I. (2005). Authentic learning in a sociocultural framework: A case study on non-formal learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(4), 419-436.

Apedoe, X., Walker, S., & Reeves, T. (2006). Integrating inquiry-based learning into undergraduate geology. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(3), 414–421.

Aufschnaiter, C. V., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST), 45(1), 101-131.

Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context: Technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348-379.

Berry, W. (2008). Surviving lecture: A pedagogical alternative. College Teaching, 56(3), 149-153.

Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2009). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498.

Chard, S. C. (2011). The project approach. Retrieved September 23, 2016, from http://www.projectapproach.org/project_approach.php .

Chikuni, B. (2003). The Teachers `Handbook. A practical approach to Teaching. Gwanda: Flame Publishers.

Christie, A. (2005). Constructivism and its implications for educators. Retrieved from http://alicechristie.com/edtech/learning/constructivism/index.htm.

Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, C. (2007). Peer Instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Research-Based Reform of University Physics. Retrieved from www.mazur.harvard.edu/sentFiles/Mazurpubs_537.pdf.

Daluba, N. Y. (2013). Effects of demonstration method of teaching in students’ achievement in agricultural science. World Journal of Education, 3(6), 1-7.

Darner, R., Callis, K. L., & Wolf, J. R. (2013, August). Online discussions as a tool to engage students in authentic scientific argumentation. Paper presented at the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, Illinois.

Fagen, A. P. (2003). Assessing and enhancing the introductory science courses in physics and biology: Peer Instruction, classroom demonstration, and genetic vocabulary. (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.9785&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Flores, K. L., Matkin, G. S., Burbach, M. E., Quinn, C. E., & Harding, H. (2012). Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduate: Implications for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(2), 212-230.

Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523.

Gehlen-Baum, V., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Teaching, learning, and media use in today’s Lectures. Computers in Human Behaviour, 37(C), 171-182.

Gok, T. (2012). 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(2), 417-436.

Hatim, A. H. (2001). Toward more objective teaching. Iraqi Journal of Medical Science, 9(2), 99-101.

Herrington, J. A. (1997). Authentic learning in interactive multimedia environments. (Doctoral dissertation). Joondalup, Western Australia: Edith Cowan University. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1478.

Herrington, J., & Kelvin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: 10 Suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York: Routledge.

Holubova, R. (2008). Effective teaching methods–project-based learning in Physics. US-China Education Review, 5(2), 27-36.

Holzbaur. (2010). Projects as a method of training, teaching and research education. In S. Soomro (Ed.), New achievements in technology education and development (pp. 63-88). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.

Hunter, J. C. (2014). Reflecting on lab practices. Education, 134(3), 380-383.

Iline, C. S. (2013). Impacts of demonstration method in the teaching and learning of hearing Impaired children. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 12(1), 48-54.

Irinoye, J., Bamidele, E. F., Adetunji, A. A., & Awodele, B. A. (2015). Relative Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Demonstration Methods on Students Performance in Practical Chemistry in Secondary Schools in Osun State, Nigeria. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2(2), 21-30.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2003). Controversy and peace education. Journal of Research in Education, 13(11), 71-91.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2007). Creative Controversy: Intellectual challenge in the Classroom (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction.

Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898-921.

Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, Teaching, and Technology (pp. 55-61). Zurich, Switzerland: Global Text Project. Retrieved from https://textbookequity.org/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf

Knoll, M. (1997). The project method: Its vocational education origin and international development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3), 59-80.

Knoll, M. (2014). Laboratory School, University of Chicago. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy (Vol. 2. pp. 455-458). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuhn, D. (2009). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.

Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to Support Inquiry Learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495-523.

Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76(11), http://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.2978182 .

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Löfgren, R., Schoultz, J., Hultman, G., & Björklund, L. (2013). Exploratory talking science education: inquiry-based learning and communicative approach in primary school. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(4), 482-495.

Looi, C. K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). 1:1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: A study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 269-287.

Maun, M. A., & Winnitoy, T. (1980). Demonstration-an effective technique in teaching biology. Journal of Agronomic Education, 80-84.

McKee, E., Williamson, V. M., & Ruebush, L. E. (2007). Effects of a demonstration laboratory on student learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 395-400.

Miles, R. (2015). Tutorial instruction in science education. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 10(2), 168-179.

Milson, A. J. (2002). The internet and inquiry learning: Integrating medium and method in a sixth-grade social studies classroom. Theory & Research in Social Education, 30(3), 330–353.

Mundi, N. E. (2006). The state of students’ academic achievement in secondary school agricultural science in Kogi State. Teacher Education Journal (TEJ), 12(1), 14-19.

Norris, S., Philips, L., & Osborne, J. (2007). Scientific inquiry: The place of interpretation and argumentation. In J. Luft, R. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting, (pp. 87-149). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347.

Owen, R. C. (2006). The role of demonstration. In D. M. Matteson & D. K. Freeman (Eds.), Assessing and teaching beginning readers: a picture is worth 1000 words (pp. 11-26), Katonah N: Richard C. Owen.

Pattnaik, C., Chakradeo, C. A., & Banerjee, S. (2014). Methods of teaching science. M.A EDUCATION. PAPER-V. Retrieved from http://ddceutkal.ac.in/Syllabus/MA.../Education_Paper_5_SCIENCE.pdf

Peffer, M. E., Beckler, M. L., Schunn, C., & Recnken, M. (2014). Science classroom inquiry (SCI) simulations: A novel method to scaffold science learning. PLoS ONE, 10(3), 1-14.

Ramos, J. L. S., Dolipas, B. B., & Villamor, B. B. (2013). Higher order thinking skills and academic performance in Physics of college students: A regression analysis. International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research, 4, 48-60.

Rao, S. P., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advances in Physiology Education, 24(1), 51-55.

Rosenberg, J. L., Lorenzo, M., & Mazur, E. (2006). Peer instruction: making science engaging. In J. J. Mintzes & W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of college science teaching (pp. 77–85). Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teaches Association. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Peer+Instruction+:+Making+Science+Engaging#0

Rule, A. (2006). Editorial: The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic Learning, 3(1), 1-10.

Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education: Helping Students Understand the Nature of Scientific Argumentation So They Can Meet the New Science Standards. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 30-33.

Schoffstall, A. M., & Gaddis, B. A. (2007). Incorporating guided-inquiry learning into the organic chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(5), 848-851.

Schreiber, L. M., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small group classroom. Small Group Research, 44(4), 395-411.

Sekerci, A. R., & Canpolat, N. (2014). Impact of Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory on Conceptual Comprehension of Turkish Students. Educational Process: International Journal, 3(1-2), 19-34.

Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.

Siseho, S. (2012). Effect of an argumentation instructional Model on Pre Service Teachers’ ability to implement a Science-IKS curriculum (Doctoral dissertation). Cape Town, South Africa: University of the Western Cape. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259230472.

Sola, A. O., & Ojo, O. E. (2007). Effects of project, inquiry and lecture-demonstration teaching methods on senior secondary students’ achievement in separation of mixtures practical test. Educational Research and Review, 2(6), 124-132.

Szállassy, N. (2008). Project method, as one of the basic methods of environmental education. Acta Didactical Napocensia, 1(2), 44-49.

Tatar, N. (2012). Inquiry-based science laboratories: an analysis of pre-service teachers’ beliefs about learning science through inquiry and their performances. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(3), 248-266.

The Science Teacher. (2013). Scientific argumentation. Excerpts of six articles ENSI lessons for argumentation. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 1-2.

Thomas, O. O., & Israel, O. O. (2013). Assessing the relative effectiveness of three teaching methods in the measurement of students ’ achievement in physics. International Journal of Materials, Methods and Technologies, 1(8), 116-125.

Walker, C. L., Shore, B. M., & French, L. R. (2011). A theoretical context for examining students’ preference across ability levels for learning alone or in groups. High Ability Studies, 22(1), 119-141.

Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: effects of collaborative and authentic learning practices in pre-service education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 301-321.

Western Michigan University. (2006). Lecture Demonstration. ED 3780 – Part, G. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://www.weber.edu/wsuimages/COE/SecondaryCore/InterdisciplinaryStrategies/3780bookG0806.pdf.

Announcement

COPE Membership

Cope logo. 

Educational Process: International Journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

Call for Papers

EDUPIJ is calling for submissions to the Volume 7, Issue 1, 2018. Submission Deadline: January 31, 2018.