The impact of inquiry-based, group-work approaches to instruction on both students and their peer leaders

George Bodner 1, Ridvan Elmas 2 *
More Detail
1 Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
2 Department of Science Education, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 51-66. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9546
OPEN ACCESS   3510 Views   1694 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Discipline-based educational research (DBER) has shown that three instructional techniques – Supplemental Instruction (SI), Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), and Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) – can be effective ways of improving student performance in chemistry courses at the K-12 or college/university levels. The goal of this paper is to use an analysis of the literature to compare and contrast these instructional techniques and, when possible, to determine “best practices” for their implementation. Particular attention will be paid to four themes related to the impact of PLTL on students, impact on peer-team-leaders, how to motivate peer leaders, and impact of peer leaders on the instructors who implement PLTL in their classroom.
Keywords: Peers, Peer Tutoring, Peer Leaders, Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL), Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), Supplemental Instruction (SI)

CITATION

Bodner, G., & Elmas, R. (2020). The impact of inquiry-based, group-work approaches to instruction on both students and their peer leaders. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9546

REFERENCES

  • Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1986). The sequence of learning cycle activities in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(2), 121-143.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.
  • Apugliese, A., & Lewis, S. E. (2017). Impact of instructional decisions on the effectiveness of cooperative learning in chemistry through meta-analysis. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 271-278.
  • Arendale, D. R. (1994). Understanding the supplemental instruction model. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994(60), 11-21.
  • Bhattacharyya, G., & Bodner, G. M. (2014). Culturing reality: how organic chemistry graduate students develop into practitioners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(6), 694-713.
  • Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1-22.
  • Blanc, R. A., DeBuhr, L. E., & Martin, D. C. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle: The effects of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 80-90.
  • Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge, Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873-878.
  • Bodner, G.M. & Metz, P. A. (2014). Twenty-five Years of Experience with Cooperative Learning in Chemistry, in Part 1, Teaching and Learning Chemistry, in Devetak, I., Gkažar, S. A., Eds., Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom, Springer, Berlin, pp. 129-148.
  • Bodner, G. M. (2015). Understanding the change toward a greener chemistry by those who do chemistry and those who teach chemistry, in Relevant Chemistry Education – From Theory to Practice, Eilks, I. and Hofstein, A., Eds., Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 263-284.
  • Bowman-Perrott, L., Davis, H., Vannest, K., Williams, L., Greenwood, C., & Parker, R. (2013). Academic benefits of peer tutoring: A meta-analytic review of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 39.
  • Brickhouse, N. W., Bodner, G. M. (1992). The Beginning Science Teacher: Narratives of Convictions and Constraints, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471-485.
  • Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the" conversation of mankind." College English, 46(7), 635-652.
  • Burmeister, S. L. (1996). Supplemental Instruction: An interview with Deanna Martin. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(1), 22-26.
  • Chan, J. Y., & Bauer, C. F. (2015). Effect of peer led team learning (PLTL) on student achievement, attitude, and self concept in college general chemistry in randomized and quasi experimental designs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 319-346.
  • Congos, D. H., &Schoeps, N. (1993). Does supplemental instruction really work and what is it anyway?. Studies in Higher Education, 18(2), 165-176.
  • Conway, C. J. (2014). Effects of guided inquiry versus lecture instruction on final grade distribution in a one-semester organic and biochemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(4), 480-483.
  • Cracolice, M. S., & Deming, J. C. (2001). A new teaching model focuses on student achievement through active learning Peer-led team learning. The Science Teacher, 68(1), 20.
  • Darnell, A., Becvar, J., Flores, B., Knaust, H., Lopez, J. &Tinajero, J. (2013). Achieving student success using Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL). Conference Proceedings of the Peer-Led Team Learning International Society, May 17-19, 2012, New York City College of Technology of the City University of New York, www.pltlis.org; ISSN 2329-2113.
  • Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014). On the effectiveness of supplemental instruction: A systematic review of supplemental instruction and peer-assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 609-639.
  • Ding, N., &Harskamp, E. G. (2011). Collaboration and peer tutoring in chemistry laboratory education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 839-863.
  • Drane, D., Micari, M., & Light, G. (2014). Students as teachers: effectiveness of a peer-led STEM learning programme over 10 years. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(3), 210-230.
  • Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma Nelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in Science. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262-273.
  • Elmas, R., &Geban, Ö. (2016). The Effect of Context-Based Chemistry Instruction on 9th Grade Students' Understanding of Cleaning Agents Topic and Their Attitude toward Environment. Education and Science, 41(185), 33-50.
  • Eren-Sisman, E. N., Cigdemoglu, C., &Geban, Ö. (2018). The effect of peer-led team learning on undergraduate engineering students’ conceptual understanding, state anxiety, and social anxiety. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3), 694-210.
  • Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children's problem solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 157-169.
  • Frey, R. F., Fink, A., Cahill, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., & Solomon, E. D. (2018). Peer-Led Team Learning in General Chemistry I: Interactions with Identity, Academic Preparation, and a Course-Based Intervention. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(12), 2103-2113.
  • Gafney, L., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2007). Evaluating peer-led team learning: A study of long-term effects on former workshop peer leaders. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(3), 535.
  • Gerena, L. &Keiler, L. (2012) Effective Intervention with Urban Secondary English Language Learners: How Peer Instructors Support Learning, Bilingual Research Journal, 35(1), 76-97.
  • Gilbert, B. D. (2015). Engaging Non-Majors in Chemistry through Brewing and POGIL. In Ethanol and Education: Alcohol as a Theme for Teaching Chemistry, Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society, pp. 69-81.
  • Gosser, D., Roth, V., Gafney, L., Kampmeier, J., Strozak, V., Varma-Nelson, P., Radel, S. and Weiner, M.(1996). Workshop chemistry: Overcoming the barriers to student success. The Chemical Educator, 1(1), pp.1-17.
  • Gosser, D. K., & Roth, V. (1998). The workshop chemistry project: Peer-led team-learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(2), 185.
  • Gosser, D. K., Cracolice, M.S., Kampmeier, J.A., Roth, V., Strozak, V.S., & Varma-Nelson, P. (Eds.). (2001). Peer-led team learning: A guidebook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Gosser, D. K., Strozak, V.S., Cracolice, M.S. (2006). Peer-Led team learning general chemistry (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Groccia, J. E., & Miller, J. E. (1996). Collegiality in the classroom: The use of peer learning assistants in cooperative learning in introductory biology. Innovative Higher Education, 21(2), 87-100.
  • Hanson, D. M. (2006). Instructor's guide to process-oriented guided-inquiry learning. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
  • Hein, S. M. (2012). Positive impacts using POGIL in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 860-864.
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
  • Hockings, S. C., DeAngelis, K. J., & Frey, R. F. (2008). Peer-led team learning in general chemistry: implementation and evaluation. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(7), 990.
  • Hu, H. H., Lang, M., Kussmaul, C., Mayfield, C., &Pirmann, T. (2014, March). Guided inquiry learning in context: perspectives on POGIL in CS. In SIGCSE (pp. 467-468).
  • Hunnicutt, S. S., Grushow, A., &Whitnell, R. (2014). Guided-inquiry experiments for physical chemistry: The POGIL-PCL model. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(2), 262-268.
  • Kampmeier, J. A., Varma-Nelson, P., Wamser, C. C., Wedegaertner, D. K. (2006). Peer-led team learning organic chemistry (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall
  • King, A., Staffieri, A., &Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 134.
  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
  • Lazonder, A. W., &Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-718.
  • Lewis, S. E., & Lewis, J. E. (2005). Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(1), 135.
  • Lewis, S. E., & Lewis, J. E. (2008). Seeking effectiveness and equity in a large college chemistry course: An HLM investigation of peer led guided inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 794-811.
  • Light, R. J. (1992). Explorations with students and faculty about teaching, learning, and student life. Memo to the Faculty Number 28, the University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved 4/18/2017 from http://www.colorado.edu/ftep/sites/default/files/attached-files/ftep_memo_to_faculty_28.pdf
  • Liou-Mark, J., Ghosh-Dastidar, U., Samaroo, D., &Villatoro, M. (2018). The peer-led team learning leadership program for first year minority science, technology, engineering, and mathematics students. Journal of Peer Learning, 11(1), 65-75.
  • Lyle, K. S., & Robinson, W. R. (2003). A statistical evaluation: Peer-led team learning in an organic chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(2), 132-134.
  • Malm, J., Bryngfors, L., &Mörner, L. L. (2012). Supplemental instruction for improving first-year results in engineering studies. Studies in Higher Education, 37(6), 655-666.
  • Micari, M., & Light, G. (2009). Reliance to Independence: Approaches to learning in peer led undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workshops. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1713-1741.
  • Micari, M., Pazos, P., Streitwieser, B., & Light, G. (2010). Small-group learning in undergraduate STEM disciplines: Effect of group type on student achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(3), 269-286.
  • Micari, M., Streitwieser, B., & Light, G. (2006). Undergraduates leading undergraduates: Peer facilitation in a science workshop program. Innovative Higher Education, 30(4), 269-288.
  • Miller, V., Oldfield, E., & Bulmer, M. (2012). Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) in first-year chemistry and statistics courses: insights and evaluations. In Proceedings of the Australian conference on science and mathematics education (formerly UniServe Science Conference), Vol. 10.
  • Minderhout, V. &Loertsher, J. (2008). Facilitation: The role of the instructor. In R. S. Moog and J. N. Spencer (ed.), Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
  • Mitchell, Y. D., Ippolito, J., & Lewis, S. E. (2012). Evaluating peer-led team learning across the two semester general chemistry sequence. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 378–383.
  • Moog, R. S. & Spencer, J. N. (2008). POGIL: An overview. In R. S. Moog and J. N. Spencer (ed.), Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
  • Moog, R.S., Creegan, F.J., Hanson, D.M., Spencer, J.N., Straumanis, A.R., Bunce, D.M. &Wolfskill, T. (2009). POGIL: Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning. In Chemists' Guide to Effective Teaching Volume II, Pienta, N.J., Cooper, M.M. &Greenbowe, T.J., Eds.; Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Muller, O., Shacham, M., &Herscovitz, O. (2017). Peer-led team learning in a college of engineering: First-year students’ achievements and peer leaders’ gains. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(6), 660-671.
  • Parkinson, M. (2009). The effect of peer-assisted learning support (PALS) on performance in mathematics and chemistry. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,46(4), 381-392.
  • Pazos, P., Micari, M., & Light, G. (2010). Developing an instrument to characterize peer led groups in collaborative learning environments: assessing problem solving approach and group interaction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 191-208.
  • Peterfreund, A. R., Rath, K. A., Xenos, S. P., &Bayliss, F. (2008). The impact of supplemental instruction on students in STEM courses: Results from San Francisco State University. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(4), 487-503.
  • PLTL website. https://sites.google.com/view/pltl
  • POGIL website: https://www.pogil.org/
  • Quitadamo, I. J., Brahler, C. J., & Crouch, G. J. (2009). Peer-led team learning: A prospective method for increasing critical thinking in undergraduate science courses. Science Educator, 18(1), 29.
  • Rath, K. A., Peterfreund, A. R., Xenos, S. P., Bayliss, F., & Carnal, N. (2007). Supplemental instruction in introductory biology I: Enhancing the performance and retention of underrepresented minority students. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 6(3), 203-216.
  • Reynolds, S. (2008). Evidence-based practice: A critical appraisal. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Reyes Hernández, C.G., Carmona Pulido, J.M., De la Garza Chapa, R.I., Serna Vázquez, R.P., Alcalá Briones, R.D., Plasencia Banda, P.M., Villarreal Silva, E.E., Jacobo Baca, G., de la Garza Castro, O., Elizondo Omaña, R.E. and Guzmán López, S. (2015). Near peer teaching strategy in a large human anatomy course: Perceptions of near peer instructors. Anatomical Sciences Education, 8(2), 189-193.
  • Roth, V., Goldstein, E., & Marcus, G. (2001). Peer-led team learning: A handbook for team leaders (Vol. 9). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Ruder, S. M. Hunnicutt, S. S. (2008) POGIL in chemistry courses at a large urban university: A case study, in R. S. Moog, J. N. Spencer, Eds., Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
  • Shields, S. P., Hogrebe, M. C., Spees, W. M., Handlin, L. B., Noelken, G. P., Riley, J. M., & Frey, R. F. (2012). A transition program for underprepared students in general chemistry: Diagnosis, implementation, and evaluation. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(8), 995-1000.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-31.
  • Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
  • Sloane, J., Snyder, J. J., & Wiles, J. R. (2017). Peer-Led Team Learning improves minority student retention in STEM majors. bioRxiv, 200071.
  • Smith, J., Wilson, S. B., Banks, J., Zhu, L., & Varma Nelson, P. (2014). Replicating Peer Led Team Learning in cyberspace: Research, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(6), 714-740.
  • Snyder, J. J., Carter, B. E., & Wiles, J. R. (2015). Implementation of the peer-led team-learning instructional model as a stopgap measure improves student achievement for students opting out of laboratory. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 14, 1-6.
  • Snyder, J. J., Sloane, J. D., Dunk, R. D., & Wiles, J. R. (2016). Peer-led team learning helps minority students succeed. PLoS biology, 14(3), e1002398.
  • Spencer, J. N., Bodner, G. M., & Rickard, L. H. (2011). Chemistry: Structure and dynamics, 5th Ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. E. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, p. 159.
  • Stewart, B. N., Amar, F. G., & Bruce, M. R. (2007). Challenges and rewards of offering peer-led team learning (PLTL) in a large general chemistry course. Australian Journal of Education in Chemistry, 67, 31-36.
  • Straumanis, A., & Simons, E. A. (2008). A multi-institutional assessment of the use of POGIL in Organic Chemistry. In R. S. Moog and J. N. Spencer (ed.), Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
  • Streitwieser, B., & Light, G. (2010). When Undergraduates Teach Undergraduates: Conceptions of and Approaches to Teaching in a Peer Led Team Learning Intervention in the STEM Disciplines--Results of a Two Year Study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(3), 346-356.
  • Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children's peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207.
  • Tenney, A., & Houck, B. (2003). Peer-led team learning in introductory biology and chemistry courses: A parallel approach. The Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 6, 11-20.
  • Tenney, A., & Houck, B. (2004). Learning about leadership. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(6), 25.
  • Tien, L. T., Roth, V., &Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606-632.
  • Tocco, V. J., Buettner, K. E., Sciullo, M., Curtis, J. S., Butler, J. E. (2018) Work in Progress: Peer Led Research Methods Workshop for First Year Ph.D. Students. 2018 ASEE Southeastern Section March 4-6, 2018 at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Daytona Beach, Florida.
  • Treisman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college. The College Mathematics Journal, 23(5), 362-372.
  • Trout, L. (2012). POGIL activities for high-school chemistry. Batavia, IL: Flinn Scientific
  • Tudge, J. (1992). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implications for classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155-172). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  • Wagner, L. (1982). Peer teaching: Historical perspectives. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  • Wamser, C. C. (2006). Peer-led team learning in organic chemistry: Effects on student performance, success, and persistence in the course. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(10), 1562.
  • Webb, N. M., &Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle-school mathematics. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, (pp. 117–150).
  • Wilson, S. B. (2015). A comparison of first-semester organic chemistry students' experiences and mastery of curved-arrow formalism in face-to-face and cyber peer-led team learning, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
  • Wilson, S. B., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2016). Small Groups, Significant Impact: A Review of Peer-Led Team Learning Research with Implications for STEM Education Researchers and Faculty. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(10), 1686-1702.
  • Wilson, S. B., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2018). Characterization of First-Semester Organic Chemistry Peer-Led Team Learning and Cyber Peer-Led Team Learning Students’ Use and Explanation of Electron-Pushing Formalism. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(1), 25-34.
  • Woodward, A. E., Weiner, M., &Gosser, D. (1993). Problem-solving workshops in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(8), 651.
  • Yezierski, E. J, Bauer, C. F., Hunnicutt, S.S., Hanson, D. M., Amaral, K. E., & Schneider, J. P. (2008). POGIL implementation in large classes, in R. S. Moog,J. N. Spencer, Eds., Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.