• Tolga GokEmail author


The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of strategic problem solving with peer instruction on college students’ performance in physics. The students enrolled in 2 sections of a physics course were studied; 1 section was the treatment group and the other section was the comparison group. Students in the treatment group received peer instruction with systematic problem-solving strategies whereas students in the comparison group received only peer instruction. Data were collected on physics achievement, problem-solving strategies, homework problems, and students’ opinions about the instruction. Results indicated that the treatment group students’ homework and achievement test performances as well as their visualizing, solving, and checking habits improved relative to the comparison group students, which did not change noticeably. Treatment group students also changed their perspective on solving a problem and found the method helpful to connect the quantitative solution with concepts. These results revealed that the method could be implemented with little effort so as to assess and enhance student performance in science classrooms.


higher education peer instruction physics education physics performance problem solving problem-solving strategies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Crouch, C. H. & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P. & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. In E. F. Redish & P. Cooney (Eds.), Reviews in physics education research (Vol. 1, 11 p.). College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers. Available from Scholar
  3. Ford, C. L. & Yore, L. D. (2012). Toward convergence of critical thinking, metacognition, and reflection: Illustrations from natural and social sciences, teacher education, and classroom practice. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 251–271). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gok, T. (2010). The general assessment of problem solving processes and metacognition in physics education. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 2(2), 110–122.Google Scholar
  5. Gok, T. (2011). Development of problem solving strategy steps scale: Study of validation and reliability. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(1), 151–161.Google Scholar
  6. Gok, T. (2012a). The effects of peer instruction on students’ conceptual learning and motivation. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  7. Gok, T. (2012b). 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, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gok, T. (2012c). Real-time assessment of problem-solving of physics students using computer-based technology. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 43, 210–221.Google Scholar
  9. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harskamp, E. & Ding, N. (2006). Structured collaboration versus individual learning in solving physics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 1669–1688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heller, P., Keith, R. & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60, 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hutcheson, G. D. & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social science scientist: Statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Koponen, I. & Nousiainen, M. (2013). Pre-service physics teachers’ understanding of the relational structure of physics concepts: Organizing subject contents for purposes of teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lasry, N., Mazur, E. & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76(11), 1066–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, H. S. & Park, J. (2013). Deductive reasoning to teach Newton’s law of motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 1391–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C. H. & Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics, 74(2), 118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Mazur, E. & Watkins, J. (2010). Just in time teaching and peer instruction. In S. Scott & M. Mark (Eds.), Just in time teaching: Across the disciplines, and across the academy (pp. 39–62). Sterling, VA: Stylus.Google Scholar
  19. McDermott, L. C. (2001). Oersted medal lecture 2001: Physics education research—the key to student learning. American Journal of Physics, 69(11), 1127–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicol, D. J. & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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, 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course CLVI, Research on Physics Education, Italy, 156, 1–64.Google Scholar
  23. Reif, F. (1995). Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. American Journal of Physics, 63(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seung, E. (2013). The process of physics teaching assistants’ pedagogical content knowledge development. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 1303–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N. & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K. & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases leaning from in-class concept questions. CBE-Life Science Education, 10, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sutopu & Waldrip, B. (2013). Impact of a representational approach on students’ reasoning and conceptual understanding in learning mechanics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9431-y.Google Scholar
  28. Tipler, P. A. & Mosca, G. (2008). Physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics. New York, NY: WH Freeman.Google Scholar
  29. Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 891–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zitzewitz, P. W., Elliott, T. G., Haase, D. G., Harper, K. A., Herzog, M. R., Nelson, J. B., … Zorn, M. K. (2005). Physics principles and problems. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dokuz Eylul UniversityİzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations