Peer Instruction: Comparing Clickers to Flashcards

TL;DR

This study compares the effectiveness of clickers and flashcards in Peer Instruction, finding no significant difference in learning outcomes but highlighting other teaching advantages of clickers.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence that clickers do not enhance conceptual learning more than flashcards in Peer Instruction.

Findings

Clickers do not improve conceptual understanding over flashcards.

Both methods yield similar problem-solving skills.

Clickers offer teaching advantages beyond learning outcomes.

Abstract

Peer Instruction (PI) is a student-centered instructional approach developed at Harvard by Eric Mazur (1997). The method has been welcomed by the science community and adopted by a large number of colleges and universities, due among other reasons to its common sense approach and its documented effectiveness. In PI, the progression of any given class depends on the outcome of real-time student feedback to ConcepTests: multiple-choice conceptual questions. In the early 1990s, students responded to ConcepTests using flashcards showing their answer. Instructors would then estimate the proportion of students holding each alternative conception. A few years later Mazur began using wireless handheld devices - colloquially called clickers- to replace the flashcards. Previous users of clickers in university classrooms had reported benefits such as increased rates of attendance and decreased rates of attrition (Owens et al., 2004; Lopez-Herrejon & Schulman, 2004). This paper empirically measures the specific contribution of clickers to conceptual learning and traditional problem solving skills as compared to low-budget flashcards. Results show that clickers do not provide any learning advantage when compared to flashcards. Nevertheless, clickers offer many advantages from a teaching perspective which should be considered.