Journal of Academic Development and Education JADE Issue 11 Summer 2019 | Page 51

2004; Schell et al., 2013). However, 55% of STEM
courses in the U.S. are still taught by lecturing, 27%
by lecturing with some form of interactivity, and only
18% are fully student-centered (Stains et al., 2018).
Pedagogy
Collaborative and cooperative learning are two
pedagogical approaches that encourage students
to work in groups (Miller & Groccia, 1997; Prince,
2004). Although the two terms are often used
interchangeably, the two approaches differ in the
way they assess students: collaborative learning
assesses students in groups, whereas cooperative
learning assesses them individually (Miller & Groccia,
1997). The most common example of collaborative
learning technique is team-based learning (TBL)
(Michaelsen et al., 1982; Prince, 2004). There are
many ways to implement cooperative learning in the
classroom (e.g., McConnell et al., 2017), and the one
of the most widely used in STEM courses is peer
instruction (Mazur, 1997).
Peer instruction utilises student interactions to
focus students’ attention and learning on concepts
instead of memorization. It uses the ConcepTest
approach: first the instructor gives a short lecture
about a key point followed by a short, conceptual
question about the subject (Mazur, 1997; McConnell
et al., 2006; Crouch et al., 2007; McConnell et
al., 2017). Students respond first to the question
individually. After responding, students are not
shown the correct answer. Instead, they discuss or
debate their answers with neighbours and answer
the question a second time. This is also where
students are engaging in cooperative, social learning
(McConnell et al., 2006, 2017; Stoltzfus, 2016).
These discussions allow students to formulate their
ideas in their own words, think through arguments,
and provide them with a way to judge their own
understanding of the concept (Mazur, 1997; Crouch
et al., 2007).
Peer instruction adds variety for the students and
the instructor, allows students to put their thoughts
into their own words, increases problem-solving
skills, understanding of concepts, and engagement.
It has been shown to result in higher student grades,
it creates social bonds, can correct misconceptions,
and improves attitudes toward science (Mazur, 1997;
McConnell et al., 2006, 2017; Crouch et al., 2007;
Schell et al., 2013). It can be implemented relatively
easily, and can be used in classrooms of a variety of
sizes.
The goal of this paper is to provide an overview
of the most common web-based audience
response system technology and to introduce
Learning Catalytics™, the student response system
technology that most closely implements the peer
instruction model. It also briefly describes how it is
used to support the Just-In-Time Teaching pedagogy
Learning technology for student engagement
Student Response Systems
The challenge in implementing peer instructions in
large enrollment courses is in recording students’
answers. When Eric Mazur first introduced peer
instruction and ConcepTests in his physics classes
at Harvard University in the early 1990s, students
used coloured flashcards, with four different colours
for four possible answers (Mazur, 1997). Students
would place the side with their chosen answer in
front of their chest, allowing the instructor to view
the colours from the front of the auditorium, but not
the rest of the students. When students were asked
to find a partner to discuss their answer, they would
be directed to a student with a different colour card
(Prud’homme-Generaux, 2017). While this form of
formative assessment was pedagogically effective,
it did not allow the instructor to record students’
answers and give them credit.
Mazur and some of his students developed the
first student response system (SRS) to record
student answers. Various companies picked up
on the concept, and developed SRSs or “clickers”
using either infrared or radio frequency technology:
the first large and clunky models quickly became
the size of small calculators. Their effectiveness
Article #3
51