1. Confessions of a converted lecturer
The University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, UK, April 1, 2011

2. My message
shift focus from “teaching” to helping students learn

3. Outline
• Education

4. Outline
• Education
• Peer Instruction

5. Outline
• Education
• Peer Instruction
• Results

6. Education

7. Education
lectures focus on delivery of information

8. Education
education is not just information transfer
25
1990
20 FCI pretest
15
count
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
score

9. Education
education is not just information transfer
25
1990
20 FCI posttest
15
count
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
score

10. Education
education is not just information transfer
25
1990
20 combined
15
count
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
score

11. Education
change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100
80 1990
combined
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
initial score, Si (%)

12. Education
change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100
80 1990
combined
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
initial score, Si (%)

13. Education
change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100
80
pe
60 rfe
ct
sc
or
40 e
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
initial score, Si (%)

14. Education
change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100
80
pe
60 rfe
ct
sc
or
40 e
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
initial score, Si (%)
R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)

15. Education
only one quarter of maximum gain realized
change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100
1.
00
Sf – Si
80 g=
1 – Si
pe
60 rfe
ct
sc
or
40 e
0.23
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
initial score, Si (%)
R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)

16. Education
not transfer but assimilation of information is key

17. Education
conventional problems misleading
12 V
4
2 Q
P
H
6
8V

18. Education
conventional problems misleading
Calculate:
12 V
(a) current in 2-W resistor 4
(b) potential difference 2
P Q
between P and Q 6
H
8V

19. Education
are the basic principles understood?
A
B
C
H S

20. Education
are the basic principles understood?
When S is closed, what happens to:
(a) intensities of A and B?
A
B
C
(b) intensity of C?
(c) current through battery?
H S
(d) potential difference across
A, B, and C?
(e) the total power dissipated?

21. Education
conventional conceptual
80 80
60 60
count
count
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
score score

22. Education
conventional conceptual
80 80
average 6.9 average 4.9
60 60
count
count
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
score score

23. Education
conceptual problem 100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
conventional problem

24. Education
conceptual problem 100
80 9%
60
52%
40
39%
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
conventional problem

25. So what should we do?

26. Peer Instruction
Give students more responsibility for gathering information…

27. Peer Instruction
Give students more responsibility for gathering information…
so we can better help them assimilate it.

28. Peer Instruction
Main features:
• pre-class reading
• in-class: depth, not ‘coverage’
• ConcepTests

29. Peer Instruction
ConcepTest:
1. Question
2. Thinking
3. Individual answer
4. Peer discussion
5. Revised/Group answer
6. Explanation

31. Results
is it any good?

32. Results
first year of implementing PI
25
1991
20 FCI pretest
15
count
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
score

33. Results
first year of implementing PI
25
1991
20 FCI posttest
15
count
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
score

34. Results
first year of implementing PI
25
1991
20 combined
15
count
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
score

35. Results
change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100
1.
00
Sf – Si
80 g=
1 – Si
pe
60 rfe
ct
sc
or
40 e
0.23
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
initial score, Si (%)

36. Results
change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100
1.
00
Sf – Si
80 g=
1 – Si
pe
60 rfe
ct
sc
or
40 e
0.23
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
initial score, Si (%)

37. Results
change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100
1.
00
Sf – Si
80 g=
1 – Si
pe
60 rfe
ct
sc
or
40 e
0.23
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
initial score, Si (%)
R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)

38. Results
change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100
1.
00
Sf – Si
80 g=
1 – Si
pe
60 rfe
ct
0.48 sc
or
40 e
0.23
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
initial score, Si (%)
R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)

39. Results
what about problem solving?

40. Results
25
1985
20 exam scores
15
count
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
exam score (%)

41. Results
25
1991
20 exam scores
15
count
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
exam score (%)

42. Results
25
1985/91
20 exam scores
15
count
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
exam score (%)

43. Summary
So better understanding leads to better
problem solving!

44. Summary
So better understanding leads to better
problem solving!
(but “good” problem solving doesn’t always
indicate understanding!)

46. Summary
Traditional indicators of success misleading

47. Summary
Traditional indicators of success misleading
Education is no longer about information

48. Many thanks to:
Universidad de Chile and MECESUP Project UCH0808
Learning Technologies Interactive and Turning Technologies
Funding:
National Science Foundation
for a copy of this presentation:
http://mazur-www.harvard.edu
Follow me! eric_mazur

53. Funding:
National Science Foundation
for a copy of this presentation:
http://mazur-www.harvard.edu
Follow me! eric_mazur