Facilitating Active Collaborative Learning in Medical Education; a Literature Review of Peer Instruction Method

References

• Cooke M, Irby D, O’Brien B. Educating Physicians: A Call for Reform of Medical School and Residency. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Vickrey T, Rosploch K, Rahmanian R, Pilarz M, Stains M. Research-based implementation of peer instruction: a literature review. CBE. 2015;14(1). doi:10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
   Google Scholar
• Tullis JG, Goldstone RL. Why does peer instruction benefit student learning? Cognit Res. 2020;5(1). doi:10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5
   Google Scholar
• Knight JK, Brame CJ. Peer instruction. CBE. 2018;17(2). doi:10.1187/cbe.18-02-0025
   Google Scholar
• Mazur E, Hilborn RC. Peer Instruction: a user’s manual. Physics Today. 1997;50(4):68–69. doi:10.1063/1.881735
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell JE. Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE. 2007;6(1):9–20. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
   Google Scholar
• Schell JA, Butler AC. Insights from the science of learning can inform the evidence-based implementation of peer instruction. Front Educ. 2018;2018:3.
   Google Scholar
• Crouch CH, Mazur E. Peer instruction: ten Years of experience and results. Am J Phys. 2001;69(9):970–977. doi:10.1119/1.1374249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagen AP, Crouch CH, Mazur E. Peer instruction: results from a range of classrooms. Phys Teach. 2002;40(4):206–209. doi:10.1119/1.1474140
   Google Scholar
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT. An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ Res. 2009;38(5):365–379. doi:10.3102/0013189X09339057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi M. Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognit Sci. 1994;18(3):439–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novak GM, Patterson ET, Gavrin AD, Christian W, Forinash K. Just in Time Teaching. Am J Phys. 1999;67(10):937–938. doi:10.1119/1.19159
   Google Scholar
• Marrs KA, Novak G. Just-in-time teaching in biology: creating an active learner classroom using the Internet. Cell Bio Educ. 2004;3(1):49–61. doi:10.1187/cbe.03-11-0022
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. App Meas Educ. 2002;15(3):309–333. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight JK, Wise SB, Southard KM. Understanding clicker discussions: student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. CBE. 2013;12(4):645–654. doi:10.1187/cbe.13-05-0090
   Google Scholar
• Zingaro D, Porter L. Peer instruction in computing: the value of instructor intervention. Comput Educ. 2014;71:87–96. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modell H, Michael J, Wenderoth MP. Helping the learner to learn: the role of uncovering misconceptions. Am Bio Teach. 2005;67(1):20–26. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2005)067[0020:HTLTLT]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay RH, LeSage A. Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature. Comput Educ. 2009;53(3):819–827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossgrove K, Curran KL. Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2008;7(1):146–154. doi:10.1187/cbe.07-08-0060
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasry N. Clickers or flashcards: is there really a difference? The Physics Teach. 2008;46(4):242–244. doi:10.1119/1.2895678
   Google Scholar
• Judson E, Sawada AD. Learning from past and present: electronic response systems in college lecture halls. J Comput Math Sci Teach. 2002;21(2):167–181.
   Google Scholar
• Turpen C, Finkelstein ND. The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: students perceive differences. Phys Rev Spec Top. 2010;6(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020123
   Google Scholar
• Stevens NT, McDermott H, Boland F, Pawlikowska T, Humphreys H. A comparative study: do “clickers” increase student engagement in multidisciplinary clinical microbiology teaching? BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1). doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0906-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stoddard HA, Piquette CA. A controlled study of improvements in student exam performance with the use of an audience response system during medical school lectures. Acad Med. 2010;85:1. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ed3b40
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priego-Quesada JI, Jimenez-Perez I, Cibrián Ortiz de Anda RM, González-Peña R, Salvador Palmer R. Effect of in-class group Clicker-quiz competition on Student final exam performance. Adva Physiol Educ. 2019;43(3):430–434. doi:10.1152/advan.00032.2019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander CJ, Crescini WM, Juskewitch JE, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(4):160–166. doi:10.1002/ase.99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek T, Wang W, Medvedev I, Wile M, O’Brien T. Use of a computerized audience response system in medical student teaching: its effect on active learning and exam performance. In: Proceedings of E-Learn 2006--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education; San Diego, CA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); 2006
   Google Scholar
• Arneja JS, Narasimhan K, Bouwman D, Bridge PD. Qualitative and quantitative outcomes of audience response systems as an educational tool in a plastic surgery residency program. Plast Reconst Surg. 2009;124(6):2179–2184. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bcf11f
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hettinger A, Spurgeon J, El-Mallakh R, Fitzgerald B. Using audience response system technology and prite questions to improve psychiatric residents’ medical knowledge. Acad Psych. 2014;38(2):205–208. doi:10.1007/s40596-014-0058-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benson JD, Szucs KA, DeIuliis ED, Leri A. Impact of student response systems on initial learning and retention of course content in health sciences students. J Allied Health. 2017;46(3):158–163.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lyman FT. Think-pair-share: an expanding teaching technique. MAA. 1987;1:1–2.
   Google Scholar
• Cortright RN, Collins HL, DiCarlo SE. Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: ability to solve novel problems. Adv Physiol Educ. 2005;29(2):107–111. doi:10.1152/advan.00060.2004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald D. Employing think–pair–share in associate degree nursing curriculum. Teach Learni Nurs. 2013;8(3):88–90. doi:10.1016/j.teln.2013.01.006
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter PB, Poliak A, Wang L, Ownby AR, Hsieh P. Improved performance in and preference for using think‐pair‐share in a flipped classroom. Med Educ. 2020;54(5):449–450. doi:10.1111/medu.14085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao SP, DiCarlo SE. Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advan Physiol Educ. 2000;24(1):51–55. doi:10.1152/advances.2000.24.1.51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trout MJ, Borges N, Koles P. Modified peer instruction improves examination scores in pharmacology. Med Educ. 2014;48(11):1112–1113. doi:10.1111/medu.12590
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteeg M, van Blankenstein FM, Putter H, Steendijk P. Peer instruction improves comprehension and transfer of physiological concepts: a randomized comparison with self-explanation. Advan Health Sci Educ. 2018;24(1):151–165. doi:10.1007/s10459-018-9858-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marina-Gonzalez N, Hernandez-Guerra M, Quintero E. Peer instruction transforms the medical science classroom. University College of London: Teaching & Learning Case Studies; 2018. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/case-studies/2018/sep/peer-instruction-transforms-medical-science-classroom. Accessed September 26, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Passeri SM, Mazur E. Peer instruction-based feedback sessions improve the retention of knowledge in medical students. Rev Brasil Educ Méd. 2019;43(3):155–162. doi:10.1590/1981-52712015v43n2rb20180230
   Google Scholar
• Schuller MC, DaRosa DA, Crandall ML. Using just-in-time teaching and peer instruction in a residency program’s core curriculum. Acad Med. 2015;90(3):384–391. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000578
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt M, Blue A, Aschenbrener CA, Viggiano TR. Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice. Reforming health care by transforming health professionals’ education. Acade Med. 2011;86(11):1351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan NS, Shahnaz SI, Gomathi KG. Currently available tools and teaching strategies for the interprofessional education of students in health professions: literature review. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2016;16(3):e277–285. doi:10.18295/squmj.2016.16.03.003
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bucheit J, Patel R, Pallay R. The peer instruction method: an alternative approach for facilitating interprofessional education. Society of Teachers of Family Medicine- Educational Columns; 2015. Available from: https://www.stfm.org/publicationsresearch/publications/educationcolumns/2015/august/. Accessed September 26, 2023.
   Google Scholar