Education becomes more formal at school. There are a great many different teaching styles inspired by different educational philosophies. Likewise, there are very many learning styles based on different personalities. Every person is created differently and every person may have a slightly different learning style. However, at schools where mass teaching is done, teachers need to decide on a certain method. There are some traditional methods and some novel ones. Here we will focus on peer instruction,2 a non-traditional teaching method developed over the last decade based on physics education research, and later applied in other science teaching as well. We will also try to extract lessons from the peer instruction experience to guide us not only in learning in the classroom but also in everyday informal learning practices.

Eric Mazur is a professor of physics at Harvard University. About a decade ago, Mazur discovered that his students could not correctly answer seemingly simple qualitative questions, despite being able to work through much more difficult quantitative problems. He was shocked as he was considered to be one of the best instructors in the physics department. Mazur began to document the disparity between student performance on the two types of questions, by including on his exams paired qualitative and quantitative questions on a single physical concept. He soon confirmed that for his students, success in solving traditional physics problems did not imply that they understood the underlying physics. Many physics instructors across the United States shared Professor Mazur’s experience. Mazur started developing what is now known as peer instruction.

As the name suggests, peer instruction promotes learning through interaction with one’s peers in the classroom, in addition to listening to the instructor. This is very new, considering that many remember science classes in the form of a plain lecture, where the only player is the instructor, and the students are the audience, except for a few outgoing students who are not always appreciated by their peers. Peer instruction transforms the students into active players during the class. This is actually common sense in all our education experiences. If you just listen to an idea, you will understand very little, and retain very little. If you think about the subject matter, try to apply it in different circumstances, and finally teach it to someone else then your chance of comprehension and retention greatly improves. This is what the instructor achieves through peer instruction. The students are gently pushed toward thinking, discussing, and finally teaching each other, and so they learn more and better.

Every class in peer instruction includes three or four short mini-lectures followed by (or sometimes preceded by) a conceptual question. Students are assigned prior reading so as to come to the class prepared and to have at least some familiarity with the new concepts and terminology. Each mini-lecture’s goal is to highlight certain concepts and give the students further insight. Very different from traditional physics lectures, the instructor does not feel obligated to solve many example problems where a lot of math is needed. That is done through homework and during the problem sessions, which are usually administered by teaching assistants. Between mini-lectures three to five conceptual questions are distributed. Each conceptual question is a qualitative multiple-choice question that gives students and the instructor a means to assess what students have learned. Most questions are asked twice. In the first stage, the instructor shows the question on a projector screen and reads it aloud. Each student is asked to think individually about the answer. No talking is allowed. At the end of this first one- or two-minute period, the instructor asks the students to show their responses. This can be done with flashcards, or electronic transmitters (clickers). A flashcard may have the choices (A, B, C, …), or the instructor may prefer to use color flashcards. Some schools provide students with clickers (or students buy them), and the instructor has the receiver that is connected to a computer.

After receiving the answers from the students, the instructor assesses the situation. If there are only a few correct answers, then the question was asked prematurely. If there are only a few incorrect answers, then the question was too easy, no more time is devoted to that concept. However, in most cases the instructor selects a question to which 30–70% of the answers will be correct. Then, in the second stage, without giving the correct answer, the instructor asks the students to turn to their peers sitting next to them, and discuss the answer and its reasoning. This is peer instruction. These interactions between students have proven very useful. At the end of the second stage, which typically lasts two to three minutes, the instructor asks the students to show their responses to the same question once again. It has been shown that most of the time the number of correct answers goes up. Clearly, success is conditional on the pre-class reading, a mini-lecture that highlights the concepts, and selection of the carefully designed conceptual questions. Based on the responses, the instructor can decide whether to elaborate on the topic or proceed to something new.

Here is a conceptual question3 that may be asked while studying the law of gravitation:

The Moon does not fall to Earth because…

1. it is in the Earth’s gravitational field.

2. the net force on it is zero.

3. it is beyond the main pull of the Earth’s gravity.

4. it is being pulled by the Sun and planets as well as by the Earth.

5. All of the above.

6. None of the above.

At this point we suggest that the reader should think about this question before reading the next paragraph, which includes the correct answer at the end. If possible, ask someone near you and discuss your reasoning.

This question is carefully designed with choices representing various misconceptions. For example, any student with some introductory knowledge of physics will accept that if the net force on an object is zero, then the object will not move, so it is tempting for some students to say, “Oh, yes. The Moon does not fall to Earth. This means that the net force on it is zero!” Or, everybody has a direct experience of the gravitational pull of the Earth. You jump and you fall to Earth. You cannot escape. Again, it is tempting to say that the Moon is beyond the main pull of the Earth’s gravity, but that is not true because if there were not enough gravitational force on the Moon, it would escape the Earth’s orbit. Option 4, for example, is correct as a statement. By virtue of having a mass, the moon is pulled by the Sun and other planets. One might tend to think that there is a balance between the gravitational forces applied by the Earth and other heavenly objects. But, no, that is not the actual reason for the Moon not to fall to Earth. None of the options alone gives the correct answer. Since two of the options (2 and 3) are incorrect, the correct answer to this question is option 6, “None of the above.” The correct answer is that the Moon orbits the Earth as well as being pulled by its gravitational force. The reason the Moon keeps changing its direction is the gravitational pull of the Earth. The Moon was given an initial speed so that it does not fall. If the Moon should stop at any instant, it would fall to Earth.

To reiterate our main point, peer instruction causes students to think through and apply a general principle to different cases through conceptual questions and teach each other what they have just learned. That is, our brain becomes much more active, and it is forced to synthesize difference pieces of information, rather than keeping busy with factual information only.

Research has shown that peer instruction improves the learning gains of the students greatly.4,5,6,7 Peer instruction has been used in astronomy, chemistry, biology, and mathematics as well. How can we benefit from the peer instruction experience to improve our everyday teaching and learning practices? Before trying to answer this question, let us remember occasions when we learn and teach in our daily lives. We teach and learn when we talk to our friends. When we browse through a newspaper, listen to the radio, or watch a TV program, we are bombarded with information. We read books hoping to learn something from them.

The first message we should receive from the success of peer instruction is that passive listening and watching only injects a lot of information in a short time into our memories. Because such information is not processed with an active mind, or we do not try to apply it in different situations, we should be aware that such information might not be so reliable in general. The irony is that many people in the twenty-first century look to the TV, movies, and radios for information. On the TV screen we see twenty-four pictures every second, that is, about a quarter million pictures daily, if we watch TV for three hours per day. In order for TV and radio to be useful, as peer instruction shows, viewers and listeners need to stop and think about what they have just seen and listened to. If possible, then turn to a friend, discuss what you have just watched and get their opinion. Try to teach what you have just learned and see the reaction of people around you.

When we read we have more time to think. We should gently push our brains to make connections with what we know, and what we have just read. What is the purpose? What is the message? Why is this significant? Then again, try to teach it to a friend, enter into a short discussion. This can really help minimize misconceptions and refine our understanding. It will help us assimilate the information, and make it our own. As Nursi puts it, “A learned guide should be a sheep not a bird. A sheep gives its lamb milk, while a bird gives its chick regurgitated food.”8 Yes, we should try to digest information, and our chances of digesting it improves with continuous thought, meaningful discussions, and when we try to teach someone else, just like what happens in peer instruction.

Notes:

1.Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Words, The Twenty-Third Word, Fourth point, NJ, The Light: 2005, pp 331–32.

2.http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/research/detailspage.php?ed=1&rowid=8.

3.Eric Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.

4.D. Meltzer, and K. Manivannan, Am. J. Phys. 70, June 2002.

5.Mark C. James, Am. J. Phys. 74, August 2006.

6.Catherine H. Crouch and Eric Mazur, Am. J. Phys. 69, September 2001.

7.T. J. Bensky, Am. J. Phys. 71, November 2003.

8.Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Letters, Seeds of Truths, NJ, The Light: 2007, pp 445-458.

Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is characterized by inattentiveness, impulsivity, and excessive activity (DSM IV; American Psychiatric Association 1994), and has a prevalence rate of 3 percent to 5 percent (Pelham, Wheeler, and Chronis 1998). Children with ADHD also have a high risk of experiencing academic (Henker and Whalen 1989) and social problems in school (Landau and Milich 1988).

ADHD is one of the most prominent expressions used in schools to describe children who do not stay put,” meaning that they have too much energy and excitement during class and recess time. Although these observations could be the results of teacher or staff misperceptions, they also may be symptoms of ADHD, childhood depression, or consequences of an unstructured environment. In most cases, behavior that differs from peers is a combination of the above factors.

However, sometimes we have to identify those with ADHD to serve them appropriately via proper individualized programs and possibly medicine. Longitudinal studies suggest that such children are likely to experience problems related to social functioning at an early age and throughout adolescence and into adulthood (Weiss and Hechtman 1986). These problems can be seen in various situations (e.g., home, school, community), across people (e.g., parents, siblings, teachers, peers) and activities (e.g., academic work, play, recreation) (Carey 1996).

For example, Fischer et al. (1993) studied the behavioral ratings of 108 children meeting research diagnostic criteria for hyperactivity, as well as a control sample of 61 children. They ranged in age of 4 to 12, and were followed over 8 years into adolescence and young adulthood. Those diagnosed as hyperactive remained more deviant in the ratings than the control children during follow-up observations. A decline in deviant behavior was observed for individual children, although the end results were still more deviant than those of the control children.

Hansen, Weiss, and Last’s (1999) more recent longitudinal study produced some encouraging results. This study compared the psychosocial functioning in 18 young adult men who had been diagnosed with ADHD 10 years ago. Their average age at the time of follow-up was 21. The researchers matched their subjects with 18 male controls who had never had any kind of psychiatric illness.

Through the use of interviews to assess subjects’ educational, occupational, residential and marital status, as well as use of mental health services and psychological status (experience of depression, anxiety, drugs and alcohol problems), they discovered that young adults with ADHD were significantly more likely than control subjects to be using mental health services, report psychological problems, and have fathered children. School dropout rates were higher for subjects with ADHD; however, they were likely to attain a graduate equivalency diploma. Men with ADHD had higher rates of trouble with the law; however, they did not differ significantly from controls in terms of current legal problems.

This study gives hope for the future of young adults with ADHD, as they appear to have overcome the various educational and legal difficulties experienced during high school. In the area of psychological functioning, results are consistent with the findings of other longitudinal studies. In general, though, the above studies indicate that we should expect the children with ADHD to continue to have problems in the social domain, since they remained at a disadvantaged state in psychological functioning and still rated behaviorally as being deviant after 8 and 10 years.

Peer relationships

The longitudinal study of Cowen et al. (1973) demonstrates the link between early peer problems and later maladjustment. In this study, children were asked to nominate their peers according to both positive and negative qualifications. Negative nominations of third-grade class peers were found to be the best predictor of psychiatric problems when a follow-up was conducted when the children were 11 to 13 years old. This result indicates the seriousness and consistency of problems experienced in peer relationships as early as 9 years of age.

In addition, peer rejection has been found to correlate with premature dropping out of school, juvenile delinquency, job termination, poor military performance, police contact, and psychiatric hospitalization (Parker and Asher 1987).

However, the difference between correlation and causation needs to be considered when interpreting these studies. In their chapter of Assessment of Children’s Social Status and Peer Relations (1990), Landau and Milich emphasize that linkages found between peer rejection and later difficulties are correlational, and not causal.

Generalization of social skills training programs

There are many social skills training programs designed to increase peer acceptance. Some of the most common are ACCEPTS (not an acronym), ACCESS (not an acronym), Skillstreaming, Think Aloud, ASSET (not an acronym), RECESS (Reprogramming Environmental Contingencies for Effective Social Skills), and PEERS (Procedures for Establishing Effective Peer Relationship Skills) (DuPaul and Eckert 1994). Although these programs are taught as solutions to peer relationship problems, teaching children in isolation and then expecting them to perform successfully in real life is usually not a successful strategy.

DuPaul and Eckert reviewed the literature and found a total of only seven studies that had used commercially available social skills training programs that considered generalizing skills to real-life situations. To assess the generalization over time, those seven studies did follow up assessments 1 to 3 months after treatment ended. The authors concluded this period too brief to be able to assert that intervention is generalized. They stress the effects of treatment being more prominent in those studies using multiple strategies to promote generalization. Among those strategies, teaching social skills within a real environment seemed to be the most fruitful one.

The generalization issues of social skills trainings also are discussed by Carey and Stoner (1994). They suggest considering a technology of applied behavioral analysis and application of strategies to ensure the maintenance of newly learned behaviors reinforced by natural contingencies In this context, applied behavioral analysis is defined as studying what happens in the environment before, during, and after the problematic behaviors’ occurrence, and then rearranging the environmental factors to promote the desired behaviors and suppress the problematic behaviors.

Another similar discussion is found in Moore (1994). She argues that behaviors which are not functional for the child, will not generalize. The behavior’s functionality is defined as how much the behaviors are linked to socially meaningful outcomes or elicit natural reinforcements from the environment. She further states that an increase in social interaction and eliminating negative behaviors do not ensure peer acceptance. Instead, documenting concomitant increases in positive, reinforcing, pro-social behaviors, which have been linked to peer acceptance, popularity, and friendship, was suggested. She also mentions the importance of designing interventions for particular children in particular settings, rather than using a one-size-fits-all program.

Most recently Sheridan, Hungelmann, and Maughan (1999) explained the contextualized framework for the purpose of linking assessment to intervention and generalization planning. They state that identifying target behaviors that are critical for a child to socialize successfully is poorly understood. In other words, behaviors that predict positive social status in immediate social context are unclear, although clinicians and researchers often assume that the skills being taught in structured settings are those that are relevant in places and at times that extend beyond training. However, little empirical research has been done on whether these skills are actually important for children’s abilities to develop and maintain social relationships (Sheridan et al. 1999).

According to Sheridan et al., two methods can be used to select meaningful target skills. The first one is to normatively compare the target child with children considered socially adjusted. This involves listing the behaviors believed to increase peer acceptance and decrease rejection, and comparing the rating of each child in the peer group. This social comparison method allows researchers to determine whether the child’s behavior following intervention is similar to the peers’ behavior.

The second method is template matching, or identifying relevant and meaningful social behaviors based on input from significant others and peers by asking them to identify the most important behaviors for them in a particular social context. Sheridan et al. emphasize doing direct observations of socially desirable behaviors, recording the narrative descriptions, and then collecting them from the social recipients. Then the intervention would focus on decreasing the discrepancy between the template and the target child’s behaviors, utilizing the qualities listed in the template as the intervention’s objectives.

What are the social dynamics?

Hymel (1986) demonstrated that children interpret identical actions in different ways, depending on their liking of the actor. They tend to credit liked peers for positive behavior, and make excuses rather than blame them for negative behavior. Moreover, for children who are disliked, positive behavior is perceived as a result of unstable causes that are unlikely to recur. Children were found to be not so eager to change their perceptions of disliked peers or to expect more positive behaviors from them in the future when they notice behavioral improvements.

In 1949, 24 boys from similar backgrounds were brought to an isolated site to test two hypotheses:

1. When individuals having no established relationships are brought together to interact in group activities with common goals, they produce a group structure with hierarchical statuses and roles.

2. If those artificially formed groups are brought into a functional relationship under conditions of competition and group frustration, reciprocal hostile attitudes and actions will arise across groups.

The results obtained through direct observations of the children’s behavior confirmed those two hypotheses. The study was replicated later with the addition of a new component. Superordinate goals that could be accomplished only by the cooperation of both groups were induced to reduce inter-group tension and integrate the two hostile groups. Sheriff and Harvey reduced the inter-group tension and formed a new group by integrating the two groups back together by creating a problem that would affect both of them negatively.

Conclusion

The above-mentioned empirical studies calls for a reconsideration of the issue, and possibly the addition of new conditions: Children with ADHD are likely to be rejected by their peers and therefore will drop out of school and will be in trouble with law, unless more effective programs specializing in manipulating social dynamics are developed, along with equipping children with ADHD with the necessary social behaviors by using direct instruction and guided practice.

References

• Achenbach, T. M. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: Univ. of Vermont: 1991.
• American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
• Bloom, M., J. Fischer, and J. G. Orme. Evaluating Practice: Guidelines for the Accountable Professional. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1999
• Carey, S. P. and G. Stoner. Contextual Considerations in Social Skills Instruction. School Psychology Quarterly 9 (1994): 137-41.
• Carey, J. P. Training Parents To Arrange and Monitor Peer Social Activities for Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Oregon, 1996.
• Cowen, E. et al. Long-term Follow-up of Early Detected Vulnerable Children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 41 (1973): 438-46.
• DuPaul, G. J. and T. L. Eckert. The Effects of Social Skills Curricula: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t. School Psychology Quarterly 9 (1994): 113-32.
• Fischer, M. et al. The Stability of Dimensions of Behavior in ADHD and Normal Children over an
• 8-year Follow-up. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 21, no. 3 (1993): 315-37.
• Hansen, C., D. Weiss, and C. G. Last. ADHD Boys in Young Adulthood: Psychosocial Adjustment. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 38:2 (1999): 165-71.
• Henker, B. and C. K. Whalen. Hyperactivity and Attention Deficits. American Psychologist 44 (1989): 216-23.
• Hook, C. L. and G. J. DuPaul. Parent Tutoring for Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Effects on Reading Performance at Home and School. School Psychology Review 28, no. 1 (1999): 60-75.
• Hymel, S. Interpretations of Peer Behavior: Affective Bias in Childhood and Adolescents. Child Development 57 (1986): 431-45.
• Landau, S. and R. Milich. Social Communication Patterns of Attention-deficit Disordered Boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 16 (1988): 69-81.
• Assessment of Children’s Social Status and Peer Relations. In Through the Eyes of the Child, edited by A. M. La Greca. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1990, 259-91.
• Moore, Lisa A. The Effects of Social Skills Curricula: Were They Apparent Initially? School Psychology Quarterly (1994): 9.
• Parker, J. G. and Asher, S. R. Peer Relations and Later Personal Development: Are Low Accepted Children At Risk? Psychological Bulletin 102 (1987): 357-89.
• Pelham, W. E. Jr., T. Wheeler, and A. Chronis. Empirically Supported Psychosocial Treatments for Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, no. 2 (1998): 190-205.
• Sheridan, S. M., A. Hungelmann, and D. P. Maughan A Contextualized Framework for Social Skills Assessment, Intervention, and Generalization. School Psychology Review 28, no. 1 (1999): 84-103.
• Sheriff, Muzafer and O. J. Harvey. Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: Institute of Group Relations, 1961.
• Weiss, G. and L. Hechtman. Hyperactive Children Grown Up. New York: Guilford Press: 1986.
• White, Karen J., K. Jones, and Michelle D. Sherman. Reputation Information and Teacher Feedback: Their Influences on Children’s Perceptions of Behavior Problem Peers. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology 17, no. 1 (1998): 11-37.