International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2020, Vol. 15(3) 249-266

Investigation of the Effects of a Peer-Led Team Learning Instructional Model (PLTL) in Teaching the Simple Electrical Circuits Subject on the Seven Principles for Good Practice

Fulya Zorlu & Yusuf Zorlu

pp. 249 - 266   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.270.12   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1911-13-0002.R2

Published online: September 24, 2020  |   Number of Views: 59  |  Number of Download: 224


Abstract

The aim of this study was investigated the effects of applying a Peer-Led Team Learning Instructional Model (PLTL) to the prospective primary school teachers in teaching the simple electrical circuits subject on the seven principles for good practice. This study used the three-group Solomon Experimental Design. The study participants were sophomore level prospective teachers from the Department of Primary School Teaching at a state university. The control group (CG) was applied close-ended experimental method, while the experimental groups (EG1 and EG2) was applied the PLTL. The data collection tool of the study was used “Seven Principles Opinion Scale for Good Practice” (SPOS) developed by Bishoff (2010). The SPOS was used for the pre-test of EG1 and CG, and for the post-test of EG1, EG2 and CG. Accordingly to the post-test, The experimental groups applying the PLTL were better than the control group in the “Encouraging Student-Faculty Contact”, “Encouraging Cooperation among Students”, “Respecting Diverse Talents/Ways of Learning”, “Encouraging Active Learning”, and “Giving Prompt Feedback” principles. The PLTL is effective in attaining the objectives of the seven principles for good practice. It is recommended that further studies on PLTL should be conducted in order to contribute to the relevant literature by investigating the teaching experience that leaders gain in applying the principles necessary for a good education.

Keywords: Peer-Led Team Learning Instructional Model, Seven Principles For Good Practice, Science Education, Simple Electrical Circuits Subject


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Zorlu, F. & Zorlu, Y. (2020). Investigation of the Effects of a Peer-Led Team Learning Instructional Model (PLTL) in Teaching the Simple Electrical Circuits Subject on the Seven Principles for Good Practice . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(3), 249-266. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2020.270.12

Harvard
Zorlu, F. and Zorlu, Y. (2020). Investigation of the Effects of a Peer-Led Team Learning Instructional Model (PLTL) in Teaching the Simple Electrical Circuits Subject on the Seven Principles for Good Practice . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(3), pp. 249-266.

Chicago 16th edition
Zorlu, Fulya and Yusuf Zorlu (2020). "Investigation of the Effects of a Peer-Led Team Learning Instructional Model (PLTL) in Teaching the Simple Electrical Circuits Subject on the Seven Principles for Good Practice ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 15 (3):249-266. doi:10.29329/epasr.2020.270.12.

References
  1. Ateş, S., & Polat M. (2005). The effects of learning cycle method on removing misconceptions related to electric circuits. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28, 39-47. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aydoğdu, S., Doymuş, K., & Şimşek, U. (2012). Instructors’ practice level of Chickering and Gamson learning principles. Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 2(2), 11-24. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baez-Galib, R., Colon-Cruz, H., Resto, W., & Rubin, M. R. (2005). Chem-2-Chem: A one-to-one supportive learning environment for chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(12), 1859-1863. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p1859 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Bayrakçeken, S., Doymuş, K., & Doğan, A. (2013). İşbirlikli öğrenme modeli ve uygulanması [Cooperative learning model and application]. Ankara: Pegem Academy. [Google Scholar]
  5. Beyer, B. (2001). Putting it all together to improve student thinking. In A.C. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd Edit.), (pp. 417-424). Alexandria,VI: ASCD. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bishoff, J.P. (2010). Utilization of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education in general chemistry by community college instructors [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of West Virginia. [Google Scholar]
  7. Braver, M. W. & Braver, S. L. (1988). Statistical treatment of the Solomon four-group design: A meta-analytic approach. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 150-154.  [Google Scholar]
  8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.150 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlson, K., Celotta, D. T., Curran, E., Marcus, M., & Loe, M. (2016). Assessing the impact of a multi-disciplinary peerled-team learning program on undergraduate STEM education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00862 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  10. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE bulletin, 39, 3-7. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chickering, A. W., Gamson, Z. F., & American Association for Higher Education. (1989). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education: Faculty inventory. Virginia: Institutional inventory. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chickering, A.W. (2000). Creating community within ındividual courses. New Directions for Higher Education, 109, 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.10903 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Chinn, C., O’Donnell, A. M. & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970009600650 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cousins, G. (2012). Getting our students to engage: A review of two key contributions 10 years on. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(1), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642837 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Cracolice, M. S. (2005) Evaluation of student learning in a PLTL classroom. Progressions, 6(2), 1. Available http://pltlis.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Evaluation-Cracolice-Evaluation-of-Student-Learning.pdf. Accessed March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  17. Deming, J. C., & Cracolice, M. S. (2005). Measuring the effects of peer-led team learning. Progressions, 6, 3–4. Available http://pltlis.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Evaluation-Deming-Cracolice-Measuring-Effects.pdf Accessed March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  18. Draskovic, I., Holdrinet, R., Bulte, J. Bolhuis, S., & Van Leeuwe, J. (2004). Modeling small group learning. Instructional Science, 32(6), 447-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-004-2276-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma‐Nelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Moleculer Biology Educaiton, 36(4), 262-273. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20204 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Engelhardt, P., & Beichner, R. (2004). Students' understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72, 98-115. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1614813 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Finn, K., & Campisi, J. (2005). Implementing and evaluating a peer-led team learning approach in undergraduate anatomy and physiology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 38-44.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Gosser, D. K. (2011). The PLTL boost: A critical review of research. Progressions: Journal of PLTL, 14(1), 4-19. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gosser, D. K., & Roth, V. (1998). The workshop chemistry project: Peer-led team-learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(2), 185–187. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed075p185  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Gosser, D. K., Roth, V., Gafney, L., Kampmeier, J., Strozak, V., Varma Nelson, P., & Weiner, M. (1996). Workshop chemistry: Overcoming the barriers to student success. The Chemical Educator, 1(1), 2-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00897960002a [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Gosser, D. K., Strozak, V., & Cracolice, M. S. (2006). Peer-Led Team Learning: General Chemistry (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  26. Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B. R., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source, 30(5), 50. [Google Scholar]
  27. Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16, 653–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9004-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Harwell, M. R. (2011). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. In C. Conrad & R.C. Serlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook for research in education: Pursuing ideas as the keystone of exemplary inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, E. C., Robbins, B. A., & Loui, M. C. (2015). What do students experience as peer leaders of learning teams?. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(4), 1-22. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kanlı, U. (2007). The effects of a laboratory based on the 7e model with verification laboratory approach on students’ development of science process skills and conceptual achievement [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis]. Gazi University Graduate School of Educational Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  31. Karasar, N. (2016). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kayacan, K. (2018). Fizik laboratuvarı: Elektrik. In H. Gamze Hastürk (Ed.) Teorik bilgiler ışığında fen bilimleri laboratuvar uygulamaları (pp. 179-204), Ankara: PegemA. [Google Scholar]
  33. Keenan, C. (2014). Mapping student-led peer learning in the UK. United Kingdom: Higher Education Academy. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kesmez, İ. (2008). Fen bilgisi laboratuvar uygulamaları – II. Erzurum. [Google Scholar]
  35. Küçüközer, H. (2003). Misconceptions of first year secondary school students’ about  simple electric circuits. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 25, 142-148. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lyle, K. S., & Robinson, W. R. (2003). A statistical evaluation: Peer-Led team learning in an organic chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(2), 132-134. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed080p132 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Mackay, J., & Hobden, P. (2012). Using circuit and wiring diagrams to identify students’ preconceived ideas about basic electric circuits. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2012.1074073 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. McDermott, L. C. & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity, Part 1: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60, 994-1003. [Google Scholar]
  39. Quitadamo, I. J., Brahler, C. J., & Crouch, G. J. (2009). Peer-led team learning: A prospective method for ıncreasing critical thinking in undergraduate science courses. Science Educator, 18(1), 29-39. [Google Scholar]
  40. Page, D., & Mukherjee, A. (1998). Improving undergraduate student involvement in management science and business writing courses using the seven principles in action. Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, 25, 15-19. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pallant, J. (2003). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (3rd ed.), Maidenhead: Open University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  42. Pazos, P., Micari, M., & Light, G. (2010). Developing an instrument to characterise peer‐led groups in collaborative learning environments: assessing problem‐solving approach and group interaction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 191-208. doi: 10.1080/02602930802691572 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Prensky, M. (2008). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004–1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  44. Peteroy-Kelly, M. A. (2007). A discussion group program enhances the conceptual reasoning skills of students enrolled in a large lecture-format introductory biology course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 8(1), 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  45. Reisel, J. R., Jablonski, M. R., Munson, E., & Hosseini, H. (2014). Peer-led team learning in mathematics courses for freshmen engineering and computer science students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(2), 7-15. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sencar, S., Yılmaz E. E., & Eryılmaz A. (2001). High school students’ misconceptions about simple electric circuits. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 21, 113-120 [Google Scholar]
  47. Serin, G. (2012). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının basit elektrik devresi çiziminde ve devre ile açıklamalarında yaptıkları hatalar. 11. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Sempozyumu, Rize, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  48. Setyani, N. D., Suparmi, A., Sarwanto, S., & Handhika, J. (2017). Students conception and perception of simple electrical circuit. International Conference on Science and Applied Science, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/909/1/012051 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Shipstone, D. M, Von Rhöneck, C., Jung, W., Kärrqvist, C., Dupin, J. J., Joshua, S., & Licht, P. (1988). A study of students’ understanding of electricity in five European countries. International Journal of Science Education, 10(3), 303-316.   [Google Scholar]
  50. Snyder, J. J., Carter, B. E., & Wiles, J. R. (2015). Implementation of the peer-led team learning instructional model as a stopgap measure improves student achievement for students opting out of laboratory. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0168 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of control group design. Psychological bulletin, 46(2), 137-150.  [Google Scholar]
  52. Solomon, R. L. & Lessac, M. S. (1968). A control group design for experimental studies of developmental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 70(31), 145-150. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Şimşek, U., Aydoğdu, S., & Doymuş, K. (2012). For a good education seven principle and application. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 1(4), 241-254. [Google Scholar]
  54. Tien, L. T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. A. (2004). A Course to prepare peer leaders to implement a studentassisted learning method. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(9), 1313-1321. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p1313 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Ültay, E., Ültay, N., & Dönmez-Usta, N. (2018). Examination of the lesson plans according to the 5e learning model and react strategies for “simple electric circuits” prepared by the classroom teacher candidates.  Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(3), 855-864. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.413382 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Ünal-Çoban, G. (2009). The effects of model based science education on students? conceptual understanding, science process skills, understanding of scientific knowledge and its domain of existence: The sample of 7th grade unit of light [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Dokuz Eylül University. [Google Scholar]
  57. Veenman, S., E. Denessen, A., van den Akker, A., & van der Rijt, J. (2005). Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students during help seeking and help giving. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 115–151. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042001115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Yılmaz, M. & Eren, A. (2014). Teaching the topic of simple electric circuits through simulation and laboratory practice techniques to prospective primary school teachers. Trakya University Journal of Education, 4(2), 84-99. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yılmaz, H. & Huyugüzel-Çavaş, P. (2006). 4-E öğrenme halkası yönteminin öğrencilerin elektrik konusunu anlamalarına olan etkisi. Turkish Science Education, 3(1), 1-18. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wamser, C. C. (2006). Peer-led team learning in organic chemistry: Effects on student performance, success, and persistence in the course. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(10), 1562–1566. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1562 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Webb, N. M., Farivar, S. H., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2002). Productive helping in cooperative groups. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 13-20. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wilson, S. B., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2016). Small groups, significant impact: A review of peer-led team learning research with implications for STEM education. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(10), 1686–1702. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00862 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Woodward, A., Gosser, D. K., & Weiner, M. (1993). Problem solving workshops in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(8), 651-652. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zorlu, Y., & Sezek, F. (2019). Investigation of the effects of group research method of applying modeling based teaching method in the particle structure and properties of matter unit on constructivist learning. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 9(3), 455-475. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.481295 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. Zorlu, Y., Zorlu, F., & Sezek, F. (2013). Seven principles of Chickering and Gamson for a good education by classroom teachers and pre-service classroom teachers, Journal of History School (JOHS), 6(16), 525-540. https://doi.org/10.14225/Joh316 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]