Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 729–734 | Cite as

Student Reciprocal Peer Teaching as a Method for Active Learning: An Experience in an Electrotechnical Laboratory

  • Miguel A. Muñoz-García
  • Guillermo P. Moreda
  • Natalia Hernández-Sánchez
  • Vanesa Valiño
Article

Abstract

Active learning is one of the most efficient mechanisms for learning, according to the psychology of learning. When students act as teachers for other students, the communication is more fluent and knowledge is transferred easier than in a traditional classroom. This teaching method is referred to in the literature as reciprocal peer teaching. In this study, the method is applied to laboratory sessions of a higher education institution course, and the students who act as teachers are referred to as “laboratory monitors.” A particular way to select the monitors and its impact in the final marks is proposed. A total of 181 students participated in the experiment, experiences with laboratory monitors are discussed, and methods for motivating and training laboratory monitors and regular students are proposed. The types of laboratory sessions that can be led by classmates are discussed. This work is related to the changes in teaching methods in the Spanish higher education system, prompted by the Bologna Process for the construction of the European Higher Education Area

Keywords

Electrical Engineering education Student experiments Active learning Reciprocal peer teaching Laboratory monitor 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We want to thank to Sophie Feintuch, Erasmus Mundus Master’s Student from Vassar College, for her contributions and corrections, and to the students and professors that participated in the experiment.

References

  1. Allen AR, Boraks N (1978) Peer tutoring: putting it to the test. Read Teacher 32(3):274–278Google Scholar
  2. Barak M, Shachar A (2008) Projects in technology education and fostering learning: the potential and its realization. J Sci Educ Technol 17(3):285–296. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9098-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentley BS, Hill RV (2009) Objective and subjective assessment of reciprocal peer teaching in medical gross anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ 2:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cano MD (2011) Student’s involvement in continuous assessment methodologies: a case study for a distributed information system course. IEEE Trans Educ 54(3):442–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chatterjee B, Dey D, Chakravorti S (2011) A modular approach for teaching partial discharge phenomenon through experiment. IEEE Trans Educ 54(3):410–415. doi: 10.1109/TE.2010.2063432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de la Hoz i Casas J, de Blas del Hoyo A (2009) Learning by doing’ methodology applied to the practical teaching of electrical machines. Int J Electr Eng Educ 46(2):133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fólder RM, Brent R, Prince MJ (2011) Engineering instructional development: programs, best practices and Recommendations. J Eng Educ 100(1):89–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goubeaud K (2009) How is science learning assessed at the postsecondary level? Assessment and grading practices in college biology, chemistry and physics. J Sci Educ Technol 19(3):237–245. doi: 10.1007/s10956-009-9196-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta A, Elby A (2011) Beyond epistemological deficits: dynamic explanations of engineering students’ difficulties with mathematical sense-making. Int J Sci Educ, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.551551
  10. Jiusto S, Dibiasio D (2006) Experiential learning environments: do they prepare our students to be self-directed, life-long learners? J Eng Educ, pp. 195–204Google Scholar
  11. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA (1998) Active learning: cooperation in the college classroom. Interaction Book Co, EdinaGoogle Scholar
  12. Krouk BI, Zhuravleva OB (2009) Dynamic training elements in circuit theory course to implement a self-directed learning process. IEEE Trans Educ 52(3):394–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin C, Tsai C (2009) The relationships between students’ conceptions of learning engineering and their preferences for classroom and laboratory learning environments. J Eng Educ, pp. 194–204Google Scholar
  14. Magdalena R, Serrano AJ, Martin-Guerrero JD, Rosado A, Martinez M (2008) A teaching laboratory in analog electronics: changes to address the bologna requirements. IEEE Trans Educ 51-4:456–460. doi: 10.1109/TE.2007.912553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McKee E, Williamson VM, Ruebush LE (2007) Effects of a demonstration laboratory on student learning. J Sci Educ Technol 16(5):395–400. doi: 10.1007/s10956-007-9064-4 Google Scholar
  16. McNair LD, Newswander C, Boden D, Borrego M (2011) Student and faculty interdisciplinary identities in self-managed teams. J Eng Educ 100(2):374–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Swart AJ (2010) Does it matter which comes first in a curriculum for engineering students—theory or practice?”. Int J Electr Eng Educ 47(2):189–199Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel A. Muñoz-García
    • 1
  • Guillermo P. Moreda
    • 1
  • Natalia Hernández-Sánchez
    • 1
  • Vanesa Valiño
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Rural EngineeringTechnical University of MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Energy SystemsTechnical University of MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations