In modern times, active forms of learning and teaching have been increasingly emphasized in the primary school. This way the peer cooperation has been put forward, and all the students in the classroom have benefited from it. One of the techniques of the peer cooperation is Peer Instruction, which helps students in a pair or within a group to find the right solution and at the same time to get rid of some misconceptions that are often present in science. This technique is most often used with students at the university or in a high school and is very rarely used in the second triade of primary school. In the empirical part of this Master's thesis we were researching the progress of pupils of the 4th grade of primary school in the subject of Natural Science and Technology, then we focused on the differences in the progress of individual pupils in terms of their overall success and what is their general opinion about the use of this technique. In the study we used the descriptive method and also the qualitative and the quantitative approach. The sampling method was non-randomized and goal-oriented. 26 pupils of the selected primary school were included in the study. There were 5 different contents (Earth motion, matters, magnetism, forces and movements, electricity), each of them dealt within 2 lessons, taught by the Peer Instruction approach. The data was collected by using the Turning Point program and the “clickers”. After the last collection of data with ''clickers'', the pupils filled out a questionnaire about the relevance and their interest into the Peer Instruction approach. The results of the research show that with the help of this technique all the pupils progressed in all contents and that the overall learning success doesn't affect the progress of an individual pupil. However, for the selected sample, it is considered, that pupils who progressed the most, have an average overall success (grade 3). The pupils were satisfied with the technique despite the fact that 65 % of pupils evaluated the questions as “too difficult”. They reflected that they had deepened the topics better with this technique. They liked the pair work and the use of ''clickers''. The results of the research cannot be generalized, but they provide a good point for some further research.
|