On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories

American Journal of Physics

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 45-54

  Redish, Edward F ^a   Saul, Jeffery M ^a   Steinberg, Richard N ^a  

^a Bldg 142   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031542159     PISSN: 00029505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1119/1.18498     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, "Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension," Am. J. Phys. 48, 1020-1028 (1980); L. Viennot, "Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics," Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205-221 (1979); I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 1056-1065 (1985); J. Clement, "Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics," ibid. 50, 66-71 (1982); R. Beichner, "Testing student interpretation of kinematic graphs," ibid. 62, 750-762 (1994).
2. D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, "Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension," Am. J. Phys. 48, 1020-1028 (1980); L. Viennot, "Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics," Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205-221 (1979); I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 1056-1065 (1985); J. Clement, "Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics," ibid. 50, 66-71 (1982); R. Beichner, "Testing student interpretation of kinematic graphs," ibid. 62, 750-762 (1994).
3. D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, "Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension," Am. J. Phys. 48, 1020-1028 (1980); L. Viennot, "Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics," Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205-221 (1979); I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 1056-1065 (1985); J. Clement, "Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics," ibid. 50, 66-71 (1982); R. Beichner, "Testing student interpretation of kinematic graphs," ibid. 62, 750-762 (1994).
4. D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, "Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension," Am. J. Phys. 48, 1020-1028 (1980); L. Viennot, "Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics," Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205-221 (1979); I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 1056-1065 (1985); J. Clement, "Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics," ibid. 50, 66-71 (1982); R. Beichner, "Testing student interpretation of kinematic graphs," ibid. 62, 750-762 (1994).
5. D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, "Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension," Am. J. Phys. 48, 1020-1028 (1980); L. Viennot, "Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics," Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205-221 (1979); I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J. Phys. 53 1056-1065 (1985); J. Clement, "Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics," ibid. 50, 66-71 (1982); R. Beichner, "Testing student interpretation of kinematic graphs," ibid. 62, 750-762 (1994).
6. See D. I. Dykstra, Jr., "Wondering about physics...Using computers and spreadsheet software in physics instruction," in The Conference on Computers in Physics Instruction, Proceedings, edited by E. F. Redish and J. S. Risley (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1990), pp. 362-375 and references therein.
7. In this paper, we use the term MBL to refer not simply to the use of a microcomputer to collect and display data, but to laboratory activities using microcomputers in which there is an attempt to actively engage students intellectually and to help them construct an understanding of the relevant concepts.
8. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, "Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools," Am. J. Phys. 58, 858-867 (1990).
9. The poor results achieved by students on the velocity graph questions, despite traditional instruction in the subject, might be interpreted as difficulties in reading graphs and not as a confusion on concept. However, the fact that students succeed at a much higher rate on position graphs, plus the reports of interviews from many researchers indicate that this is a confusion of concept, not just of representation.
10. R. K. Thornton, "Tools for Scientific Thinking: Learning Physical Concepts with Real-Time Laboratory Measurement Tools," in The Conference on Computers in Physics Instruction, Proceedings, edited by E. F. Redish and J. S. Risley (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1990), pp. 177-189.
11. For example, L. C. McDermott et al., Physics by Inquiry (Wiley, New York, 1995), C. J. Camp et al., Preconceptions in Mechanics: Lessons Dealing with Conceptual Difficulties (Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, IA, 1994).
12. For example, L. C. McDermott et al., Physics by Inquiry (Wiley, New York, 1995), C. J. Camp et al., Preconceptions in Mechanics: Lessons Dealing with Conceptual Difficulties (Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, IA, 1994).
13. The textbook for all semesters reported was P. A. Tipler, Physics for Scientists and Engineers (Worth, New York, 1991), 3rd ed.
14. This was confirmed by the results of the Hestenes test reported below and by interviews associated with another one of our projects.
15. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (University of Washington, Seattle, 1991-present). For a description of tutorials as used at the University of Washington and experimental results using them, see L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. D. Somers, "Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwoods's machine," Am. J. Phys. 62, 46-55 (1994); P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part [I: Design of instructional strategies," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992).
16. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (University of Washington, Seattle, 1991-present). For a description of tutorials as used at the University of Washington and experimental results using them, see L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. D. Somers, "Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwoods's machine," Am. J. Phys. 62, 46-55 (1994); P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part [I: Design of instructional strategies," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992).
17. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (University of Washington, Seattle, 1991-present). For a description of tutorials as used at the University of Washington and experimental results using them, see L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. D. Somers, "Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwoods's machine," Am. J. Phys. 62, 46-55 (1994); P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part [I: Design of instructional strategies," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992).
18. R. A. Morse, "The classic method of Mrs. Socrates," Phys. Teacher 32, 276-277 (May, 1994).
19. L. C. McDermott, "Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned-Closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991).
20. We used Intel 386, 486, and Macintosh SE personal computers. The ULI, sonic ranger, and force probes are from Vernier software, Portland, OR. Only the Motion and Datalogger software that comes bundled with the ULI were needed. Two Pasco carts or their equivalent are also required for the Newton 3 tutorial. The current cost of the required equipment is about $2500 per station (including the computer).
21. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Tools for Scientific Thinking (Vernier Software, Portland OR, 1992 and 1993).
22. Reference 4, Fig. 2.
23. P. W. Laws, R. K. Thornton, and D. R. Sokoloff, Real Time Physics (Vernier Software, Portland OR, 1995); P. W. Laws, "A new order for mechanics," Proceedings of the Conference on the Introductory Physics Course, Renssellaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 20-23 May 1992, edited by Jack Wilson (Wiley, New York, 1997), pp. 125-136.
24. P. W. Laws, R. K. Thornton, and D. R. Sokoloff, Real Time Physics (Vernier Software, Portland OR, 1995); P. W. Laws, "A new order for mechanics," Proceedings of the Conference on the Introductory Physics Course, Renssellaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 20-23 May 1992, edited by Jack Wilson (Wiley, New York, 1997), pp. 125-136.
25. E. F. Redish, "Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics," Am. J. Phys. 62, 796-803 (1994).
26. T. R. Sandin, "On not choosing multiple choice," Am. J. Phys. 53, 299-300 (1985); R. N. Steinberg and M. S. Sabella, "Student performance on multiple-choice diagnostics vs. open-ended exam problems," Univ. of Maryland Preprint, November 1996 (to be published).
27. T. R. Sandin, "On not choosing multiple choice," Am. J. Phys. 53, 299-300 (1985); R. N. Steinberg and M. S. Sabella, "Student performance on multiple-choice diagnostics vs. open-ended exam problems," Univ. of Maryland Preprint, November 1996 (to be published).
28. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhammer, "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (March 1992).
29. R. R. Hake, "A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Indiana University preprint, April 1996.
30. The numbers of students completing the final exam was greater than the number of students completing both the pre-and post FCI tests which were given in lecture.
31. In absolute final scores, one tutorial class with a low pre-test score finished below some of the non-tutorial classes, and one non-tutorial class with a high pre-test score finished above some of the tutorial classes.
32. For example, sec D. C. Howell, Statistical Methods for Psychology (Duxbury, Belmont, CA, 1992), 3rd ed., pp. 181-185.
33. A graph reversed with respect to the horizontal axis would also be considered correct.
34. A few students in the nontutorial class used the same symbol for these two forces, but did not state whether the forces were equal, so it was impossible to determine if they were identifying these two forces as having equal magnitudes. Note that many students used the same symbol to represent forces which clearly had different magnitudes.
35. Evidence from the University of Washington group suggests that replacing a problem solving lecture with tutorials does not adversely affect student's ability to solve quantitative problems. Personal communication, L. C. McDermott.
36. F. Reif, "Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes," Am. J. Phys. 63, 17-32 (1995).
37. Note that when a student is learning what a graph means, constructing it by hand the first few times may very well be "necessary" drudgery. However, when one is focusing on a connection between a physical phenomenon and a graph, a long time delay between seeing the phenomenon and seeing the graph may well produce a "cognitive disconnect" which prevents them from building the understandings they need.
38. See references in Ref. 17.
39. D. L. Schacter, "Memory," in Foundations of Cognitive Science, edited by M. I. Posner (MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1989), pp. 683-725.
40. R. K. Thornton, private communication, January 1994.
41. From our personal teaching experience, we expect that number 6, active engagement, is the most significant.
42. See Ref. 7.