Student expectations in introductory physics

American Journal of Physics

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 212-224

  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: 0032338472     PISSN: 00029505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1119/1.18847     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. (a) D. Hammer, "Two approaches to learning physics," Phys. Teach. 27, 664-670 (1989);
2. (b) "Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics," Cogn. Instruct. 12, 151-183 (1994);
3. (c) "Students' beliefs about conceptual knowledge in introductory physics," Int. J Sci. Ed. 16, 385-403 (1994).
4. Various versions of the survey are available on the WWW at [http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/expects/ex.htm].
5. L. Viennot, "Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics," Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205-221 (1979); 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); "Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension," ibid. 49, 242-253 (1981); A. Caramaza, M. McCloskey, and B. Green, "Naive beliefs in 'sophisticated' subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects," Cognition 9, 117-123 (1981).
6. L. Viennot, "Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics," Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205-221 (1979); 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); "Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension," ibid. 49, 242-253 (1981); A. Caramaza, M. McCloskey, and B. Green, "Naive beliefs in 'sophisticated' subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects," Cognition 9, 117-123 (1981).
7. L. Viennot, "Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics," Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205-221 (1979); 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); "Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension," ibid. 49, 242-253 (1981); A. Caramaza, M. McCloskey, and B. Green, "Naive beliefs in 'sophisticated' subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects," Cognition 9, 117-123 (1981).
8. L. Viennot, "Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics," Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205-221 (1979); 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); "Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension," ibid. 49, 242-253 (1981); A. Caramaza, M. McCloskey, and B. Green, "Naive beliefs in 'sophisticated' subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects," Cognition 9, 117-123 (1981).
9. For a review and references, see L. C. McDermott, "What we teach and what is learned-Closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991); Arnold B. Arons, Teaching Introductory Physics (Wiley, New York, 1997).
10. For a review and references, see L. C. McDermott, "What we teach and what is learned-Closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991); Arnold B. Arons, Teaching Introductory Physics (Wiley, New York, 1997).
11. For example, see (a) R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, "Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools," Am. J. Phys. 58, 858-867 (1990); (b) P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. II. Design of an instructional strategy," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992); (c) 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," ibid. 62 46-55 (1994); (d) P. Laws, "Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses," ibid. 65, 14-21 (1997); (e) E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, "On the Effectiveness of Active- Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories," ibid. 65, 45-54 (1997).
12. For example, see (a) R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, "Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools," Am. J. Phys. 58, 858-867 (1990); (b) P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. II. Design of an instructional strategy," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992); (c) 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," ibid. 62 46-55 (1994); (d) P. Laws, "Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses," ibid. 65, 14-21 (1997); (e) E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, "On the Effectiveness of Active- Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories," ibid. 65, 45-54 (1997).
13. For example, see (a) R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, "Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools," Am. J. Phys. 58, 858-867 (1990); (b) P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. II. Design of an instructional strategy," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992); (c) 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," ibid. 62 46-55 (1994); (d) P. Laws, "Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses," ibid. 65, 14-21 (1997); (e) E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, "On the Effectiveness of Active- Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories," ibid. 65, 45-54 (1997).
14. For example, see (a) R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, "Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools," Am. J. Phys. 58, 858-867 (1990); (b) P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. II. Design of an instructional strategy," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992); (c) 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," ibid. 62 46-55 (1994); (d) P. Laws, "Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses," ibid. 65, 14-21 (1997); (e) E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, "On the Effectiveness of Active- Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories," ibid. 65, 45-54 (1997).
15. For example, see (a) R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, "Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools," Am. J. Phys. 58, 858-867 (1990); (b) P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. II. Design of an instructional strategy," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992); (c) 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," ibid. 62 46-55 (1994); (d) P. Laws, "Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses," ibid. 65, 14-21 (1997); (e) E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, "On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories," ibid. 65, 45-54 (1997).
16. E. F. Redish, "Implications of Cognitive Studies for Teaching Physics," Am. J. Phys. 62, 796-803 (1994).
17. R. W. Moore and R. L. H. Foy, "The scientific attitude inventory: A revision (SAI II)," J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 327-336 (1997); J. Leach, R. Driver, R. Millar, and P. Scott, "A study of progression in learning about 'the nature of science': Issues of conceptualisation and methodology," Int. J. Sci. Ed. 19, 147-166 (1997).
18. R. W. Moore and R. L. H. Foy, "The scientific attitude inventory: A revision (SAI II)," J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 327-336 (1997); J. Leach, R. Driver, R. Millar, and P. Scott, "A study of progression in learning about 'the nature of science': Issues of conceptualisation and methodology," Int. J. Sci. Ed. 19, 147-166 (1997).
19. S. Carey, R. Evans, M. Honda, E. Jay, and C. Unger, "'An experiment is when you try it and see if it works': A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge," Int. J. Sci. Ed. 11, 514-529 (1989).
20. M. C. Linn and N. B. Songer, "Cognitive and conceptual change in adolescence," Am. J. Educ., 379-417 (August, 1991).
21. N. B. Songer and M. C. Linn, "How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration?" J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28(9), 761-784 (1991).
22. A. Schoenfeld, "Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics," in Handbook of Research in Mathematics Teaching and Learning, edited by D. A. Grouws (MacMillan, New York, 1992), pp. 334-370.
23. W. F. Perry, Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1970).
24. M. F. Belenky, B. M. Clinchy, N. R. Goldberger, and J. M. Tarule, Women's Ways of Knowing (Basic, New York, 1986).
25. This brief summary is an oversimplification of a complex and sophisticated set of stages proposed in each study.
26. Perry specifically excludes science as "the place where they do have answers."
27. F. Reif and J. H. Larkin, "Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparison and learning implications," J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 733-760 (1991).
28. J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid, "Situated cognition and the culture of learning," Educ. Res. 18(1), 32-42 (Jan-Feb 1989).
29. Whenever possible, we have tried to have the survey given as the first item in the class. However, this was not always possible. In the cases where the survey was given after the instructor's description of the class on the first day, there was sometimes a small but noticeable effect on some student responses to particular items.
30. See Refs. 1(b) and (c).
31. In addition to the items representing these clusters, the survey contains additional items whose results (and shifts) we believe are also interesting, but which are associated with a student's style of approaching physics. Items 5, 9, 23, 28, 30, 33, and 34 fall into this category.
32. See Ref. 1(a).
33. Classes such as the one described by Hammer may appear to satisfy both the teacher and some students, but they can do damage if they focus on a superficial success at manipulation of a poorly understood content while neglecting the "hidden" curriculum of meta-concept development.
34. The ability of an individual to hold conflicting views depending on circumstances is a fundamental tenet of our learning model. See Ref. 6 and R. Steinberg and M. Sabella, "Student performance on multiple choice questions vs. open-ended exam problems," Phys. Teach. 35(3) 150-155 (1997) for more discussion of this point.
35. How students think, and how students think they think, are not necessarily the same: cf. the chapter "The Tune's My Own Invention" from Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll.
36. The device of plotting three numbers whose sum is fixed in a triangle is well known in elementary particle physics as a Dalitz plot. In our case, the percentage responding agree, disagree, and neutral must add up to 100%.
37. Note that we have included all items, including those marked with parentheses in Table III. As remarked above, even though the agreement on these items is not as strong, there is still a strong plurality of our experts in favor of the indicated responses. The shift in the position of the overall items resulting from removing these items is on the order of a few percent and the relative order of the groups is not modified.
38. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer et al., Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998). [See Refs. 5(b), (c), and (e) for published descriptions of the method.]
39. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, "Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. 1. Group versus individual problem solving," Am. J. Phys. 60(7), 627-636 (1992); P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, "Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. 2. Designing problems and structuring groups," ibid. 60(7), 637-644 (1992).
40. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, "Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. 1. Group versus individual problem solving," Am. J. Phys. 60(7), 627-636 (1992); P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, "Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. 2. Designing problems and structuring groups," ibid. 60(7), 637-644 (1992).
41. Indeed, some student comments lead us to suspect that formula sheets may have the tendency of confirming student expectations that formulas dominate physics. Their interpretation is that although memorizing lots of formulas is important for professionals, they do not need to do so for the current course. Thus many faculty may be encouraging precisely that attitude they hope to discourage when they permit the use of formula sheets on exams. We are not aware of any research that shows the effect of formula sheets on student perceptions of the coherence of the material.
42. Note that this is an area where students' beliefs about their abilities may surpass their actual abilities. More detailed investigations will require direct observation of student behavior on solving physics problems.
43. This led us to include the phrase "or proof" in item 2.
44. In another place, one of us has referred to this failure as a lack of parsing skills. These students, when faced with a complex sentence that they do not understand, will try reading it over and over again until it becomes familiar - but they still may not understand it. They seem to lack the ability to decompose a complex sentence into its constituent parts in order to make sense of it. E. F. Redish, "Is the computer appropriate for teaching physics," Comput. Phys. 7, 613 (December 1993).
45. "Homogeneous" in this case does not of course mean that we assume the students are identical. Rather, it means that the students are "equivalent" - that they are characteristic of the students who are to be found in "that type of class in that type of school."
46. We choose this reduction from two independent variables to one because the primary variations we observe tend to maintain a fairly constant proportion of neutral responses.
47. Sheila Tobias, They're Not Dumb, They're Different: Stalking the Second Tier (Research Corp., Tucson, AZ, 1990).
48. This response is particularly dangerous because it is both easier for the faculty and less challenging for the student. This is analogous to the story told about the economic system in the former Soviet Union: "The workers pretended to work, and the government pretended to pay them, and everyone was satisfied."