Impact of animation on assessment of conceptual understanding in physics

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2006, Pages

  Dancy, Melissa H ^a   Beichner, Robert ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547926247     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010104     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. L. Rieber, Computers, Graphics, & Learning (Wm. C. Brown Communications, Dubuque, IA, 1994).
2. L. Rieber, Animation in computer-based instruction, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 38, 77 (1990).
3. M. Szabo and B. Poohkay, An experimental study of animation, mathematics, achievement, and attitude toward computer-assisted instruction, J. Res. Comput. Educ. 38, 390 (1996).
4. R. Beichner, Impact of video motion analysis on kinematics graph interpretation skills, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1272 (1996).
5. A. Titus, Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1998.
6. B. Y. White, Designing computer games to help physics students understand Newton's laws of motion, Cogn. Instruct. 1, 69 (1984).
7. R. E. Mayer and R. B. Anderson, The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning, J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 444 (1992).
8. M. K. Kaiser, D. R. Proffitt, and K. Anderson, Judgments of natural and anomalous trajectories in the presence and absence of motion, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 11, 795 (1985).
9. M. K. Kaiser, D. R. Proffitt, S. M. Whelan, and H. Hecht, Influence of animation on dynamical judgments, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 18, 669 (1992).
10. M. McCloskey and D. Kohl, Naïve physics: The curvilinear impetus principle and its role in interactions with moving objects, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 9, 146 (1983).
11. A. A. Zietsman and P. W. Hewson, Effect of instruction using microcomputer simulations and conceptual change strategies on science learning, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 23, 27 (1986).
12. T. C. Thaden-Koch, R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, J. P. Mestre, and W. J. Leonard, A coordination class analysis of judgments about animated motion, in Proceedings of the 2003 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by J. Marx, S. Franklin, and K. Cummings, AIP Conference Proceedings No. 720 (AIP, Melville, New York, 2004), p. 57.
13. B. Tversky, J. Morrison, and M. Betrancourt, Animation: can it facilitate?, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 57, 247 (2002).
14. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept invetory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
15. R. Hake, Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
16. R. Reif, Guest comment: Standards and measurements in physics-Why not in physics education?, Am. J. Phys. 64, 687 (1996).
17. The second version of the FCI is unpublished but can be obtained by contacting the authors at http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html
18. W. Christian and M. Belloni, Physlets (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001).
19. http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Applets/Applets.html
20. See EPAPS Document No. E-PRSTCR-2-003601 for animated and traditional versions of questions. This document can be reached via a direct link in the online articles HTML reference section or via the EPAPS homepage (http://www.aip.org/pubservs/epaps.html).
21. M. Dancy, Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina State University, 2000.
22. A. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA 1990).
23. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 0 NJ, 1997), p. 4.