Question driven instruction: Teaching science (Well) with an audience response system

Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 96-115

  Beatty, Ian D ^a   Leonard, William J ^a   Gerace, William J ^a   Dufresne, Robert J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 49849100043     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-947-2.ch007     Document Type: Chapter

References (49)

1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
2. Beatty, I. D. (2000). Assessing-to-Learn Project Website. Retrieved from http://A2L.physics.umass.edu
3. Beatty, I. D. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems (Research Bulletin No. ERB0403). Educause Center for Applied Research.
4. Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (in press). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics.
5. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536-553.
6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1988a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7-71.
7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1988b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
8. Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.
9. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University.
10. Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment (No. ED470206). College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. Cheek, D. W. (1992). Thinking constructively about science, technology, and society education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
13. Cohen, D., & Henle, J. (1995). The Pyramid Exam. UME Trends, (July), 2, 15.
14. Dufresne, R. J., & Gerace, W. J. (2004). Assessing-to-learn: Formative assessment in physics instruction. The Physics Teacher, 42(6), 109-116.
15. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Beatty, I. D. (2002a). Assessing-to-Learn (A2L): Reflective formative assessment using a classroom communication system. Paper presented at Pathways to Change: An International Conference on Transforming Math and Science Education in the K16 Curriculum, Crystal City, Arlington, VA.
16. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Mestre, J. P. (2001a). Creating an item for in-class formative assessment. The Interactive Classroom, 1.
17. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.
18. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Leonard, W. J. (2000). ASK-IT/A2L: Assessing student knowledge with instructional technology (technical report No. UMPERG-2000-09). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Physics Education Research Group.
19. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Leonard, W. J. (2001b). Assessing to learn (A2L): Research on teacher implementation of continuous formative assessment. Paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, San Diego, CA.
20. Dufresne, R. J., Leonard, W. J., & Gerace, W. J. (1992). Research-based materials for developing a conceptual approach to science. Paper presented at the Workshop on Research in Science and Mathematics Education, Cathedral Peak, South Africa.
21. Dufresne, R. J., Leonard, W. J., & Gerace, W. J. (2002b). Making sense of students' answers to multiple-choice questions. The Physics Teacher, 40(3), 174-180.
22. eInstruction. (2005). Who's using CPS Retrieved January 24, 2005, from http://www.einstruction.com
23. Feldman, A., & Capobianco, B. (2003, April). Real-time formative assessment: A study of teachers' use of an electronic response system to facilitate serious discussion about physics concepts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
24. Fosnot, C. (1993). Rethinking science education: A defense of Piagetian constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1189-1202.
25. Gerace, W. J. (1992). Contributions from cognitive research to mathematics and science education. Paper presented at the Workshop on Research in Science and Mathematics Education, Cathedral Peak, South Africa.
26. Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Dufresne, R. J., & Mestre, J. P. (1997). Concept-based problem solving: Combining educational research results and practical experience to create a framework for learning physics and to derive effective classroom practices (No. UMPERG-1997-09). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Physics Education Research Group.
27. Gerace, W. J., Mestre, J. P., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2000). Assessing to Learn (A2L): Formative assessment for high-school physics. Paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, Kissimmee, FL.
28. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
29. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(March), 159-166.
30. Hobson, E. H. (1997). Formative assessment: An annotated bibliography. Clearing House, 71(2), 123-125.
31. Laws, P. W. (1997). Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 65(1), 14-21.
32. Leonard, W. J. (2005). Every decision counts for better assessment. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from http://kb.physics.umass.edu/edc
33. Leonard, W. J., Gerace, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2001). Questions First (Q1st): The challenges, benefits, drawbacks, and results of asking students questions prior to formal instruction. In S. Franklin, J. Marx, & K. Cummings (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 41-44). Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology.
34. Leonard, W. J., Gerace, W. J., Dufresne, R. J., & Mestre, J. P. (1999). Concept-based problem solving. In W. J. Leonard, R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, & J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Teacher's guide to accompany "Minds•On Physics: Motion". Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt.
35. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36. McDermott, L. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned - Closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59, 301-315.
37. McDermott, L. (1993). Guest comment: How we teach and how students learn - A mismatch? American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 295-298.
38. Mestre, J. P. (1991). Learning and instruction in pre-college physical science. Physics Today, 44(9), 56-62.
39. Mestre, J. P. (1994). Cognitive aspects of learning and teaching science. In S. J. Fitzsimmons & L. C. Kerpelman (Eds.), Teacher enhancement for elementary and secondary science and mathematics: Status, issues and problems (NSF 94-80) (pp. 3.1-3.53). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
40. Mestre, J. P., Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., & Leonard, W. J. (2001). The multidimensionality of assessing for understanding. Paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, San Diego, CA.
41. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2004). Tips for using a peer response system in a large introductory physics class. The Physics Teacher, 42(4), 253-254.
42. O'Loughlin, M. (1993). Some further questions for Piagetian constructivists: A reply to Fosnot. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1203-1207.
43. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., Crawford, V., Shechtman, N., & Abrahamson, L. A. (2004). Workshop report: Advancing research on the transformative potential of interactive pedagogies and classroom networks. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
44. Redish, E. F., & Steinberg, R. (1999). Teaching physics: Figuring out what works. Physics Today, 52, 24-30.
45. Roschelle, J. (2003). Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 260-272.
46. Roschelle, J., Abrahamson, L. A., & Penuel, W. R. (2004, April 16). Integrating classroom network technology and learning theory to improve classroom science learning: A literature synthesis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
47. von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). A constructivist's view of learning and teaching. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies: Proceedings of an International Workshop. Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.
48. von Glasersfeld, E. (1992). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In M. Pearsall (Ed.), Scope, sequence, and coordination of secondary school science, Volume II: Relevant research (pp. 169-182). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
49. von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Constructivism in science education. Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer.