Qualitative differences between learning environments using videos in small groups and whole class discussions: A preliminary study in physics

Research in Science Education

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 477-493

  Mayo, Ashleigh ^a   Sharma, Manjula D ^a   Muller, Derek A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Interactivity; Multimedia tools; Physics education; Small group learning; Video; Whole class discussion

Indexed keywords

EID: 68149172724     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-008-9090-0     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barford, J., & Weston, C. (1997). The use of video as a teaching resource in a new university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 40-50.
2. Beichner, R. J. (1996). The impact of video motion analysis on kinematics graph interpretation skills. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1272-1277.
3. Binnie, A. (2004). Development of a senior physics syllabus in New South Wales. Physics Education, 39(6), 490-495.
4. Board of Studies (2002). NSW physics syllabus. Retrieved September 18, 2007 from http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/ physics_stg6_syl.pdf.
5. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belkapp.
7. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Carlsen, W. S. (2007). Language and science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57-74). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2008). An evaluation of a teaching intervention to promote students' ability to use multiple levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical reactions. Research in Science Education, 38, 237-248.
11. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12. Cox, R., Mckendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse. Instructional Science, 27, 431-458.
13. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
14. Forman, E. (1989). The role of peer interaction in the social construction of mathematical knowledge. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 15-70.
15. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test date for introductory physics courses. The American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
16. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A socio cognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 451-493.
17. Hestenes, D. (1996). Modeling methodology for physics teachers. Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education. College Park, MD, USA.
18. Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict-observe-explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 427-453.
19. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on Science Education (pp. 443-469). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Kozma, R. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 5-15.
21. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226.
22. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
23. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24. Meece, J. L., & Jones, M. G. (1996). Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in science: Are girls rote learners? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 393-406.
25. Muller, D. A., Bewes, J., Sharma, M. D., & Reimann, P. (2007b). Saying the wrong thing: Improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 144-155.
26. Muller, D. A., Sharma, M. D., Eklund, J., & Reimann, P. (2007a). Conceptual change through vicarious learning in an authentic physics setting. Instructional Science, 35(6), 519-533.
27. Muller, D. A., Sharma, M. D., & Reimann, P. (2008). Raising cognitive load with linear multimedia to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 92(2), 278-296.
28. Nicol, D., & Boyle, J. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457-473.
29. Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S. C., & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: Finding the right mix. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 307-323.
30. Roth, W., McGinn, M. K., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artefacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8 (3&4), 293-347.
31. Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224.
32. Shaffer, P. S., & McDermott, L. C. (2005). A research-based approach to improving student understanding of kinematical concepts. American Journal of Physics, 73(10), 921-931.
33. Sharma, M. D., Mendez, A., & O'Byrne, J. W. (2005). The relationship between attendance in student-centred physics tutorials and performance on university exams. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1375-1389.
34. Sharma, M. D., Muller, D., & Project Team (2008). AMPS: Australian Multimedia for Physics Students. Retrieved April 11, 2008 from http://www.hscphysics.edu.au/resource/Meissner.flv, http://www.hscphysics.edu.au/resource/Supertheory.flv, and http://www.hscphysics.edu.au/resource/Superapps.flv.
35. Sokoloff, D. R., & Thornton, R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. The Physics Teacher, 35, 340-347.
36. Sprod, T. (1998). "I can change your opinion on that": Social constructivist whole class discussions and their effect on scientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 28(4), 463-480.
37. Webb, N. M. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students' science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 943-989.
38. Wells, M., Hestenes, D., & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A Modeling Method for high school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 63(7), 606-619.
39. West, L., & Fensham, P. J. (1974). Prior knowledge and the learning of science. A review of Ausubels' theory of this process. Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 61-81.
40. Wetzel, C. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stern, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Zollman, D. A., & Fuller, R. G. (1994). Teaching and learning physics with interactive video. Physics Today, 47, 41-47.