Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors' implementation of Peer Instruction

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2009, Pages

  Turpen, Chandra ^a   Finkelstein, Noah D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 73649131648     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020101     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
2. M. H. Dancy and C. Henderson, "Preliminary Results From A Survey Of Physics Faculty On Use Of Research-Based Instructional Strategies." Contributed Poster at the Physics Teacher Education Coalition Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, March 13-14, 2009. Available at: http://homepages.wmich.edu/ ~chenders/Publications/DancyPTEC2009Poster.pdf
3. M. Cole, Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).
4. Y. Engeström, in Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context, edited by, S. Chaiklin, and, J. Lave, (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1993).
5. Perspectives on Activity Theory, edited by, Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and, R. Punamäki, (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1999).
6. P. Cobb, M. Stephan, K. McClain, and K. Gravemeijer, Participating in Classroom Mathematical Practices, J. Learn. Sci. 10 (1&2), 113 (2001). 10.1207/S15327809JLS10-1-2-6
7. N. Finkelstein, Learning Physics in Context: A study of student learning about electricity and magnetism, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 1187 (2005). 10.1080/09500690500069491 (Pubitemid 41529914)
8. A. B. Arons, Teaching Introductory Physics (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1997).
9. M. L. Rosenquist and L. C. McDermott, A Conceptual Approach to Teaching Kinematics, Am. J. Phys. 55 (5), 407 (1987). 10.1119/1.15122
10. J. L. Lemke, Talking Science (Ablex Publishing Company, Norwood, NJ, 1990).
11. W. M. Roth, Talking Science: Language and Learning in Science Classrooms (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD, 2005).
12. A. C. Barton, J. L. Ermer, T. A. Burkett, and M. D. Osborne, Teaching Science for Social Justice (Teachers College Press, New York, NY, 2003).
13. P. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, NY, 2000).
14. W. M. Roth and A. C. Barton, Rethinking Scientific Literacy (Routledge, New York, NY, 2004).
15. Inquiry and the National Science Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
16. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. T. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020103 (Pubitemid 44172013)
17. H. Borko and R. T. Putnam, in Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited by, D. Berliner, and, R. Calfee, (Macmillan, New York, NY, 1996), pp. 673-708.
18. J. H. van Driel, N. Verloop, and W. de Vos, Developing Science Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 35 (6), 673 (1998). 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J
19. B. Y. White and J. R. Frederiksen, Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students, Cogn. Instruct. 16 (1), 3 (1998). 10.1207/s1532690xci1601-2
20. M. Fullan and A. Pomfret, Research on curriculum and instruction implementation, Rev. Educ. Res. 47 (2), 335 (1977).
21. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66 (1), 64 (1998). 10.1119/1.18809
22. Average normalized learning gain is defined as ratio of the actual average gain (%post-%pre) to the maximum possible average gain (100-%pre).
23. P. W. Laws, Workshop Physics Activity Guide Modules 1-4, 2nd ed. (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2004)
24. http://physics.dickinson.edu/~wp-web/wp-overview.html
25. J. M. Saul and E. F. Redish, "Final Evaluation Report for FIPSE Grant #P116P50026: Evaluation of the Workshop Physics Dissemination Project." Physics Education Research Group, University of Maryland, 1997 (unpublished).
26. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992) 10.1119/1.2343497
27. Available at http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html.
28. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
29. S. J. Pollock and N. D. Finkelstein, Sustaining educational reforms in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010110
30. R. Thornton and D. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, Am. J. Phys. 66 (4), 338 (1998). 10.1119/1.18863
31. C. Henderson and M. Dancy, Physics Faculty and Educational Researchers: Divergent Expectations as Barriers to the Diffusion of Innovations, Am. J. Phys. 76 (1), 79 (2008). 10.1119/1.2800352
32. M. Dancy and C. Henderson, Framework for articulating instructional practices and conceptions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010103 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010103
33. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020102 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020102
34. E. Yerushalmi, C. Henderson, K. Heller, P. Heller, and V. Kuo, Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. I. Mapping the common core, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020109 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020109
35. C. Henderson, E. Yerushalmi, V. H. Kuo, K. Heller, and P. Heller, Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. II. Procedures for measurement and analysis, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020110 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020110
36. C. H. Crouch, J. Watkins, A. P. Fagen, and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Engaging Students One-on-One, All At Once, Reviews in Physics Education Research 1, 1 (2007).
37. A. P. Fagen, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of Classrooms, Phys. Teach. 40, 206 (2002). 10.1119/1.1474140
38. We acknowledge that there is an on-going debate in the literature as to the impacts of the particular technology used (i.e., electronic response systems, colored card, or simple hand-raising...) [See Refs.]. We do not, however, debate the different affordances of these technologies here.
39. N. Lasry, Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? Phys. Teach. 46, 242 (2008). 10.1119/1.2895678
40. R. E. Mayer, A. Stull, K. DeLeeuw, K. Almeroth, B. Bimber, D. Chun, M. Bulger, J. Campbell, A. Knight, and H. Zhang, Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34, 51 (2009). 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002
41. L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978).
42. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66 (3), 212 (1998). 10.1119/1.18847
43. E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics (John Wiley and Sons, Danvers, MA, 2003), pp. 51-68.
44. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, A new instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010101 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010101
45. K. K. Perkins, M. M. Gratny, W. K. Adams, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, PERC Proceedings 2005 (AIP Press, Melville NY, 2006).
46. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, PERC Proceedings 2004 (AIP Press, Melville NY, 2005).
47. K. K. Perkins, W. K. Adams, N. D. Finkelstein, S. J. Pollock, and C. E. Wieman, PERC Proceedings 2004 (AIP Press, Melville NY, 2005).
48. M. F. Pajares, Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct, Rev. Educ. Res. 62 (3), 307 (1992).
49. C. Fies and J. Marshall, Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 15 (1), 101 (2006). 10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1 (Pubitemid 44757013)
50. W. R. Penuel, J. Roschelle, and L. Abrahamson, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE'05) (unpublished). Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs- all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1579270&isnumber=33360
51. J. Roschelle, W. R. Penuel, and L. Abrahamson, Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA, April 2004 (unpublished). Available at: http://ubiqcomputing.org/CATAALYST-AERA-Proposal. pdf
52. D. E. Meltzer and K. Manivannan, Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture, Am. J. Phys. 70 (6), 639 (2002). 10.1119/1.1463739
53. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
54. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996).
55. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1993).
56. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, edited by, R. K. Sawyer, (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2006).
57. D. Sawada, M. D. Piburn, E. Judson, J. Turley, Measuring Reform Practices in Science and Mathematics Classrooms: The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol, Sch. Sci. Math. 102 (6), 245 (2002).
58. J. Creswell, Educational Research (Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ 2005).
59. J. Maxwell, Qualitative Research Design (Sage Publications, London, 2005).
60. F. Erickson, Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by, M. C. Wittrock, 3rd ed. (Macmillan, New York, 1986) pp. 119-161.
61. A. Hoekstra, Vibrant student voices: exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses, Learning Media & Technology 33 (4), 329 (2008). 10.1080/17439880802497081
62. M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. Wieman, J. K. Knight, N. Gulid, and T. T. Stu, Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions, Science 323, 122 (2009). 10.1126/science.1165919
63. M. C. James, The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction, Am. J. Phys. 74 (8), 689 (2006). 10.1119/1.2198887 (Pubitemid 44197334)
64. M. C. James, F. Barbieri, and P. Garcia, What are they talking about? Lessons learned from a study of peer instruction, Astron. Educ. Rev. 7 (1), 37 (2008). 10.3847/AER2008004
65. S. D. Willoughby and E. Gustafson, Technology talks: Clickers and grading incentive in the large lecture hall, Am. J. Phys. 77 (2), 180 (2009). 10.1119/1.3013542
66. B. Rogoff, The Cultural Nature of Human Development (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2003), pp. 3-36.
67. J. Spradley, Participant observation (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, 1980).
68. C. Geertz, in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, edited by, C. Geertz, (Basic Books, New York, 1973), pp. 3-30.
69. R. Burgess, in In The Field: An Introduction To Field Research, edited by, R. Burgess, (Allen & Unwin, London, 1984), pp. 101-122.
70. S. Mathieson, Why triangulate? Educ. Res. 17 (2), 13 (1988).
71. G. Novak, A. Gavrin, W. Christian, and E. Patterson, Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999).
72. D. R. Sokoloff and R. K. Thornton, Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment, Phys. Teach. 35, 340 (1997). 10.1119/1.2344715
73. None of the instructors were observed to consistently ask questions in a sequences progression as suggested by Meltzer [Ref.].
74. S. J. Pollock and K. Perkins, APS Fed Newsletter, Spring, 2004.
75. Marcy Towns, "Using Clickers With 2500 Students: An Analysis of Question Type and Student Response." Invited Talk through the Science Education Initiative at the University of Colorado (2007) (unpublished).
76. I. D. Beatty, W. J. Gerace, W. J. Leonard, and R. J. Dufresne, Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching, Am. J. Phys. 74 (1), 31 (2006). 10.1119/1.2121753 (Pubitemid 43105958)
77. N. W. Reay, L. Bao, P. Li, R. Warnakulasooriya, and G. Baugh, Towards the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures, Am. J. Phys. 73 (6), 554 (2005). 10.1119/1.1862638 (Pubitemid 40900476)
78. J. Poulis, C. Massen, E. Robens, and M. Gilbert, Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback, Am. J. Phys. 66 (5), 439 (1998). 10.1119/1.18883
79. Where the uncertainty in the standard deviation is given by Δσ= σ 2 (N-1) as described in J. R. Taylor, An Introduction to Error Analysis, 2nd ed. (University of Science Books, Sausalito CA, 1997).
80. C. Cazden, Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning, 2nd ed. (Heinemann, Portsmouth NH, 2001).
81. M. C. O'Connor and S. Michaels, Aligning Academic Task and Participation Status through Revoicing: Analysis of a Classroom Discourse Strategy, Anthropol. Educ. Q. 24 (4), 318 (1993). 10.1525/aeq.1993.24.4.04x0063k
82. H. Mehan, Learning Lessons (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1979).
83. C. C. Pappas and A. Barry, in Reader Response in Elementary Classrooms, edited by, N. J. Karolides, (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1997), pp. 215-237.