Using multimedia modules to better prepare students for introductory physics lecture

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2010, Pages

  Chen, Zhongzhou ^a   Stelzer, Timothy ^a   Gladding, Gary ^a  

^a University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954882762     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.010108     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. T. Stelzer, G. Gladding, J. Mestre, and D. T. Brooks, Comparing the efficacy of multimedia modules with traditional textbooks for learning introductory physics content. Am. J. Phys. 77, 184 (2009). 10.1119/1.3028204
2. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2001).
3. K. Cummings, T. French, and P. J. Cooney,, in Proceedings of the 2002 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by, F. S. J. Marx, and, K. Cummings, (PERC, New York, 2002).
4. B. D. Smith and D. C. Jacobs, TextRev: A window into how general and organic chemistry students use textbook resources. J. Chem. Educ. Res. 80, 99 (2003). 10.1021/ed080p99
5. N. S. Podolefsky and N. D. Finkelstein, The perceived value of college physics textbooks: Students and instructors may not see eye to eye. Phys. Teach. 44, 338 (2006). 10.1119/1.2336132
6. T. Stelzer, D. T. Brookes, G. Gladding, and J. P. Mestre, Comparing the efficacy of multimedia modules with traditional textbooks for learning introductory physics content. Am. J. Phys. (to be published).
7. P. Chandler and J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cogn. Instruct. 8, 293 (1991). 10.1207/s1532690xci0804-2
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe-Flash
9. To experience these prelectures as would a student, please visit: https://online-s.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys212/gtm/No-Login/page.html
10. The average score of a question is the percentage of correct answer on the multiple-choice part of that question; students' free form response is not considered in the present study.
11. We should note that the average scores on five questions decreased by more than 3 σ, indicating another effect (smaller in magnitude) that can be attributed to the introduction of the MLMs. The naive interpretation that students experiencing the prelectures have less knowledge on these topics than their predecessors does not hold up to further investigation. These questions all had low average scores in Spring06/07, with the prevalent answer choice being either random or guided by intuition (e.g., if A doubles, then B doubles). For example, one question asked whether a person sanding on the edge of a pool of water could be prevented from seeing a light on the bottom of pool by total internal reflection at the water-air surface. In Spring06/07, 53% answered "yes" and 47% answered "no," while in Spring 2008, 72% answered "yes" and 28% answered "no." We interpret the increase in the percentage of incorrect answers in Spring 2008 due to partial knowledge (that light moving from water to air can be totally internally reflected) of the relevant physics that the Spring06/07 students did not have.
12. Historically, about 65% of the A and C level students in the mechanics course remained A and C level students in electricity and magnetism course. For B level students, the corresponding fraction is about 40%. Almost all changes are to adjacent levels; only a total of 5% of the students changed either from A level to C level or from C level to A level.
13. The average number of A, B, and C level viewers in Spring 08 are:62, 29, 31; the average number of A, B, and C level nonviewers are:30, 24, 33; The average number of A, B and C level students in Spring06/07 are:177, 151, 128.
14. There is some evidence that the overall improvement by the C level students (10-12%) is somewhat less than that of the A and B level students (14-17%) and that this difference is mainly attributed to smaller improvements by the C level students on the most difficult questions. Namely, if we divide the questions into two sets based on difficulty as determined by the average score made by Spring06 and Spring07 students, we find that for the questions from the most difficult half, the improvement by C level students was 7.5 ± 1.4 %, while the improvement for the B level and A level students was 16.8 ± 1.4 % and 15.9 ± 1.0 %, respectively.