Use of interactive lecture demonstrations: A ten year study

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

  Sharma, Manjula D ^a   Johnston, Ian D ^a   Johnston, Helen ^a   Varvell, Kevin ^a   Robertson, Gordon ^a   Hopkins, Andrew ^a   Stewart, Chris ^a   Cooper, Ian ^a   Thornton, Ronald ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649342803     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020119     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. C. Wieman and K. Perkins, Transforming Physics Education, Phys. Today 58 11, 36 2005.
2. D. A. Muller, M. D. Sharma, and P. Reimann, Raising cognitive load with linear multimedia to promote conceptual change, Sci. Educ. 92, 278 2008.
3. R. Duit and D. F. Treagust, in International Handbook of Science Education, edited by B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin Klu- wer Academic Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998, pp. 3-25.
4. S. Wuttiprom, M. D. Sharma, I. D. Johnston, R. Chitaree, and C. Soankwan, Development and use of a conceptual survey in introductory quantum physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 631 2009.
5. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief elec- tricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 2006.
6. K. Cummings, J. Marx, R. K. Thornton, and D. E. Kuhl, Evaluating innovation in studio physics, Am. J. Phys. 67, S38 1999.
7. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Schaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River), 1998.
8. FLAG, http://www.flaguide.org/cat/diagnostic/diagnostic1.php
9. 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, 64 1998.
10. D. R. Sokoloff and R. K. Thornton, Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to Create an Active Learning Environment, Phys. Teach. 35, 340 1997.
11. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools, Am. J. Phys. 58, 858 1990.
12. R. K. Thornton and D. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 1998.
13. S. Ramlo, Validity and Reliably of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, Am. J. Phys. 76, 882 2008.
14. T. I. Smith and M. C. Wittmann, Applying a resources frame work to analysis of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020101 2008.
15. R. K. Thornton, D. Kuhl, K. Cummings, and J. Marx, Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010105 2009.
16. D. R. Sokoloff and R. K. Thornton, in Introductory Physics, The Physics Suite (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, 2004).
17. D. Halliday, R. Resnick, and J. Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, 6th ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2001.
18. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 1992.
19. 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.