The impact of implementing Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) in university physics in Taiwan

Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 401-415

  Shieh, Ruey S ^a   Chang, Wheijen ^b   Tang, Jawluen ^c  

^a KAINAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b FENG CHIA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL CHUNG CHENG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Quasi experimental research; Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL); University physics

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649780404     PISSN: 01195646     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3860/taper.v19i3.1850     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Airey J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.
2. Akerson, V. L. Cullen, T.A., & Hanson, D.L. (2009). Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers' views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1090-1113.
3. Beatty, I.D., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J., & Dufresne, R.J. (2006a). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39.
4. Beatty, I.D., Leonard, W.J., Gerace, W.J., & Dufresne, R.J. (2006b). Question driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system. In D. A. Banks (Eds.), Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases, (pp. 96-115). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
5. Beichner, R., Bernold, L., Burniston, E., Dail, P., Felder, R., Gastineau, J., Gjersten, M., & Risley, J. (1999). Case study of the physics components of an integrated curriculum. American Journal of Physics, 67, S16-S24.
6. Beichner, R., Saul, J., Allain, R., Deardorff, D., & Abbott, D. (2000). Introduction to SCALE UP: Student-centered activities for large enrollment university physics. Proceedings of the 2000 Annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Session 2380, Retrived from http://www.ncsu.edu/PER/Articles/01ASEE_paper_S-UP.pdf
7. Belcher, W.J. (2001). Studio physics at MIT. MIT Physics Annual Report 2001. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/physics/papers/Belcher_physicsannual_fall_01.pdf
8. Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development. London, UK: Falmer Press.
9. Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphing representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 385-395.
10. Chang, W. (2005a). The rewards and challenges of teaching innovation in university physics: Four years' reflection. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 407-425.
11. Chang, W. (2005b). Impact of constructivist teaching on students? Beliefs about teaching and learning in introductory physics. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(1), 85-99.
12. Crouch, D., Fagen, A, Callan, J., & Mazur, E. (2004). Classroom demonstrations: Learning tools or entertainment? American Journal of Physics 72, 835-838.
13. Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovations in studio physics. American Journal of Physics 67(S1), S38-S45.
14. Di Stefano, R. (1996). Preliminary IUPP results: Students reactions to in-class demonstrations and the presentation of coherent themes. American Journal of Physics, 64(1), 58-68.
15. Donald, J. G. (1993). Professors' and students' conceptions of the learning task in introductory physics courses, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 905-918.
16. Dori, Y. J. & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.
17. Elby, A. (2001). Helping physics students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics, 69(S1) S54-S64.
18. Fok, A. & Watkins, D. (2007). Does a critical constructivist learning environment encourage a deeper approach to learning? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16(1), 1-10.
19. Fraser, S.P. & Deane, E.M. (1999). Educating tomorrow's scientists: IT as a tool, not an educator. Teaching in Higher Education, 4(1), 91-106.
20. Gravoso, R.S., Pasa, E. E., Labra, J.B., & Mori, T. (2008). Design and use of instructional materials for student-centered learning: A case in learning ecological concepts. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(1), 109-120.
21. Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand students-survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics, 66, 67-74.
22. Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 33, 502-506.
23. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
24. Hockings, C. (2005). Removing the barriers? A study of the conditions affecting teaching innovation. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 313-326.
25. Jonassen, D., Carr, C., & Yueh, H.P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.
26. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
27. Krueger, B., Loughran, J., & Duit, R. (2002). Constructivism. In J. Wallace and W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of Science Teaching (pp.191-204) New York, NY: Routledge-Falmer.
28. Kuhn, T. (2000). On learning physics. Science & Education, 9, 11-19.
29. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (1995). The demands of learning science concepts: Issue of theory and practice. School Science Review, 76(277), 47-52.
31. Maclsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40(8), 479-485.
32. Mayer, R.E., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Knight, A, & Campbell, J. (2006). Technology comes to college: Understanding the cognitive consequences of infusing technology in college classrooms. Educational Technology, 2, 48-53.
33. Mazur, E. (1996). Peer instruction: A users' manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. (2nd Ed.) (pp. 50-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grade K-8. In R.A. Duschl, H.A.
36. Schweingruber, & A.W. Shouse (Eds.), Committee on science learning kindergarten through eighth grade. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
37. Northedge, A. (2003). Organizing excursion into specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural account of university teaching. In G. Well and G. Glaxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21th century. Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 252-264). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
38. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Perkins, D. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88-110). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40. Perkins, K., Adams,W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & Le Master, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 18-23.
41. Ratcliffe, M. & Millar, R. (2009). Teaching for understanding of science in context: Evidence from the pilot trials of the Twenty First Century Science courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 945-959.
42. Roth, W-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709-736.
43. Roth, W-M., & Lucas, K.B. (1997). From "truth" to "invented reality": A discourse analysis of high school physics students' talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 145-179.
44. Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). The force concept inventory: A tool for monitoring student learning. Physics Education, 37(1), 45-52.
45. Scheker, H.P. (1998). Integration of experimenting and modeling by advanced educational technology: Examples from nuclear physics. In B.J. Fraser, & K. J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 383-398). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
46. Tobin, K. (1993). Referents for making sense of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15(3), 241-254.
47. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Yeo, S., Loss, R., Zadnik, M., Harrison, A., & Treaguest, D. (2004). What do students really learn from interactive multimedia? A physics case study. American Journal of Physics, 72(10), 1351-1358.