Technology enabled active learning (TEAL) in introductory physics: Impact on genders and achievement levels

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 27, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1082-1099

  Shieh, Ruey S ^a   Chang, Wheijen ^b   Liu, Eric Zhi Feng ^c  

^a KAINAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b FENG CHIA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL CENTRAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 82955187936     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14495554     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14742/ajet.905     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Bailey, R. C. (1971). Self-concept differences in low and high achieving students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27(2), 188-191. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1971-27755-001
2. Beatty, I. D. & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2), 146-162. http://www.springerlink.com/content/j878737x4421u753/
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. http://srri.umass.edu/files/beatty-2006deq.pdf
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 (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 96-115). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. [preprint verified 22 Oct 2011] http://www.colorado.edu/MCDB/MCDB6440/Beatty2006qdi.pdf
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(7), S16-S24. http://www.ncsu.edu/per/Articles/04IMPEC_AJP.pdf
6. Belcher, W. J. (2001). Studio physics at MIT. MIT Physics Annual Report 2001. [verified 22 Oct 2011]. http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_01_teal.pdf
7. Breslow, L. (2010). Wrestling with pedagogical change: The TEAL initiative at MIT. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5), 23-29. http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20 Issues/September-October%202010/wrestling-pedagogical-abstract.html
8. Caldwell, J. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20. http://comets.wisc.edu/clickers/resources/articles/CaldwellOnClickers.pd f
9. Carbone, E. (1998). Teaching large classes: Tools and strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Chang, W. (2005a). The rewards and challenges of teaching innovation in university physics: 4 years' reflection. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 407-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323728
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926150509556646
12. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/392/515
13. Docktor, J. & Heller, K. (2008). Gender differences in both Force Concept Inventory and introductory physics performance. In C. Henderson, M. Sabella & L. Hsu (Eds), AIP Conference Proceedings Vol. 1064: 2008 Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 15-18). Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics. http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Talks/Docktor_Heller_PERC08.pdf
14. Doolittle, P. E. & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 23-46. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v16n1/doolittle.html
15. 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. http://www.jstor.org/pss/25473479
16. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. http://www.springerlink.com/content/26736pvw54484187/
17. European Technology Assessment Network (2000). Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality. Science Policies in the European Union Report. [viewed 21 Jan 2011]. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/improving/ocs/_wo_etan_en_200101.pdf
18. Freeland, S. (1983). NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) report. Education Digest, 48(8), 65. [correctness of reference uncertain 20 Nov 2011] http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_ &ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED406223&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0= no&accno=ED406223
19. Gilleece, L., Cosgrove, J. & Sofroniou, N. (2010). Equity in mathematics and science outcomes: Characteristics associated with high and low achievement on PISA 2006 in Ireland. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 475-496. http://www.springerlink.com/content/np1773236w3821kk/
20. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand- student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. http://web.mit.edu/rsi/www/2005/misc/minipaper/papers/Hake.pdf
21. Hancock, T. M. (2010). Use of audience response systems for summative assessment in large classes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 226-237. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/hancock.html
22. Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2002). Communities of practice with and without information technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 338-349. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/meet.1450390137/full
23. Hazel, E., Logan, P. & Gallagher, P. (1997). Equitable assessment of students in physics: Importance of gender and language background. International Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 381-392. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0950069970190402
24. Hestenes, D. & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 159-166. http://modeling.asu.edu/r%26e/MechBaseline.pdf
25. Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158. http://modeling.asu.edu/r%26e/fci.pdf
26. Hodgson, B. (2000). Women in science -or are they? Physics Education, 35(6), 451-53. http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/35/6/313/pdf/0031-9120_35_6_313.pdf
27. Kanter, D. E. & Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of a project-based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices. Science Education, 94(5), 855-887. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20391/full
28. Kay, R. H. & LeSage, A. (2009). A strategic assessment of audience response systems used in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 235-249. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet25/kay.html
29. Kitchenham, A. (2002). Vive la difference: Gender, motivation and achievement. School Libraries in Canada, 22(2), 34-37.
30. Kost, L. E., Pollock, S. J. & Finkelstein, N. D. (2008). The persistence of the gender gap in introductory physics. In C. Henderson, M. Sabella & L. Hsu (Eds), Physics Education Research Conference (pp.139-142). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: American Institute of Physics. http://www.colorado.edu/UCB/AcademicAffairs/ScienceEducation/images/Pers istence_o f_the_Gender_Gap_in_Introductory_Physics.pdf
31. Kost, L. E., Pollock, S. J. & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5(010101), 1-14. http://prst-per.aps.org/abstract/PRSTPER/v5/i1/e010101
32. Lau, K. L. & Chan, D. W. (2001). Motivational characteristics of under-achievers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 21(4), 417-30. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01443410120090803
33. Lau, W. W. F. & Yuen, A. H. K. (2010). Gender differences in learning styles: Nurturing a gender and style sensitive computer science classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 1090-1103. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/lau.html
34. Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C. H. & Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics, 74(2), 118-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2162549
35. Martin, D. M. (1985). Relationship of motivational differences of male and female community college students to academic achievement. Abstract, Masters Thesis, University of Missouri- Kansas City. (ED262856). http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED262856
36. Martin, M. O, Mullis, I. V., Gonzales, E. J., O'Connor, K. M., Chrostowski, S. J., Gregory, K. D. et al. (1999). Science Benchmarking Report: TIMSS 1999 - Eight grade, achievement for U.S. states and districts in an international context. IEA The Third International Mathematics and Science Study, MA: Boston College.
37. Mazur, E. (1996). Peer instruction: A users' manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.
38. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
39. MIT Physics (n.d.) Visualizing electricity and magnetism at MIT. http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
40. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
41. Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N. D. & Kost, L. E. (2007). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(010107), 1-4. http://www.compadre.org/portal/items/detail.cfm?ID=7562
42. Rao, S. P. & DiCarlo, S. E. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advances in Physiology Education, 24, 51-55. http://www.cib.espol.edu.ec/Digipath/D_Papers/42368.pdf
43. Redish, E. F., Saul, J. & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66(3), 212-224. http://web.mit.edu/rsi/www/2005/misc/minipaper/papers/MPEX.pdf
44. Ribbens, E. (2007). Why I like clicker personal response systems. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(2), 3. http://learningcenter.nsta.org/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/4/jcst07_0 37_02_60
45. Scott, P. H. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 45-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560127
46. She, H. C. (1998). Gender and grade level differences in Taiwan students' stereotypes of science and scientists. Research in Science & Technological Education, 16(2), 125-135. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0263514980160203
47. Shieh, R. S., Chang, W. & Tang, J. (2010). The impact of implementing technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) in university physics in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(3), 401-415. http://ejournals.ph/index.php?journal=TAPER&page=index
48. Sokoloff, D. & Thornton, R. (2004). Interactive lecture demonstrations: Active learning in introductory physics. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ.
49. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
50. Whitten, B., Foster, S. & Duncombe, M. (2003). What works for women in undergraduate physics? Physics Today, September, 46-51. http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOADft/vol_56/iss_9/46_1.shtml?by passSSO=1
51. Zhu, Z. (2007). Learning content, physics self-efficacy, and female students' physics coursetaking. International Education Journal, 8(2), 204-212. http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v8n2/Zhub/paper.pdf