Evaluating innovation in studio physics

被引:99
作者
Cummings, K [1 ]
Marx, J
Thornton, R
Kuhl, D
机构
[1] Rensselaer Polytech Inst, Troy, NY 12180 USA
[2] Tufts Univ, Ctr Sci & Math Teaching, Medford, MA 02155 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1119/1.19078
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
In 1993, Rensselaer introduced the first Studio Physics course. Two years later, the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to measure the conceptual learning gain [g] in the course. This was found to be a disappointing 0.22, indicating that Studio Physics was no more effective at teaching basic Newtonian concepts than a traditional course. Our study verified that result, [g(FCI,98)]=0.18+/-0.12(s.d.), and thereby provides a baseline measurement of conceptual learning gains in Studio Physics I for engineers. These low gains are especially disturbing because the studio classroom appears to be interactive and instructors strive to incorporate modern pedagogies. The goal of our investigation was to determine if incorporation of research-based activities into Studio Physics would have a significant effect on conceptual learning gains. To measure gains, we utilized the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). In the process of pursuing this goal, we verified the effectiveness of Interactive Lecture Demonstrations [[g(FCI)] =0.35+/-0.06(s.d.) and [g(FMCE)]=0.45+/-0.03 (s.d.)] and Cooperative Group Problem Solving ([g(FCI)]=0.36 and [g(FMCE)]=0.36), and examined the feasibility of using these techniques in the studio classroom. Further, we have assessed conceptual learning in the standard Studio Physics course [[g(FCI,98)]=0.18+/-0.12(s.d.) and [g(FMCE,98)] = 0.21+/-0.05 (s.d.)]. In this paper, we will clarify the issues noted above. We will also discuss difficulties in implementing these techniques for first time users and implications for the future directions of the Studio Physics courses at Rensselaer. (C) 1999 American Association of Physics Teachers.
引用
收藏
页码:S38 / S44
页数:7
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   USING BRIDGING ANALOGIES AND ANCHORING INTUITIONS TO DEAL WITH STUDENTS PRECONCEPTIONS IN PHYSICS [J].
CLEMENT, J .
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING, 1993, 30 (10) :1241-1257
[2]  
COOPER MA, 1993, THESIS RUTGERS STATE
[3]  
CUMMINGS K, UNPUB
[4]  
DOKOLOFF D, 1997, PHYS TEACH, V35, P340
[5]   Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses [J].
Hake, RR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, 1998, 66 (01) :64-74
[6]   TEACHING PROBLEM-SOLVING THROUGH COOPERATIVE GROUPING .2. DESIGNING PROBLEMS AND STRUCTURING GROUPS [J].
HELLER, P ;
HOLLABAUGH, M .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, 1992, 60 (07) :637-644
[7]   TEACHING PROBLEM-SOLVING THROUGH COOPERATIVE GROUPING .1. GROUP VERSUS INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM-SOLVING [J].
HELLER, P ;
KEITH, R ;
ANDERSON, S .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, 1992, 60 (07) :627-636
[8]   THE ROLE OF CONCEPTUAL CONFLICT IN CONCEPTUAL CHANGE AND THE DESIGN OF SCIENCE INSTRUCTION [J].
HEWSON, PW ;
HEWSON, MGA .
INSTRUCTIONAL SCIENCE, 1984, 13 (01) :1-13
[9]  
KRAUS P, 1997, THESIS U WASHINGTON
[10]   On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories [J].
Redish, EF ;
Saul, JM ;
Steinberg, RN .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, 1997, 65 (01) :45-54