Our new content platform is coming soon! Learn more>

MENU
  • Scitation Home
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE

Thank you

For your interest in American Journal of Physics

Check for updates on crossmark
Prev Next
No Access Submitted: 19 September 2001 Accepted: 29 January 2002 Published Online: 13 May 2002

  • Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture

American Journal of Physics 70, 639 (2002); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1463739
David E. Meltzer
  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011
    • Kandiah Manivannan
  • Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Materials Science, Southwest Missouri State University, 901 South National Avenue, Springfield, Missouri 65804
    • more...View Contributors
    • David E. Meltzer
    • Kandiah Manivannan
    ABSTRACT
    Numerous reports suggest that learning gains in introductory university physics courses may be increased by “active-learning” instructional methods. These methods engender greater mental engagement and more extensive student–student and student–instructor interaction than does a typical lecture class. It is particularly challenging to transfer these methodologies to the large-enrollment lecture hall. We report on seven years of development and testing of a variant of Peer Instruction as pioneered by Mazur that aims at achieving virtually continuous instructor–student interaction through a “fully interactive” physics lecture. This method is most clearly distinguished by instructor–student dialogues that closely resemble one-on-one instruction. We present and analyze a detailed example of such classroom dialogues, and describe the format, procedures, and curricular materials required for creating the desired lecture-room environment. We also discuss a variety of assessment data that indicate strong gains in student learning, consistent with other researchers. We conclude that interactive-lecture methods in physics instruction are practical, effective, and amenable to widespread implementation.

    REFERENCES
    Section:
    Previous sectionNext section

    1. 1. Eric Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997). Google Scholar
    2. 2. Ibrahim Abou Hallounand David Hestenes, “The initial knowledge state of college physics students,” Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043–1055 (1985). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    3. 3. David Hestenes, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer, “Force concept inventory,” Phys. Teach. 30, 141–158 (1992). Google ScholarScitation
    4. 4. Richard R. Hake, “Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 64–74 (1998). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    5. 5. Edward F. Redish, Jeffery M. Saul, and Richard N. Steinberg, “On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories,” Am. J. Phys. 65, 45–54 (1997). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    6. 6. Ronald K. Thorntonand David R. 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, 338–352 (1998). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    7. 7. David P. Maloney, Thomas L. O’Kuma, Curtis J. Hieggelke, and Alan Van Heuvelen, “Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl. 69, S12–S23 (2001). Google ScholarAbstract
    8. 8. Lillian C. McDermott, “Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—closing the gap,” Am. J. Phys. 59, 301–315 (1991). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    9. 9. Lillian C. McDermott, “Guest comment: How we teach and how students learn—a mismatch?,” Am. J. Phys. 61, 295–298 (1993). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    10. 10. Lillian C. McDermott, “Bridging the gap between teaching and learning: The role of research,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 139–165 (1997)], pt. 1. Google ScholarCrossref
    11. 11. E. F. Redish, “Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics,” Am. J. Phys. 62, 796–803 (1994). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    12. 12. Arnold B. Arons, Teaching Introductory Physics (Wiley, New York, 1997). Google Scholar
    13. 13. David P. Maloney, “Research on problem solving: Physics,” in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, edited by Dorothy L. Gabel (Macmillan, New York, 1994), pp. 327–354. Google Scholar
    14. 14. Frederick Reif, “Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes,” Am. J. Phys. 63, 17–32 (1995). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    15. 15. It is widely acknowledged among physics educators that, one way or the other—whether through homework, class work, or individual discussion—most students must be guided to exert intense mental efforts in order to learn physics effectively. Belief in this principle by no means is held only by nontraditional physics educators. Preliminary results from a large-scale interview study clearly suggest that these beliefs characterize the views of many physics instructors regarding student learning of problem solving skills: Patricia Heller, Kenneth Heller, Charles Henderson, Vince H. Kuo, and Edit Yerushalmi, “Instructors’ beliefs and values about learning problem solving,” in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by Scott Franklin, Jeffrey Marx, and Karen Cummings (Rochester, New York, 2001), pp. 75–78. Google Scholar
    16. 16. John R. Thompson, Paula R. L. Heron, Peter S. Shaffer, and Lillian C. McDermott, “Development and assessment of curriculum,” AAPT Announcer 28 (2), 80 (1998). Google Scholar
    17. 17. Karen Cummings, Jeffrey Marx, Ronald Thornton, and Dennis Kuhl, “Evaluating innovations in studio physics,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl. 67, S38–S44 (1999). Also see Ref. 62. Google ScholarAbstract
    18. 18. Ronald K. Thorntonand David R. Sokoloff, “Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools,” Am. J. Phys. 58, 858–867 (1990). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    19. 19. Edward F. Redishand Richard N. Steinberg, “Teaching physics: Figuring out what works,” Phys. Today 52, 24–30 (1999). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
    20. 20. Fred Goldberg, “Constructing physics understanding in a computer-supported learning environment,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 903–911 (1997)], pt. 2. Google ScholarCrossref
    21. 21. Raphael Littauer, “Instructional implications of a low-cost electronic student response system,” Educational Technology (October 1972), p. 69. Google Scholar
    22. 22. E. A. Lumsden, “Use of student feedback cards for diagnostic purposes during classroom lectures,” in Improving College and University Teaching Yearbook 1976 (Oregon State U.P., Corvallis, 1976), p. 39. Google Scholar
    23. 23. A form of the “feedback card” method was described by Thomas A. Moore in his Six Ideas That Shaped Physics (WCB McGraw–Hill, Boston, 1998). Google Scholar
    24. 24. F. Lyman, “The responsive class discussion,” in Mainstreaming Digest, edited by A. S. Anderson (College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, 1981); Google Scholar
      F. Lyman, “Think-pair-share, thinktrix, thinklinks, and weird facts,” in Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learning, edited by N. Davidson and T. Worsham (New York, Teacher’s College Press, 1992). Google Scholar
    25. 25. The “minute paper” has long been ascribed to Wilson as he was apparently the first to describe it in the literature [R. C. Wilson, “Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants,” J. Higher Educ. 57, 192–211 (1986)]. Google ScholarCrossref
      More recently, it has been acknowledged that the original source of the idea was Berkeley physicist C. Schwartz. See Barbara Gross Davis, Lynn Wood, and Robert C. Wilson, A Berkeley Compendium of Suggestions for Teaching with Excellence (University of California, Berkeley, 1983, available at http://teaching.berkeley.edu/compendium/, Suggestion #95). , Google Scholar
    26. 26. Charles C. Bonwell and James A. Eison, “Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom,” ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, Washington, DC, 1991), pp. 7–19 and passim, and references therein. Google Scholar
    27. 27. Alan Van Heuvelen, “Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies,” Am. J. Phys. 59, 891–897 (1991). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    28. 28. Alan Van Heuvelen, “Overview, case study physics,” Am. J. Phys. 59, 898–907 (1991). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    29. 29. Alan Van Heuvelen, ALPS Kit: Active Learning Problem Sheets, Mechanics (Hayden–McNeil, Plymouth, MI, 1990). Google Scholar
    30. 30. Alan Van Heuvelen, ALPS Kit: Active Learning Problem Sheets, Electricity and Magnetism (Hayden–McNeil, Plymouth, MI, 1990). Google Scholar
    31. 31. Van Heuvelen has updated his methods by incorporating multimedia tools and innovative group activities: Google Scholar
      Alan Van Heuvelen, “Experiment problems for mechanics,” Phys. Teach. 3, 176–180 (1995); Google ScholarScitation
      Alan Van Heuvelen, “Using interactive simulations to enhance conceptual development and problem solving skills,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 1119–1135 (1997)], pt. 2; , Google ScholarCrossref
      Alan Van Heuvelen, Leith Allen, and Pavlos Mihas, “Experiment problems for electricity and magnetism,” Phys. Teach. 37, 482–485 (1999). , Google ScholarScitation
    32. 32. Eric Mazur, “Understanding or memorization: Are we teaching the right thing?,” in Conference on the Introductory Physics Course, edited by Jack Wilson (Wiley, New York, 1997), pp. 113–123. Google Scholar
    33. 33. Eric Mazur, “Peer Instruction: getting students to think in class,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 981–988 (1997)], pt. 2. Google ScholarCrossref
    34. 34. Catherine H. Crouch, “Peer Instruction: An interactive approach for large classes,” Opt. Photonics News 9 (9), 37–41 (September1998); Google ScholarCrossref
      Adam P. Fagen, Catherine H. Crouch, and Eric Mazur, “Peer instruction results from a range of classrooms,” Phys. Teach. 40(4), 206–209 (2002). , Google ScholarScitation
    35. 35. Catherine H. Crouchand Eric Mazur, “Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results,” Am. J. Phys. 69, 970–977 (2001); Google ScholarScitation, ISI
      http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/library, , Google Scholar
    36. 36. Laurent Hodges, “Changes in the introductory calculus-based physics course at Iowa State University,” in Conference on the Introductory Physics Course, edited by Jack Wilson (Wiley, New York, 1997), pp. 291–294. Google Scholar
    37. 37. R. G. Fuller, “Using interactive lecture methods to teach physics,” American Physical Society Forum on Education, Spring 1994. Google Scholar
    38. 38. H. T. Hudson, “Teaching physics to a large lecture section,” Phys. Teach. 23, 81–84 (1985). Google ScholarScitation
    39. 39. Robert J. Dufresne, William J. Gerace, William J. Leonard, Jose P. Mestre, and Laura Wenk, “Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning,” J. Comp. Higher Educ. 7, 3–47 and http://umperg.physics.umass.edu/gemsFolder/umperg2/CT_Paper.pdf (1996). Google ScholarCrossref
    40. 40. Jose P. Mestre, William J. Gerace, Robert J. Dufresne, and William J. Leonard, “Promoting active learning in large classes using a classroom communication system,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 1019–1036 (1997)], pt. 2. Google ScholarCrossref
    41. 41. Laura Wenk, Robert Dufresne, William Gerace, William Leonard, and Jose Mestre, “Technology-assisted active learning in large lectures,” in Student-Active Science, Models of Innovation in College Science Teaching, edited by Ann P. McNeal and Charlene D’Avanzo (Saunders College Publishing, Fort Worth, 1997), pp. 431–452. Google Scholar
    42. 42. J. Poulis, C. Massen, E. Robens, and M. Gilbert, “Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 439–441 (1998). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    43. 43. Joel A. Shapiro, “Electronic student response found feasible in large science lecture hall,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 26, 408–412 (1997). Google Scholar
    44. 44. Ray A. Burnsteinand Leon M. Lederman, “Using wireless keypads in lecture classes,” Phys. Teach. 39, 8–11 (2001). Google ScholarScitation
    45. 45. Robert J. Beichner, Jeffery M. Saul, Rhett J. Allain, Duane L. Deardorff, and David S. Abbott, “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, 2000 and http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/pams/physics/Physics_Ed/index.html. Google Scholar
    46. 46. Dean Zollman, “Learning Cycle physics,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 1137–1149 (1997)], pt. 2. Google ScholarCrossref
    47. 47. Priscilla W. Laws, “Calculus-based physics without lectures,” Phys. Today 44 (12), 24–31 (1991); Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
      Priscilla W. Laws, “Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 65, 14–21 (1997). , Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    48. 48. David R. Sokoloffand Ronald K. Thornton, “Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment,” Phys. Teach. 35 (10), 340–347 (1997). Google ScholarScitation
    49. 49. David R. Sokoloffand Ronald K. Thornton, “Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 1061–1074 (1997)], pt. 2. Google ScholarCrossref
    50. 50. Gregor M. Novak, Evelyn T. Patterson, Andrew D. Gavrin, and Wolfgang Christian, Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology (Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999). Google Scholar
    51. 51. David Hestenes, “Modeling methodology for physics teachers,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 935–957 (1997)], pt. 2. Google ScholarCrossref
    52. 52. Ruth W. Chabay and Bruce A. Sherwood, Electric and Magnetic Interactions (Wiley, New York, 1995). Google Scholar
    53. 53. Bruce A. Sherwoodand Ruth W. Chabay, “Integrating theory and experiment in lecture using desktop experiments,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 1053–1060 (1997)], pt. 2. Google ScholarCrossref
    54. 54. Randall D. Knight, Physics: A Contemporary Perspective (Addison–Wesley, Reading, MA, 1997), Vols. 1,2, preliminary ed. Also see Ref. 80. Google Scholar
    55. 55. Ruth W. Chabay, “Qualitative understanding and retention,” AAPT Announcer 27 (2), 96 (1997). Google Scholar
    56. 56. Randall D. Knight, “Studio Physics at Cal Poly: What have we learned?” AAPT Announcer 30 (2), 132 (2000). Google Scholar
    57. 57. David E. Meltzerand Kandiah Manivannan, “Promoting interactivity in physics lecture classes,” Phys. Teach. 34, 72–76 (1996). Google ScholarScitation
    58. 58. Kandiah Manivannanand David E. Meltzer, “Increasing active student participation in the classroom through the use of ‘flash cards,’ ” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 821–822 (1997)], pt. 1; Google ScholarCrossref
      David E. Meltzer, “Nontraditional approach to algebra-based general physics,” AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 823–824 (1997). , Google ScholarCrossref
    59. 59. David E. Meltzer and Kandiah Manivannan, “Interactive methods for large classes: Workshop W29 at the AAPT Winter Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 4, 1998”; Google Scholar
      David E. Meltzerand Kandiah Manivannan, “Interactive methods for large classes: Workshop W36 at the AAPT Summer Meeting, Lincoln, Nebraska, August 4, 1998,” AAPT Announcer 28 (2), 66 (1998); Google Scholar
      David E. Meltzerand Kandiah Manivannan, “Workshop W04 at the AAPT Summer Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, August 3, 1999,” AAPT Announcer 29 (2), 57 (1999); Google Scholar
      David E. Meltzerand Kandiah Manivannan, “Workshop W11 at the AAPT Summer Meeting, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, July 29, 2000,” AAPT Announcer 30 (2), 53 (2000). Google Scholar
    60. 60. Lillian C. McDermott, Stamatis Vokos, and Peter S. Shaffer, “Sample class on Tutorials in Introductory Physics,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 1007–1018 (1997)], pt. 2. Google ScholarCrossref
    61. 61. Lillian C. McDermott, Peter S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002). Google Scholar
    62. 62. Patricia Heller, Ronald Keith, and Scott Anderson“Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Group versus individual problem solving,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 627–636 (1992). Google ScholarScitation
    63. 63. Patricia Hellerand Mark Hollabaugh, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. 2. Designing problems and structuring groups,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 637–644 (1992). Google ScholarScitation
    64. 64. Patricia Heller, Thomas Foster, and Kenneth Heller, “Cooperative group problem solving laboratories for introductory classes,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden [AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 913–933 (1997)], pt. 2. Google ScholarCrossref
    65. 65. Patrica Heller and Kenneth Heller, Cooperative Group Problem Solving in Physics (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1999) and http://www.physics.umn.edu/groups/physed/Research/CGPS/GreenBook.html. Google Scholar
    66. 66. David R. Sokoloff, Ronald K. Thornton, and Priscilla W. Laws, RealTime Physics, Active Learning Laboratories; Module 1: Mechanics; Module 2: Heat and Thermodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1999). Google Scholar
    67. 67. Priscilla W. Laws, with R. J. Boyle, P. J. Cooney, K. L. Laws, J. W. Luetzelschwab, D. R. Sokoloff, and R. K. Thornton, Workshop Physics Activity Guide, The Core Volume with Module 1: Mechanics 1 (Wiley, New York, 1997). Google Scholar
    68. 68. Pamela Ann Kraus, “Promoting Active Learning in Lecture-Based Courses: Demonstrations, Tutorials, and Interactive Tutorial Lectures,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington (UMI, Ann Arbor, MI, 1997), UMI #9736313. Google Scholar
    69. 69. Jack M. Wilson, “The CUPLE physics studio,” Phys. Teach. 32, 518–523 (1994). Google ScholarScitation
    70. 70. Classtalk, a hard-wired system, may still be available from Interactive Classroom Consulting, http://www.bedu.com/ICC.html. Google Scholar
    71. 71. A system based on infrared signaling is distributed by EduCue, 351 Alplaus Ave, Alplaus, NY 12008, http://www.educue.com; a different system is available from TI, http://education.ti.com/product/tech/tinav/overview/overview.html. Google Scholar
    72. 72. A rf-based system is available from Socratec.com, http://www.socratec.com/. Google Scholar
    73. 73. It is possible to use questions that focus on quantitative understanding or methods of calculation. We do so on occasion, depending on the nature of the topic and the course itself. In this regard, see Refs. 40 and 58. The strategy of using an “easy-to-hard” conceptual sequence has also been discussed by Mestre et al., Ref. 40. Google Scholar
    74. 74. This strategy is also emphasized by Crouch and Mazur, Ref. 35. Google Scholar
    75. 75. See Sec. VIII. We refer to these sessions as “tutorials” because their format and philosophy very closely match those developed at the University of Washington. However, for the most part, the materials we employ during these sessions are not the actual Tutorials in Introductory Physics cited in Ref. 61. The latter are used during three of the laboratory periods at ISU. Google Scholar
    76. 76. The Workbook is distributed in three-hole-punched format for ring binders, so students do not have to bring all of the materials every day. Google Scholar
    77. 77. Kandiah Manivannan and David E. Meltzer, “Use of in-class physics demonstrations in highly interactive format,” in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by Scott Franklin, Jeffrey Marx, and Karen Cummings (Rochester, New York, 2001), pp. 95–98. Google Scholar
    78. 78. The idea of using specially designed worksheets in large lecture classes has also been discussed by Van Heuvelen (Refs. 27 and 28) and by Kraus (Ref. 68). Many questions in our worksheets also ask for explanations of students’ reasoning. These explanations are emphasized and carefully checked during the tutorial sessions, but not so much so during the interactive lectures. We have not found it practical to make a rigid separation between worksheets used in lecture and those used in tutorials. In fact, which worksheets get used where is variable, and is essentially a function of day-to-day class scheduling. Google Scholar
    79. 79. A preliminary edition of the Workbook is available from the authors in CD-ROM format. There is now also a vastly expanded inventory of ConcepTests available at the Project Galileo web site, http://galileo.harvard.edu/. Google Scholar
    80. 80. Randall D. Knight, Physics: A Contemporary Perspective, Student Workbook (Addison–Wesley Longman, Reading, MA, 1997), Vols. 1, 2, preliminary ed. Google Scholar
    81. 81. In fact, this type of student resistance to interactive-engagement physics courses has been discussed in the literature by a number of practitioners, for example, Ruth W. Chabay and Bruce A. Sherwood, Instructor’s Manual to Accompany Electric and Magnetic Interactions (Wiley, New York, 1995), pp. 8 and 9. Google Scholar
    82. 82. Additional insight regarding possible gender-related disparities in student responses are discussed by Priscilla W. Laws, Pamela J. Rosborough, and Frances J. Poodry, “Women’s responses to an activity-based introductory physics program,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl. 67, S32–S37 (1999). Google ScholarAbstract
    83. 83. The CSE was used in this abridged form, omitting some items, for various reasons. In some cases, the notational conventions differed from what was used in class (for example, electric field lines are used on the CSE, but only field vectors are used in class). In other cases, the questions dealt with material that was covered peripherally or not at all in class. This abridged subset consisted of the following item numbers from CSE Form G [corresponding CSEM item numbers in brackets]: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9[7], 10[8], 11[9], 12, 13[10], 14[11], 15, 16[12], 23[17], 24[18], 25[19], 26, 27[16], 28[20], 31[3], 32[4], 33[5]. (In several cases, there are minor differences between the CSE questions and the corresponding CSEM items.) Google Scholar
    84. 84. We follow Hake’s definition (Ref. 4) of “normalized learning gain” g, where g=[(post-test score-pre-test score)/(maximum possible score-pre-test score)]; 〈g〉 is calculated by using class-mean values for pre-test and post-test scores in the formula for g. Google Scholar
    85. 85. David E. Meltzer, “The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible ‘hidden variable’ in diagnostic pretest scores?,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl. (submitted), and available at http://www.public.iastate.edu/∼per/articles/ms/ms.pdf. Google Scholar
    86. 86. The effect size d is a widely used measure in education research that quantifies the nonoverlap of two populations, typically including one that has, and another that has not received some specified pedagogical intervention. (Higher values of d correspond to greater nonoverlap, that is, larger treatment “effect.”) See, for example, Jacob Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), 2nd ed., Chap. 2. The definitions given by Cohen are widely, though not universally, adopted: d=|mA−mB|/σrms; σrms=(σA2+σB2)/2, where mA and σA are the mean score and standard deviation of population A, and mB and σB are those corresponding to population B. As an example, for the ISU 2000 sample we have mpre-test=33.7% and σpre-test=16.0%, mpost-test=79.4% and σpost-test=14.3%, σrms=15.2%, and d=45.7/15.2=3.01. Google Scholar
    87. 87. Of the 223 students in the three ISU samples combined, only 7 had individual values of g⩽0.22. Google Scholar
    88. 88. Peter S. Shafferand Lillian C. McDermott, “Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. II. Design of instructional strategies,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 1003–1013 (1992). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    89. 89. Reference 4, Sec. V B 3. Google Scholar
    90. 90. Reference 4, Sec. III A. Google Scholar
    91. 91. Ronald L. Greene, “Illuminating physics via web-based self-study,” Phys. Teach. 39, 356–360 (2001). Google ScholarScitation
      In Greene’s course, very strong emphasis was placed on qualitative, conceptual problems in examples, homework assignments, quizzes, and exams. Although interactive methods were not used during lectures, it is important to note that the extensive homework assignments made heavy use of a nontraditional, highly interactive web-based methodology which itself incorporated IE techniques such as immediate feedback. , Google Scholar
    92. 92. C. J. DeLeone, W. H. Potter, and L. B. Coleman, “Comparisons of student MCAT performance: Traditional lecture/laboratory course vs. Physics Education Research based course,” APS Centennial Meeting Program, Session LB20, Abstract LB20.07 (1999). Google Scholar
    93. 93. The ratio of quantitative to qualitative problems on our quizzes and exams is approximately 1/1. Many problems are of a combined nature, involving both qualitative and quantitative elements; they often emphasize proportional reasoning in various contexts. During a semester, including quizzes, homework, and exams, students solve approximately 400 problems for grade credit. Google Scholar
    94. 94. Lillian Christie McDermott, “Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: Physics Education Research—The key to student learning,” Am. J. Phys. 69, 1127–1137 (2001). Google ScholarScitation
    1. © 2002 American Association of Physics Teachers.

    Article Metrics

    Views
    367
    Citations
    Crossref 122
    Web of Science
    ISI 106

    Altmetric

    Please Note: The number of views represents the full text views from December 2016 to date. Article views prior to December 2016 are not included.