No Access Submitted: 26 April 2005 Accepted: 17 February 2006 Published Online: 11 May 2006
American Journal of Physics 74, 526 (2006);
more...View Affiliations
Asynchronous online student discussions of online homework problems in introductory physics courses are analyzed with respect to course type, student course performance, student gender, problem difficulty, and problem type. It is found that these variables can significantly change the character of online student collaborations.
This project was supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF-ITR 0085921 and NSF-CCLI-ASA 0243126. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The author would like to thank everybody in the LON-CAPA group at MSU for their hard work on the software platform, Anna Kortemeyer for her assistance in preparing the manuscript, Joyce Parker, Walter Benenson, and David Fortus at MSU for useful discussions, as well as his students for their patience and willingness to participate in this study.
  1. 1. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1997). Google Scholar
  2. 2. R. Wallace, “Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among teachers and students,” Education, Communication and Information 3, 241–280 (2003). Google ScholarCrossref
  3. 3. LON-CAPA is an open-source freeware system initially developed by Michigan State University. More information can be found at Google Scholar
  4. 4. D. A. Kashy, G. Albertelli, W. Bauer, E. Kashy, and M. Thoennessen, “Influence of non-moderated and moderated discussion sites on student success,” J. Asynchronous Learning Networks 7, 31–36 (2003). Google Scholar
  5. 5. D. A. Kashy, G. Albertelli, G. Ashkenazi, E. Kashy, H.-K. Ng, and M. Thoennessen, “Individualized interactive exercises: A promising role for network technology,” IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings 31, 1073–1078 (2001). Google Scholar
  6. 6. R. N. Steinberg and M. S. Sabella, “Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems,” Phys. Teach.0031-921X 35, 150–155 (1997). Google ScholarScitation
  7. 7. E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics (Wiley, New York, 2003). Google Scholar
  8. 8. L. McDermott, M. L. Rosenquist, and E. H. van Zee, “Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics,” Am. J. Phys.0002-9505 55, 503–513 (1987). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  9. 9. R. J. Beichner, “Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs,” Am. J. Phys.0002-9505 62, 750–762 (1994). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  10. 10. E. Mazur, “The problem with problems,” Opt. Photonics News1047-6938 6, 59–60 (1996). Google ScholarCrossref
  11. 11. H. Lin, “Learning physics vs. passing courses,” Phys. Teach.0031-921X 20(3), 151–157 (1982). Google ScholarScitation
  12. 12. M. T. H. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, “Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices,” Cogn. Sci.0364-0213 5, 121–152 (1981). Google ScholarCrossref
  13. 13. A. Pascarella, “The influence of web-based homework on quantitative problem-solving in a university physics class,” in Proceedings NARST Annual Meeting, (2004). Google Scholar
  14. 14. G. M. Novak, E. T. Patterson, A. D. Gavrin, and W. Christian, Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Beb Technology (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1999). Google ScholarScitation
  15. 15. V. Aleven, E. Stahl, S. Schworm, F. Fischer, and R. Wallace, “Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments,” Rev. Educ. Res.0034-6543 73, 277–320 (2003). Google ScholarCrossref
  16. 16. E. F. Redish, R. N. Steinberg, and J. M. Saul, “Student expectations in introductory physics,” Am. J. Phys.0002-9505 66, 212–224 (1998). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  17. 17. I. Halloun, R. R. Hake, E. P. Mosca, and D. Hestenes, “Force concept inventory,” Google Scholar
  1. © 2006 American Association of Physics Teachers.