You are on page 1of 34

Are Students Learning what you Think?

Physics Education Research by John M. Clement

Several Strands
Elementary education Physics Education (HS & college) General Science education Psychology (especially Piaget) Strands are intertwined and early ideas are now coming back.

A brief History
Robert Karplus Late 50s became interested in his childrens schooling. Left theoretical physics to develop SCIS curriculum for elementary school. It was research based. He along with Lawson and others developed the Learning Cycle

Learning Cycle
1. 2. 3. Exploration (inquiry labs) Concept development / term definition Application of concepts All 3 phases are necessary They must be in this order This improves content understanding and student thinking ability.

Kinematics graphs
Heather Brasell Late 80s Showed student Misconceptions with kinematics graphs Found labs using the sonic ranger improved understanding more than paper and pencil tasks.

David Hestenes & Malcolm Wells


1992 Hestenes & Hallouin developed Force Concept Inventory (FCI) Test of conceptual understanding of mechanics. Wells developed Modeling Method of teaching physics in HS that gave better FCI scores.

Lecturers at AZ State
1. Theoretician, logical orderly, proofs 2. Well prepared demos, highly conceptual 3. Experimentalist, emphasized problem solving 4. First time teacher followed book closely Same book, same content

Which one got better FCI scores?

Lectures
All the same. All uniformly low. Higher scores were achieved by a course with minimal lectures using the learning cycle. CONCLUSION: Conventional lectures, problem solving, demonstrations are not very effective.

Richard Hake
1998 6000 student comparison Found that Normalized gain is independent of pretest G = (post pre) / (max score pre) G is the fraction of Concepts understood / initially NOT

Results
Conventional courses 0 25% G Indirect measurement 10% G Interactive Engagement (research based) 30 70% G

Thornton, Sokoloff, Laws


Developed Forces & Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) Very different from FCI because it is not all natural language and stresses graphs. Comparison of 2 exams show they track almost perfectly with a high correlations

Why ?????????????
Misconceptions taught & natural Too much material (mile wide/inch deep) Lack of coherence in books/ standards Learning cycle not followed Miscommunication teachers say one thing / students hear something else.

Solutions
Follow a learning cycle approach Carefully targeted inquiry labs. Pre/Post test to see how well you do Engage students in doing thinking.

Things that dont work


Conventional demonstrations Conventional lectures Verification labs which just illustrate theory. Most published labs are verification.

Where to look for solutions


Modeling, AZ State - Hestenes Activity Based Physics Laws, Thornton, Sokoloff Tutorials, Inquiry physics, U. Washington McDermott et al Peer Instruction, Harvard - Mazur

Lillian McDermott et. al.


McDermott also investigated student understanding (U. Washington) Developed her own evaluations. Published Tutorials in Introductory Physics which improve both her evaluations and FCI/FMCE gain.

McDermott method
1. Predict Students must predict results 2. Confront Experiment reveals misconceptions (Piagetian surprise) 3. Resolve Students come up with explanations. This comes from Piagets ideas about how students learn!

Interactive Lecture Demonstrations


Published by Thornton & Sokoloff Complete copyable student worksheets Complete teacher instructions. Must be followed, but not scripted. Follows McDermott predict, confront, resolve cycle. Students have prediction & results sheet

Sample ILD Question


A massive heavy cart (truck) is pushed toward alight cart (car) that isnt moving. Describe in words how FT C (force of truck on car) compares to FC T (force of car on truck). Make a rough graph of the forces over time.

Results

Sequence
Show and explain situation (concrete introduction) Gather student predictions (short time) Demonstrate & Take data Students copy result Ask for student explanation Bridge to similar situations

Effective Demonstrations
Catherine Crouch Harvard Conventional demonstrations are extremely ineffective. But Student prediction of the result improves understanding.

Peer Instruction Eric Mazur


ACTIVE LECTURES Lecture for no more than 10 min Ask conceptual question Students vote in silence If enough get it right students discuss Students vote again Anonymous electronic voting helps!

Real Time Physics Labs


Thornton, Sokoloff Follow learning cycle and McDermott predict, confront, resolve cycle Shown to improve understanding even when instructor has never used them. Short cheap version called Tools for Scientific Thinking - Vernier

Modeling AZ State
Method of teaching Supplies complete materials Teachers experience curriculum materials Best developed training program Coherent curriculum/whiteboarding 4 weeks in summer in Tempe or at other locations.

Preconceptions in Mechanics
Clement & Camp Uses Anchor & Bridging analogies Start with well known correct intuition Bridge by a series of analogies to target conception. Copyable student WS.

Minds on Physics
Leonard et al Univ. Mass Amherst 6 volume activity based course Designed to enhance problem solving Teacher manual is extensive. NOT a workbook as students hand in separate sheets. Uses many techniques!

What about problem solving?


Improves some when conceptual understanding improves. Must be targeted as a separate skill Emphasize using concepts.

Mechanics
Students need to have multiple ways of looking at physics. 1. Pictures 2. Graphs 3. Descriptions 4. Equations Must translate between all 4

Pictures
Strobe or Motion Diagrams.

7m

1. Is the Acceleration +, 0, or - ?

Students must
Learn to interpret motion maps ---- Draw Motion maps ---- Draw graphs from motion maps Describe the motion completely Write equations from motion maps and graphs. And in reverse.

General Thinking Skills?


Recent evidence shows that they are hidden variables limiting physics learning. Anton Lawson Classroom Test of Scientific Thinking from his text Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking

FMCE gain vs Thinking skill


100 80 F M< > & G 60 40 20 0 -20 0 4 TS pre 8 12

Lawson Test
Tests general skills such as proportional reasoning, 2 variable reasoning Only 25% of regular students have proportional reasoning 75% of honors students have proportional reasoning. Scores on this test need to be targeted.

You might also like