Full text loading...
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics
1.J. Halloun and D. Hestenes, “The initial knowledge state of college physics students,” Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043–1055 (1985);
1.J. Halloun and D. Hestenes, “Common sense concepts about motion,” Am. J. Phys. 53, 1056–1065 (1985).
2.L. C. McDermott, “Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics,” Phys. Today 37 (7), 24–32 (1984).
3.L. C. McDermott, M. Rosenquist, and E. van Zee, “Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics,” Am. J. Phys. 55, 503–513 (1987).
4.M. Rosenquist and L. C. McDermott, “A conceptual approach to teaching kinematics,” Am. J. Phys. 55, 407–415 (1987).
5.R. Gunstone, “Student understanding in mechanics: A large population survey,” Am. J. Phys. 55, 691–696 (1987).
6.J. Bowden, G. Dall’alba, E. Martin, D. Laurillard, F. Marton, G. Masters, P. Ramsden, A. Stephanou, and E. Walsh, “Displacement, velocity, and frames of reference: Phenomenographic studies of students’ understanding and some implications for teaching and assessment,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 262–269 (1992).
7.R. Driver, J. Leach, P. Scott, and C. Wood-Robinson, “Young peoples’ understanding of science concepts: implications of cross-age studies for curriculum planning,” Stud. Sci. Ed. 24, 75–100 (1994).
8.D. I. Dykstra, F. Boyle, and A. Monarch, “Studying conceptual change in learning physics,” Phys. Educ. 76 (6), 615–652 (1992).
9.G. Posner, K. Strike, P. Hewson, and W. Gertzog, “Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change,” Sci. Educ. 66, 211–227 (1982).
10.R. Duschl and D. Gitomer, “Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: implications for educational practice,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 839–858 (1991).
11.W. M. Roth and K. Lucas, “From ‘Truth’ to ‘Invented Reality’: A discourse analysis of high school physics students’ talk about scientific knowledge,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 145–179 (1997).
12.C. S. Kalman, S. Morris, C. Cottin, and R. Gordon, “Promoting conceptual change using collaborative groups in quantitative gateway courses,” Am. J. Phys. 67 (7), 45–51 (1999).
13.J. Piaget, The Equilibration of Cognitive Structure (University of Chicago, Chicago, 1985).
14.P. Tao and R. Gunstone, “The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36, 859–882 (1999).
15.In addition to Ref. 14, see J. Bliss and J. Ogborn, “Tools for exploratory learning,” J. Comp. Assist. Learn. 5, 37–50 (1989);
15.S. Papert, Mindstorms (Basic Books, New York, 1980).
16.In addition to Ref. 14, see P. Gorsky and M. Finegold, “Using computer simulations to restructure students’ conception of force,” J. Comp. Math. Sci. Teach. 11, 163–178 (1992).
17.D. J. Grayson and L. C. McDermott, “Use of the computer for research on student thinking in physics,” Am. J. Phys. 64, 557–565 (1996).
18.P. W. Hewson, “Diagnosis and remediation of an alternate conception of velocity using a microcomputer program,” Am. J. Phys. 53, 684–690 (1985).
19.M. Lea, B. A. Thacker, E. Kim, and K. M. Miller, “Computer assisted assessment of student understanding in physics,” Comput. Phys. 10 (1), 30–37 (1996).
20.C. Chou, “The effectiveness of using multimedia computer simulations coupled with social constructivist pedagogy in a college introductory physics classroom,” Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College-Columbia University, New York, 1998.
21.F. Goldberg, “Constructing physics understanding in a computer-supported learning environment,” AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 903–911 (1997).
22.B. S. Eylon, M. Ronen, and U. Ganiel, “Computer simulations as tools for teaching and learning: Using a simulation environment in optics,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 5 (2), 93–110 (1996).
23.D. J. Grayson, “Using education research to develop waves courseware,” Comput. Phys. 10 (1), 30–37 (1996).
24.A. Van Heuvelen, “Using interactive simulations to enhance conceptual development and problem solving skills,” AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 1119–1135 (1997).
25.R. Beichner, L. Bernold, E. Burniston, P. Dail, R. Felder, J. Gastineau, M. Gjersten, and J. Risley, “Case study of the physics component of an integrated curriculum,” Am. J. Phys. 67, 16–24 (1999).
26.E. Steinberg, Teaching Computers to Teach (L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1991).
27.E. Criswell, The Design of Computer-Based Instruction (Macmillan, New York, 1989);
27.E. Vockell and R. Rivers, Instructional Computing for Today’s Teachers (Macmillan, New York, 1984).
28.A. Bork, Learning with Computers (Digital, New York, 1982).
29.R. N. Steinberg, “Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate?” Am. J. Phys. 68(7), S37–S41 (2000).
30.See, for example, Interactive Physics (Knowledge Revolution, San Mateo, CA);
30.E. F. Redish, J. M. Wilson, and I. D. Johnston, The M.U.P.P.E.T. Utilities, THERMO (Physics Academic Software, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD).
31.See, in addition to Refs. 16171819202122232425, L. C. McDermott, “Research and computer-based instruction: opportunity for Interaction,” Am. J. Phys. 58 (5), 452–462 (1990);
31.B. White and P. Horwitz, “Computer microworlds and conceptual change: a new approach to science education,” in Improving Learning: New Perspectives, edited by P. Ramsden (Kogan Page, London, 1988), pp. 69–80;
31.A. I. Zietsman and P. W. Hewson, “Effect of instruction using microcomputer simulations and conceptual change strategies on science learning,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 23 (1), 27–39 (1986).
32.See, in addition to Ref. 29, K. Cummings, J. Marx, R. Thornton, and D. Kuhl, “Evaluating innovation in studio physics,” Am. J. Phys. 67(7), S38–S44 (1999).
33.D. D. Long, G. W. McLaughlin, and A. M. Bloom, “The influence of physics laboratories on student performance in a lecture course,” Am. J. Phys. 54, 122 (1986);
33.A. B. Arons, “Guiding insight and inquiry in the introductory physics laboratory,” Phys. Teach. 31, 278–282 (1993).
34.The accuracy of these two reasoning skills was assessed by using textbook information as the criterion.
35.For an example of a simulation that fulfills these criteria, see Ref. 17, p. 561. A similar simulation was used in this study.
36.L. C. McDermott, Physics by Inquiry (Wiley, New York, 1996), Vol. I, pp. 163–202;
36.Vol. II, pp. 539–619 and pp. 639–665.
37.L. C. McDermott, Peter S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
38.See, for example, L. C. McDermott, “A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: The need for special science courses for teachers,” Am. J. Phys. 58, 734–742 (1992);
38.E. F. Redish and R. N. Steinberg, “Teaching physics: Figuring out what works,” Phys. Today 52 (1), 24–30 (1999);
38.B. Thacker, E. Kim, K. Trefz, and S. M. Lea, “Comparing problem solving performance of physics students in inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 62, 627–633 (1994).
39.E. F. Redish, “Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics,” Am. J. Phys. 62, 796–803 (1994).
40.P. G. Hewitt, Conceptual Physics (Little, Brown, Boston, 1985).
41.Researchers have shown that even a single inquiry-based activity can produce improved conceptual understanding. See, for example, D. S. Abbott, J. M. Saul, G. W. Parker, and R. J. Beichner, “Can one lab make a difference?” Am. J. Phys. 68(7), S60–S61 (2000).
42.P. Shaffer, “Research as a guide for improving instruction in introductory physics,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, 1993;
42.L. G. Enderstein and P. E. Spargo, “Beliefs regarding force and motion: a longitudinal and cross-cultural study of South African school pupils,” Int. J. Sci. Educ. 18 (4), 479–492 (1996).
43.The pre- and post-tests were available only at specific times, for a short but reasonable duration and on particular days. The students were always informed in advance where and when a pre-test or a post-test was going to be posted. They were asked to respond to all the questions on a test and entered their answers in the text box that was provided on the Web. They were not allowed to print out or save the tests (the students were informed that the website was designed to keep track of any user that prints or saves a test). However, if figures were included in a test, they were offered in Microsoft Word format, so that students would be able to edit both text and simple graphics.
44.D. Halliday, R. Resnick, and J. Walker, Fundamentals of Physics (Wiley, New York, 1997).
45.This criterion was derived from Tao’s and Gunstone’s work. See Ref. 14.
46.D. Hammer, “Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics,” Sci. Educ. 79, 393–413 (1995).
47.G. DeBoer, A History of Ideas in Science Education (Teachers College, New York, 1991).
Article metrics loading...