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.
Combining two reform curricula: An example from a course with well-prepared students
1. 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).
3. N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, “ Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
5. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, “ Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 338–352 (1998).
6. R. W. Chabay and B. A. Sherwood, Matter and Interactions I: Modern Mechanics and Matter and Interactions II: Electric and Magnetic Interactions, 2nd ed. (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2007).
7. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics, 1st ed. (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2002).
9. R. J. Beichner
, J. M. Saul
, D. S. Abbott
, J. J. Morse
, D. L. Deardorff
, R. J. Allain
, S. W. Bonham
, M. H. Dancy
, and J. S. Risley
, “ The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) project
,” in Research-Based Reform of University Physics
, edited by E. F. Redish
and P. J. Cooney
(American Association of Physics Teachers
, College Park, MD
), Reviews in PER Vol. 1, <http://www.per-central.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4517
12. B. S. Ambrose, P. S. Shaffer, R. N. Steinberg, and L. C. McDermott, “ An investigation of student understanding of single-slit diffraction and double-slit interference,” Am. J. Phys. 67, 146–155 (1999).
13. P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, “ Research as a guide for curriculum development: And example from introductory electricity. Part II: Design of instructional strategies,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 1003–1013 (1992).
14. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. Somers, “ Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's machine,” Am. J. Phys. 62, 46–55 (1994).
15. K. Wosilait, P. R. L. Heron, P. S. Shaffer, and L. C. McDermott, “ Development and assessment of a research-based tutorial on light and shadow,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 906–913 (1998).
16. K. Wosilait, P. R. L. Heron, P. S. Shaffer, and L. C. McDermott, “ Addressing student difficulties in applying a wave model to the interference and diffraction of light,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am J. Phys. Suppl. 67(S1 ), S5–S15 (1999).
17. B. S. Ambrose, “ Investigating student understanding in intermediate mechanics: Identifying the need for a tutorial approach to instruction,” Am. J. Phys. 72, 453–459 (2004).
18. B. A. Lindsey, P. R. L. Heron, and P. S. Shaffer, “ Student ability to apply the concepts of work and energy to extended systems,” Am. J. Phys. 77, 999–1009 (2009).
19. M. Sabella
, “ Implementing Tutorials in Introductory Physics at an Inner-City University in Chicago
,” in Proceedings of the 2002 Physics Education Research Conference
, edited by S. Franklin
, K. Cummings
, and J. Marx
, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2002, Boise, Idaho, 2002
, available on ComPADRE at <http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4292&DocID=1152
21. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1997).
23. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics, Custom Edition: Updated Preliminary 2nd ed., 2011–2012 (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2012).
24. M. D. Caballero et al., “ Comparing large lecture mechanics curricula using the Force Concept Inventory: A five thousand student study,” Am. J. Phys. 80, 638–644 (2012).
25.See Ref. 24 for a more complete discussion of these issues.
26. P. Shaffer and L. McDermott, “ A research-based approach to improving student understanding of the vector nature of kinematical concepts,” Am. J. Phys. 73, 921–931 (2005).
27. H. Close and P. R. L. Heron, “ Research as a guide for improving student learning: An example from momentum conservation,” Am. J. Phys. 78, 961–969 (2010).
28.The lack of a formal logical reasoning framework in typical introductory physics students has been well-documented by others. See J. Gaffney, “ Possibilities: A Framework for Modeling Students' Deductive Reasoning in Physics,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Physics, North Carolina State University, 2010 (unpublished).
29. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Instructor's Guide for Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2003).
30. M. D. Caballero, personal communication, 20 July 2012.
31.Overall scores on the FMCE were calculated using the methods described in R. K. Thornton et al., “ Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010105–1 (2009).
32.Question categories on the FMCE are described in Ref. 5.
33.See, for instance, K. Cummings et al., “ Evaluating Innovation in Studio Physics,” Am. J. Phys. 67, S38–S44 (1999), for a description of pre-course FMCE scores in several sections of a physics course at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
34.Some of these students had not ultimately given a correct net force comparison. Their stated reasoning suggested that this might have been due to a misreading of the relative masses of the gliders rather than to a failure to apply Newton's 2nd law correctly. We include them here as “correct reasoning” because we believe that if they had correctly compared the glider masses, they would have arrived at a correct response.
36.The MIET has undergone some modifications between the version described in Ref. 22 and the version used in our study, however, the author of the test suggests that these data represent the best available comparison to our data (L. Ding, personal communication, 9 August 2012).
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month