1 / 17

EF03: Large Lecture Theater In-Seat Experiments for Introductory Physics

EF03: Large Lecture Theater In-Seat Experiments for Introductory Physics. Daniel L MacIsaac , SUNY Buffalo State College Physics (716) 878-3802 macisadl@buffalostate.edu. Abstract and Notes.

hertz
Télécharger la présentation

EF03: Large Lecture Theater In-Seat Experiments for Introductory Physics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EF03: Large Lecture Theater In-Seat Experiments for Introductory Physics Daniel L MacIsaac, SUNY Buffalo State College Physics (716) 878-3802 macisadl@buffalostate.edu

  2. Abstract and Notes I present and discuss examples of short qualitative and quantitative hands-on activities for teaching introductory mechanics, electrostatics and optics. These activities are designed to provide students with direct experience to physics phenomena and to support student discourse and investigation of phenomena within the many restrictions of a lecture setting. URLs: This Talk: http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/AAPTmtgs/ Seat Expts: http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/SeatExpts/index/ Whiteboards: http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/AZTEC/BP_WB/ This project was supported by the National Science Foundation through ACEPT (Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers), and the US Department of Education through AZTEC (Arizona Teacher Excellence Coalition). My students (all preservice science teachers) who have contributed to the development of Seat Experiments, taking pictures, videotaping and transcribing include: Tom Thompson, Amber Cline, Heather Chlup, Nathan Marler, Nathan Davis, Tom Doran, Cherie Church, and especially Chris Ackerley. Many of my students have provided patient, insightful comment. Earlier versions of this presentation were given at the University of Helsinki, Finland in Nov, 1998 and the NSF CETP conference Mar, 2000 with their support.

  3. The Problem • Traditional lectures are far less-than-optimally effective at teaching physics to nonmajors: • students sit passively back (are not actively engaged) and take notes while the instructor regurgitates the text (they watch the movie) • for non-mechanics topics, students have little or no concrete experience with most of the phenomena treated during the course (no clue) • on tests and exams students cram and regurgitate material with little understanding or experience with collusion by texts (vocabulary and chant: coil vs. solenoid, N3) • students work in isolation in a competitive, individualistic atmosphere (fine for majors?) • students are often very apprehensive (alienated; feel alone -- perhaps linked to mathematics preparation) • lecture practice (derivations and demos) does not match test and exam goals (problem solving) • students are highly grade-driven (not intrinsically motivated)

  4. Seat Experiments • short, concrete, just-in-time phenomenological activities carried out in the seats of a large lecture theatre at pedagogically appropriate moments in regular physics lectures. • activities are between five and twenty minutes in duration and all involve cooperative work in groups of 3 students. • written qualitative and quantitative questions must be discussed and answered by the group and turned in on a single sheet of paper. • group members have assigned rotating roles: scribe, mechanic, critic. Group dynamics are very important -- groups "dance." • students share group grades for activities; activities are reiterated/expanded on exams. • experiments are chosen to introduce phenomena and anchor cooperative group discussion in concrete experience (particularly lacking in introductory electrical, magnetic and optical phenomena).

  5. Examples of Seat Experiments and Whiteboards • Introductory courses (http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/SeatExpts/index/) • Geometric Optics • Diverging Lenses • Kinematics • Kinematics and the Coin Toss • Dynamics • The Angle of Repose

  6. Measurement hints: • Each major square of graph paper is 1” or 2.54cm • A dollar bill is 6.16” or 15.6cm

  7. Instructor Commentary • Instructor assessment has gone through the roof (high payoff / effort); students try to stay past the end of lecture (have to be run out of the room - videotape). • Students claim "...this is my most fun class," "...I'm amazed to see how organized / how much we get done in a single lecture..." "I never check the clock in class and am often surprised when it ends..." • Grading loads are managed by a very coarsely-grained 0 –5 pt system. The first four points are given for thorough conscientious work, last 1 for correctness (after student feedback). Complete/correct solutions are posted for exam study. The idea is fast, easy and frequent feedback (helps attendance, too!) • Students perform an activity at least every 2nd lecture. Time to observe, diagram, discuss, report and debrief these activities in lecture time is significant and must be managed. Loss of topical breadth reviewing the commercial text material is made up by either a weekly written summary of the text material or by taking an electronically-offered test. Fewer topics are treated in greater depth via Seat Experiments -- "less IS more!"

  8. Student Commentary • Student feedback to seat activities in general has been extremely supportive and nearly all students claim or support claims that the activities are insightful, motivational, memorable and enjoyable. Students routinely claim seat experiments are concrete, hands-on, based in real-life situations and help put their knowledge together. • If the course were to change and I could only retain one aspect that would be the seat experiments because they make the lecture come together in a concrete way rather than having me leave class with a bunch of abstract material floating around in my head. • The seat experiments seemed very helpful to me because they were purposely vague and they applied the concepts to real life. I liked them because they took real life objects and situations and applied physics to them. Secondly they required a more in depth understanding than just an equation. • I enjoy most of the Seat Experiments because they give you a hands on approach to what we are learning and helps visualize our concepts. The Experiments test our knowledge, but since they are in class, we can get help if we don't understand them. I like the magnetic field seat experiment because by playing with the magnet we could see the direction and magnitude of the B field.

  9. Student Commentary • Other student feedback themes include: • seat activities provide a mean to keep motivation, concentration and interest through long lectures • activities make you prepare more/read ahead better for class • group dynamics (guidance, makeup, changing, size) are critical to success • grading and evaluation are concerns as are time constraints • debriefing is critical, seat activities can be frustrating • A Dissenting Student Comments: Seat experiments are the stupidest thing I've ever had to deal with. I feel like the instructor is basically too lazy to lecture and actually teach us the stuff, so he has us "teach ourselves." The seat experiments are vague in instructions and when we ask for help my group is always just given more and more questions by whoever is helping us. I would dispose of the seat experiments if I could get rid of anything in the class. I cannot stress exactly how stupid and inane I find these things to be. They waste my time, confuse me more and make me want to run screaming from the room every time we do one.

  10. Whiteboarding (Seat Problems) • Groups of three students are given whiteboards and markers and asked to answer conceptual problems in 5 - 20 minutes. • Whiteboards are collected and coarsely group graded, related problems are given on exams and homework. • Whiteboard problems are typically modified from curricular materials written by Arons (1997), Laws et al (1997), Knight (1996) and Mazur (1996). • My large-group variants from Hestenes' high school instruction: • student discourse is anchored in the collaborative construction of solutions to abstract problems on their whiteboards rather than focused on real apparatus; • no round-robin group presentation is made at the end, though groups may be called upon during an instructor-led debriefing.

  11. Student Commentary • Students claim whiteboards promote collaboration allowing the whole group to find mistakes in one another's reasoning, to teach (and learn from) one another, and to jointly practice problem solving strategies. • It also makes it easier for students to work together, not just one student working on one sheet of paper. They are valuable to my learning. The figuring out parallel resistors experiment was the most productive because the entire team was involved in finding out answers. • The white board force students to participate in active and in depth thinking. Also by working in groups, you can share knowledge with one another. Or last white board showed us the the magnetic field work with equations and reiterated the right hand rules. • White boards are just as helpful as experiments. Even though they are not hands on I like being able to talk about the concepts with classmates and have some extra practice at solving problems. Drawing things out is very helpful to me in remembering how things such as electric and magnetic fields work. • …it's nice to be able to work with people and talk about the things we are learning. It helps to see that other people are confused too, and we can help each other out.

  12. Bibliography Arons, A.B. (1997). Teaching introductory physics. Wiley: NY. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The Two Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction asEffective as One-to-One Tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4-16. Chabay, R.W. & Sherwood, B.A. (1995). Electric and magnetic interactions. Wiley: NY. Hake, R. R. (1996). Evaluating conceptual gains in mechanics: A six-thousand-student survey of test data. Proceedings of the third international conference on undergraduate physics education, College Park, MD. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74. Hake, R.R. (1992). Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab. Physics Teacher, 30, 546-552. Hallouin, I.A. & Hestenes, D. (1987). Modeling instruction in mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 455-462. Heller, P., Keith,R. & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping, Part 1: Group vs. individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60, 627-636.

  13. Bibliography Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M., (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping, Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60, 637-644. Hestenes, D. (1996). Modeling methodology for physics teachers. Proceedings of the third international conference on undergraduate physics education, College Park, MD. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Interaction Book Co: Edina, MN. Knight, R. (1997). Physics: A contemporary perspective. Addison-Wesley:NY Sokoloff, D.R., Laws, P. & Thornton, R.K. (1998). Real-Time Physics. Wiley: NY. Laws, P. (1991). Calculus-based physics without lectures. Physics Today, 44(12) 24-31. Laws, P. (1995). Workshop physics activity guide. Wiley: NY. Laws, P. (1989). Workshop physics: Replacing lectures with real experience. Proceedings of the conference on computers in physics instruction,, 22-32. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Prentice-Hall: NY. Piaget, J. and Garcia, R. (1989). (H. Feider, Trans.). Psychogenesis and the history of science. Cambridge: NY. Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning, 2Ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

  14. Bibliography Thornton, R. K. (1989). Tools for scientific thinking: Learning physical concepts with real-time laboratory measurement tools. Proceedings of the conference on computers in physics instruction,, 177-189. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA. Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D.R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58, 898-867. Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D.R. (1995, preprint). >Assessing and improving student learning of Newton's Laws part II: Microcomputer-based interactive lecture demonstrations for the first and second laws. <http://www.tufts.edu/as/cmst/research.html> Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Overview case study physics. American Journal of Physics, 59, 898-907. Van Heuvelen, A. (1995). Experiment problems for mechanics. Physics Teacher, 33, 176-180. Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). (Revised and edited, A. Kozulin). Thought and language. MIT: Cambridge. Wells, M., Hestenes, D. & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 64, 114-119. Zollman, D. (1995). Millikan Lecture 1995: Do they just sit there? Reflections on helping students learn physics. American Journal of Physics, 63, 606-619.

More Related