View Relevant for Our Research
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF CLICKER METHODOLOGY FOR INTRODUCTORY PHYSICS COURSES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Albert H. Lee, B.S. ***** The Ohio State University 2009 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Lei Bao, Adviser Professor Neville W. Reay, Co-Adviser _______________________ Professor Andrew F. Heckler Adviser Physics Graduate Program Professor Bruce R. Patton Professor Evan R. Sugarbaker Copyright by Albert H. Lee 2009 ABSTRACT Many educators understand that lectures are cost effective but not learning efficient, so continue to search for ways to increase active student participation in this traditionally passive learning environment. In-class polling systems, or “clickers”, are inexpensive and reliable tools allowing students to actively participate in lectures by answering multiple-choice questions. Students assess their learning in real time by observing instant polling summaries displayed in front of them. This in turn motivates additional discussions which increase the opportunity for active learning. We wanted to develop a comprehensive clicker methodology that creates an active lecture environment for a broad spectrum of students taking introductory physics courses. We wanted our methodology to incorporate many findings of contemporary learning science. It is recognized that learning requires active construction; students need to be actively involved in their own learning process. Learning also depends on preexisting knowledge; students construct new knowledge and understandings based on what they already know and believe. Learning is context dependent; students who have learned to apply a concept in one context may not be able to recognize and apply the same concept in a different context, even when both contexts are considered to be isomorphic by experts. On this basis, we developed question sequences, each involving ii the same concept but having different contexts. Answer choices are designed to address students preexisting knowledge. These sequences are used with the clickers to promote active discussions and multiple assessments. We have created, validated, and evaluated sequences sufficient in number to populate all of introductory physics courses. Our research has found that using clickers with our question sequences significantly improved student conceptual understanding. Our research has also found how to best measure student conceptual gain using research- based instruments. Finally, we discovered that students need to have full access to the question sequences after lectures to reap the maximum benefit. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to our research. Chapter 2 provides a literature review relevant for our research. Chapter 3 discusses the creation of the clicker question sequences. Chapter 4 provides a picture of the validation process involving both physics experts and the introductory physics students. Chapter 5 describes how the sequences have been used with clickers in lectures. Chapter 6 provides the evaluation of the effectiveness of the clicker methodology. Chapter 7 contains a brief summary of research results and conclusions. iii Dedicated to my father iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am extremely grateful to my adviser, Prof. Lei Bao, and my co-adviser, Prof. Neville W. Reay, for all their continuous support since my initial meeting to find out about working with the physics education research group. I would like to thank Prof. Andrew Heckler, Prof. Bruce Patton, and Prof. Sugarbaker for serving on my committee. I also would like to thank Prof. E. Leonard Jossem for providing much support. I also would like to thank Prof. Gordon Aubrecht for sharing his insight. I would like to thank Dr. Lin Ding for the work he did as a member of the clicker research team. I would like to thank fellow graduate students in the physics education research group for just being there. I would also like to thank the many physics graduate students, post-docs, and professors who provided their expert input. I would also like to thank the undergraduate students who helped out with the validation process. I thank my family and friends for their unconditional support and prayers. v I thank God for making it possible to meet all these people, without whom I would not be where I am today. vi VITA 1995 …………………………………..... B.S. Physics, University of California, Los Angeles 1995 ……………………………………. B.S. Applied Mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles PUBLICATIONS Research Publication Lin Ding, Neville W. Reay, Albert Lee, and Lei Bao, “Effects of testing conditions on conceptual survey results,” Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research 4, 010112 (2008). Lin Ding, Neville W. Reay, Albert Lee, and Lei Bao, “Are we asking the right questions? Validating clicker question sequences by student interviews,” American Journal of Physics 77 (7), 643 – 650 (2009). FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Physics vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………. ii Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………. iv Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………….. v Vita …………………………………………………………………………………..… vii List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………... xi List of Tables ………………………………………………………………….......... xxxiii Chapters: 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………….... 1 2. Literature Review ………………………………………………………………... 7 2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 7 2.2 Constructivism …………..………………………………………………….. 8 2.3 Active Learning …………………………………………………………...... 9 2.4 Preexisting Knowledge ……………………………...…………………….. 11 2.5 Lectures and Active Learning ….………………………………………….. 16 3. Sequence Creation ………...…………………………………………………… 22 3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………... 22 3.2 Clicker Question Sequence Creation ……………………………………… 23 3.2.1 Using Misconceptions As Distractors …………………………… 24 3.2.2 Built-in Teaching Tips …………………………………………... 26 3.2.3 Physics Curriculum Materials As Sources ………………………. 29 3.2.4 Lecture Materials As Sources …………………………………… 29 3.2.5 Brainstorming Sessions As Sources ……………………………... 31 3.2.6 Formative Assessments By Each Question ……………………… 33 4. Validation …………..…...…………………………………………………….. 35 4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………... 35 4.2 Expert Validation ………………………………………………………….. 36 4.2.1 Expert Comments – Significant …………………………………. 43 4.2.2 Expert Comments – Minor ………………………………………. 48 viii 4.2.3 Expert Comments – Not Accepted …………………………….... 53 4.3 Student Validation ………………………………………………………… 59 4.3.1 Student Changes – Significant …………………………………... 66 4.3.2 Student Changes – Minor ………………………………………... 71 4.4 Discussion …………………………………………………………………. 78 5. Implementation ………………………………………………………………… 80 5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………...... 80 5.2 Description of In-Class Polling Systems Used …………………………..... 82 5.2.1 Distribution of Clickers to Students …………………………...... 83 5.3 Using the OSU Clicker Question Sequences in Lecture …………………... 88 6. Results ..………………………………………………………………………… 96 6.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………... 96 6.2 Students’ View of the Clicker Methodology ……...……………………..... 99 6.2.1 Students’ Written Comments ………………………………....... 102 6.3 The Effects of Testing Conditions on Conceptual Survey Results ………. 105 6.3.1 The Comparison Group (Fall 2003 – Fall 2005) ………………. 106 6.3.2 Effects of Changes in Pretest Timing ………………………….. 108 6.3.3 Effects of Changes in Posttest Timing and Incentives …………. 111 6.3.3.1 Minimum Difference in Posttest Incentive …………... 111 6.3.3.2 Medium Differences in Posttest Incentive and Timing .112 6.3.3.3 Maximum Differences in Posttest Incentive and Timing …………………….. 113 6.3.4 Effects of Timing and Incentives on Normalized Gain ………... 114 6.4 The Effect of Limited Accessibility ……………………………………… 116 6.4.1 Limited Access: E&M in Spring 2007 …………………………. 116 6.4.2 Limited Access: Mechanics in Fall 2007 ……………………… 121 6.4.2.1 Limited Access: Retention of Conceptual Learning in Mechanics …………………………………………. 129 6.5 Full Access to Clicker Material ………………………………………….. 135 6.5.1 Full Access: Waves, Optics, & Modern Physics in Spring 2008 ……………. 136 6.5.2 Full Access: Mechanics in Fall 2008 ………………………….. 142 6.6 Discussion ………………………………………………………………... 150 7. Summary ...……………………………………………………………………. 153 ix Appendices: A. Clicker Question Sequences for Mechanics …………………………….......... 156 B. Clicker Question Sequences for Electricity and Magnetism (E&M) …………. 232 C. Clicker Question Sequences for Waves, Optics, & Modern Physics ………… 297 D. Posttest Questions #33 – 36 for 2007 Spring E&M …………………………... 366 E. Pretest Questions #27 – 34 for 2007 Fall Mechanics ………………………… 368 F. Pretest for 2008 Spring Waves, Optics, & Modern Physics ………………….. 373 G. Pretest for 2008 Fall Mechanics …………………………………………….... 388 Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………….. 395 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 A situation that cues the "force as a spinner" p-prim ……………………………… 11 2.2 A conception of bird constructed by a little fish ……………………………… 13 2.3 A setup used to investigate student understanding of the real image formed by a converging lens ………………………………………… 15 2.4 Comparison of conceptual learning gains of interactive- engagement physics courses and traditional courses …………………………… 19 2.5 A ConcepTest question …………………………………………………………… 20 3.1 First two questions of a Mechanics Clicker Question Sequence covering the concept of circular motion ………………………………………… 25 3.2 Waves, Optics, & Modern Physics Clicker Question Sequence C20 …………………………………………………………………… 27