CALIFORNIA ST ATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS
THESIS SIGNATURE PAGE
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
EDUCATION
THESIS TITLE: How Students Experience Active and Passive Leaming in Science Class
AUTHOR: Mercer Barrows III
DATE OF SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE: May 02, 2019
THE THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION.
2 -Anne Rene Elsbree �� o" -19 THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR ��SGNATlJ /L DATE
Joni Kolman as foul I q THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER DATE I Running head: HOW STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING IN SCIENCE CLASS
How Students Experience Active and Passive Learning
in Science Class
by
Mercer Barrows III
A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Masters of Arts Degree In Education
California State University San Marcos
Fall 2018
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 3
Thesis Abstract
As authors Bigelow, Harvey, Karp, and Miller (2004) explain, part of social justice in the classroom includes a participatory and experiential environment, and to not provide that would be socially unjust. Therefore, I wanted to figure out how I can engage students in a way of learning that supports deeper learning, thinking, and engagement by implementing active learning instructional strategies. Why active learning instruction? As Minhas (2012) studied, direct instruction is significantly less effective for student’s learning and engagement, and active learning instruction is shown to produce significant learning gains and engagement. Therefore, my research investigates: How can I can the students in my physics classes to engage in active learning? In order to arrive at a solution, I needed to understand how my students were currently experiencing learning in science class. To guide this investigation, I answered these subquestions: How are students experiencing learning through direct instruction? How are students experiencing learning through active learning instruction? And when do students participate in science class? The results are as follows: students want some initial direct instruction, and find most of the strategies very helpful; students find most active learning strategies very helpful, after some direct instruction; and students prefer to participate in small groups, and not during whole class discussions.
Keywords: active learning instruction, direct instruction, passive learning, participation
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 1
Table of Contents Thesis Abstract ...... 3 Chapter One: Introduction ...... 5 Statement of Problem ...... 6 Research Questions ...... 6 Preview Literature ...... 7 Preview Methodology ...... 8 Significance of Study ...... 8 Definition of Terms ...... 8 Summary ...... 9 Chapter Two: Literature Review ...... 11 Classroom Structures ...... 11 Different Pedagogies ...... 13 Passive and Active Learning Outcomes ...... 16 Student Experiences ...... 17 Conclusion ...... 20 Chapter Three: Methods ...... 22 Participants and Setting ...... 22 Data Collection ...... 23 Data Analysis ...... 25 Conclusion ...... 27 Chapter Four: Research Findings ...... 28 Students want some initial direct instruction, and find most of the strategies very helpful...... 28 Students find most active learning strategies very helpful, after some direct instruction ...... 32 Students prefer to participate in small groups, and not during whole class discussions ...... 36 Conclusion ...... 39 Chapter Five: Research Conclusions ...... 40 Implications and Literature Comparisons ...... 40 Potential Issues with Data ...... 43 How My Teaching May Be Informed ...... 43 Conclusion ...... 44 References ...... 45 APPENDIX A ...... 47 APPENDIX B ...... 54
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 2
APPENDIX C ...... 55 APPENDIX D ...... 58 APPENDIX E ...... 59
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 3
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Pages 1. Data Collection Timelines…………………....……………………………….. 32
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Pages 1. Examining the relationship between students that enjoy learning science and their preference for direct instruction strategies……………………………... 39 2. Examining the relationship between students that enjoy learning science and all of the instructional strategies.………………………………..………….... 44
3. Comparing the differences between the responses from the two follow-up lesson questionnaires, post active learning lesson (AL) and direct instruction lesson (DI).……………………………….…………………………………... 46
4. Correlating the relationship between students that participate in science class and all of the instructional strategies.……………………………………...…. 49
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 5
Chapter One: Introduction
The class has started, and shortly after the instructions for the activity have been given, a student asks me a question “what’s the equation for kinetic energy?” This question is a simple, low level, factual question, easily answered if they looked in the class textbook, thought back to their notes, readings, videos, or class discussions, easily googled, or easily answered by a classmate; yet the teacher is asked. My response, “I don’t know, what do you think?”, or “what did your research tell you?” as a nice way of saying “did you look it up?” The quick student response consists of some or all of, “I don’t know, you’re the teacher, you should know, why don’t you teach me, why can’t you just tell me, it’s easier if you just tell me…” These responses I believe are rooted in the student’s preference for passive learning (aka direct instruction), where students have become accustomed to solely receiving and remembering information transmitted to them by a teacher. The student is extremely frustrated with me. And I with them. This happens many times a week, if not once a day or more. I am baffled because I have an evidence-based preference toward active learning instruction, the antithesis of passive learning. I reflect, “why do they refuse to take charge of their learning, why won’t they look it up, why are they being lazy, why don’t they try to think about it first, where is their critical thinking, what is missing that they feel unempowered or not confident to figure out something on their own or collaborate with their group members to find a solution, am I really not teaching them?” Despite finding and implementing active learning teaching strategies that I thought were solutions to my reflective questions, the students continue to complain and reject the lesson style.
Another day, a similar problem. I have been lecturing to my class for about 10 minutes now. I started lecturing again because the students essentially voted for this form of instruction. The vote was prompted by a swath of pushback and complaining toward a series of active learning lessons I implemented. This is what they wanted, yet, over a quarter of them have their eyes glazed over, and some students have put their heads down on their desks. Later, the lab instructions that I just handed to the students is met with “what are we doing?” The students have been working on the lab now for about 15 minutes, and a handful of students are goofing around, allowing other group members to complete the work. A few students are frustrated because
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 6 the inquiry-based lab, with minimal instructions, is not making sense to them, and they do not know the answer already; they begin to quit on the lab.
Statement of Problem
The problem in my practice is that students are at odds with the way I teach. At my school, students are accustomed to a fast-paced environment (four by four semester system), where, from what I have gathered, many classes are lecture-based, rote, and passive by nature. I understand why this teaching style persists, the classes move very fast without compromising amount of content to cover. In turn, students have become accustomed to a passive style of learning, which, in science education research, is shown to be significantly less effective for student’s learning and engagement. Significant gains come from active learning strategies (Minhas, 2012). As a new teacher, bringing my research-backed preference and understanding of active learning into the classroom has been met with great defense, complaining, and fear.
It is very frustrating to face, and I want to bridge the gap.
Research Questions
To better understand how students experience learning in science class, and find a potential solution to satisfy students and learning achievement, I will investigate the research question: How can I get the students in my physics classes to engage in active learning? The possibility to successfully implement active learning in my physics class exists because there has been a time or two in which students have been actively engaged in inquiry in my class. They have gotten excited about inquiry-based learning, and have had their
“ah hah!” moments, but I am unsure what made these lessons different and successful. As part of the main research question, these subquestions will help me to define the investigation:
1. How are students experiencing learning through direct instruction?
2. How are students experiencing learning through active learning instruction?
3. When do students participate in science class?
I want to investigate how students experience learning in the science classroom, whether its passive (i.e. through direct instruction and lecture) or active (i.e. active learning or inquiry-based learning), because I want to figure out a way to get all students on board with active learning. I want to support deeper learning
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 7 that engages student thought and input on many levels. From becoming conscious of how I learn, to being educated about how students learn, through my teaching credential program and my research here, consensus points to an active learning instructional methodology as the best method of learning. But this is not always appreciated by everyone, and my own integrity fights the pressure to teach by direct instruction.
Investigating this topic will lead me to an understanding of the current situation of how students want to learn, and to prescribe a way to engage them in active learning.
From the introduction article of Rethinking Schools, Volume 2 (2004),
[traditional classrooms] encourage a passivity that is reinforced by fragmented,
test-driven curriculum, and which discourages students from taking more responsibility for their own
education… [Students] need to be involved as much as possible in explicit discussions about the
purposes and processes of their own education. Our classrooms also must provoke students to
develop their democratic capacities: to question, to challenge, to make real decisions, to solve
problems collectively. (Bigelow, Harvey, Karp, and Miller (2004), p.3)
The authors explain one part of social justice in the classroom as participatory and experiential. That is, traditional classrooms are passive, students are not involved nor have initiative, and there are minimal opportunities for students to be responsible for their learning. And that is socially unjust. What happens when these students become adults? Will they wait patiently for someone (i.e. job, boss, family, politician) to
“teach them” by talking at them and flooding their brains with knowledge? Will they move past the idea that failing something means you get an F and life is over? What will cause them to take chances, learn something on their own, and grow to develop into independent adults, when they were never given that opportunity? If all they have learned as students was to sit quietly and listen, did Orwell’s 1984 become real?
Not in my classroom. This is my nightmare.
Preview Literature
The literature reviews four key areas: classroom structures, different pedagogies, passive and active learning outcomes, and student experiences. The following is a preview for what the literature says. As Park and Choi (2014) describes, essentially, the classroom hasn’t quite evolved over time, until recently. But that
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 8 can change, and the classroom can be student-centered, as they and Chris Emdin (2017) describes ways to make those changes. While Matthew Lynch (2011) explains about the different types of teaching pedagogies, it is John Dewey (1897) and his fight for the student-centered classroom that I most align and is at the heart of this research study. A slew of literature is available about student learning outcomes comparing direct and active instructional strategies, with Lawrenz, Wood, Kirchhoff, Kim, and Eisenkraft (2009) focusing on the
Active Physics curriculum and its benefits. And finally, Smith and Cardaciotto (2011) show that students actually prefer an active learning instructional environment when exposed to both direct and active instructional strategies. These four themes are expanded on in the following chapter.
Preview Methodology
This study is mixed-method research that includes quantitative and qualitative data. There are three types of data collections: survey, interviews, and follow-up lesson student questionnaires. The data was analyzed simply, looking at percentages of students that expressed certain preferences, and also looking at cross-correlations between if a student felt one way and another way about certain preferences. Qualitatively, quotations from students are used from the interviews and follow-up lesson questionnaires.
Significance of Study
By investigating the effects and preferences of direct instruction and active learning instruction through a literature review and explicit student responses, I gained an understanding of how students experience learning. Further, the investigation led me to active learning instructional ideas that I may be able to effectively and positively implement in future classes. The ultimate goal was to find potential solutions that engage students in an educational experience that will be memorable and beneficial. Not one that only allows them to succeed on state mandated testing.
Definition of Terms
The following are definitions to the key terms used in this research thesis.
Direct Instruction
Passive learning; lecturing; when a teacher stands in front of the class, is the primary (or only) speaker, with very little to no student involvement, and may deliver notes via PowerPoint or writing on
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 9 whiteboard, does a demonstration and talks about it, works out example problems for the class, delivers lengthy instructions verbally, or some other teacher-only instruction. In this environment, a teacher may ask the students a question, but it does not usually develop into a class discussion. In this environment, the teacher is the leader of the class, and the keeper of knowledge. Much of the learning requires reviewing what the teacher said during class, possibly from fill in the blank notes, may include teacher-created study guides, and much of the information can be memorized. During labs, students are given a complete step-by-step set of instructions and procedure to follow, and are not asked to use alternative ideas for performing the lab. In this environment, students generally do not contribute alternative ideas, nor are they in charge of their learning.
Active Learning Instruction
When a teacher opens up the classroom for the student to take charge of their learning. The teacher acts as a guide for the students, roaming the classroom, checking in on specific student questions, may answer questions with questions to help guide thinking, is not the keeper of knowledge. Lessons are created for the student to figure things out on their own or collaborate with a group, to explore, investigate, and apply their developing knowledge of the curriculum. Lab procedures are created by the student based on an idea or question, leading to students doing variations of the labs, followed by a class discussion about findings, as related to the curriculum. Students may work through a series of questions or activities that lead them to understanding the curriculum. Whole class discussions, led by the students occur in place of lectures, which are almost non-existent. Day to day, students are always working on something, almost never sitting passively, contributing alternative ideas and ways of doing things, and are constantly thinking logically, critically, and creatively, all while developing knowledge of the curriculum. Lots of student-doing.
Summary
This chapter described the problem in my classroom of physic students resisting to engage with active learning instruction. The next chapter reviews literature about classroom structures, different pedagogies, the effectiveness of direct instruction and active learning instruction, and student’s experiences.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 10
The literature review informed my research study by providing me with background information about how students perform and experience different instructional strategies.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 11
Chapter Two: Literature Review
My study of the literature explores published work in the realm of different instructional strategies. I reviewed literature that compares traditional and modern classroom structures, describes various teaching pedagogies and strategies, investigates learning outcomes associated with active and passive teaching strategies, and collections of student perceptions of active and passive teaching strategies. The literature review gave me background and context of how science is taught and how students experience science learning.
Classroom Structures
The traditional classroom structure is teacher-centered, and the modern classroom is student-centered.
Park and Choi (2014) explain the two contrasting types:
A standard lecture hall, with immovable chairs all facing the lectern, may represent an
educational philosophy of essentialism, which focuses more on "injecting content into students'
brains." An active, collaborative teaching and learning philosophy is often manifested in a different
philosophy, such as empiricism or pragmatism, often shown in the different designs of classrooms.
Space can either enable - or inhibit - different styles of teaching and learning (p.750).
For hundreds of years, before books were printed or when they were scarce, the teacher possessed the knowledge (and the books) and would recite information to the students. Both Park and Choi (2014) and
Henderson, Khan, and Dancy (2018) assert that a lecture became an efficient way to communicate information from original work to a large group of students; the birth of the lecture.
Park and Choi (2014) summarized the history and evolution of the classroom. In Greek Times, education was passed in a rhetorical setting, where students gathered round a teacher. There was not a place defined as a classroom. When education became more structured, in Medieval Times, cathedral schools organized students and their desks in rows facing each other. Since, classrooms have been organized in various ways, but with a consistent theme of symmetric desks about a room, and the teacher’s desk or lectern at the head of the class. Through the industrial period, education turned from elitism to massification as more
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 12 and more students began to attend university. The solution to educate more and more students was to build bigger buildings and lecture halls. This remains the more popular choice in most classrooms today.
Similarly, Emdin (2017) explains about his high school, as typical, and looks like a bunch of rows and columns of single chairs and desks for each student, with the teacher's desk located at the head of the classroom. Possibly, a lectern is present in the classroom. Emdin (2017) explains that the classroom rules and management are set by the teacher, and students are expected to conform, comport, be quiet, raise their hand, only get out of their seat if completely necessary, and work independently and quietly. Students are not involved in the classroom dynamics.
Classroom structures of the past were established for the style of rote learning, and as discussed in other sections below, it is not a superior or equitable instructional strategy. In the twenty-first century, we are more informed. As Park and Choi (2014) have found, researchers have shown that classroom structure, including where students sit within a classroom affects how students achieve. Park and Choi (2014) surveyed students in a traditional classroom and found that 74.8% of them felt that the first few front and center rows of the classroom, roughly 13.3% of the classroom seats, are the most preferred seats for learning, despite the students also stating that they don’t always choose to actually sit there (confidence and abilities being factors in that choice). The student-participants also said that sitting in this area (only) were related to learning gains.
Based on a 5 Level Likert Scale (1-not at all and 5-very much), students also responded that sitting in this special area caused: strong confidence in learning ability (3.68), preferred assignments with creativity (3.58), and willingness to ask questions (3.33). That means that the other 86.7% of seats do not promote these learning gains. Conversely, Park and Choi (2014) used MANOVA’s (Multivariate Analysis of Variate) and the same Likert Scale on a different questionnaire to inquire about an active learning classroom. Student- participants reported between 4.1 - 4.7 in interaction and participation, and sharing and creating ideas. This data came from students who sat all over the room, in an arrangement similar to SCALE-UP (North Carolina
State University’s ‘Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs’).
To best support the desired skills of today’s students - critical thinking, collaboration, inquiry, and creativity - classrooms should be organized into a format like SCALE-UP: small groups seated at seven-foot
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 13 diameter round tables, a laptop with internet access at each table, projectors at each end of a room, and whiteboards hung the walls around the room. Emdin (2017) prescribes a very similar style of classroom, along with active learning instructional strategies. Some universities have created their own version, like
MIT with their physics program TEAL (Technology Enabled Active Learning), where MIT has found that
“failure rates decreased six fold [for MIT freshmen] while the relative improvements almost doubled” (Park and Choi, 2014, p.752).
The traditional classroom looks much different than the modern classroom. The environment is sterile and authoritarian in the traditional classroom, but the modern classroom is democratic and independent. Park and Choi (2014) and Emdin (2017) both prescribe a modern classroom structure that aligns with active learning instruction, and increase student engagement and expression. What also is different is who the teacher chooses to be as the instructor, thereby affecting the environment of the classroom and how the students act in class. Who the teacher chooses to be as an instructor is called pedagogy, and there are various pedagogies to explore and choose from.
Different Pedagogies
Inspired by Lynch’s (2017) description of the spectrum of pedagogies, pedagogy is the philosophy or style of teaching that a teacher may adopt or define themselves by, in how they instruct the students and set up their classroom. I describe pedagogies as something that falls on a spectrum, ranging from teacher- centered to student-centered. The following is an explanation of three general types of pedagogy that are representative of this pedagogy spectrum. Matthew Lynch (2017) breaks up the spectrum nicely, providing examples and short explanations of three different pedagogies: teacher-centered, student-centered, and socially-centered.
Teacher-Centered Pedagogies
The teacher-centered pedagogies are considered traditional. In agreement with Lynch (2017),
Demirci (2015) explains that teacher-centered pedagogies place all of the responsibility of what the students will learn, how they will be assessed, and what they will do during class on the teacher. The teacher decides and creates lessons that the students will complete, and the teacher determines what rules the students will
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 14 follow in the classroom. The curriculum contains information and work that is timeless and considered exemplar (known as the “great works”), and is delivered to the students via lecture, with minimal student involvement. Students demonstrate mastery of curriculum in ways specified by the teacher. This pedagogy type considers the teacher to be the authority and expert, the keeper of knowledge, and students receive the knowledge from the teacher. Specific pedagogies, like essentialism and perennialism, fall onto the teacher- centered side of the spectrum.
Student-Centered Pedagogies
Considered to be more student-centered, falling in the middle of the spectrum, progressivism and constructivism put a lot of the responsibility for learning on the student. John Dewey (1897), founder of the progressivism pedagogy, stated in his pedagogical creed:
I believe that under existing conditions far too much of the stimulus and control proceeds from the
teacher, because of neglect of the idea of the school as a form of social life. I believe that the
teacher’s place and work in the school is to be interpreted from this same basis. The teacher is not in
the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of
the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly
responding to these influences (p.78).
Dewey (1897) argues that the students should be in charge of their learning, that their experiences and social interactions should drive how and what they learn, and that the teacher should facilitate this, and create an environment to support and promote a style of learning through doing.
Demirci (2015) and Lynch (2017) describe student-centered pedagogies in terms of how students take charge of their learning, and the teacher acts as a guide, not the keeper of knowledge. Demirci (2015) describes constructivism where by the teacher acts as a facilitator that creates a learning environment that relies on and utilizes student’s previous knowledge and experiences. The learning environment that the teacher creates is student-centered and utilizes active learning. Students work on projects that interest them, are interthematic in school subjects, and may be evaluated in alternative ways. On this end of the pedagogy spectrum, the teacher acts as a guide and consultant to the students, and the students have a lot of say and
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 15 control of what and how they are learning. The reconstructionist classroom looks very different than a traditional classroom.
Socially-Centered Pedagogies
The third type of pedagogy is student-centered, perhaps the antithesis of teacher-centered education, and mainly refers to the philosophies of reconstructivism. Lynch (2017) describes reconstructionism as socially-centered, and uses the concept of student-centered education, but takes it further by having students apply what they learn in class to a project that can cause social reform and changes to society. Nichols (2010) describes reconstructivism as using education to confront current and important social issues, where teachers utilize real life and the classroom to solve problems and prepare students for a future society in which they will be a part of. The reconstructionist classroom looks nothing like a traditional classroom.
The Big Picture
The different pedagogies covered in this review do not include every pedagogy. The intent of this coverage was to provide a general landscape of the various pedagogies that teachers can choose to utilize, if allowed. In Demirci’s (2015) study of how prospective high school physics teachers identified their pedagogy, it was found that most prospective high school physics teachers identified with a student-centered pedagogy (3.74 mean, compared to a 3.21 mean for the traditionalists), yet they did agree with some traditional ideas. Almost all pedagogies can be summed up into two different types of teaching strategies - passive learning and active learning. Lecturing, the typical teacher-centered teaching strategy found at all levels and disciplines (Smith & Cardaciotto, 2011), has become a prevalent form of educating students. As acknowledged by education researchers, lectures are an efficient way to unload large amounts of information onto students in a short amount of time (Roseler, Paul, Felton, & Theisen, 2018). Naturally, traditional classroom structures and teacher-centered pedagogies lead to passive learner.
While passive learning strategies are basically restricted to lecturing, active learning strategies are boundless. Roseler, Paul, Felton, and Theisen (2018) determined that students engaged with active learning can be observed to read, write, speak, observe, and build or manipulate while working in small groups or the whole class. Dewey (1897) propounds that students essentially are active learners by nature, and their drive
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 16 to learn their way should be supported. Passive learners generally sit quietly, listen, and take notes. Roseler et al. (2018) compiled a list of what they thought were the 17 best active learning strategies, including:
Argument Driven Inquiry, Think/Write-Pair-Share, Modeling, Peer Instruction, and Problem/Project-based learning. Roseler et al. (2018) posit that active learning strategies give way to effective teaching and observable learning gains, and that much of the learning gains come from the foundational aspects of active learning - communication and delivery in multiple contexts.
Passive and Active Learning Outcomes
As shown, there are many options and philosophies to consider, and not all pedagogies are created equal when it comes to learning gains and student engagement. Conversely to passive learning, many educational researchers, including Arons and Redish (1997), Coletta (2015), Knight (2004), Henderson,
Khan, and Dancy (2018), Roseler et al. (2018), Lawrenz, Wood, Kirchhoff, Kim, and Eisenkraft (2009), and
Minhas, Ghosh, and Swanzy (2012), all acknowledge that students engaged in active learning statistically show significant, positive learning and engagement outcomes. Explicitly, Roseler et al. (2018) state:
When compared with traditional teaching (i.e., lecture), research has demonstrated that
implementing engaging, active, and student-centered teaching practices (referred to hereafter as
active) elevates student learning gains. (p.83)
Lawrenz et al. (2009) found that implementing the Active Physics curriculum (an active learning curriculum) in high school physics caused significant gains in student learning. By administering pretests and posttests, and using Hierarchical Linear Modeling for analysis, learning gains increased for all students - boys, girls, students with diverse backgrounds - a p-value of 0.076. Specifically, for girls and students with poor attitudes toward learning physics, p-values of 0.036 and 0.038 were achieved, respectively, showing significant gains.
In their study, Minhas et al. (2012) used a one-way analysis variance, called ANOVA, with a
Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test to analyze their surveys and exams. They deemed a significant value to be alpha = 0.05, and a Cronbach’s alpha >= 0.70 is considered to be reliable. When comparing how students performed on three exams, students who experienced active learning, versus passive, performed
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 17 better (P < 0.05).
But not all outcomes of active learning bring shining results. Andrews, Leonard, Colgrove, and
Kalinowski (2011) used surveys, pretest data, and posttest data to find that active learning strategies were not effective. The pretest and posttests consisted of the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection-Abbreviated
(CINS-abbr), and used Cohen’s d to analyze student learning gains. Learning gains were found to range -
0.11 - 1.26, which showed that students did not really increase knowledge or application. In considering frequency and amount of active learning strategies teachers used, there was still no correlation to student learning gains (p=0.058). Surprisingly, Andrews et al. (2011) found that students who opted out of credit for the class scored significantly higher on the posttests (p=0.03). Andrews et al. (2011) attribute this last statistic to the possibility that teachers may have been poorly trained on how to implement active learning strategies. Andrews et al. (2011) attribute much of the positive active learning research results, found in other research, to the higher interest and good training of active learning teachers (or researchers) that implemented the active learning strategies.
Roseler et al. (2018) would agree that, for teachers, interest, training, and departmental cohesion toward active learning teaching strategies are important for successful implementation, yet widespread adoption lags because of poor training and teacher’s poor attitudes or insecurities toward shifting from passive to active teaching styles. Regardless, Roseler et al. (2018) acknowledges and explains that the shift to incorporating active learning techniques can be challenging for instructors for a variety of reasons: poor or minimal professional development training, resistance to change, or concern for time to cover content because active learning tends to take longer, but there is merit in persevering. An overwhelming amount of research results show that students taught by teachers that incorporate active learning strategies in the classroom have significant gains academically and with engagement. Yet, despite the overwhelming positives, there remains a mostly negative, dark cloud over the world of active learning - student perceptions.
Student Experiences
Students are why teachers exist. They are the ones that receive the choices the teacher makes about how and what they will learn. Yet, what one person thinks is well and good for another person, does not
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 18 always align with the receiver’s opinion. And despite the resulting effectiveness of active learning, the overall student perception is mixed.
After implementing two types of teaching strategies, content review condition (CRC - a passive learning teaching strategy) and active learning condition (ALC - an active learning teaching strategy), Smith and Cardaciotto (2011) analyzed student data with ANOVAs. Smith and Cardaciotto (2011) found that firstly, students felt they retained more information with the ALC strategies (M = 2.96, SD = 0.97), F(1,
1050) = 6.60, p = 0.01, d = 0.19. Secondly, students felt they were more engaged during the ALC strategies
(M = 2.85, SD = 0.86), F(1, 969) = 33.05, p < 0.001, d = 0.37. Thirdly, despite the self-reported greater retention and engagement with the ALC strategies, students stated that they enjoyed the CRC class more, (M
= 3.60, SD = 1.04), F(1, 1053) = 13.79, p < 0.001, d = 0.22, and evaluated the CRC class more positively, (M
= 3.30, SD = 0.96), F(1, 1055) = 13.81, p < 0.001, d = 0.20. Smith and Cardaciotto (2011) ultimately postulate that despite the positive outcomes for learning, students may resent the effort required to intellectually engage in active learning.
Despite Andrews et al. (2011) not finding correlation between active learning strategies that teachers implemented and positive learning gains of students, they did find that if students thought the course was difficult but interesting, their learning gains were affected positively (p=0.040 and p=0.021, respectively).
Conversely, Minhas, Ghosh, and Swanzy (2012) found that students preferred active learning strategies over passive strategies (p < 0.04). Also, students felt less prepared for examinations when learning by passive teaching strategies (p < 0.001), and the students felt a growing preference for active learning after having been exposed to it (p < 0.001).
Similarly, Marušic and Sliško (2014) surveyed physics students who were taught using two methods:
Reading, Presenting, and Questioning (RPQ) - a less active learning strategy, and Experimenting and
Discussing (ED) - a more active learning strategy. Marušic and Sliško (2014) wanted to find out how the students felt physics developed their logical and creative thinking abilities before and after implementing the two teaching strategies. Data results showed that students felt: the RPQ strategy developed their logical thinking by 11%, the RPQ strategy developed their critical thinking by 20.9%, the ED strategy developed
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 19 their logical thinking by 31.7%, and the ED strategy developed their critical thinking by 36.4%. Overall, regardless of gender or type of learner, Marušic and Sliško (2014) found that both strategies improved student thinking, with the upper hand toward the more active learning strategy.
An outstanding component of student perceptions of active learning was found to be trust in the instructor. In their study, Cavanagh, Chen, Bathgate, Frederick, Hanauer, and Graham (2018) surveyed students and found, using a correlational analyses, that trust was statistically significant to predict a growth mindset in students (훽 = 0.20,p < 0.01), commitment to active learning (훽 = 0.40,p < 0.001), and student engagement (훽 = 0.37,p < 0.001). According to a multiple regression analysis, Cavanagh et al. (2018), found that trust in the instructor predicted commitment to active learning (훽 = 0.38,t(239) = 6.29, p < 0.001), engagement (훽 = 0.35,t(239) = 5.66, p < 0.001), and final course grade (훽 = 0.26,t(239) = 4.05, p < 0.001).
Interestingly, the multiple regression run using growth mindset as a predictor of student outcomes was not significant. Cavanagh et al. (2018) concluded that the student’s experience in class (i.e. trusting the instructor) has a significant impact on student outcome
A common way colleges and universities explicitly collect student feedback about a course is to administer student evaluations regarding quality of teaching. Henderson, Khan, and Dancy (2018) surveyed physics and astronomy instructors to self-report course evaluation outcomes, along with how much lecturing and active learning strategies they implemented in class. Henderson et al. (2018) found that student evaluations decreased when instructors lectured between 0-20% of class time, increased when instructors lectured between 20-60% of class time, and were neutral when instructors lectured more than 60% of class time. Henderson et al. (2018) found that 48% of physics and astronomy instructors surveyed felt their evaluations positively increased when implementing active learning strategies, and 32% felt that their evaluations were not affected from use of active learning strategies, while 20% felt that their evaluations were negatively impacted. The survey included open-ended questions in which instructors could elaborate on reasons given for increases or decreases in positive student evaluations. Henderson et al. (2018) found eight themes. Four themes are associated with positive evaluations: students felt they learned better from active learning, they found active learning enjoyable, students liked interacting with each other, and technology use
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 20 was welcome. Four themes are associated with negative evaluations: students felt that their teacher was not teaching them when using active learning strategies, students did not want to do work during class, active learning goals and objectives were not clear or explicit enough, and students did not like interacting with each other or the teacher. Henderson et al. (2018) conclude that despite fears, use of active learning teaching strategies don’t seem to decrease student evaluations, rather, they may increase; and lecturing a minimal amount (< 20%) may make students feel uneasy about their learning.
Not just academic gains are made when implementing an active learning instructional environment.
Aside from curricula and instructional changes, when traditional, lecture-hall style classrooms were converted into an active learning classroom (i.e. small groups seated at seven foot round tables, a laptop with internet access at each table, projectors at each end of a room, and whiteboards surrounding the room’s walls) the students who participated in the study by Park and Choi (2014) reported, by questionnaire, that the active learning classroom created a more dynamic learning environment. The student-questionnaire results suggested that there was “increased student interaction, interest in subject matter, and communication with instructors. It also enhanced class participation, direct feedback in the learning processes, and students' willingness to ask questions in class” (p.762-763). Students were able to decipher advantages in the new, active learning environment.
Conclusion
The intention of my study, to try to understand how students experience active and passive learning, is to build on previous studies about how students experience active learning. By inquiring to my students about their perceptions of passive and active learning strategies they have been exposed to in science classes,
I can contribute to the body of work that continues to study effective and engaging teaching strategies. What stands out to me is the dichotomy of the effectiveness of active learning and how student perception of active learning is not as positive. There is also a resistance by teachers to shift to a more progressive, student- centered classroom, despite the gains. Henderson, Khan, and Dancy (2018) explain this resistance may be due to fear of rejection from students and their evaluations, or insecurity with implementing a new way of instructing. On the contrary, the study by Henderson, Khan, and Dancy (2018) found the opposite results. In
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 21 the next chapter, my methods explain how I collected more information about how students experience learning in science class, in order to help me create a learning environment that they students may like and have positive learning outcomes.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 22
Chapter Three: Methods
I investigated how students experience active and passive learning by answering the research question: How can I get the students in my physics classes to engage in active learning? And these subquestions:
1. How are students experiencing learning through direct instruction?
2. How are students experiencing learning through active learning instruction?
3. When do students participate in science class?
These questions help give context and definition to the investigation. I wanted to find out how students experience various types of instructional strategies, and how the type of lesson improves logical and creative thinking. I wanted to find out when they participate during class. Responses to these questions will help me create a classroom that involves the students, and maximizes learning gains and engagement.
Participants and Setting
This research was conducted in my classroom at a high school in Southern California. The high school teaches grades 9-12 and resides in an affluent suburban area of the city. The school is surrounded by homes, apartments, and townhomes, along with a shopping center. The school operates on a four by four semester system in which the students take four courses per semester, and each semester is 19 weeks long.
Full courses are taught within one semester’s time. During a full 186 day school year, I teach half of my students in the first semester, and get a second set of students in the second semester. In total, I teach around
200 students during the school year. Classes are 90-minutes long every day. Because of the four by four semester system, many students take six courses in a year, with two free periods. Highly driven students fill their schedules with eight courses, and take as many Advanced Placement (AP) and other advanced classes possible, like AP Physics C Mechanics and Electricity and Magnetism, Calculus III, and Organic Chemistry.
The participants in the study were students from my high school AP Physics C classes and college preparatory physics classes comprised of juniors and seniors. Students enrolled in any physics course at our school do so by choice because they are elective courses.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 23
Two groups of students participated in this study. The first group of students (Group A) was from my first semester of classes. There were 89 students who completed the survey, and seven of those students were interviewed. The second group of students (Group B) were from one of my second semester classes, and they completed the follow-up lesson questionnaires. About 6-10% of my students have an IEP or 504 plan; the gender population of each class ranges from 20-50% girls, overall near 45% girls in my classes; and for race/ethnicity, my classes comprise of about 50% Asian descent, 10% Indian, about 36% White, 1% African
American, and 3% other. There are 2% English language learners in my classes. The researcher was a White male, and only teaches high school physics.
Data Collection
To answer my research questions, I used three data collection instruments: a survey, follow-up lesson questionnaire, and in-person audio recorded interviews. The survey and follow-up lesson questionnaire were anonymous, and the interviews were confidential.
Survey
The goal of this method was to obtain information about the student’s past and present experiences with different instructional strategies. The survey consisted of 16 questions, and helped me answer each of the research questions (see Appendix B for the survey questions). Questions included in the survey were specifically phrased to help me answer how students experienced their learning through direct instruction, how students experienced their learning through inquiry, how much students participate, and how much they enjoy learning science. The survey was administered during class in December 2018.
Interviews
The goal of this method was to obtain information about the students’ (Group A) past and present experiences with different instructional environments. Seven students participated in the interviews individually. The interviews were designed for the students to be able to explain in greater detail how they felt about the two types of instructional strategies (direct and active), when each are appropriately used, and how each affect participation. These responses gave the other data more context (see Appendix B for the interview questions). The interviews lasted between four and 30 minutes. I, the researcher, conducted the
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 24 interviews during lunch time or after school, whichever the participants preferred, in my classroom. They were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis.
Follow-up Lesson Questionnaire
Two total follow-up lesson questionnaires were administered, one following an active learning lesson, and one following a direct instruction lesson. The questionnaires were administered immediately following the lessons in order to elicit responses from the students (Group B) about their perception and experience from the lessons, specifically how the lessons may have improved their logical thinking, critical thinking, and general interest in physics.
The first questionnaire, following an active learning lesson, was administered after a lesson on forces, and was completed by 28 students. The format of the active learning lesson was that a question or scenario was presented to the students via projector. The students then had to think and discuss with their groups and decide what the correct response or solution to the problem was. After the groups discussed, the teacher brought the class together and led a discussion to extract ideas (correct and incorrect) about their responses and solutions. Ultimately, the correct response or solution was determined. This lesson landed at the beginning of a unit and after the students had watched a video imbedded with notes. The goal of the lesson was to get students discussing their ideas and perceptions with each other and with the entire class, and for them to collaborate on arriving at the correct response or solution. Despite having notes, I have noticed that misconceptions tend to persist, but the class would always arrive at the correct response or solution through our discussion.
The second questionnaire, following a direct instruction lesson, was administered immediately after a lecture on momentum and impulse. This time, students were not given a video with imbedded notes to watch.
The questionnaire was completed by 29 students. For the direction instruction lesson, I delivered a student- uninvolved lecture via powerpoint presentation about momentum and impulse. The student-uninvolved lecture was formatted to be a direct instructional strategy that, by nature, does only to deliver a lot of information quickly without student input. To put it bluntly, I stood in front of the class for about 45 minutes and spoke to them about the important information they would need to know without their involvement.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 25
As noted in the participants section, the group of students that completed the follow-up lesson questionnaire was different from the group that took the survey and did the interviews. The questionnaires included three questions:
1. How (if) did today’s lesson improve your logical thinking?
2. How (if) did today’s lesson improve your creative thinking?
3. How (if) did today’s lesson change your interest in physics?
Responses to the questionnaires helped me answer each of the research question. The responses helped me understand how the students experienced the two different instructional strategies. The follow-up questionnaires did not collect any information about the student filling out the questionnaire, rendering the follow-up questionnaires anonymous. The two follow-up questionnaires were administered and collected on the day of the lessons in February 2019.
Data Collection Timelines
Data collection was completed between December 2018 and February 2019. Because the school operates on a four by four semester system, Group A students were leaving my class by the end of January
2019. So, I administered the survey in one day in December 2019. The follow-up lesson questionnaires, administered to Group B students, were conducted during class on two different days. The interviews were held during lunch or after school for up to 30 minutes throughout February 2019.
Table 1 Data Collection Timeline December 2019 Survey (Group A)
February 2019 Interview (Group A)
February 2019 Follow-Up Lesson Questionnaire (Group B)
Data Analysis
The three data collection instruments produced data that was qualitative and quantitative. My goal was to mitigate bias and interpretations of the data because I wanted a legitimate understanding of the landscape of the student learning experience. To help with this mitigation, while analyzing data I categorized
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 26 the data under three topics: direct instruction, active learning instruction, and participation. All findings were grouped with their associated topics.
The survey was administered using Google Forms, a survey-like software application, which outputs the data into the Google Sheets spreadsheet. The responses to the survey questions were numerical, on a scale from 1-10. To cut down on the amount of variation in the responses, I grouped the responses into halves: 1-5 and 6-10. I chose this grouping because I felt that not every student may have given the same qualitative value to each numerical value, and I thought it was fair to group negative-like responses (1-5) and positive-like responses (6-10). For instance, one student may have rated lectures as a two (not very helpful), while another student may have felt the exact same way about lectures, but gave it a one or a five. So the grouping is based on similar responses. After grouping the raw data, I used the code “countif” to count the number of common responses from each question. This gave me an initial idea of how the students were experiencing the different instructional strategies, and participating in class. From here I came up with three themes that related to my research questions to focus on: if students thought direct instruction strategies were helpful, if students thought active learning instructional strategies were helpful, and how much they participated in class. Then, again using the “countif” code, I cross-correlated the data using particular criteria to find patterns within the themes, such as, what instructional strategy did the students who say they participated the most prefer? After cross-correlating the data, I graphed the results according to the themes.
Such results are found in the findings in the next chapter.
For the interview responses, after transcription, I read through them to find common responses, and then grouped them within themes that related to the research questions. The three themes were: positive and negative feedback about direct instruction (i.e. students stated that direct instruction is boring and not helpful with the caveat of it being somewhat helpful when learning something for the first time), positive and negative feedback about active learning instruction (i.e. students stated that active learning is much more interesting, engaging, and helpful than direct instruction, but more difficult), and how their participation was affected by either instructional strategy (i.e. students stated that direct instruction does not allow for
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 27 participation or makes participating scary, while the purpose of active learning is to participate). The interview responses were helpful in giving more context and explanation to the survey data.
To analyze both sets of follow-up lesson questionnaire data, which asked how each lesson improved the students’ logical and creative thinking, and interest in physics, student responses were based on a scale of positive, neutral, or negative, coded as a 1, 2, or 3 respectively. Themes used in this data collection were comprised of: how the direct instruction lesson impacted thinking and interest, how the active learning lesson impacted thinking and interest. Similar to how the survey data was analyzed, I used “countif” to tally responses. I then used “countif” to cross-correlate the data to find patterns that related to the themes, for instance, if one of the lessons had a positive impact on two or three of the questions asked. Additionally, some students were quoted in order to help clarify data.
Conclusion
My research questions ask about how students experience active and passive learning, when they participate, and how to engage them in active learning. The three data collection instruments I used (survey, interviews, and follow-up lesson questionnaire) successfully helped me answer my research questions. In the next chapter, I present my data and analysis, in hopes to contribute to the existing pool of data exploring how students experience different instructional strategies.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 28
Chapter Four: Research Findings
This study explores how students experience learning in science class. The main research question is:
How can I get the students in my physics classes to engage in active learning? There are three subquestions:
1. How are students experiencing learning through direct instruction?
2. How are students experiencing learning through active learning instruction?
3. When do students participate in science class?
There were three major findings revealed through this study:
● Students want some initial direct instruction, and find most of the strategies very helpful
● Students find most active learning strategies very helpful, after some direct instruction
● Students prefer to participate in small groups, and not during whole class discussions
What follows are descriptions of these findings and how they answer my research questions.
Students want some initial direct instruction, and find most of the strategies very helpful
This finding addresses the first research subquestion: How do students experience learning through direct instruction? The data from the survey suggests that students generally appreciate direct instruction, and find direct instruction strategies to be helpful for initial support and structure. When asked what overall instructional strategy students preferred, 62.9% preferred direct instruction, and 37.1% preferred active learning instruction. The overall top rated instructional strategy students found to be most helpful were lectures at 70.8%, a direct instruction strategy.
When I cross-correlated the survey data between students that enjoy learning science and those students’ instructional preferences, the data showed that 60.3% of the students who stated they liked learning science (82.0%) had an overall preference for direct instruction. The graph in Figure 1 shows more cross- correlated survey data, showing relationships between students that enjoy learning science and direct instruction strategy preference. As seen in the graph, 89.0% of these students find lectures to be very helpful to learn curriculum, 50.7% stated that step-by-step lab instructions are very helpful, and only 8.2% stated that webquests are very helpful. These results are very similar to the cross-correlated survey data between students who say they participate most and their instructional strategy preference. These results are
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 29 interesting for a couple of reasons. Firstly, that students who enjoy learning science, or participate most, find lectures to be the most helpful instructional strategy is a contradiction; lectures are passive by nature.
Secondly, webquest work, which is independent but structured (deeming it a direct instruction strategy), allows for students to explore as much or as little as they want, but is typically seen as busy, passive work via student complaints. Similarly, I would not have assumed that a student that enjoys learning science, or participates most, would want to follow a prescribed step-by-step set of lab instructions; I would think they would want to explore based on their own ideas. The above results are not what I would have expected to be true about someone who enjoys learning science or participates most often. Regardless, lectures remain the most helpful instructional strategy overall, amongst those that enjoy learning science and participate most.
Figure 1: Examining the relationship between students that enjoy learning science and their preference for direct instruction strategies.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 30
The first follow-up lesson questionnaire, administered to 29 students, that followed the direct instruction lesson revealed data that was positive toward direct instruction, too. The direct instruction lesson topic was on momentum and impulse. Essentially, I administered a student-uninvolved lecture, where I literally powered my way through a powerpoint presentation, reading off the slides, and worked out a couple of example problems without asking the students for input. The result that I found befuddling was that the majority of students agreed that a student-uninvolved lecture increased their logical thinking (85.71%) and creative thinking (60.71%). When cross-correlating the data between students that stated the lesson improved both logical and creative thinking, 60.71% agreed. To elaborate, according to the students who completed the questionnaire, seeing new equations and concepts, and watching a couple of problems solved for them, improved the two types of thinking. This result is in spite of the teacher not waiting for student responses, and just explained everything immediately. One student, Alicia, said, “Today’s lesson improved my logical thinking cause we took notes and I listened and learned a lot.” Another student, Johanna, stated, “My creative thinking was expanded slightly simply by the introduction of new information that could be applied to what I already know.” These statements, like many others that students made, though confusing or contradictory, still agree in some way with the finding that students find lectures to be beneficial.
Despite stating that direct instruction is useful, contextual data from student interviews suggested that direct instruction should not be a prevalent instructional strategy. Compared to what education researchers agree on from the literature - that direct instruction is less effective than active learning (Arons & Redish,
1997; Coletta, 2015; Knight, 2004; Henderson, Khan, & Dancy, 2018; Roseler et al., 2018; Lawrenz, Wood,
Kirchhoff, Kim, & Eisenkraft, 2009), and Minhas, Ghosh, & Swanzy, 2012) - 100% of the students interviewed agreed that lectures may be a "necessary evil." It may be necessary when a new topic is introduced, for difficult topics, for solidifying ideas about a topic, for giving structure to the curriculum unit, or, as they stated, as a way to be equal to all students, when the students in the class have a variety of backgrounds and abilities. This latter statement was meant to be positive, even though it is not equitable or socially just. One of the students, Rob, stated:
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 31
My general opinion is that at the beginning it is fair to have some easing into the more active and
independent aspects of learning and just making sure everyone has the foundations and the ability to
basically keep themselves rolling before they are given more of that responsibility on their own.
Another student, Kelly, expanded on why direct instruction may be necessary when a wide variety of students are required to take a science class for graduation:
Since everyone takes it [required science class], you [teacher] cannot assume that there’s any base-
knowledge, so it really is just like, “Fill out the notes, memorize this, follow these instructions
exactly.” Because, since the teacher has no way of knowing what level the students have, you do not
really have a choice. So it is just really regurgitating [but necessary].
Again, both anecdotes from Rob and Kelly express need for equality. Though the remark has positive intention, what many students may not recognize is the actual need for equitability and differentiation, something direct instruction foregoes.
Possibly more importantly, lectures are seen as boring by 100% of interviewed students. They stated that students tune out, lectures are too slow, there is no connection between the lecture and application, lectures are too intimidating to participate in, and/or they are mechanisms for regurgitation. Another student,
Shane, said:
To be honest, sometimes I would catch myself zoning out [during direct instruction]. It was just like,
“Oh well, if these notes are on his website, then I’ll just look at it later.” I was like, “Oh whatever, I’ll
push it off until later, I’ll do it on my own anyway.” It kind of lowered my participation, I guess. If it
was totally new information, I would try to pay attention, but most of the time it was kind of like,
“Okay, we’re just lecture”... like when we just did lecturing, I had a hard time when we had to apply
it to stuff, like on tests and stuff. When it was word problems, I was like, “Oh, I’m not really sure
what this is.”
This sentiment contradicts the survey data results and the two previous anecdotes (that direct instruction is necessary). These results indicate that students may be conflicted with the role that direct instruction should
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 32 play in their education. If most surveyed students found lectures to be helpful, maybe they agree with the interviewees, that just a small amount is very helpful.
The literature on the topic would agree that many students prefer direct instruction (Smith &
Cardaciotto, 2011). As is evident, students like direct instruction. They especially feel it is necessary when they are ill-confident or confused or being introduced to a new topic. For those that like learning science, perhaps they like direct instruction because they get to hear a focused conversation on the important, difficult, and interesting bits. Yet overall, maybe direct instruction is desired to be short and sweet, because too long of direct instruction may cause students to stop paying attention. Unfortunately, the first three pieces of survey data alone could be enough to convince an instructor to stick with a direct instruction style of learning if all they cared about was how students felt. Yet, as explained by Bigelow et al. (2004), that would be socially unjust. Firstly, the data is not unanimous, so it does not represent all students; secondly, that choice would not make a creative, choice-filled, nor student-accountable learning environment; and thirdly, that data does not represent learning outcomes due to direct instruction strategies as is indicated in the literature review and further in this chapter.
Students find most active learning strategies very helpful, after some direct instruction
Finding Two addresses the second research subquestion: How do students experience learning through active learning instruction? Similarly, students expressed that active learning instructional strategies were helpful to learning curriculum, after some direct instruction. On the survey, follow-up lesson questionnaire, and within the interviews, students reported feeling that they understand better, achieve higher success, engage more with the class when using active learning strategies, and feel they experience an improvement in their logical thinking and creative thinking as a result. Of all 89 students that completed the survey, 37.1% stated that they most preferred the active learning instructional strategies, compared to direct instruction (62.9%). Though it may seem clear which instructional style students prefer, the following evidence shows it is not the whole picture.
Besides lectures having a high percentage of survey students finding them helpful (70.9% overall), most of the strategies, both direct instruction and active learning instruction, had moderate percentages of
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 33 students finding them useful. Figure 2 shows the survey’s relationship between students that enjoy learning science and the percentage of those students that found active learning instructional strategies and direct instruction strategies to be helpful. The first three strategies are direct instruction strategies - lectures, step- by-step lab instructions, and webquests, and the rest are active learning instructional strategies. Homework is included as an active learning instructional strategy because, at least in my class, much of it is choice and graded as credit/no credit, so students have much independence and freedom to choose what is necessary to do for them. The direct instruction strategies are included to show comparisons of all of the instructional strategies. In looking at the graph, lectures have the highest preference of them all, step-by-step lab instructions and peer led seminars are tied, webquests and lecture tutorials have the lowest preferences, but the rest of the active learning instructional strategies were given a preference below lecture and above step- by-step lab instructions. I would argue that there is weight to this evidence, that students find value in the active learning instructional strategies. This result from the survey is interesting because of the affinity students have for direct instruction, yet clearly, they also appreciate active learning.
Figure 2. Examining the relationship between students that enjoy learning science and all of the instructional strategies.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 34
The active learning lesson associated with the second follow-up lesson questionnaire addressed misconceptions about forces in physics, and students found the lesson helpful. The lesson was composed of the instructor asking the students thought provoking questions and situations regarding how forces are applied to certain situations. The 28 students worked collaboratively (small group then whole class) to eventually reach the correct application and description of physics, only with necessary hints or provoking questions from the instructor. What was not surprising to me were the results that 92.86% of students found that the lesson improved their logical thinking. The responses to the second question showed 75% of the students thought the lesson improved their creative thinking. The data suggested that students perceived this active learning lesson improved both types of thinking more than the direct instruction lesson. I thought the responses would have been more unanimous for creative thinking, as the lesson required students to tap into their preconceptions and knowledge, and apply it. Analyzing further, student’s perceptions showed that 75% of students felt the lesson improved both logical and creative thinking; only one student (3.57%) found the lesson to negatively impact their logical and creative thinking.
In the interest of comparing the two follow-up lesson questionnaire responses, I graphed them side by side. In Figure 3, comparisons between responses from the follow-up lesson questionnaires from the two different lessons (Active Learning (AL) and Direct Instruction (DI)) show that in every category, the active learning lesson led to more improvement than the direct instruction lesson. The results for the direct instruction lesson are greatly positive too, despite many odd and contradictory responses to the questionnaire.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 35
Figure 3. Comparing the differences between the responses from the two follow-up lesson questionnaires, post active learning lesson (AL) and direct instruction lesson (DI).
Similar to the direct instruction epiphany, responses from the interviews presented deeper perceptions about how students felt about active learning, which gave further support to it as a superior form of learning.
For most, active learning gave them a sense of pride in their learning, as one student, Caroline, stated:
I'd probably say it [their favorite class] actually was Physics C, because of the fact that it was very
involved ... And then also the way that it was run, the fact that we were way more involved and some
of our labs were like, "Here's what you've got to find. Figure it out." Definitely makes it harder and a
little more stressful, but at the end you feel way more accomplished than just, “I trudged through all
these instructions."
In addition to their appetite for some supportive direct instruction, all of the students interviewed found active learning to be their preferred learning strategy overall. They said that active learning was more difficult, but worthwhile and more enjoyable than direct instruction. They said that active learning caused them to remember and recall curriculum better, and there was a better transition in applying curriculum to real life. All of the students stated that the experience of active learning is more engaging and fun, and students can work at their own or group's pace. One student, Carissa, noted:
I think active learning should be the majority of learning in science classes, just because it solidifies
the information better. I think it’s more fun … [and] interesting because you get to see it or show that
it’s happening. It also sticks in your head more.
The responses from the interviews toward active learning were quite elaborate. The students were
excited to share their thoughts and details, and in doing so made it clear why students prefer active
learning instructional strategies.
In summary, active learning is seen as challenging by the students in this study. It also is recognized for its benefits and superiority for helping the interviewed students learn curriculum. Especially in the interviews, the students recognize direct instruction for its merits, that there may be a place for it, but overwhelmingly they prefer the use of active learning instructional strategies in the classroom.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 36
Students prefer to participate in small groups, and not during whole class discussions
Finding Three answers the third research subquestion: When do students participate in science class?
Students are comfortable participating in class when the risk is low, and when they are in small groups (of three to four); that also means it is just as easy to not participate if they do not have to, as with direct instruction. Of the 89 students that completed the survey, 57.3% of them stated that they participate in science class. From the students that stated they participate most, 86.3% stated that they enjoy learning science, 47.1% stated that they prefer active learning instruction, and 52.9% stated that they prefer direct instruction. Like the other cross-correlations, the preferred instructional strategy by students who participate most was lectures (88.2%). Two other pieces of survey data that stand out to me with regard to participation are: of the students that enjoy learning science, 60.3% of them stated they participate most, but of the students that stated they participate most, 86.3% stated they enjoy learning science. A final piece of survey data was the trend between students that stated they do not participate and the low amount of enjoyment for learning science; those that don’t like science, don’t participate. So far, this data shows a high preference toward direct instruction by students who stated they participate most and enjoy learning science.
Further analysis of the survey data sheds more light on the big picture, yet still leaves confusion.
Figure 4 shows survey data that represents the amount of students that stated they participate in science class and their preference for the different instructional strategies, including both direct instruction and active instruction. The results of this cross-correlation are very similar to the results of the previous section’s cross- correlation that showed the relationship between the students that enjoy learning science and their preference for different instructional strategies. Lectures are greatly preferred, webquests and lecture tutorials are not, and besides the near tie between step-by-step lab instructions and peer led seminars, that data suggests that active learning instructional strategies are greatly appreciated. Though the survey data is a bit inconclusive and confusing, the interview responses do a good job in providing clarity.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 37
Figure 4. Correlating the relationship between students that participate in science class and all of the instructional strategies.
When interviewing students, the big participation picture started to emerge, and it was based around intimidation. All of the interviewed students stated that direct instruction creates an intimidating environment for students to participate (i.e. raise their hand and ask or answer questions). One student, Alex, explained their hesitation:
It is harder to participate when you have one speaker and then you do not want to interrupt with a
question. It is harder to interject with a question because it throws off the flow of the teacher, so then
I’m a little less inclined to ask a question.
Direct instruction does not create an environment of opportunity for students to think, develop, or do much of anything, except for listen and take notes. Students are not participating in their learning, a shared sentiment by all of the interviewed students. As one student, Ryan, put it:
It's [their least favorite science class] just something like there's not a lot of thinking, at least at the
introductory level, that goes into a class like that. It's a lot of just rote memorization, which lends
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 38
itself better to just me sitting, writing down stuff and not really thinking much about the principles
behind what I'm learning. I did not feel like I was taking charge of my learning, I just like I was
sitting and basically eating the food that was being fed to me.
Alternatively, all interviewed students stated that active learning causes participation. When working in small groups, students are far less intimidated and they feel comfortable to make mistakes and speak up about their misunderstandings and ideas. In particular for two students, Peter and Vince, they stated that the more that other students participate, the less daunting it is for them to participate over time (as in during a lecture, or with a new group). These students seem to find solace in each other in an active learning environment. As Peter described explicitly:
It [direct instruction] makes participation more intimidating, I think. Because if you're in a setting
where it's your fellow students that are teaching you, or you're in a discussion or you're working in
groups, then since other people are already, automatically participating, it kind of makes additional
student participation easier [in reference to an active learning environment]. But if you have a teacher
alone in front of the room, being the first student voice to break the silence or admit that you do not
understand something, clearly, you see it all the time, it goes silent. And it's not that nobody has
questions, it's kind of daunting to be that first student. But if it's a student speaking to you in the first
place, or you're sitting in your group where only three other people are going to hear what you're
afraid is going to be a dumb question or something, then I feel like it changes it a lot.
Participation is a skill, a way of looking at participation that I have never considered. The interviews gave more clarity to the participation picture, that participation increases significantly during active learning
(students are much more comfortable and willing), while direct instruction (i.e. lectures) can cause intimidation and minimal participation.
The survey data with regard to participation is a bit confusing because it is contradictory. I would expect the data on participation and enjoyment of learning science to be congruent - a result that did not add up. Students that stated they prefer to participate in science class and enjoy learning science also preferred direct instruction overall, and lectures specifically, is inconsistent. Direct instruction and lectures are
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 39 naturally non-participatory and student-uninvolved. These results are confusing because students are saying they like to participate but prefer a passive environment, which does not make sense to me. The only clear data from the survey came from the students who stated that they do not enjoy learning science and they do not participate in science class, an unsurprising result. Besides the latter, these survey results cause the participation picture to be unclear, but the interview data seems to clear most of it up. Students do not want to participate during a lecture (i.e. if the instructor asked the class a question and waited for student responses) because it is a daunting endeavor. Being wrong or making a mistake in front of a large group of people is intimidating, but the students seem to be happy to participate in small groups. The pressure is less and the environment is conducive for making mistakes and learning from them.
Conclusion
The students in my physics classes communicated how they experience direct instruction and active learning instruction, and when they participate in class. Students appreciate an introductory dose of direct instruction, which helps them with structure and guidance at the beginning of a new unit, for instance. Even though the survey data suggested that students overall prefer direct instruction over active learning instruction, the other two sets of data, the interviews and follow-up lesson questionnaires, gave me the impression that students ultimately find active learning instruction to be more helpful for learning the curriculum, makes them more engaged in class, and is the preferred method of learning in class. And finally, students thought that direct instruction strategies create an intimidating, non-participatory environment.
Oppositely, the active learning environment, they said, is comfortable and gives them courage to participate
(i.e. to make mistakes), and, what seemed to be a positive attribute, there is little option other than to participate during an active learning lesson. These findings are consistent with the current body of research on the topic, though there is still room for improvement. In the following chapter, I will discuss implications of my findings, how my findings relate to other literature on the topic, potential issues with my data, and how my teaching may be informed.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 40
Chapter Five: Research Conclusions
One piece of data does not tell a whole story. Just under two-thirds of the surveyed students stated that they prefer direct instruction overall. But, the interviews and follow-up lesson questionnaires told a more clarifying side to the story. Students expressed that the amount of direct instruction wanted is introductory, and actually, active learning instruction is more preferred and has more benefits. The next sections
(implications and literature comparisons, possible issues with data, and how my teaching may be informed) discuss and elaborate on the findings.
Implications and Literature Comparisons
After just enough direct instruction is given to get the students going, to give them confidence to go off on their own, active learning seems to be the preferred instructional strategy. As the interviewed students stated, despite active learning being more difficult, they learn better, engage more, retain more, and can apply curriculum better, something the survey data and follow-up lesson questionnaires did not ask and did not state. My findings seem to agree with other research. Despite finding learning gains from active learning instruction, and similar to what I found out about direct instruction from my students, the study by Smith and
Cardaciotto (2011) found that students enjoyed the direct instruction class more, and evaluated it higher, than an active learning class. Conversely, my findings are also in agreement with the study done by Minhas,
Ghosh, and Swanzy (2012), where their study found students felt more prepared for examinations with active learning instruction. Additionally, the study by Andrews et al. (2012) found that students who find curriculum difficult but interesting excelled, and so maybe students do see the overall benefit, especially if the learning gains follow, like the learning gains from active learning found by these researchers: Arons and
Redish (1997), Coletta (2015), Knight (2004), Henderson, Khan, and Dancy (2018), Roseler et al. (2018),
Lawrenz, Wood, Kirchhoff, Kim, and Eisenkraft (2009), and Minhas, Ghosh, and Swanzy (2012). The follow-up lesson questionnaire, post active learning lesson, suggested that the lesson improved most student’s logical thinking and creative thinking, comparable to the findings by Marušic and Sliško (2014).
While the direct instruction lesson also suggested most students had improvements, there were not as many as the active learning lesson.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 41
The survey data suggested that students who participate in science class and enjoy learning science prefer direct instruction overall and found lectures to be the most helpful instruction strategy. But, the interviews indicated that direct instruction is intimidating, and actual participation occurs with active learning instruction. Similarly, participants in the study by Smith and Cardaciotto (2011) said their engagement was higher in the active learning class, even though they enjoyed the direct instruction class more. Further evidence from interviews gave more understanding as to what might actually be happening.
Students felt that a direct instruction classroom does not create an environment in which they want to participate, it is intimidating, but an active learning classroom does. Small group participation, versus whole classroom participation, is more comfortable to try, fail, and make mistakes. From Finding One, Kelly (an interviewed student) hypothesized about why teachers would choose a direct instruction strategy (as a response to teaching a class with a wide variety of students), which shows some sympathy toward what teachers may face. But, this style of teaching is usually a response to a daunting task - to unload as much information as possible in a short amount of time - as Henderson et al. (2018) described for the goal of a lecture.
When students can see positive learning gains and results, they buy in to what’s happening in class
(Minhas, Ghosh, and Swanzy (2012)), even if the method is more challenging. Conversely, in my day to day experience, when students can do as little as possible to achieve the highest grade, they may pursue that route instead. The greatest difference here is that the interviewed students were able to acknowledge the long term impacts of both, and recognize the superiority of active learning strategies. Existing research shows active learning instruction to be a superior method of instruction, and I urge instructors to implement active learning instruction. Henderson et al. (2018) found that student evaluations of teachers remained positive when using active learning. Instructors make choices about the classroom (i.e. what instructional strategies to use), and students make choices (consciously or not) about who they are as students.
My research results were quite informative. Honestly, I was not very surprised by the students’ overall preference for direct instruction, but pleasantly surprised by their appreciation for active learning instruction. Basically, what I found concluded similarly to the literature reviewed on the topic: students want
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 42 a bit of direct instruction, just enough to be given direction or confidence with the curriculum, and then to move on to active practices (Smith and Cardaciotto (2011); Andrews et al. (2011); Minhas, Ghosh, and
Swanzy (2012); Marušic and Sliško (2014); Cavanagh et al. (2018); and Henderson et al. (2018)). As further study, I would like to look into the psychology of why students make the choices they do about their learning. How willing are they to do the work? How interested are they in the subject? If students enjoy learning science, why do roughly half of them participate? How have their social and emotional intelligences developed to allow them to fully participate, take risks, fail, and take initiative to figure things out? What is at the heart of how and why students learn?
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 43
Potential Issues with Data
In retrospect, I would have liked to make some changes to questions, or add some questions, but ultimately, I’m happy with the execution of the data instruments. There was only one peculiarity with data collection: with regard to the follow-up lesson questionnaire following the direct instruction lesson, the responses to the questionnaire did not seem to relate to the lecture itself. Rather, they seemed to be responses about physics in general. When asked if their logical thinking improved, many students mentioned that it did because of the introduction of new physics equations and concepts. Similarly, when asked if their creative thinking improved, many students commented that it did because of the application of physics concepts to the real world. Both responses, though positive, do not explicitly respond to whether the lecture in particular improved their two types of thinking, but instead that physics improved their two types of thinking.
Ultimately, more data is needed to make definitive findings.
How My Teaching May Be Informed
I am concerned about the students that like science and do participate but prefer direct instruction. I think their preferences are influenced by what they are exposed to, and that they are not exposed to more active learning instruction. On the flip side, I think the students that do not enjoy learning science and/or do not participate can be swayed to change their dislikes after being exposed to active learning instruction.
There will always be some students that solely want to be lectured to, and there are some that want to dive into the curriculum head first on their own. Among many active learning instruction ideas, this study has given be me more confidence to implement instruction that cuts out a student-uninvolved lecture, and to implement active learning instruction.
One idea I have is a student-involved “lecture”: 1). prior to class, students read and take notes on the topic’s chapter and watch a video with imbedded notes (i.e. like the program EDpuzzle.com) at home, similar to a flipped classroom; 2). the next day in class, there is a very light review of the topics, with most of the time spent on practice problems and think-pair-share / class discussions that examines situations and scenarios that utilize the physics math and concepts we are learning; 3). the rest of the class time is run as normal with labs and activities. This type of active learning instruction drives out misconceptions, has
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 44 students discussing and collaborating ideas, and ultimately solidifies understanding. The whole point is for students to be responsible and accountable for their learning, to apply, discuss, and come to their own conclusions to best understand the curriculum.
Conclusion
Those that do the work, do the learning. This is what I learned in my teaching credential program. It exemplifies my pedagogy. It is essentially what most educational researches discover. Though students may expect to receive knowledge and structure from their instructors, in the end, my research study has shown me that they actually understand that their participation in their education is what matters most to their learning.
Despite its difficulty, for both the instructor (who may need to rework their teaching program) and the students (because it may be a new way of learning for them), the learning outcomes can be well worthwhile.
In conclusion, I can get the students in my physics classes to engage in active learning by: creating an encouraging learning environment by setting up varying levels of support for inquiry-based lessons; that establishes trust and confidence in their efforts and achievements by coaching them to endure frustrations and mistakes, and change how they are assessed; so that students are exposed to a socially just way of learning by putting them at the center of their learning through freedom and choice of assignments.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 45
References
Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning
not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE—Life
Sciences Education, 10(4), 394-405.
Arons, A. B., & Redish, E. F. (1997). Teaching Introductory Physics (Vol. 22). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Bigelow, B., Harvey, B., Karp, S. & Miller, L. (Eds.) (2004). Rethinking Our Classrooms:
Teaching for Equity and Social Justice, Volume 2. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Retrieved from:
https://www.rethinkingschools.org/static/publication/roc2/ROC2_Introduction.pdf
Cavanagh, A. J., Chen, X., Bathgate, M., Frederick, J., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J.
(2018). Trust, Growth Mindset, and Student Commitment to Active Learning in a College Science
Course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar10.
Coletta, V. P. (2015). Thinking in physics: Strategies for improving scientific reasoning,
conceptual understanding, and problem solving in introductory physics. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Incorporated.
Demirci, N. (2015). Prospective High School Physics Teachers' Beliefs about Teaching
Practices: From Traditionalist to Constructivist. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
& Technology Education, 11(3).
Dewey, J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. School Journal. 54 (3): 77–80.
Emdin, C. (2017). For White Folks Who Teach in the Hood... and the Rest of Y'all Too.
New York, NY: Random House Inc.
Henderson, C., Khan, R., & Dancy, M. (2018). Will my student evaluations decrease if I
adopt an active learning instructional strategy? American Journal of Physics, 86(12), 934.
Knight, R. D. (2004). Five Easy Lessons: Strategies for successful physics teaching. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Incorporated.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 46
Lawrenz, F., Wood, N. B., Kirchhoff, A., Kim, N. K., & Eisenkraft, A. (2009). Variables
affecting physics achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 961-976.
Lynch, Matthew. (2017, May 1). 5 Things That Educators Should Know About the Philosophy of
Education. The EDVOCATE. Retrieved from https://www.theedadvocate.org/5-things-that-educators-
should-know-about-the-philosophy-of-education/
Marušic, M., & Sliško, J. (2014). High-School Students Believe School Physics Helps in
Developing Logical but Not Creative Thinking: Active Learning Can Change This Idea.
European Journal of Physics Education, 5(4), 30-41.
Minhas, P. S., Ghosh, A., & Swanzy, L. (2012). The effects of passive and active learning
on student preference and performance in an undergraduate basic science course.
Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(4), 200-207.
Nichols, J. D. (2010). Teachers as servant leaders. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active
learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749-771.
Roseler, K., Paul, C. A., Felton, M., & Theisen, C. H. (2018). Observable Features of Active
Science Education Practices. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(6), 83-91.
Smith, C. V., & Cardaciotto, L. (2011). Is active learning like broccoli? Student
perceptions of active learning in large lecture classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 11(1), 53-61.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 47
APPENDIX A
Data Collection Instruments
Follow-up Lesson Questionnaire
1. How (if) did today’s lesson improve your logical thinking?
2. How (if) did today’s lesson improve your creative thinking?
3. How (if) did today’s lesson change your interest in physics?
Interview Questions
1. Please describe your favorite science class you took (without naming teacher) and why.
2. Please describe your least favorite science class you took (without naming teacher) and why.
3. What is your opinion of direct instruction in science class? [Regardless if their response is
positive or negative, use the subquestions below to follow up, get details]
a. Describe a time that helped shape your opinion.
b. In what way did the teacher’s instruction contribute to that feeling?
c. Did the class structure contributed to that feeling?
d. In what ways did it contribute to your interest in the subject?
e. To what extent did this contribute to how much you participated in class?
f. In what way did it contribute to your understanding of the curriculum?
4. What is your opinion of active learning in science class? [Regardless if their response is
positive or negative, use the subquestions below to follow up, get details]
a. Describe a time that helped shape your opinion.
b. In what way did the teacher’s instruction contribute to that feeling?
c. Did the class structure contributed to that feeling?
d. In what ways did it contribute to your interest in the subject?
e. To what extent did this contribute to how much you participated in class?
f. In what way did it contribute to your understanding of the curriculum?
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 48
5. To sum up, overall, which do you enjoy more and learn better from: direct instruction or
active learning? Why?
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 49
Survey
Physics Learning Survey
THIS SURVEY IS ANONYMOUS. Please be honest and thoughtful with your responses.
*Required
1. Are you willing to continue and participate in this research study about physics learning? * Mark only one oval.
YES NO (If you choose no, please stop filling out survey)
2. How many science classes have you taken in high school? Mark only one oval.
1 2 3 4+
3. I enjoy learning science. Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I can't get Science enough science in is not my life. my thing.
4. Rate how much you participate in science class. Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
More than 3 times per Never class
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 50
5. Lectures help me learn curriculum. Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is most effective for Not at me all
6. Labs (in general, from all science classes) help me learn curriculum. Mark only one oval. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is most effective for Not at me all
7. Projects help me learn curriculum. Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is most effective for Not at me all
8. Peer-led seminars help me learn curriculum. *ignore question if you have not done these* Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is most effective for Not at me all
9. Argument Driven Inquiry labs help me learn curriculum. Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is most effective for Not at me all
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 51
10. Lecture Tutorials help me learn curriculum. *ignore question if you have not done these* Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is most effective for Not at me all
11. Informal labs (with minimal information and basically just a guiding question) help me learn curriculum. Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is most effective for Not at me all
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 52
12. I prefer step-by-step lab instructions. Mark only one oval. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No, I'd rather come up Yes, I don't with my understand own. labs otherwise.
13. Homework helps me learn curriculum. Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is most effective for Not at me all
14. WebQuests help me learn curriculum. *ignore question if you have not done these* Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This is most effective for Not at me all
15. Rate what you prefer to do while in science class. Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I prefer to listen to the teacher I prefer to explain the explore, curriculum, and investigate, and watch them do a explain things I demo or do don't know much example about, problems, while independently taking notes. and/or with a group.
HOW PHYSICS STUDENTS EXPERIENCE LEARNING 53
16. Do you trust your teacher? (Students that trust their teacher believe that their teacher understands the difficulties the students face in the course, is open and welcoming to all students, and cares about the student's educational development and progress.) Mark only one oval.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not at Completely all
Powered by
APPENDIX B
Invitation Letter
Letter of Invitation
Dear Parent or Legal Guardian and Student,
My name is Mercer Barrows (your student’s physics teacher) and I am graduate student at California State University, San Marcos. I’m excited to share with you an invitation for your student to volunteer and participate in my research study! I am conducting a research study to study how students in physics class experience different types of teaching strategies. Your child will be asked to participate in an anonymous survey, anonymous follow-up questionnaires, and in a one-on-one interview with me. The main reason for this letter, and consent form, is because of the interview I hope your student will participate in. I will be asking your child up to 5 questions about how they’ve experienced different teaching strategies from all science classes. Your child’s responses will be anonymous. I will not ask, nor have, any identifying information of your child. Your student’s voice will be audio recorded. The audio recordings will be deleted at a later date. The benefits of your child participating in this study are informing researchers and instructors of better ways to teach your child. Depending on the conclusions drawn from this study, myself and other teachers can use the information to create better lessons that could directly, positively affect student learning outcomes. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns about the attached consent form.
Thank you for your time, Mercer Barrows
APPENDIX C
Parent Consent Form
Parental Consent Form
Dear Parent or Legal Guardian,
My name is Mercer Barrows and I am graduate student in the Department of Education at California State University, San Marcos. I am conducting a research study to study how students in physics class experience different types of teaching strategies. The purpose of this form is to provide you with information that will help you decide if you will give consent for your child to participate in this research.
KEY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS RESEARCH STUDY: The following is a short summary of this study to help you decide whether you want your child to be a part of this study. The purpose of this study is to find out how students in physics class experience different teaching strategies. Your child will be asked to participate in an anonymous survey, an anonymous follow-up questionnaire, and a one- on-one interview with me. The main reason for this consent form is for the interview, which will be audio recorded. I will be asking your child up to 5 questions about how they’ve experienced different teaching strategies from all science classes, and their responses will be audio recorded. No identifying information will be asked. We expect that your child will be in this research study for one interview. The interview should last about 30 minutes, and will take place during lunch or after school, depending on your child’s availability. The primary risk of participation is taking up their time to be interviewed. The main benefit of this study is that it will inform me and other teachers to produce better lessons for your child.
STUDY PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to find out how students experience different teaching strategies. The goal is to come to a conclusion that will inform me and other teachers to produce better lessons.
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: If you agree to participate, your child will be one of 90 participants (fellow students) who will be participating in this research.
PROCEDURES FOR THIS STUDY: If you agree for your child to participate in the study, she or he will be interviewed, surveyed, and write responses to a follow-up lesson questionnaire. The latter two will be anonymous. The survey will take 20 minutes, and the follow-up lesson questionnaire will
take 10 minutes. The interview will not ask any identifiable information of the student, but their voice will be audio recorded. The interview will be audio recorded with an iPhone. By recording the interview, I can easily type their responses that I’d like to use for data in the study. The interview will take place in my classroom at school, during lunch or after school. The interview will occur one time and will take approximately 30 minutes.
RISKS AND INCONVENIENCES: There are minimal risks and inconveniences to participating in this study. These include: 1. Students will be audio recorded, which is a risk of breach of confidentiality. 2. The time schedules and duration of the interview may be inconvenient. 3. The student may have a strong opinion toward the questions (about how they experienced a teaching strategy), which may make them feel uncomfortable.
SAFEGUARDS: To minimize these risks and inconveniences, the following measures will be taken. 1. The risk of breach of confidentiality with audio recordings is due to the fact that someone may recognize the students voice. But, only me and my professors may hear the recordings. I also will not ask the students any identifiable information. The audio recording of the interview will be stored in my personal google drive account, which is password protected. Only myself and my professors may have access to it, so that they may give me feedback and help me with my research. 2. To minimize the inconvenience of the interview, students will be able to choose when to be interviewed and may opt out at any time if the time commitment is a burden. 3. The interview will be in a private place so the student may feel comfortable to respond to the questions. If the student does not want to answer the question, they may skip it. If they experience emotional or psychological distress, the student will be directed to our school counselors and social support services.
CONFIDENTIALITY: Your child’s responses will be anonymous. I will not ask, nor have, any identifying information of your child. The results of this study may be used in reports, presentations, or publications. Results will only be shared in aggregate form. The audio recordings will be stored on my personal google drive account, that is password protected. My faculty advisors may have access to these audio recordings as well. The audio recordings will be stored for up to 3 years after the project is completed, starting June 2019. After that, the audio recordings will be deleted.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary. Your child may decline participation at any time. You may also withdraw your child from the study at any time; there will be no penalty. Participation in this study will not effect on your child’s grade.
BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY: The benefits of your child participating in this study are informing researchers and instructors of better ways to teach your child. Depending on the conclusions drawn from this study, myself and other teachers can use the information to create better lessons that could directly, positively affect student learning outcomes. PAYMENT OR INCENTIVES: There will be no payment or incentive for your child participating in this study.
CONTACT INFORMATION: If you have any questions about this study, please call me at (858)350-0253 x4272 or email me at [email protected] . My faculty advisors’ contact information are: Dr. Anne Rene Elsbree at [email protected] or (760) 750-4384; and Dr. Joni Kolman at [email protected] or (760) 750-8236. If you have any questions about your child’s rights as a participant in this research or if you feel your child has been placed at risk, you can contact the IRB Office at [email protected] or (760) 750- 4029.
PARENT CONSENT: By signing below, you are giving consent for your child to participate in the above study. Please check the option that applies to you before signing.
I give permission for my child to be audio recorded. I do not give permissions for my child to be audio recorded.
Your child’s name: ______
Parent/Guardian name: ______
Parent/Guardian signature: ______
Date: ______
APPENDIX D
Child Consent Form
Assent Form
Dear Student,
My name is Mercer Barrows and I go to school at California State University, San Marcos. I am inviting you to participate in a research study about how students in physics class like or dislike different teaching strategies.
Your parent knows about this study, and gave permission for you to be involved. If you agree, I will ask you to be interviewed by me, surveyed, and write responses to a follow-up lesson questionnaire. The latter two will be anonymous. The survey will take 20 minutes, and the follow-up lesson questionnaire will take 10 minutes. The interview will not ask any identifiable information of you, but your voice will be audio recorded. We will do the interview during lunch or after school in my classroom, whichever time is more convenient for you, and it will take about 30 minutes. I will need to audio record the interview so I can better remember your responses, but I won’t ask you to say your name or anything personal while recording.
You do not have to be in this study. No one will be mad at you if you decide not to do this study. Even if you start the study, you can stop later if you want. You may ask questions about the study at any time.
If you decided to be in the study I will not tell anyone else how you respond. Even if your parents or other teachers ask, I will not tell them about what you said.
Signing here means that you have read this form or have had it read to you and that you are willing to be in this study.
Name of participant (write your name on this line): ______
Signature of Participant (put your signature on this line): ______
Date:______
APPENDIX E
International Review Board Application Responses
How students experience active and passive learning IRB Application Responses
1. Purpose My primary research question is: How can I get my students to engage in active learning (in physics class)? The research question is important because the learning outcomes of students in classes with instructors who apply active learning strategies (i.e. peer-led seminars, Reading- Presenting-Questioning, Experimenting and Discussing, Think-Pair-Share, and Active Physics Curriculum) significantly increase. The problem is, many students are currently accustomed to a traditional style of teaching (i.e. lecturing and step-by-step labs procedures), which has been shown, through other research, to be significantly less effective for student’s learning and engagement (Minhas, 2012). The research findings on active learning are convincing and inspiring to me that I want to explore and implement an active learning approach in my physics class. My study will start with an exploration of published literature. I will review studies that have investigated the learning benefits, and student perceptions, of passive and active teaching strategies. Andrews, Leonard, Colgrove, and Kalinowski (2011) found that, even though active learning strategies generally show significant gains with instructors with significant training in other studies, instructors with minimal training show low, if any, learning gains. They prescribe a combination of lecturing and active learning strategies. Though the instructor’s backgrounds weren’t mentioned in Marusic and Slisko’s (2015) study, they found significant learning gains with students who were instructed to use active learning strategies like Reading-Presenting- Questioning and Experimenting and Discussing. Finally, Minhas, Ghosh, and Swanzy (2012) found that students instructed with active learning techniques preferred those strategies over passive strategies. The literature review will help give me background and context of both strategies and student perceptions of them. To answer my research questions (How can I get my students to engage in active learning (in physics class)? And my secondary research questions are: How are students experiencing learning through direct instruction? How are students experiencing active learning? What provokes students to participate during active learning in class?), I will use three instruments to collect data (survey, interview, and lesson questionnaire). 1. I will use an anonymous survey that will ask students to rate their opinion about science class, lectures, labs, active learning strategies, and more. 2. I will interview (audio recorded) students from my class, and ask them about their experiences with direct instruction and active learning.
3. Finally, I will implement two lessons, one direct instruction and one active learning, and use a follow-up questionnaire immediately after the lesson, asking students to reflect on how the lesson affected their thinking and interest in physics. From these three instruments, I hope to extract responses and data from students that answer my research questions.
2. Participants A. 90 students for the survey, 20 students for the interviews, and 90 students for the follow- up lesson questionnaire. B. All participation in this study is voluntary. I will be working with my physics students because they are exposed to more science classes, and therefore more teachers and teaching strategies, than students who aren’t in physics. Our physics students have taken biology, chemistry (usually), and in the case of my AP Physics C students, they usually take AP Chemistry, AP Biology, AP Physics 1 & 2, and AP Calculus AB. Another reason for working with physics students is because, in my opinion, physics is a bit easier to implement active learning due to its physical and exploratory nature. Also, I know they have been exposed to both types of teaching strategies because they are my students, and I have used direct instruction and active learning strategies with them. C. No one will be specifically excluded from this study. D. All participation in this study is voluntary. The survey and follow-up lesson questionnaire will go out to all of my students, and the interviewees will be selected based on: completed assent and parent consent forms, varying abilities (high and low achieving), varying attitudes (positive and negative), and varying participation (high or low) in my class. E. NO
3. Informed Consent A. I will be providing the parents and students with a thorough explanation of what the study is about, how I will use the student’s responses, requirements of the students, and that the participants can choose not participate in the study at any time. This will be sent to them as soon as the IRB application is approved, estimating in December 2018 or January 2019. B. I will request that participants inform me of their choice as soon as possible. C. Language used will be lay, and around an 8th grade writing level. Students and parents will receive the same description of the study. Parents will be sent first, then child assent. D. N/A E. The primary academic language of my participants is English. All of my students use English as their primary academic language, or some are redesignated English learners.
4. Procedure and Methodology
A. Step-by-step a. I will be recruiting my physics students to voluntarily participate in my study about how students experience different learning strategies, and how I can engage them in active learning. b. I will be informing parents of the study and requesting consent to interview their child. c. I will be informing students of the study and requesting assent (after parent consent) to interview them. d. After consents and assents are signed, I will administer the survey, the follow-up questionnaires, and interviews. B. Students will complete all instruments in my classroom at school. C. Research will be conducted between December 2018 to June 2019.
5. Participant Debrief I will not provide feedback. Parents and student will be able to read my Master’s Thesis.
6. Risks A. There are minimal risks and inconveniences to participating in this study. These include: 1. Audio recordings will be stored on my personal google drive account. 2. The time schedule and duration of the interview may be inconvenient (during lunchtime or after school). 3. Students may have strong opinions toward the interview questions (about how they experienced a teaching strategy), which may make them feel uncomfortable, but none that would be psychologically harmful. B. Children C. None D. The only personally identifying data that will from recorded voices of students. Names or any other identifying information will not be recorded. Intruder will only learn opinions about physics education from anonymous physics students. E. None
7. Safeguarding A. To minimize these risks and inconveniences, the following measures will be taken. a. The only possible risk involved may be the record of student voice. Records will not include any information about the student (i.e. names, race, ethnicity, age, etc.), thereby mitigating any potential risk to the student participants. Interview recordings (the only audio recorded data), will be kept on a my personal google drive account, which is protected by password. My professors may have access to it, so that they may give me feedback and help me with my research, but they will only have access with me present.
b. To minimize the inconvenience of the interview, students will be able to choose when to be interviewed and may opt out at any time if the time commitment is a burden. c. The interview will be in a private place so the student may feel comfortable to respond to the questions. If the student does not want to answer the question, they may skip it. If they experience emotional or psychological distress, the student will be directed to our school counselors and social support services. B. Data will be stored on my personal google drive account, which is password protected. If requested, research Chairs will have access to the recordings, by way of their google accounts, which are password protected. Chairs may have viewing rights. C. Students negatively affected by their research participation will be referred to school counselor, psychologist, and / or social worker.
8. Study Benefits A. By studying how students experience learning, instructors and students may benefit by: increased understanding of student’s experience to create better lessons, which can cause more student engagement, more student learning, and an increase in positive attitudes of teachers and students. B. There are minimal risks, if any to participants. This study has the potential to bring awareness and understanding to physics education; therefore the benefits of this study outweigh the risks of this study.
9. Researchers Qualifications A. I, the researcher, have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Geophysics, and a teaching credential by the state of California in Foundational Sciences (middle school) and Physics. I am currently a Masters of Education student. B. My Master’s Thesis Chairs: a. Anne Rene Elsbree - “Dr. Anne Rene Elsbree teaches in the Single Subject Credential Program and Master of Arts in Education Program. She earned her doctorate in Multicultural Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She taught students in special education in the Grossmont Union High School District, San Diego County Court and Community Schools and Madison Metropolitan School District. Dr. Anne Rene Elsbree is dedicated to making schools socially just, where all students are valued and provided the educational services to succeed. Her work focuses on universally designed instruction with effective strategies to differentiate curriculum at the secondary level for English language learners and students with disabilities. Her research areas not only address inclusion and differentiation, but also how to disrupt homophobia in schools. Dr. Elsbree is an out lesbian. She researches and writes about how schools can avoid
the perpetuation of homophobic oppression by building communities where all differences are valued and supported. E-mail: [email protected] | Phone: (760) 750-4384“ b. Joni Kolman - “Dr. Joni Kolman is an Assistant Professor of Teaching and Learning in the School of Education. Her teaching focuses on educational foundations as well as teaching and learning in inclusive, learner-centered environments. Her scholarship is centrally concerned with teacher quality in high- need urban schools. Her recent work includes a multiple case study of how contextual factors shape the classroom instruction of experienced teachers; an exploratory study looking at the influence of new teacher certification policies on pre-service teachers enrolled in urban teacher preparation programs; and a mixed- methods longitudinal study examining an urban teacher residency program and its influence on teaching and learning. Dr. Kolman joined CSUSM in 2016. Prior to her appointment, she served as an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at City College of New York, CUNY. She taught in diverse communities in Toronto, Denver, and Boston before earning her doctorate in Curriculum and Teaching at Teachers College, Columbia University. E-mail: [email protected] | Phone:(760) 750-8236” C. Not applicable.