Our attempts to improve physics instruction have led us to analyze thought processes needed to apply scientific principles to problems—and to recognize that reliable performance requires the basic cognitive functions of deciding, implementing, and assessing. Using a reciprocal-teaching strategy to teach such thought processes explicitly, we have developed computer programs called PALs (P_ersonal A_ssistants for L_earning) in which computers and students alternately coach each other. These computer-implemented tutorials make it practically feasible to provide students with individual guidance and feedback ordinarily unavailable in most courses. We constructed PALs specifically designed to teach the application of Newton’s laws. In a comparative experimental study these computer tutorials were found to be nearly as effective as individual tutoring by expert teachers—and considerably more effective than the instruction provided in a well-taught physics class. Furthermore, almost all of the students using the PALs perceived them as very helpful to their learning. These results suggest that the proposed instructional approach could fruitfully be extended to improve instruction in various practically realistic contexts.
REFERENCES
1.
L. C.
McDermott
, “Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics
,” Phys. Today
37
, 24
–32
(July 1984
).2.
I. A.
Halloun
and D.
Hestenes
, “The initial knowledge state of college students
,” Am. J. Phys.
53
, 1043
–1055
(1985
).3.
I. A.
Halloun
and D.
Hestenes
, “Common sense concepts about motion
,” Am. J. Phys.
53
, 1056
–1065
(1985
).4.
L. C.
McDermott
and P. S.
Shaffer
, “Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 994
–1003
(1992
).5.
F.
Reif
and J. H.
Larkin
, “Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparison and learning implications
,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching
28
, 733
–760
(1991
).6.
F.
Reif
and M.
St. John
, “Teaching physicists’ thinking skills in the laboratory
,” Am. J. Phys.
47
, 950
–957
(1979
).7.
B.
Eylon
and F.
Reif
, “Effects of knowledge organization on task performance
,” Cognition and Instruction
1
, 5
–44
(1984
).8.
J. I.
Heller
and F.
Reif
, “Prescribing effective human problem-solving processes: Problem description in physics
,” Cognition and Instruction
1
, 177
–216
(1984
).9.
F.
Reif
, “Interpretation of scientific or mathematical concepts: Cognitive issues and instructional implications
,” Cognitive Science
11
, 395
–416
(1987
).10.
P.
Labudde
, F.
Reif
, and L.
Quinn
, “Facilitation of scientific concept learning by interpretation procedures and diagnosis
,” International Journal of Science Education
10
, 81
–98
(1988
).11.
F.
Reif
and S.
Allen
, “Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of acceleration
,” Cognition and Instruction
9
, 1
–44
(1992
).12.
F.
Reif
, “Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes
,” Am. J. Phys.
63
, 17
–32
(1995
).13.
A. S.
Palincsar
and A. L.
Brown
, “Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities
,” Cognition and Instruction
1
, 117
–175
(1984
).14.
A. L. Brown and A. S. Palincsar, (1989).
“Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition,” in Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, edited by L. B. Resnick (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989), pp. 393–451.
15.
B.
Rosenshine
and C.
Meister
, “Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research
,” Review of Educational Research
64
, 479
–530
(1994
).16.
J.
Sweller
and G. A.
Cooper
, “The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra
,” Cognition and Instruction
2
, 59
–89
(1985
).17.
X.
Zhu
and H. A.
Simon
, “Learning mathematics from examples and by doing
,” Cognition and Instruction
4
, 137
–166
(1987
).18.
M. T. H.
Chi
, M.
Bassok
, M. W.
Lewis
, P.
Reimann
, and R.
Glaser
, “Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems
,” Cognitive Science
13
, 145
–182
(1989
).19.
J. G. Trafton and B. J. Reiser, “The contributions of studying examples and solving problems to skill acquisition,” in Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1994), pp. 1017–1022.
20.
J. H.
Larkin
, J.
McDermott
, D. P.
Simon
, and H. A.
Simon
, “Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems
,” Science
208
, 1335
–1342
(1980
).21.
J. R.
Anderson
, C. F.
Boyle
, and B. J.
Reiser
, “Intelligent tutoring systems
,” Science
228
, 456
–462
(1985
).22.
J. R.
Anderson
, A. T.
Corbett
, K. R.
Koedinger
, and R.
Pelletier
, “Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned
,” Journal of the Learning Sciences
4
, 167
–207
(1995
).23.
F. Reif, Understanding Basic Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1995).
24.
For logistical reasons (e.g., one student in the PAL group ultimately did not take the subsequent test) the actual numbers of students in the PAL, Tutoring, and Class groups were 14, 15, and 16, respectively.
25.
An analysis of variance, with Scheffé post hoc tests, showed that these differences are highly significant. (The observed difference between the PAL group and Class group would only occur by chance with a probability and that between the Tutoring Group and Class group would only occur with a probability
26.
An analysis of variance shows that it could occur by chance with a probability as high as 0.65.
27.
B. S.
Bloom
, “The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring
,” Educational Researcher
13
, 3
–16
(June/July 1984
).28.
An analysis of variance confirms that the means of the previous average test scores of the three groups are essentially equivalent (i.e., no significant difference,
29.
Paired t-tests show that the Newton test score, compared to the previous average test score, is not significantly different for the PAL or Tutoring groups, and significantly lower for the Class group.
30.
These probabilities were determined by a chi-square test.
31.
A.
Van Heuvelen
, “Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 891
–897
(1991
).32.
A.
Van Heuvelen
, “Overview, case study physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 898
–907
(1991
).33.
E. Mazur, Peer instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
34.
R. R.
Hake
, “Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 546
–552
(1992
).35.
P. W.
Laws
, “Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
65
, 14
–21
(1997
).36.
P.
Heller
, R.
Keith
, and S.
Anderson
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 627
–636
(1992
).37.
P.
Heller
and M.
Hollabaugh
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 637
–644
(1992
).38.
L. C. McDermott, P. W. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Preliminary edition) (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998).
39.
F.
Reif
, J. H.
Larkin
, and G. C.
Brackett
, “Teaching general learning and problem-solving skills
,” Am. J. Phys.
44
, 212
–217
(1976
).
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1999 American Association of Physics Teachers.
1999
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
