Numerous reports suggest that learning gains in introductory university physics courses may be increased by “active-learning” instructional methods. These methods engender greater mental engagement and more extensive student–student and student–instructor interaction than does a typical lecture class. It is particularly challenging to transfer these methodologies to the large-enrollment lecture hall. We report on seven years of development and testing of a variant of Peer Instruction as pioneered by Mazur that aims at achieving virtually continuous instructor–student interaction through a “fully interactive” physics lecture. This method is most clearly distinguished by instructor–student dialogues that closely resemble one-on-one instruction. We present and analyze a detailed example of such classroom dialogues, and describe the format, procedures, and curricular materials required for creating the desired lecture-room environment. We also discuss a variety of assessment data that indicate strong gains in student learning, consistent with other researchers. We conclude that interactive-lecture methods in physics instruction are practical, effective, and amenable to widespread implementation.
REFERENCES
1.
Eric Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
2.
Ibrahim Abou
Halloun
and David
Hestenes
, “The initial knowledge state of college physics students
,” Am. J. Phys.
53
, 1043
–1055
(1985
).3.
David
Hestenes
, Malcolm
Wells
, and Gregg
Swackhamer
, “Force concept inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 141
–158
(1992
).4.
Richard R.
Hake
, “Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 64
–74
(1998
).5.
Edward F.
Redish
, Jeffery M.
Saul
, and Richard N.
Steinberg
, “On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories
,” Am. J. Phys.
65
, 45
–54
(1997
).6.
Ronald K.
Thornton
and David R.
Sokoloff
, “Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 338
–352
(1998
).7.
David P.
Maloney
, Thomas L.
O’Kuma
, Curtis J.
Hieggelke
, and Alan
Van Heuvelen
, “Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism
,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl.
69
, S12
–S23
(2001
).8.
Lillian C.
McDermott
, “Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—closing the gap
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 301
–315
(1991
).9.
Lillian C.
McDermott
, “Guest comment: How we teach and how students learn—a mismatch?
,” Am. J. Phys.
61
, 295
–298
(1993
).10.
Lillian C.
McDermott
, “Bridging the gap between teaching and learning: The role of research
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and , John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 139
–165
(1997
)], pt. 1.11.
E. F.
Redish
, “Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
62
, 796
–803
(1994
).12.
Arnold B. Arons, Teaching Introductory Physics (Wiley, New York, 1997).
13.
David P. Maloney, “Research on problem solving: Physics,” in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, edited by Dorothy L. Gabel (Macmillan, New York, 1994), pp. 327–354.
14.
Frederick
Reif
, “Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes
,” Am. J. Phys.
63
, 17
–32
(1995
).15.
It is widely acknowledged among physics educators that, one way or the other—whether through homework, class work, or individual discussion—most students must be guided to exert intense mental efforts in order to learn physics effectively. Belief in this principle by no means is held only by nontraditional physics educators. Preliminary results from a large-scale interview study clearly suggest that these beliefs characterize the views of many physics instructors regarding student learning of problem solving skills: Patricia Heller, Kenneth Heller, Charles Henderson, Vince H. Kuo, and Edit Yerushalmi, “Instructors’ beliefs and values about learning problem solving,” in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by Scott Franklin, Jeffrey Marx, and Karen Cummings (Rochester, New York, 2001), pp. 75–78.
16.
John R.
Thompson
, Paula R. L.
Heron
, Peter S.
Shaffer
, and Lillian C.
McDermott
, “Development and assessment of curriculum
,” AAPT Announcer
28
(2
), 80
(1998
).17.
Karen
Cummings
, Jeffrey
Marx
, Ronald
Thornton
, and Dennis
Kuhl
, “Evaluating innovations in studio physics
,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl.
67
, S38
–S44
(1999
). Also see Ref. 62.18.
Ronald K.
Thornton
and David R.
Sokoloff
, “Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools
,” Am. J. Phys.
58
, 858
–867
(1990
).19.
Edward F.
Redish
and Richard N.
Steinberg
, “Teaching physics: Figuring out what works
,” Phys. Today
52
, 24
–30
(1999
).20.
Fred
Goldberg
, “Constructing physics understanding in a computer-supported learning environment
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and , John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 903
–911
(1997
)], pt. 2.21.
Raphael Littauer, “Instructional implications of a low-cost electronic student response system,” Educational Technology (October 1972), p. 69.
22.
E. A. Lumsden, “Use of student feedback cards for diagnostic purposes during classroom lectures,” in Improving College and University Teaching Yearbook 1976 (Oregon State U.P., Corvallis, 1976), p. 39.
23.
A form of the “feedback card” method was described by Thomas A. Moore in his Six Ideas That Shaped Physics (WCB McGraw–Hill, Boston, 1998).
24.
F. Lyman, “The responsive class discussion,” in Mainstreaming Digest, edited by A. S. Anderson (College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, 1981);
F. Lyman, “Think-pair-share, thinktrix, thinklinks, and weird facts,” in Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learning, edited by N. Davidson and T. Worsham (New York, Teacher’s College Press, 1992).
25.
The “minute paper” has long been ascribed to Wilson as he was apparently the first to describe it in the literature [
R. C.
Wilson
, “Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants
,” J. Higher Educ.
57
, 192
–211
(1986
)].More recently, it has been acknowledged that the original source of the idea was Berkeley physicist C. Schwartz. See Barbara Gross Davis, Lynn Wood, and Robert C. Wilson, A Berkeley Compendium of Suggestions for Teaching with Excellence (University of California, Berkeley, 1983, available at http://teaching.berkeley.edu/compendium/, Suggestion #95).
26.
Charles C. Bonwell and James A. Eison, “Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom,” ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, Washington, DC, 1991), pp. 7–19 and passim, and references therein.
27.
Alan
Van Heuvelen
, “Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 891
–897
(1991
).28.
Alan
Van Heuvelen
, “Overview, case study physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 898
–907
(1991
).29.
Alan Van Heuvelen, ALPS Kit: Active Learning Problem Sheets, Mechanics (Hayden–McNeil, Plymouth, MI, 1990).
30.
Alan Van Heuvelen, ALPS Kit: Active Learning Problem Sheets, Electricity and Magnetism (Hayden–McNeil, Plymouth, MI, 1990).
31.
Van Heuvelen has updated his methods by incorporating multimedia tools and innovative group activities:
Alan
Van Heuvelen
, “Experiment problems for mechanics
,” Phys. Teach.
3
, 176
–180
(1995
);Alan
Van Heuvelen
, “Using interactive simulations to enhance conceptual development and problem solving skills
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and, John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 1119
–1135
(1997
)], pt. 2;Alan
Van Heuvelen
, Leith
Allen
, and Pavlos
Mihas
, “Experiment problems for electricity and magnetism
,” Phys. Teach.
37
, 482
–485
(1999
).32.
Eric Mazur, “Understanding or memorization: Are we teaching the right thing?,” in Conference on the Introductory Physics Course, edited by Jack Wilson (Wiley, New York, 1997), pp. 113–123.
33.
Eric
Mazur
, “Peer Instruction: getting students to think in class
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and , John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 981
–988
(1997
)], pt. 2.34.
Catherine H.
Crouch
, “Peer Instruction: An interactive approach for large classes
,” Opt. Photonics News
9
(9
), 37
–41
(September1998
);Adam P.
Fagen
, Catherine H.
Crouch
, and Eric
Mazur
, “Peer instruction results from a range of classrooms
,” Phys. Teach.
40
(4
), 206
–209
(2002
).35.
Catherine H.
Crouch
and Eric
Mazur
, “Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
, 970
–977
(2001
);http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/library
36.
Laurent Hodges, “Changes in the introductory calculus-based physics course at Iowa State University,” in Conference on the Introductory Physics Course, edited by Jack Wilson (Wiley, New York, 1997), pp. 291–294.
37.
R. G. Fuller, “Using interactive lecture methods to teach physics,” American Physical Society Forum on Education, Spring 1994.
38.
H. T.
Hudson
, “Teaching physics to a large lecture section
,” Phys. Teach.
23
, 81
–84
(1985
).39.
Robert J.
Dufresne
, William J.
Gerace
, William J.
Leonard
, Jose P.
Mestre
, and Laura
Wenk
, “Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning
,” J. Comp. Higher Educ.
7
, 3
–47
and http://umperg.physics.umass.edu/gemsFolder/umperg2/CT_Paper.pdf (1996
).40.
Jose P.
Mestre
, William J.
Gerace
, Robert J.
Dufresne
, and William J.
Leonard
, “Promoting active learning in large classes using a classroom communication system
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and , John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 1019
–1036
(1997
)], pt. 2.41.
Laura Wenk, Robert Dufresne, William Gerace, William Leonard, and Jose Mestre, “Technology-assisted active learning in large lectures,” in Student-Active Science, Models of Innovation in College Science Teaching, edited by Ann P. McNeal and Charlene D’Avanzo (Saunders College Publishing, Fort Worth, 1997), pp. 431–452.
42.
J.
Poulis
, C.
Massen
, E.
Robens
, and M.
Gilbert
, “Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 439
–441
(1998
).43.
Joel A.
Shapiro
, “Electronic student response found feasible in large science lecture hall
,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach.
26
, 408
–412
(1997
).44.
Ray A.
Burnstein
and Leon M.
Lederman
, “Using wireless keypads in lecture classes
,” Phys. Teach.
39
, 8
–11
(2001
).45.
Robert J. Beichner, Jeffery M. Saul, Rhett J. Allain, Duane L. Deardorff, and David S. Abbott, “Introduction to SCALE-UP: Student-centered activities for large enrollment university physics,” Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Session 2380, 2000 and http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/pams/physics/Physics_Ed/index.html.
46.
Dean
Zollman
, “Learning Cycle physics
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and , John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 1137
–1149
(1997
)], pt. 2.47.
Priscilla W.
Laws
, “Calculus-based physics without lectures
,” Phys. Today
44
(12
), 24
–31
(1991
);Priscilla W.
Laws
, “Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
65
, 14
–21
(1997
).48.
David R.
Sokoloff
and Ronald K.
Thornton
, “Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment
,” Phys. Teach.
35
(10
), 340
–347
(1997
).49.
David R.
Sokoloff
and Ronald K.
Thornton
, “Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and , John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 1061
–1074
(1997
)], pt. 2.50.
Gregor M. Novak, Evelyn T. Patterson, Andrew D. Gavrin, and Wolfgang Christian, Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology (Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999).
51.
David
Hestenes
, “Modeling methodology for physics teachers
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and , John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 935
–957
(1997
)], pt. 2.52.
Ruth W. Chabay and Bruce A. Sherwood, Electric and Magnetic Interactions (Wiley, New York, 1995).
53.
Bruce A.
Sherwood
and Ruth W.
Chabay
, “Integrating theory and experiment in lecture using desktop experiments
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and , John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 1053
–1060
(1997
)], pt. 2.54.
Randall D. Knight, Physics: A Contemporary Perspective (Addison–Wesley, Reading, MA, 1997), Vols. 1,2, preliminary ed. Also see Ref. 80.
55.
Ruth W.
Chabay
, “Qualitative understanding and retention
,” AAPT Announcer
27
(2
), 96
(1997
).56.
Randall D.
Knight
, “Studio Physics at Cal Poly: What have we learned?
” AAPT Announcer
30
(2
), 132
(2000
).57.
David E.
Meltzer
and Kandiah
Manivannan
, “Promoting interactivity in physics lecture classes
,” Phys. Teach.
34
, 72
–76
(1996
).58.
Kandiah
Manivannan
and David E.
Meltzer
, “Increasing active student participation in the classroom through the use of ‘flash cards,’
” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and, John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 821
–822
(1997
)], pt. 1;David E.
Meltzer
, “Nontraditional approach to algebra-based general physics
,” AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 823
–824
(1997
).59.
David E. Meltzer and Kandiah Manivannan, “Interactive methods for large classes: Workshop W29 at the AAPT Winter Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 4, 1998”;
David E.
Meltzer
and Kandiah
Manivannan
, “Interactive methods for large classes: Workshop W36 at the AAPT Summer Meeting, Lincoln, Nebraska, August 4, 1998
,” AAPT Announcer
28
(2
), 66
(1998
);David E.
Meltzer
and Kandiah
Manivannan
, “Workshop W04 at the AAPT Summer Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, August 3, 1999
,” AAPT Announcer
29
(2
), 57
(1999
);David E.
Meltzer
and Kandiah
Manivannan
, “Workshop W11 at the AAPT Summer Meeting, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, July 29, 2000
,” AAPT Announcer
30
(2
), 53
(2000
).60.
Lillian C.
McDermott
, Stamatis
Vokos
, and Peter S.
Shaffer
, “Sample class on Tutorials in Introductory Physics
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and , John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 1007
–1018
(1997
)], pt. 2.61.
Lillian C. McDermott, Peter S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
62.
Patricia
Heller
, Ronald
Keith
, and Scott
Anderson
“Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Group versus individual problem solving
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 627
–636
(1992
).63.
Patricia
Heller
and Mark
Hollabaugh
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. 2. Designing problems and structuring groups
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 637
–644
(1992
).64.
Patricia
Heller
, Thomas
Foster
, and Kenneth
Heller
, “Cooperative group problem solving laboratories for introductory classes
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and , John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 913
–933
(1997
)], pt. 2.65.
Patrica Heller and Kenneth Heller, Cooperative Group Problem Solving in Physics (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1999) and http://www.physics.umn.edu/groups/physed/Research/CGPS/GreenBook.html.
66.
David R. Sokoloff, Ronald K. Thornton, and Priscilla W. Laws, RealTime Physics, Active Learning Laboratories; Module 1: Mechanics; Module 2: Heat and Thermodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1999).
67.
Priscilla W. Laws, with R. J. Boyle, P. J. Cooney, K. L. Laws, J. W. Luetzelschwab, D. R. Sokoloff, and R. K. Thornton, Workshop Physics Activity Guide, The Core Volume with Module 1: Mechanics 1 (Wiley, New York, 1997).
68.
Pamela Ann Kraus, “Promoting Active Learning in Lecture-Based Courses: Demonstrations, Tutorials, and Interactive Tutorial Lectures,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington (UMI, Ann Arbor, MI, 1997), UMI #9736313.
69.
Jack M.
Wilson
, “The CUPLE physics studio
,” Phys. Teach.
32
, 518
–523
(1994
).70.
Classtalk, a hard-wired system, may still be available from Interactive Classroom Consulting, http://www.bedu.com/ICC.html.
71.
A system based on infrared signaling is distributed by EduCue, 351 Alplaus Ave, Alplaus, NY 12008, http://www.educue.com; a different system is available from TI, http://education.ti.com/product/tech/tinav/overview/overview.html.
72.
A rf-based system is available from Socratec.com, http://www.socratec.com/.
73.
It is possible to use questions that focus on quantitative understanding or methods of calculation. We do so on occasion, depending on the nature of the topic and the course itself. In this regard, see Refs. 40 and 58. The strategy of using an “easy-to-hard” conceptual sequence has also been discussed by Mestre et al., Ref. 40.
74.
This strategy is also emphasized by Crouch and Mazur, Ref. 35.
75.
See Sec. VIII. We refer to these sessions as “tutorials” because their format and philosophy very closely match those developed at the University of Washington. However, for the most part, the materials we employ during these sessions are not the actual Tutorials in Introductory Physics cited in Ref. 61. The latter are used during three of the laboratory periods at ISU.
76.
The Workbook is distributed in three-hole-punched format for ring binders, so students do not have to bring all of the materials every day.
77.
Kandiah Manivannan and David E. Meltzer, “Use of in-class physics demonstrations in highly interactive format,” in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by Scott Franklin, Jeffrey Marx, and Karen Cummings (Rochester, New York, 2001), pp. 95–98.
78.
The idea of using specially designed worksheets in large lecture classes has also been discussed by Van Heuvelen (Refs. 27 and 28) and by Kraus (Ref. 68). Many questions in our worksheets also ask for explanations of students’ reasoning. These explanations are emphasized and carefully checked during the tutorial sessions, but not so much so during the interactive lectures. We have not found it practical to make a rigid separation between worksheets used in lecture and those used in tutorials. In fact, which worksheets get used where is variable, and is essentially a function of day-to-day class scheduling.
79.
A preliminary edition of the Workbook is available from the authors in CD-ROM format. There is now also a vastly expanded inventory of ConcepTests available at the Project Galileo web site, http://galileo.harvard.edu/.
80.
Randall D. Knight, Physics: A Contemporary Perspective, Student Workbook (Addison–Wesley Longman, Reading, MA, 1997), Vols. 1, 2, preliminary ed.
81.
In fact, this type of student resistance to interactive-engagement physics courses has been discussed in the literature by a number of practitioners, for example, Ruth W. Chabay and Bruce A. Sherwood, Instructor’s Manual to Accompany Electric and Magnetic Interactions (Wiley, New York, 1995), pp. 8 and 9.
82.
Additional insight regarding possible gender-related disparities in student responses are discussed by
Priscilla W.
Laws
, Pamela J.
Rosborough
, and Frances J.
Poodry
, “Women’s responses to an activity-based introductory physics program
,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl.
67
, S32
–S37
(1999
).83.
The CSE was used in this abridged form, omitting some items, for various reasons. In some cases, the notational conventions differed from what was used in class (for example, electric field lines are used on the CSE, but only field vectors are used in class). In other cases, the questions dealt with material that was covered peripherally or not at all in class. This abridged subset consisted of the following item numbers from CSE Form G [corresponding CSEM item numbers in brackets]: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9[7], 10[8], 11[9], 12, 13[10], 14[11], 15, 16[12], 23[17], 24[18], 25[19], 26, 27[16], 28[20], 31[3], 32[4], 33[5]. (In several cases, there are minor differences between the CSE questions and the corresponding CSEM items.)
84.
We follow Hake’s definition (Ref. 4) of “normalized learning gain” g, where g=[(post-test score-pre-test score)/(maximum possible score-pre-test score)]; 〈g〉 is calculated by using class-mean values for pre-test and post-test scores in the formula for g.
85.
David E. Meltzer, “The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible ‘hidden variable’ in diagnostic pretest scores?,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl. (submitted), and available at http://www.public.iastate.edu/∼per/articles/ms/ms.pdf.
86.
The effect size is a widely used measure in education research that quantifies the nonoverlap of two populations, typically including one that has, and another that has not received some specified pedagogical intervention. (Higher values of correspond to greater nonoverlap, that is, larger treatment “effect.”) See, for example, Jacob Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), 2nd ed., Chap. 2. The definitions given by Cohen are widely, though not universally, adopted: where and are the mean score and standard deviation of population and and are those corresponding to population As an example, for the ISU 2000 sample we have and and and
87.
Of the 223 students in the three ISU samples combined, only 7 had individual values of
88.
Peter S.
Shaffer
and Lillian C.
McDermott
, “Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. II. Design of instructional strategies
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 1003
–1013
(1992
).89.
Reference 4, Sec. V B 3.
90.
Reference 4, Sec. III A.
91.
Ronald L.
Greene
, “Illuminating physics via web-based self-study
,” Phys. Teach.
39
, 356
–360
(2001
).In Greene’s course, very strong emphasis was placed on qualitative, conceptual problems in examples, homework assignments, quizzes, and exams. Although interactive methods were not used during lectures, it is important to note that the extensive homework assignments made heavy use of a nontraditional, highly interactive web-based methodology which itself incorporated IE techniques such as immediate feedback.
92.
C. J. DeLeone, W. H. Potter, and L. B. Coleman, “Comparisons of student MCAT performance: Traditional lecture/laboratory course vs. Physics Education Research based course,” APS Centennial Meeting Program, Session LB20, Abstract LB20.07 (1999).
93.
The ratio of quantitative to qualitative problems on our quizzes and exams is approximately 1/1. Many problems are of a combined nature, involving both qualitative and quantitative elements; they often emphasize proportional reasoning in various contexts. During a semester, including quizzes, homework, and exams, students solve approximately 400 problems for grade credit.
94.
Lillian Christie
McDermott
, “Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: Physics Education Research—The key to student learning
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
, 1127
–1137
(2001
).
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2002 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2002
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.