Classroom response systems can be powerful tools for teaching physics. Their efficacy depends strongly on the quality of the questions. Creating effective questions is difficult and differs from creating exam and homework problems. Each classroom response system question should have an explicit pedagogic purpose consisting of a content goal, a process goal, and a metacognitive goal. Questions can be designed to fulfill their purpose through four complementary mechanisms: directing students' attention, stimulating specific cognitive processes, communicating information to the instructor and students via classroom response system-tabulated answer counts, and facilitating the articulation and confrontation of ideas. We identify several tactics that are useful for designing potent questions and present four “makeovers” to show how these tactics can be used to convert traditional physics questions into more powerful questions for a classroom response system.
REFERENCES
1.
R. J.
Dufresne
, W. J.
Gerace
, W. J.
Leonard
, J. P.
Mestre
, and L.
Wenk
, “Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning
,” J. Comput. High. Educ.
7
, 3
–47
(1996
).2.
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
).3.
E.
Mazur
, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual
(Prentice-Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997
).4.
W. R.
Penuel
, J.
Roschelle
, V.
Crawford
, N.
Shechtman
, and L.
Abrahamson
, “CATAALYST workshop report: Advancing research on the transformative potential of interactive pedagogies and classroom networks
,” Workshop Report P14566, SRI International (2004
).5.
J.
Roschelle
, W. R.
Penuel
, and L.
Abrahamson
, “The networked classroom
,” Educ. Leadership
61
, 50
–54
(2004
).6.
D.
Zollman
and N. S.
Rebello
, “The evolving classroom response system at KSU: Classtalk, PRS, PDAs
,” contributed talk EG08 at the 130th National Meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers (Albuquerque, NM, 2005
).7.
R. J.
Dufresne
and W. J.
Gerace
, “Assessing-to-learn: Formative assessment in physics instruction
,” Phys. Teach.
42
(7
), 428
–433
(2004
).8.
R. J.
Dufresne
, W. J.
Gerace
, J. P.
Mestre
, and W. J.
Leonard
, “ASK-IT/A2L: Assessing student knowledge with instructional technology
,” Technical Report UMPERG-2000-09 (University of Massachusetts Physics Education Research Group
, 2000
).9.
A.
Feldman
and B.
Capobianco
, “Real-time formative assessment: A study of teachers' use of an electronic response system to facilitate serious discussion about physics concepts
,” Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, 2003
).10.
I. D.
Beatty
, “Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems
,” Research Bulletin ERB0403, Educause Center for Applied Research (2004
).11.
I. D.
Beatty
, W. J.
Leonard
, W. J.
Gerace
, and R. J.
Dufresne
, “Question driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system
,” in Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases
, edited by D. A.
Banks
(Idea Group
, Hershey, PA, in press).12.
P.
Li
, N. W.
Reay
, and L.
Bao
, “Effects of in-class polling on student performance in learning physics
,” contributed poster CO26 at the 129th National Meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, Sacramento, CA (2004
).13.
W. J.
Leonard
, W. J.
Gerace
, and R. J.
Dufresne
, “Analysis-based problem solving: Making analysis and reasoning the focus of physics instruction
,” Technical Report UMPERG-2001-12 (University of Massachusetts Physics Education Research Group
, 2001
).14.
J. D.
Bransford
and D.
Schwartz
, “Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications
,” in Review of Research in Education
, edited by A.
Iran-Nejad
and P. D.
Pearson
(American Educational Research Association
, Washington, DC, 1999
), Vol. 24
, pp. 61
–100
.15.
J. D.
Bransford
, A. L.
Brown
, and R. R.
Cocking
, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School
(National Academy Press
, Washington, DC, 1999
).16.
B.
Bell
and B.
Cowie
, “The characteristics of formative assessment in science education
,” Sci. Educ.
85
, 536
–553
(2001
).17.
P.
Black
and D.
William
, “Assessment and classroom learning
,” Assessment in Education
5
, 7
–74
(1988
).18.
P.
Black
and D.
William
, “Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment
,” Phi Delta Kappan
80
, 139
–147
(1988
).19.
C.
Boston
, “The concept of formative assessment
,” Technical Report ED470206, ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation (2002
).20.
E. H.
Hobson
, “Formative assessment: An annotated bibliography
,” The Clearing House MMPI Publ.
71
(2
), 123
–125
(1997
).21.
22.
I. D.
Beatty
, W. J.
Leonard
, and W. J.
Gerace
, Assessing-to-Learn in the Classroom
(Thomson Learning
, 2005
) http://physics.brookscole.com/a2lc© 2006 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2006
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.
