Students typically use electronic polling systems, or clickers, to answer individual questions. Differing from this tradition, we have developed a new clicker methodology in which multiple clicker questions targeting the same underlying concept but with different surface features are grouped into a sequence. Here we present the creation, validation, and evaluation of clicker question sequences sufficient in number to populate a year of calculus-based introductory physics.
REFERENCES
1.
E.
Judson
, “Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls
,” J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach.
21
, 167
–181
(2002
);S. W.
Draper
and M. I.
Brown
, “Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system
,” J. Comput. Assist. Lear.
20
, 81
–94
(2004
);S. A. J.
Stuart
, M. I.
Brown
, and S. W.
Draper
, “Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: One practitioner's application
,” J. Comput. Assist. Lear.
20
, 95
–102
(2004
);J.
Caldwell
, “Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips
,” Life Sci. Educ.
6
, 9
–20
(2007
).2.
N. W.
Reay
, L.
Bao
, P.
Li
, R.
Warnakulasooriya
, and G.
Baugh
, “Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures
,” Am. J. Phys.
73
, 554
–558
(June 2005
).3.
J.
Kulik
and C.
Kulik
, “Timing of feedback and verbal learning
,” Rev. Educ. Res.
58
, 79
–97
(1988
).4.
T.
Crooks
, “The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students
,” Rev. Educ. Res.
58
, 438
–481
(1988
).5.
E.
Mazur
, “Linking teaching with learning
,” in Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education
, National Research Council (National Academy Press
, Washington, DC
, 1997
), pp. 21
–26
.6.
C. H.
Crouch
and E.
Mazur
, “Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
, 970
–977
(Sept. 2001
).7.
E.
Mazur
, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual
(Prentice Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ
, 1997
).8.
N. W.
Reay
, P.
Li
, and L.
Bao
, “Testing a new voting machine question methodology
,” Am. J. Phys.
76
, 171
–178
(Feb. 2008
).9.
I.
Beatty
, W.
Gerace
, W.
Leonard
, and R.
Dufresne
, “Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching
,” Am. J. Phys.
74
, 31
–39
(Jan. 2006
).10.
D.
Meltzer
and K.
Manivannan
, “Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture
,” Am. J. Phys.
70
, 639
–654
(June 2002
).11.
A. Van
Heuvelen
, ALPS Kit: Active Learning Problem Sheets, Mechanics
(Hayden-McNeil
, Plymouth, MI
, 1990
).12.
L.
Bao
and E. F.
Redish
, “Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
2
, 010103
–1
(2006
).13.
R.
Dufresne
, J.
Mestre
, T.
Thaden-Koch
, W
Gerace
, and W.
Leonard
, “Knowledge representation and coordination in the transfer process
,” in Transfer of Learning: From a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective
, edited by J. P.
Mestre
(Information Age
, Greenwich, CT
, 2005
), p. 155
.14.
L.
Ding
, N.
Reay
, A.
Lee
, and L.
Bao
, “Are we asking the right questions? Validating clicker question sequences by student interviews
,” Am. J. Phys.
77
(7
), 643
–650
(July 2009
).15.
These institutions include The Ohio State University, Wright State University, Chicago State University and College of Dupage.
16.
Most of the material covered in voting machine questioning was covered by lectures in the non-voting machine classroom. This statement was validated by observing clicker and non-clicker lecture sections for several quarters. Because most of the same material was covered for an approximately equivalent amount of time, “small percentage” specifically relates to the mechanics of taking a vote, typically 10% of lecture time.
17.
A. A.
diSessa
, “Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition
,” in Mental Models
, edited by D.
Gentner
and A.
Stevens
(Erlbaum
, Hillsdale, NJ
, 1983
), p. 15
.18.
H.
Saghadiani
, private communication. Professor Saghadiani currently is an assistant professor at California State Polytechnic University
, Pomona.19.
A.
Lee
, “Development and evaluation of clicker methodology for introductory physics courses
,” Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University (2009
). Lee's thesis is an archive of our project, containing 21 references that identify student misconceptions in various topics.20.
R.
Likert
, “A technique for the measurement of attitudes
,” Arch. Psychol.
22
, 1
–55
(1932
).21.
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
(Jan. 1998
).22.
L.
Ding
, N.
Reay
, A.
Lee
and L.
Bao
, “Effects of testing conditions on conceptual survey results
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
4
, 010112
(2008
).23.
N.
Lasry
, “Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference?
” Phys. Teach.
46
, 242
–244
(April 2008
).© 2011 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2011
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
