Score distribution on the first three tests in a previous year overall grades were observed in the mechanics semester than and this year. Grades in the second semester were com- parable to previous years. As students got hung up on the FCI nor multiple-choice exams would reveal them, and surface features of the presented scenarios, they often failed to they might have gotten lost in the general and always-present see the connection and progression between them.
Several students stated that they would switch to an body diagrams. It is painful to the instructors to see that in alternative physics course between semesters, and cited tutori- spite of what they believe to be their best efforts, they were un- als as the reason for leaving the course. Indeed, 18 students able to debunk such notions. In a subsequent year, less than students ing of basic physics during the preparation sessions. This enrolled in our course, which typically enrolls More than was especially evident in the LA training sessions, where we 30 students apparently chose an alternative, highly traditional regularly had lively discussions and an active learning process physics course.
The gain Discussion The introduction of the tutorials was the only major It is rare to make any changes to an introductory physics change from the previous year implemented in the structure course for premedical students that make a major differ- of the course sequence; most other aspects were the same, ence in student learning, and almost unheard of that a single though a new faculty member taught the second semester. In this course, be given for the mechanics semester. This leaves us with a number of open questions: out of 30 points strongly decreased from 6.
This effect on the FCI formance increase? It could easily be understood if appears to be comparable to Ref. Still, the performance increase shows that somehow tu- In summary, within our introductory course sequence torials work in spite of many students not really taking the tutorials led to a significant, albeit temporary, increase in advantage of them.
Some side effects are increased time- student performance, but at a high cost. They cannot simply on-task some students reported spending three hours per be used as a drop-in replacement for ineffective recitation week on tutorial homework and presumably increased materials, but require a restructuring of several other course studying due to insecurity or lack of a false sense of secu- components. Since at least with premedical students , the rity. Is the gain worth the pain? We decided to con- learning process.
Lillian C. McDermott and Peter S. Schaffer, Tutorials in Intro- learning. In most cases, NJ, More time needs to be 4. Part 1: Investigation of student understand- the material and the teaching method. In the future, we plan to have more intense opment: An example from introductory electricity.
McDermott, Peter S. Shaffer, and M. It may be difficult, if not 46—55 Jan. Novak, E. Patterson, and A. Crouch and E. Hestenes, M.
Wells, and G. The call for eventually Redish, R. Steinberg, and J. To partly accommodate this desire, Finkelstein and S. ST-PER 1, Steinberg and K. Heidi V. Mel S. Related Papers Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics By Steven Pollock. Sustaining educational reforms in introductory physics By Steven Pollock. Teaching physics: Figuring out what works By Joe Redish.
What course elements correlate with improvement on tests in introductory Newtonian mechanics? By David Pritchard. Download PDF. For the most part, the tutorials are intended to be used after concepts have been introduced in the lectures and the laboratory, although most can serve to introduce the topic as well. The tutorials comprise an integrated system of pretests, worksheets, homework assignments, and post-tests.
These are usually on material already presented in lecture or textbook but not yet covered in tutorial. The pretests help students identify what they do and not understand about the material and what they are expected to learn in the upcoming tutorial. They also inform the instructors about the level of student understanding. The worksheets, which consist of carefully sequenced tasks and questions, provide the structure for the tutorial sessions. Students work together in small groups, constructing answers for themselves through discussions with one another and with the tutorial instructors.
The tutorial instructors do not lecture but ask questions designed to help students find their own answers. The tutorial homework reinforces and extends what is covered in the worksheets.
For the tutorials to iii be most effective, it is important that course examinations include questions that emphasize the concepts and reasoning skills developed in the tutorials. The tutorials are primarily designed for a small class setting but have proved to be adaptable to other instructional environments.
The curriculum has been shown to be effective for students in regular and honors sections of calculus-based and algebra-based physics. The tutorials have been developed through an iterative cycle of: research on the learning and teaching of physics, design of curriculum based on this research, and assessment through rigorous pretesting and post-testing in the classroom.
Tmorials in Introductory Physics has been developed and tested at the University of Washington and pilot-tested at other colleges and universities.
Comments on the First Edition Ongoing research has led to modifications to the tutorials and associated homework in the Preliminary Edition of Tutorials in Introductory Physics. The First Edition incorporates these changes and also includes several new tutorials on topics covered in the Preliminary Edition. In addition, the First Edition contains a new section with tutorials on topics in hydrostatics, thermal physics, and modem physics.
In particular, Paula Heron and Stamatis Vokos, faculty in physics, have played an important role in the development of many tutorials. Lezlie S. DeWater and Donna Messina, experienced K teachers, have provided many useful insights and suggestions. The assistance of Joan Valles in coordinating the work of the Physics Education Group is deeply appreciated. The collaboration of other colleagues in the Physics Department has been invaluable.
Faculty in the introductory calculus-based sequence, and graduate and undergraduate students who have served as tutorial instructors have made many useful comments.
Contributions have also been made by many long-term and short-term visitors to our group. We thank our editor, Alison Reeves, for her encouragement and advice. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation, which has enabled the Physics Education Group to conduct the ongoing, comprehensive program of research, curriculum development, and instruction that has produced Tutorials in Introductory Physics.
Physics- Tutorials - Current of Electricity. Re-conceptualizing Introductory Physics. Physics - Tutorials - Electrical Field. Krane - Introductory Nuclear Physics. The Laws of Thermodynamics Chapter. Baylis Department of Physics,.
Teaching Introductory Physics in Biological Context -. Teaching Introductory Physics in Biological. Tutorials in Introductory Physics number
0コメント