Catalogo Articoli (Spogli Riviste)

OPAC HELP

Titolo:
Evaluating innovation in studio physics
Autore:
Cummings, K; Marx, J; Thornton, R; Kuhl, D;
Indirizzi:
Rensselaer Polytech Inst, Troy, NY 12180 USA Rensselaer Polytech Inst Troy NY USA 12180 ytech Inst, Troy, NY 12180 USA Tufts Univ, Ctr Sci & Math Teaching, Medford, MA 02155 USA Tufts Univ Medford MA USA 02155 ci & Math Teaching, Medford, MA 02155 USA
Titolo Testata:
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
fascicolo: 7, volume: 67, anno: 1999, supplemento:, 1
pagine: S38 - S44
SICI:
0002-9505(199907)67:7<S38:EIISP>2.0.ZU;2-X
Fonte:
ISI
Lingua:
ENG
Soggetto:
ENGAGEMENT; SCIENCE;
Tipo documento:
Article
Natura:
Periodico
Settore Disciplinare:
Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
Citazioni:
14
Recensione:
Indirizzi per estratti:
Indirizzo: Cummings, K Rensselaer Polytech Inst, Troy, NY 12180 USA Rensselaer Polytech Inst Troy NY USA 12180 Troy, NY 12180 USA
Citazione:
K. Cummings et al., "Evaluating innovation in studio physics", AM J PHYS, 67(7), 1999, pp. S38-S44

Abstract

In 1993, Rensselaer introduced the first Studio Physics course. Two years later, the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to measure the conceptuallearning gain [g] in the course. This was found to be a disappointing 0.22, indicating that Studio Physics was no more effective at teaching basic Newtonian concepts than a traditional course. Our study verified that result,[g(FCI,98)]=0.18+/-0.12(s.d.), and thereby provides a baseline measurementof conceptual learning gains in Studio Physics I for engineers. These low gains are especially disturbing because the studio classroom appears to be interactive and instructors strive to incorporate modern pedagogies. The goal of our investigation was to determine if incorporation of research-basedactivities into Studio Physics would have a significant effect on conceptual learning gains. To measure gains, we utilized the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). In the process of pursuing this goal, we verified the effectiveness of Interactive Lecture Demonstrations [[g(FCI)] =0.35+/-0.06(s.d.) and [g(FMCE)]=0.45+/-0.03 (s.d.)]and Cooperative Group Problem Solving ([g(FCI)]=0.36 and [g(FMCE)]=0.36), and examined the feasibility of using these techniques in the studio classroom. Further, we have assessed conceptual learning in the standard Studio Physics course [[g(FCI,98)]=0.18+/-0.12(s.d.) and [g(FMCE,98)] = 0.21+/-0.05(s.d.)]. In this paper, we will clarify the issues noted above. We will also discuss difficulties in implementing these techniques for first time users and implications for the future directions of the Studio Physics coursesat Rensselaer. (C) 1999 American Association of Physics Teachers.

ASDD Area Sistemi Dipartimentali e Documentali, Università di Bologna, Catalogo delle riviste ed altri periodici
Documento generato il 15/07/20 alle ore 05:38:13