- Open Access
Effectiveness of different tutorial recitation teaching methods and its implications for TA training
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010104 – Published 15 May, 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010104
Abstract
We present results from a comparative study of student understanding for students who attended recitation classes that used different teaching methods. Student volunteers from our introductory calculus-based physics course attended a special recitation class that was taught using one of four different teaching methods. A total of 272 students were divided into approximately equal groups for each method. Students in each class were taught the same topic, “Changes in Energy and Momentum,” from Tutorials in Introductory Physics. The different teaching methods varied in the amount of student and teacher engagement. Student understanding was evaluated through pre- and post-tests. Our results demonstrate the importance of the instructor’s role in teaching recitation classes. The most effective teaching method was for students working in cooperative learning groups with the instructors questioning the groups using Socratic dialogue. In addition, we investigated student preferences for modes of instruction through an open-ended survey. Our results provide guidance and evidence for the teaching methods that should be emphasized in training course instructors.
Article Text
References (18)
- L. C. McDermott, “Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: Physics education research—the key to student learning,” Am. J. Phys. 69, 1126 (2001).
- L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, “Resource letter: PER-1:physics education research,” Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
- E. F. Redish and R. N. Steinberg, “Teaching physics: Figuring out what works,” Phys. Today 52 (1), 24 (1999).
- R. R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
- R. R. Hake, “Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory,” Phys. Teach. 30, 546 (1992).
- E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996).
- E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, “On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories,” Am. J. Phys. 65, 45 (1998).
- L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
- J. P. Birk and M. J. Kurtz, “Using cooperative learning techniques to train new teaching assistants,” J. Chem. Educ. 73, 615 (1996).
- E. Etkina, “Helping graduate assistants teach physics: Problems and solutions,” J. Grad. Teach. Assist. Dev. 7, 123 (2000).
- J. A. Gilreath and T. F. Slater, “Training graduate teaching assistants to be better undergraduate physics educators,” Phys. Educ. 29, 200 (1994).
- F. Lawrenz, P. Heller, R. Keith, and K. Heller, “Training the teaching assistant,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 22, 106 (1992).
- E. L. Jossem, “Resource letter EPGA-1: The education of physics graduate assistants,” Am. J. Phys. 68, 502 (2000).
- K. M. Koenig and R. J. Endorf, “Study of TA’s ability to implement the Tutorials in Introductory Physics and student conceptual understanding,” in Proceedings of the 2004 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by J. Marx, P. Heron, and S. Franklin, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 720 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2004).
- T. O. Pride, S. Vokos, and L. C. McDermott, “The challenge of matching learning assessments to teaching goals: An example from the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 147 (1998).
- L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Instructor’s Guide for Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
- A. Van Heuvelen, “Overview, Case Study Physics,” Am. J. Phys. 59, 898 (1991).
- L. R. Jones, A. G. Miller, and J. F. Watts, “Conceptual teaching and quantitative problems solving; Friends or foes,” J. Coop. Collab. Coll. Teach. 10, 109 (2001).
