- Open Access
Comparing three methods for teaching Newton’s third law
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020105 – Published 18 October, 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020105
Abstract
Although guided-inquiry methods for teaching introductory physics have been individually shown to be more effective at improving conceptual understanding than traditional lecture-style instruction, researchers in physics education have not studied differences among reform-based curricula in much detail. Several researchers have developed University of Washington–style tutorial materials, but the different curricula have not been compared against each other. Our study examines three tutorials designed to improve student understanding of Newton’s third law: the University of Washington’s Tutorials in Introductory Physics (TIP), the University of Maryland’s Activity-Based Tutorials (ABT), and the Open Source Tutorials (OST) also developed at the University of Maryland. Each tutorial was designed with different goals and agendas, and each employs different methods to help students understand the physics. We analyzed pretest and post-test data, including course examinations and data from the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). Using both FMCE and course data, we find that students using the OST version of the tutorial perform better than students using either of the other two.
Article Text
References (26)
- N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
- L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
- L. C. McDermott, Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—closing the gap, Am. J. Phys. 59, 301 (1991).
- L. C. McDermott, Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: Physics education research—the key to student learning, Am. J. Phys. 69, 1127 (2001).
- L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the University of Washington’s Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
- E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 65, 45 (1997).
- M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Activity-Based Tutorials Volume 1: Introductory Physics (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2004).
- M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Investigating student understanding of quantum physics: Spontaneous models of conductivity, Am. J. Phys. 68, 218 (2002).
- M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Understanding and affecting student reasoning about sound waves, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 991 (2003).
- D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2003).
- D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, (Physics, Education, Research, Suppl.), S52 (2000).
- A. Elby, Helping physics students learn how to learn, Am. J. Phys. 69, (Physics, Education, Research, Suppl.), S54 (2001).
This was found to be true for students at UMaine and has been reported anecdotally at other institutions.
- M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Making sense of students making sense of mechanical waves, Phys. Teach. 37, 15 (1999).
- L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding, Am. J. Phys. 60, 994 (1992).
We make explicit that one author, M.C.W., is lead author on the published ABT materials (Ref. [7]). The original authors of the tutorial were Jeffery T. Saul, John Lello, Richard N. Steinberg, and Edward F. Redish. We used the published version as revised by Michael C. Wittmann and Richard N. Steinberg.
- R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
The original analysis was carried out as part of a senior thesis by one author, T.I.S., and used analysis methods he created. Only later did we revise this analysis into the language used in this paper.
- D. Hammer, E. F. Redish, A. Elby, and R. E. Scherr, in Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2004).
- J. Minstrell, Facets of students' knowledge and relevant instruction in Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Bremen, Germany 1991, edited by R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, 1992), pp. 110–128.
- L. Bao, K. Hogg, and D. Zollman, Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton’s third law, Am. J. Phys. 70, 766 (2002).
- J. Clement, Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66 (1982).
Since we are later interested in changes in numbers of facets used and are not considering percentages, the difference between six or seven possible total facets used is not relevant to our analysis.
- http://perlnet.umaine.edu/materials/
- Ron Thornton (private communication).
- R. 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 (1998).
