Interactive Teaching Techniques:

Are they transferable across cultures?

There is a substantial body of evidence to suggest that:

traditional lecturing is not an effective way of producing learning or understanding in students.

Physics education research (1980–2000)

has identified many common misconceptions

has led to the construction of standardized diagnostic tests

Mathematics and Physics Conceptual Evaluation

Thornton & Sokoloff, Am. J. Phys, 66(4), 1998, p 338

Physics education research (1980–2007)

has identified many common misconceptions

has led to the construction of standardized diagnostic tests

has prompted development of targeted teaching strategies.

For example: Interactive Lecture Demonstrations

use computers in lectures to log and display data in various representations,

rely on carefully controlled teacher-class interactions,

claim very substantial gains in student learning.

1st

& 2

nd

(n

l)

1st

& 2

nd

(g)

Coi

n t

oss

Car

t ra

mp

Cor

rect

(%

)Correct responses: pre- and post-traditional instruction

100

0

50

Pre InstructionPost Traditional

1st

& 2

nd

(n

l)

1st

& 2

nd

(g)

Coi

n t

oss

Car

t ra

mp

Cor

rect

(%

)

Correct responses: pre- and post-ILD

100

0

50

Pre InstructionPost TraditionalPost ILD

Normalized gains: different institutions and teaching methods

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0%

<g> (% normalized gain)

Oregon 89

SUNY 98

RPI 98

Minnesota 96

RPI 98

RPI 98

Muhlenburg 97

Dickinson 95

Oregon89

Tufts 97

Traditional teachingInteractive teachingUsing ILDs

Evaluation of ILDs at Sydney University

Evaluation of ILDs at Sydney University

First semester 1999, 1 Regular class (130 students) taught with ILDs

Advanced stream and other 2 Regular streams (320 students) as controls

Module chosen was MECHANICS , (HRW chapters 1–12 )

Logistics

Control classes had 15 1-hour lectures (5 weeks)

Experimental class had 11 1-hour lectures plus 4 1-hour ILD sessions

All tested during first lecture period, and again in middle of the semester.

Pre-test scores: all Introductory classes

100

0Per

cen

tage

of

stu

den

ts u

nd

erst

ansi

ng

1st & 2nd,graphical

1st & 2nd,natural language

50

FundamentalRegularAdvanced

3rd law,collisions

3rd law,contact

Vel

ocit

y

Acc

eler

atio

n

Coi

n A

cc

1st

& 2

nd

(n

l)

1st

& 2

nd

(g)

Coi

n t

oss

3rd

con

tact

En

ergy

3rd

col

lisi

on

Car

t ra

mp

Cor

rect

(%

)

Correct responses: pre-instruction

100

0

50

Vel

ocit

y

Acc

eler

atio

n

Coi

n A

cc

1st

& 2

nd

(n

l)

1st

& 2

nd

(g)

Coi

n t

oss

3rd

con

tact

En

ergy

3rd

col

lisi

on

Car

t ra

mp

Cor

rect

(%

)

Correct responses: pre- and post-instruction

100

0

50

Pre ILD (N=81)Post ILD (N=81)

Average gain: all Introductory classes

100

0

Ave

rage

gai

n (

%)

AdvancedRegular (ILD)

Regular(standard)

50

Experiment repeated in 2000

Same class numbers (roughly), same logistics

Only the 3 regular streams were given the pre-test

All 3 regular and 1 advanced streams given the post-test (compulsory).

Vel

ocit

y

Acc

eler

atio

n

Coi

n A

cc

1st

& 2

nd

(n

l)

1st

& 2

nd

(g)

Coi

n t

oss

3rd

con

tact

En

ergy

3rd

col

lisi

on

Car

t ra

mp

Cor

rect

(%

)

Correct responses: pre- and post-instruction (2000)

100

0

50

Pre ILD (N=80)Post ILD (N=80)

Vel

ocit

y

Acc

eler

atio

n

Coi

n A

cc

1st

& 2

nd

(n

l)

1st

& 2

nd

(g)

Coi

n t

oss

3rd

con

tact

En

ergy

3rd

col

lisi

on

Car

t ra

mp

Gai

n (

%)

Relative gain: experimental classes 1999 and 2000

100

0

50

ILD gain 1999 (N=81)

ILD Gain 2000 (N=80)

Average gain: all Introductory classes: 1999 and 2000

100

0

Ave

rage

gai

n (

%)

AdvancedRegular (ILD)

Regular(standard)

50

relative gain 1999

relative gain 2000

Experiment done again in 2001

Same class numbers and same logistics again.

Different lecturer.

Vel

ocit

y

Acc

eler

atio

n

Coi

n A

cc

1st

& 2

nd

(n

l)

1st

& 2

nd

(g)

Coi

n t

oss

3rd

con

tact

En

ergy

3rd

col

lisi

on

Car

t ra

mp

Gai

n (

%)

Normalized gains: post-ILD instruction (1999, 2000, 2001)

100

0

50

Post ILD 1999

Post ILD 2000

Post ILD 2001

Gai

n (

%)

Normalized gains: post-ILD instruction (1999, 2000, 2001)

100

0

50

Post ILD 1999

Post ILD 2000

Post ILD 2001

Average gains = 36%, 48%, 38%

Same experiment started in a Thai university in 2002

Mahidol University, Bangkok.

1300 first year physics, medical science and engineering students.

Only results from first stage of the experiment available so far.

Cor

rect

(%

)

Correct responses: post traditional instruction (Thailand)

100

0

50

Natural language

Graphical Coin toss Cart on ramp

Gai

n (

%)

Normalized gains: post traditional instruction (Thailand)

100

0

50

Natural language

Graphical Coin toss Cart on ramp

Same experiment started again in Sydney in 2007

90 first year physics students.

All in the Fundamental stream.

Four different lecturers involved.

Cor

rect

(%

)Correct responses (Fundamentals 2007) pre- and post ILD

100

0

50

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Velocity

Acceleration

Coin Acc

1st & 2nd (nl) 1st & 2nd (g)Coin Toss Cart Ramp 3rd Contact 3rd Collision

Pre

Post

Cor

rect

(%

)Correct responses (Fundamentals 2007) pre- and post ILD

100

0

50

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Velocity

Acceleration

Coin Acc

1st & 2nd (nl) 1st & 2nd (g)Coin Toss Cart Ramp 3rd Contact 3rd Collision

Pre

Post

Average gain = 33%

Correct responses: pre- and post-instruction

Bangkok traditional

Using ILDs

Traditional teaching

Sydney IDLs

Interactive teaching

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0%

<g> (% normalized gain)

Conclusions?

This teaching technique seems to achieve what it claims (to a degree)

This teaching technique requires practice and commitment to be used successfully

There seems to be a small fraction of students who cannot be reached

47 Q

ues

tion

sIndividual questions answered incorrectly

79 Students