[LON-CAPA-cvs] cvs: modules /gerd/roleclicker description.aux description.tex
www
lon-capa-cvs@mail.lon-capa.org
Mon, 09 May 2005 02:10:54 -0000
This is a MIME encoded message
--www1115604654
Content-Type: text/plain
www Sun May 8 22:10:54 2005 EDT
Modified files:
/modules/gerd/roleclicker description.aux description.tex
Log:
Next round
--www1115604654
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="www-20050508221054.txt"
Index: modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.aux
diff -u modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.aux:1.3 modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.aux:1.4
--- modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.aux:1.3 Wed Feb 23 16:08:24 2005
+++ modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.aux Sun May 8 22:10:53 2005
@@ -1,51 +1,7 @@
\relax
-\citation{heuvelen}
-\citation{redish}
-\citation{fuller}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Goals and Objectives}{1}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Introduction}{1}}
\newlabel{intro}{{1}{1}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.1}Overview}{1}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.2}Project Partners}{1}}
-\citation{bransford}
-\citation{pellegrino}
-\citation{arons}
-\citation{lin}
-\citation{fci}
-\citation{steinberg}
-\citation{mazur}
-\citation{chi}
-\citation{larkin}
-\citation{heuvelen}
-\citation{redish}
-\citation{lin}
-\citation{reif}
-\citation{mazur96}
-\citation{redish}
-\citation{hammer}
-\citation{hammer}
-\citation{lin}
-\citation{mazur96}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.3}``Thinking like a Physicist"}{2}}
-\citation{mazur}
-\citation{thoennessen}
-\citation{kashy00}
-\citation{mazur96}
-\citation{hewitt}
-\citation{tobias}
-\citation{tobiasST}
-\citation{torigoe}
-\citation{breitenberger}
-\citation{clement}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.4}The Problem with Problems - Hypotheses}{3}}
-\newlabel{hypo}{{1.4}{3}}
-\citation{pasc04}
-\citation{kashyda}
-\citation{pasc04}
-\citation{bonham}
-\citation{pascarella02}
-\citation{pascarella02}
-\citation{bonham}
-\citation{kashyd01b}
\citation{aapt}
\citation{mref1}
\citation{mref2}
@@ -59,9 +15,11 @@
\citation{mref10}
\citation{mref13}
\citation{mref11}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.5}Intellectual Merit}{4}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.6}Broader Impact/Diversity}{4}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.7}Peer-Instruction}{4}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.2}Project Partners}{2}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.3}Intellectual Merit}{2}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.4}Broader Impact}{2}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}Background}{2}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.1}Peer-Instruction}{2}}
\citation{mref14}
\citation{mref14}
\citation{mref15}
@@ -80,55 +38,80 @@
\citation{mref28}
\citation{mref11}
\citation{mref12}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.8}Collaborative learning}{5}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.2}Collaborative Learning}{3}}
\citation{mref27}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}Background and Environment}{6}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.1}Institutional Environment}{6}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.2}Model System: Interactive Learning Toolkit}{6}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.3}Model System: The Learning{\it Online} Network with CAPA}{7}}
-\newlabel{loncapa}{{2.3}{7}}
-\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Web-rendering of the same LON-CAPA problem for two different students. }}{8}}
-\newlabel{twoproblems}{{1}{8}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.3.1}Shared Distributed Content Repository}{8}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.3.2}Formative and Summative Assessment Capabilities}{8}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.3}Interactive Learning Toolkit}{4}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.4}The Learning{\it Online} Network with CAPA}{5}}
+\newlabel{loncapa}{{2.4}{5}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.4.1}Shared Distributed Content Repository}{5}}
\citation{features}
\citation{edutools}
-\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Rendering of a problem on PDA devices }}{9}}
-\newlabel{pdaview}{{2}{9}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.3.3}Course Management}{9}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.3.4}Analysis Capabilities}{9}}
-\newlabel{anatool}{{2.3.4}{9}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Web-rendering of the same LON-CAPA problem for two different students. }}{6}}
+\newlabel{twoproblems}{{1}{6}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.4.2}Formative and Summative Assessment Capabilities}{6}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Rendering of a problem on PDA devices }}{7}}
+\newlabel{pdaview}{{2}{7}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.4.3}Course Management}{7}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {2.4.4}Analysis Capabilities}{7}}
+\newlabel{anatool}{{2.4.4}{7}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.5}Courses}{7}}
+\newlabel{coursesdesc}{{2.5}{7}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Example an individual student view for problem analysis.}}{8}}
+\newlabel{problemview}{{3}{8}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Example of a course-wide problem analysis for the problem Fig.\nobreakspace {}3\hbox {}.}}{8}}
+\newlabel{problemanalysis}{{4}{8}}
\citation{mazur}
+\citation{kashyd01}
+\citation{steinberg}
\citation{redish}
-\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Example an individual student view for problem analysis.}}{10}}
-\newlabel{problemview}{{3}{10}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.4}Courses}{10}}
-\newlabel{coursesdesc}{{2.4}{10}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}Classification of Online Formative Assessment Problems}{10}}
-\newlabel{class}{{3}{10}}
\citation{mcdermott}
\citation{beichner}
-\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Example of a course-wide problem analysis for the problem Fig.\nobreakspace {}3\hbox {}.}}{11}}
-\newlabel{problemanalysis}{{4}{11}}
-\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces Example of two LON-CAPA problems addressing the same concepts. The problem on the left is a conventional short-numerical-answer problem, while the problem on the right is of type ``multiple-choice multiple-response."}}{12}}
-\newlabel{threemasses}{{5}{12}}
-\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {6}{\ignorespaces Example of two LON-CAPA problems addressing the same concepts in two different representations. The problem on the left is a conventional short-numerical-answer problem, while the problem on the right requires ``representation-translation."}}{12}}
-\newlabel{trajectory}{{6}{12}}
+\newlabel{sec:method}{{3}{9}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}Methodology}{9}}
+\newlabel{subsec:problemcat}{{3.1}{9}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.1}Problem Classification}{9}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces Example of two LON-CAPA problems addressing the same concepts. The problem on the left is a conventional short-numerical-answer problem, while the problem on the right is of type ``multiple-choice multiple-response."}}{10}}
+\newlabel{threemasses}{{5}{10}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {6}{\ignorespaces Example of two LON-CAPA problems addressing the same concepts in two different representations. The problem on the left is a conventional short-numerical-answer problem, while the problem on the right requires ``representation-translation."}}{10}}
+\newlabel{trajectory}{{6}{10}}
\citation{mazur96}
\citation{redish}
\citation{redish}
-\citation{redish}
-\citation{mcdermottprob}
-\citation{mazur}
-\citation{galileo}
-\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Classification scheme for question types, adapted from Redish\nobreakspace {}\cite {redish}, see Sect.\nobreakspace {}3\hbox {}. The symbols denote different components of the project, i.e., ``A" - additional analysis tool development (Sect.\nobreakspace {}4.2.2\hbox {}); ``G" - additional scalable grading tool development (Sect.\nobreakspace {}4.2.1\hbox {}); ``M" - additional materials development (Sect.\nobreakspace {}4.1\hbox {}); ``S" - this question type will be included in the study of its impact (sections\nobreakspace {}1.4\hbox {} and 5\hbox {}).}}{13}}
-\newlabel{classification}{{1}{13}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Preliminary Project Components}{13}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.1}Additional Materials Development}{13}}
-\newlabel{matdev}{{4.1}{13}}
-\citation{pellegrino}
-\citation{novak}
-\citation{feedback}
+\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Classification of the online questions according the classification scheme described in subsection\nobreakspace {}\G@refundefinedtrue {\unhbox \voidb@x \hbox {\normalfont \bfseries ??}}\GenericWarning { }{LaTeX Warning: Reference `subsec:problemcat' on page 11 undefined} (adapted from Redish\nobreakspace {}\cite {redish}). The columns denote the different question types, while the rows denote the features of required representation translation and context-based reasoning.}}{11}}
+\newlabel{table:problemcat}{{1}{11}}
+\newlabel{eqn:diffidx}{{3.1}{11}}
+\newlabel{subsec:disccat}{{3.2}{11}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {3.2}Discussion Classification}{11}}
+\citation{kashy03}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Results of Analysis by Student}{12}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.1}Participation}{12}}
+\newlabel{subsec:gradedep}{{4.2}{12}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.2}Grade-Dependence of Discussion Contributions}{12}}
+\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Examples of discussion contribution types and features.}}{13}}
+\newlabel{table:examples}{{2}{13}}
+\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Classification of the online discussion contributions according the classification scheme described in subsection\nobreakspace {}\G@refundefinedtrue {\unhbox \voidb@x \hbox {\normalfont \bfseries ??}}\GenericWarning { }{LaTeX Warning: Reference `subsec:disccat' on page 13 undefined}. The columns denote the different discussion types and subtypes, while the rows denote the features.}}{13}}
+\newlabel{table:disccat}{{3}{13}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {7}{\ignorespaces Number of students versus number of discussion contributions.}}{14}}
+\newlabel{fig:contribBinned}{{7}{14}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {8}{\ignorespaces Prominance of discussion superclasses by grade.}}{14}}
+\newlabel{fig:gradecorrel}{{8}{14}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {9}{\ignorespaces Discussion characteristics as a function of problem difficulty. }}{15}}
+\newlabel{fig:diff}{{9}{15}}
+\newlabel{sec:question}{{5}{15}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Results of Analysis by Question}{15}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.1}Influence of Question Difficulty}{15}}
+\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {10}{\ignorespaces Discussion characteristics as a function of problem difficulty, no considering ``chat." }}{16}}
+\newlabel{fig:diffnochat}{{10}{16}}
+\newlabel{subsec:qtype}{{5.2}{16}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.2}Influence of Question Types}{16}}
+\citation{kashyd01}
+\citation{mcdermott}
+\citation{beichner}
+\citation{kashyd01}
+\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Influence of question types and features on discussions. The values indicate the percentage prominence of the discussion superclasses, types, and features (columns) for discussions associated with questions of a certain type or with certain features (rows). The values in brackets result from an analysis with ``chat'' excluded.}}{17}}
+\newlabel{table:qtype}{{4}{17}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.3}Influence of course}{17}}
+\citation{lin}
\citation{russell}
\citation{EBAPS}
\citation{MPEX}
@@ -136,20 +119,19 @@
\citation{hestenesmech}
\citation{foundation}
\citation{maloney}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {4.2}Additional Platform Development}{14}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {4.2.1}Scalable Functionality for Manual Grading of Free-Form Answers}{14}}
-\newlabel{platform}{{4.2.1}{14}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {4.2.2}Additional Analysis Tools}{14}}
-\newlabel{analysisnew}{{4.2.2}{14}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Research Methodology}{14}}
-\newlabel{analysis}{{5}{14}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.1}Establishment of Initial Conditions}{14}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.1.1}Learner Attitudes, Beliefs, and Expectations}{14}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.1.2}Learner Knowledge about the Topic}{14}}
-\newlabel{prepost}{{5.1.2}{14}}
\citation{schoenfeld}
\citation{foster}
\citation{chi}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Research Methodology}{18}}
+\newlabel{analysis}{{6}{18}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {6.1}Establishment of Initial Conditions}{18}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {6.1.1}Learner Attitudes, Beliefs, and Expectations}{18}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {6.1.2}Learner Knowledge about the Topic}{18}}
+\newlabel{prepost}{{6.1.2}{18}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {6.1.3}Problem Difficulty and Baseline Statistical Data}{18}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {6.2}Observables}{18}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {6.2.1}Effectiveness}{18}}
+\newlabel{effect}{{6.2.1}{18}}
\citation{kotas}
\citation{minaei}
\citation{wallace}
@@ -157,28 +139,21 @@
\citation{riffell1}
\citation{riffell2}
\citation{pascarella02}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.1.3}Problem Difficulty and Baseline Statistical Data}{15}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.2}Observables}{15}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.2.1}Effectiveness}{15}}
-\newlabel{effect}{{5.2.1}{15}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.2.2}Problem Solving Technique}{15}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.2.3}Help-Seeking Behavior and Discussions}{15}}
-\newlabel{discussion}{{5.2.3}{15}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {5.2.4}Interviews}{15}}
-\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Excerpts from online discussion around the two problems Fig.\nobreakspace {}6\hbox {}}}{16}}
-\newlabel{discussionex}{{2}{16}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Involvement of Students in Research}{16}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {6.1}Undergraduate}{16}}
-\newlabel{undergrad}{{6.1}{16}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {6.2}Graduate}{16}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Evaluation}{16}}
-\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Project timeline}}{17}}
-\newlabel{timeline}{{3}{17}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}Dissemination}{17}}
-\newlabel{dissem}{{8}{17}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {9}Project Timeline}{17}}
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {10}Results from Prior NSF Support}{17}}
-\newlabel{results}{{10}{17}}
+\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces Excerpts from online discussion around the two problems Fig.\nobreakspace {}6\hbox {}}}{19}}
+\newlabel{discussionex}{{5}{19}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {6.2.2}Problem Solving Technique}{19}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {6.2.3}Help-Seeking Behavior and Discussions}{19}}
+\newlabel{discussion}{{6.2.3}{19}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsubsection}{\numberline {6.2.4}Interviews}{20}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Involvement of Students in Research}{20}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.1}Undergraduate}{20}}
+\newlabel{undergrad}{{7.1}{20}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.2}Graduate}{20}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}Evaluation}{20}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {9}Dissemination}{20}}
+\newlabel{dissem}{{9}{20}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {10}Results from Prior NSF Support}{20}}
+\newlabel{results}{{10}{20}}
\bibcite{feynmanCharacter}{1}
\bibcite{student}{2}
\bibcite{heuvelen}{3}
@@ -273,3 +248,13 @@
\bibcite{mazur10}{92}
\bibcite{mazur11}{93}
\bibcite{mazur12}{94}
+\bibcite{beichner}{95}
+\bibcite{mcdermott}{96}
+\bibcite{wallace}{97}
+\bibcite{kashy03}{98}
+\bibcite{redish}{99}
+\bibcite{jitt}{100}
+\bibcite{kashyd01}{101}
+\bibcite{steinberg}{102}
+\bibcite{lin}{103}
+\bibcite{chi}{104}
Index: modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.tex
diff -u modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.tex:1.6 modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.tex:1.7
--- modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.tex:1.6 Sat May 7 10:59:11 2005
+++ modules/gerd/roleclicker/description.tex Sun May 8 22:10:53 2005
@@ -30,10 +30,14 @@
\begin{center}
\LARGE\sc A Comparative Study of\\ In-Class Student Response Mechanisms
\end{center}
-\section{Goals and Objectives}\label{intro}
-Peer-instruction has been around for almost 15 years; the effect of such interventions has been well-researched, and the techniques have found broad adoption, particularly in science teaching.
+\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
+\subsection{Overview}
+Peer-instruction has been around for almost 15 years; the effect of such interventions has been well-researched, and the techniques have found broad adoption, particularly in science teaching. As part of the classroom activities, the educator would present a question (typically multiple-choice style), and learners are asked to individually respond (through hand signs, colorful cards,
+or technological means such as Personal Response Systems (PRSs, ``clickers'')).
+Based on the initial response distribution, the educator might decide to follow up with a second round of having the learners
+discuss the problem with each other (``think-pair-share''), and then responding again.
-At the heart of peer-instruction are learner-learner discussions - as learners are explaining concepts to each other, they gain deeper
+At the heart of peer-instruction are these learner-learner discussions - as learners are explaining concepts to each other, they gain deeper
understanding. This outcome is established through both per-question pre-/post-discussion response analyses,
and through course-wide pre-/post-test scores on concept inventories, where the gain is consistently higher in courses using
peer-instruction techniques.
@@ -65,11 +69,18 @@
We aim to research the educational effects of the following technology-mediated extensions of peer-teaching practice:
\begin{description}
-\item[Computer-Guided Group Formation]
-\item[Different Question Types]
-\item[Randomized Questions]
+\item[Computer-Guided Group Formation] - in current practice, in the majority of cases, the formation of discussion groups is based
+is entirely based on seating arrangements: ``turn to the student sitting next to you.'' Peer instruction works best if learners
+need to convince each other and discuss the merrits of different possible solutions - which is not likely to happen naturally if all
+learners in the randomly formed group initially chose the same option. In computer-guided group formation, the computer will be forming the groups based on the initial learner responses, and ensure that within the constraints of the lecture hall seating arrangement, groups with a diversity of initial opinions are formed.
+\item[Different Question Types] - in current practice, the questions presented to learners are mostly multiple-choice style. This is due to the limitation of current response mechanisms. More sophisticated response devices allow for the deployment of more sophisticated question types, such as image-response, mix-and-match, multiple-response multiple-choice and open-ended numerical/symbolic math questions.
+\item[Randomized Questions] - in current practice, all students in a course are answering the exact same question. More sophisticated response devices allow for randomizing scenarios just enough such that students can discuss the same underlying principle, yet still need to draw their own conclusions and arrive at their own solutions.
\end{description}
+While the necessary technology at the current time is still be cost-prohibitive in large enrollment courses, we believe that
+within the next five years every student will own or be able to afford a two-way interactive personal wireless communication device, such as an internet-enabled PDA, PocketPC, cellphone, or even more likely a combination of these.
+We believe that the current ``clickers'' are a transient technology, and that the next generation communication devices will open up new avenues for personal responses and peer-instruction, and be an enabling tool for new pedagogies - pedagogies we aim to explore today.
+
The proposed project has three phases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Formal analysis of peer-discussion behavior using currently available techniques
@@ -80,123 +91,16 @@
-\subsection{Intellectual Merit}
-
-\subsection{Broader Impact}
-
-\section{Timeline}
-
-
-
-
-%
-% Copy-Paste Material
-%
-
-
-\subsection{Overview}
-
-
-Within the next five years, we can expect that every student will own or be able to afford a two-way interactive personal wireless communication device, such as an internet-enabled PDA, PocketPC, cellphone, or even more likely a combination of these. We believe that the current "clickers" are a transient technology, and that the next generation communication devices will open up new avenues for personal responses and peer-teaching, and be an enabling tool for new pedagogies. For example:
-\begin{itemize}
-\item to possibly enhance the quality of peer-discussions, and emphasize process over outcome, each student can receive a slightly different version of the same question.
-
-\item image-response, mix-and-match, multiple-true, as well as open-ended numerical and symbolic math question types are available.
-
-\item immediate feedback on answer correctness can be given, and adaptive follow-up questions can be asked.
-\end{itemize}
-
-This project proposes to research the effect of randomized versus traditional non-randomized in-class conceptual questions, as well as the impact of different answer, feedback, and question types on student problem solving behavior, quality of peer teaching, and learning gain.
-
We will focus on physics content, where a broad research base on existing techniques already exists, and where research-based content for peer-teaching using current techniques is readily available. We will work with undergraduate students in large-enrollment introductory algebra- and calculus-based physics courses at a spectrum of institutions.
\subsection{Project Partners}
\begin{itemize}
\item Gerd Kortemeyer and Guy Albertelli at Michigan State University
\item Eric Mazur and Martin Vogt at Harvard University
-\item Bill Junkin at Erskine College (subcontractor to Harvard)
-\end{itemize}
-\subsection{``Thinking like a Physicist"}
-Most physicists would agree that part of ``being a physicist" is ``thinking like a physicist"~\cite{heuvelen}, which manifests itself most prominently in the cognitive and metacognitive skills involved in problem solving~\cite{redish} --- part of the self-image of many physicists is to be expert problem solvers, even outside of their own discipline~\cite{fuller}:
-\[\mbox{Think like a Physicist}\ \Rightarrow\ \mbox{Solve Problems}\]
-Yet, while basic logic tells us that the reverse statement, i.e.,
-\[\mbox{Think like a Physicist}\ \Leftarrow\ \mbox{Solve Problems}\]
-does not necessarily have to be true,
-an unfortunately all too common approach to teaching physics is to simply have students solve a lot of standard problems.
-
-It is broadly accepted that frequent formative assessment and feedback are a key component of the learning process~\cite{bransford}, but {\it what} the students are learning is not necessarily what educators are expecting them to be learning~\cite{pellegrino,arons}. This disconnect frequently goes undetected if the summative assessment tools are similar to the formative assessment tools~\cite{lin}. In most physics courses, these are conventional problems along the lines of ``A ball starts with an initial velocity of \ldots. \ldots What is the \ldots?". Deploying alternative conceptual assessment tools such as the Force Concept Inventory~\cite{fci} can reveal large discrepancies between different summative assessment types (e.g,~\cite{steinberg,mazur}).
-
-Expert and novice approaches to problem solving in physics have been studied extensively (e.g.~\cite{chi,larkin}). Two of the most apparent differences are that
-\begin{enumerate}
-\item experts initially characterize problems according to deep structure and physical concepts (e.g., ``energy conservation"-problem), while novices tend to characterize them according to surface features (e.g., ``sliding-block-on-incline"-problem) or applicable formulas (e.g., ``$E=\frac12mv^2+mgh$"-problem)
-\item novices then continue to employ a formula-centered problem solving method~\cite{heuvelen}, frequently referred to as ``plug-and-chug."
-\end{enumerate}
-Redish~\cite{redish} somewhat bleakly describes a novice approach to learning physics as follows:
-\begin{itemize}
-\item Write down every equation or law the teacher puts on the board that is also in the book.
-\item Memorize these, together with the list of formulas at the end of each chapter.
-\item Do enough homework and end-of-the-chapter problems to recognize which formula is to be applied to which problem.
-\item Pass the exam by selecting the correct formula for the problems on the exam.
-\item Erase all information from your brain after the exam to make room for the next set of materials.
-\end{itemize}
-
-One cannot really blame learners for short-circuiting physics ``learning" this way, since the cognitive and metacognitive skills, which physicists value so highly, are hardly ever made explicit, neither in instruction, nor in formative or summative assessment~\cite{lin,reif,mazur96}; in fact, they are mostly altogether ``hidden"~\cite{redish} from all aspects of a course, and students are affirmed in their novice expectations~\cite{hammer} of what it is to ``do physics." The challenge is to move students away from treating physics as a set of unrelated factoids and formulas, as well as away from focusing on memorizing and using formulas without interpretation or sense-making~\cite{hammer}, and toward both ``thinking like a physicist" and gaining conceptual understanding.
-
-As a result, some instructors turn to ``conceptual" curricular material, where however ``conceptual" often seems to be defined simply as ``lacking numbers and formulas." The term ``conceptual" will need a more specific definition if it is meant to indeed denote ``fostering conceptual understanding." ``Conceptual understanding" in this project is defined as insight,
-as reflected in thoughtful and effective use of knowledge and skills in varied situations,
-into abstract key ideas,
-which are generalized from particular instances.
-
-\subsection{The Problem with Problems - Hypotheses}\label{hypo}
-
-
-To quote Lin~\cite{lin}: ``The primary determinants of student performance are the specific tasks for which teachers explicitly hold students responsible (e.g. problem sets and exams), rather than the general goals of the teacher (e.g. conveying an appreciation of the power of physics in a broad context)." Mazur~\cite{mazur96} asks ``So why do we keep testing our students with conventional problems?"
-
-The answer, only too often, is scalability, and that in more than one dimension: non-conventional problems are harder to write, and even harder to grade.
-
-The scalability problem is easier to overcome in the classroom: alternative formative assessment as a classroom tool, where students are forced to verbally express their views and teach each other, rather than calculate answers~\cite{mazur}, is starting to be adopted as an effective teaching practice in more and more courses.
-
-It would clearly be advantageous to extend these effective verbalization practices outside the classroom, and offer formative assessment opportunities in which students get to work through and write about real-life problems on a conceptual level, and are explicitly graded on formulating assumptions, developing models, doing back-of-the-envelope estimations, and deriving relevant formulas and solutions. Given both time and logistical constraints, except for the occasional ``project assignment," that is not a reality.
-
-This project focuses on how to move beyond conventional homework problems while operating within the realistic limitations of large-enrollment courses.
-
-Particularly in large-enrollment courses, timely feedback is often impossible without the use of computerized homework systems (e.g.~\cite{thoennessen,kashy00}). Unfortunately, an all too frequent approach to using such systems is to simply replicate conventional textbook problems in the online realm, where they are conveniently graded by the computer.
-
-The project assumes that ``the problem with problems" (a phrase borrowed from~\cite{mazur96}) is that
-\begin{quote}
-{\bf Hypothesis 1a:} Conventional calculation-oriented problems affirm non-expertlike epistemologies and encourage non-expertlike problem-solving strategies
-\end{quote}
-
-Using computerized systems does impose limitations on which kind of problems can be made available, but does not limit educators to just these most basic types. A further assumption is that by the reverse token
-\begin{quote}
-{\bf Hypothesis 1b:} There are types of online (mostly) computer-evaluated problems, which make learners confront their non-expertlike epistemologies and encourage expertlike problem-solving strategies\end{quote}
-
-These problem types might involve both computer- and human-evaluated components, where an emphasis has to be put on keeping the human-evaluated part manageable and scalable.
-
-An additional problem with conventional problems may be their mathematical nature. Hewitt in the preface to his textbook ``Conceptual Physics"~\cite{hewitt} argues that the mathematical language of physics often deters the average non-science students, a notion which concurs with Tobias' concept of ``math anxiety"\cite{tobias}, which is a particular issue for students in the ``second tier"\cite{tobiasST} of science courses. For them, the use of mathematics in physics courses can present a hurdle, and a lack of skills or confidence to perform basic algebraic manipulations (``$V=RI\ \Rightarrow\ R=V/I"$), or even problems operating their pocket calculators, can hinder students' learning progress in physics at a very basic level.
-
-Yet, the majority of students appears to be able to correctly substitute variables and execute calculations, and is quite content with the ``plug-and-chug" approach. In fact, it appears to be true that their ``concept anxiety" is more prominent than any ``math anxiety."
-
-Moving beyond initial barriers, the problem with mathematics as part of a formative assessment appears to be not one of {\it operation}, but one of {\it translation}. Students see formulas in a purely operational sense~\cite{torigoe,breitenberger}, while lacking the ability to translate between the formulas and the situations~\cite{clement}, which is also illustrated in the expert and novice quotes at the beginning of Sect.~\ref{intro}.
-
-Online homework systems by the very nature of computers lend themselves to standard calcu\-lation-oriented problems, and are extensively used in this way. Yet, the ``plug-and-chug" approach is the most prominent symptom of novice-like problem-solving strategy, and calculation-oriented problems may encourage just that. As a result, there is a frequent call for ``conceptual" online problems, where both instructors and students seem to define ``conceptual" simply by the absence of numbers and formulas.
-\begin{itemize}
-\item But does ``depriving" students of numbers and formulas indeed make them work on a conceptual level?
-\item Does it help both students who have problems with applying mathematical methods and those who comfortably ``plug-and-chug" gain conceptual understanding of physics?
+\item Bill Junkin at Erskine College
\end{itemize}
-The following hypotheses reflect these notions in the positive form:
-\begin{quote}
-{\bf Hypothesis 2:} Learners with a low level of mathematical skills or confidence will more likely develop a conceptual understanding of physics as a result of non-calculation-oriented online formative assessment, by removing mathematics as a barrier to their understanding.
-\end{quote}
-\begin{quote}
-{\bf Hypothesis 3:} Learners with an average or above average level of mathematical skills or confidence will more likely develop a conceptual understanding of physics as a result of non-calculation-oriented online formative assessment, by discouraging non-expertlike problem-solving strategies.
-\end{quote}
-As evidenced in the above definition, it should be emphasized that the project does by no means attempt to establish or promote a dichotomy between ``conceptual understanding" and ``basic skills/factual knowledge." A physicist needs basic skills and factual knowledge, and the learning of these must not be underemphasized in formative assessment. However, how to best develop these through formative assessment would constitute another valid research project.
\subsection{Intellectual Merit}
-Online homework is becoming increasingly prominent in physics education, yet research into its effect has been contradictory, sparse, and, in some cases, not very systematic~\cite{pasc04}. Differences have been reported positive~\cite{kashyda}, negative~\cite{pasc04}, and non-significant~\cite{bonham}. Pascarella~\cite{pascarella02} was one of the very few studies investigating problem-solving strategies, but both Pascarella~\cite{pascarella02} and Bonham~\cite{bonham} only considered the online versions of conventional textbook-like problems. Kashy~\cite{kashyd01b} found that what the authors call ``interactive problems," namely those where learners need to read relevant values from graphs or observe simulations, are better predictors of overall success in the course than other problem types, but did not investigate cause and effect relationships, or study problem-solving behavior.
-This study aims to provide a systematic research base regarding the effectiveness of different types of online formative assessment, especially those which do take better advantage of the medium, and inform both curriculum development efforts and practitioners.
-
-\subsection{Broader Impact/Diversity}
+\subsection{Broader Impact}
Currently, every semester approximately 350,000 US students are taking introductory undergraduate physics courses similar to the ones under investigation in this project~\cite{aapt}. For many of these students, it is both their first and their last formal exposure to physics. Students will go into a large spectrum of careers, with or without an understanding of the basic concepts of the physical world.
This project has the potential of broader impact, since like many of the other
@@ -209,10 +113,9 @@
faculty. Faculty members at the over thirty currently participating LON-CAPA
institutions will be able to profit from this project already during its
progress.
-
-
+\section{Background}
\subsection{Peer-Instruction}
-Since developing Peer Instruction (PI), a collaborative and interactive teaching technique, in 1991, we
+Since developing Peer-Instruction (PI), a collaborative and interactive teaching technique, in 1991, we
have been 1) disseminating the technique, 2) gathering data on its effectiveness (see publication list
below), and 3) developing web-based tools to help instructors implement the method. We have applied
the method in both the calculus-based and the algebra-based introductory physics courses for non-majors
@@ -233,6 +136,7 @@
been contributed by others. An indicator of the rapid spread of the method is the availability of books
with ConcepTests for chemistry, astronomy, and calculus courses. We are currently in the process of
adding this material to the ILT web site.
+
Under NSF sponsorship, we developed Project Galileo4, a store of extensive resources for
interactive learning pedagogies, targeting both large and small classroom teaching techniques, which are
available to the entire teaching community. Using funds from a NSF Director's Distinguished Teaching
@@ -251,7 +155,7 @@
\item Workshops for new faculty sponsored by the American Association of Physics Teachers and the NSFfunded
Engineering Education Scholars program;
\end{itemize}
-\subsection{Collaborative learning}
+\subsection{Collaborative Learning}
There is a significant body of literature concerning theories of and best practices for collaborative
learning \cite{mref14}. In general, the motivation behind collaborative learning is to make students active
participants in the learning process, assigning them more responsibility for their own education. Students
@@ -262,6 +166,7 @@
discussion between students in learning communities is the most important influence of the effectiveness
of education \cite{mref14,mref15}. Moreover, the quality of this interaction between students is a crucial factor for
determining the success of learning \cite{mref14}.
+
Treisman's pioneering work on collaborative learning \cite{mref16,mref17,mref18} demonstrates that Asian students
in college calculus at the University of California-Berkeley typically study in
groups, help each other with
@@ -312,15 +217,7 @@
effective than passive learning. Our experiences with PI, as well as those of many others, who have
responded to our survey, show PI to be an effective collaborative approach to learning.
-
-
-
-\section{Background and Environment}
-
-\subsection{Institutional Environment}
-Michigan State University is one of the earliest land-grant institutions in the US, and committed to providing equal educational opportunity to all qualified applicants; at the undergraduate level, the university offers comprehensive programs in the liberal arts and sciences, and provides opportunities for students of varying interests, abilities, backgrounds, and expectations. The total enrollment is approximately 44,000, 35,000 of which are undergraduates. 54\% of the student population are women, 8.1\% African American, 5.1\% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2.8\% Chicano/Other Hispanic, and 0.6\% Native American. Of the freshman class, the average high school GPA is 3.58.
-
-\subsection{Model System: Interactive Learning Toolkit}
+\subsection{Interactive Learning Toolkit}
Two years ago, we published the result of an online survey of PI users in diverse settings. \cite{mref27} This
survey alerted us to some key areas that instructors found challenging, including the time taken to
structure and organize teaching with PI efficiently, the lack of teaching materials (specifically CTs), use
@@ -379,7 +276,7 @@
-\subsection{Model System: The Learning{\it Online} Network with CAPA}\label{loncapa}
+\subsection{The Learning{\it Online} Network with CAPA}\label{loncapa}
The Learning{\it Online} Network with Computer-Assisted Personalized Approach ({\tt http://www.lon-capa.org/}) is a distributed learning content management, course management, and assessment system, and also the model system of the current NSF-ITR grant, see Sect.~\ref{results}.
LON-CAPA's core development group is located at MSU, and in addition to faculty members, has a staff of three fulltime programmers, two user support staff, one technician, one graduate student, and one project coordinator. The LON-CAPA group also offers training and support for adopters of the system.
@@ -786,23 +683,6 @@
decreased. This might partly be due to the different subject matter (electricity and magnetism versus mechanics), but also due to the lack of reward for conceptual considerations in solving standard
homework problems~\cite{lin}.
-\subsection{Additional Materials Development}\label{matdev}
-For the question types marked ``M" in Table~\ref{classification}, the currently existing library of LON-CAPA problems does not provide enough samples to carry out the study. Since development of completely new problems would constitute a project by itself, this component of the current project will heavily draw on existing problem collections, i.e., Redish (\cite{redish}, resource CD), McDermott~\cite{mcdermottprob}, Mazur~\cite{mazur}, and Project Galileo~\cite{galileo}. These research-based problems will be adapted and implemented in the the LON-CAPA system, and new problems only developed where necessary.
-
-The goal is to have 12 problems representing each type (Table~\ref{classification}) in each semester, as evenly as possible distributed over the 16 weeks of the semester.
-
-\subsection{Additional Platform Development}
-The proposal budget includes a half-time computer programmer position in the first four years to assist in the implementation of the following additional platform features:
-\subsubsection{Scalable Functionality for Manual Grading of Free-Form Answers}\label{platform}
-LON-CAPA already offers grading support for free-form student submission, such as
-keyword-highlighting and plagiarism-checks. Additional tools will be developed for the grading of the problem types marked ``G" in Table~\ref{classification}: for questions that require student submissions of the type "Explain your reasoning," better coupling between the computer- and manually-evaluated sections will be provided, for the free-form ``essay" submissions, better tools to compare student submissions with each other and with exemplary essays.
-
-\subsubsection{Additional Analysis Tools}\label{analysisnew}
-While the premise of this project is that feedback on formative assessment is crucial for the learner, it is almost equally important to the instructor~\cite{pellegrino}, with technology as enabler~\cite{novak,feedback}. Particularly in the context of a research project on formative assessment, timely and comprehensive feedback on student performance --- including new material (Sect.~\ref{matdev}) --- is essential. The LON-CAPA system already has sophisticated analysis tools (see Sect.~\ref{anatool}), but these do not support all questions types in Table~\ref{classification} equally well, and the project includes a tools development component to further enhance these mechanisms for the problem types marked ``A."
-
-Data collection on a particular problem type can proceed independently from the existence of the respective analysis tools, since LON-CAPA permanently stores all data.
-
-
\section{Research Methodology}\label{analysis}
\subsection{Establishment of Initial Conditions}
@@ -1011,33 +891,6 @@
\section{Dissemination}\label{dissem}
We will present papers at conferences such as the LON-CAPA User Conference, IEEE Frontiers in Education, Educause/NLII, Sloan C, the European Workshop for Multimedia in Physics Education, the Conference on Computer Based Learning in Science (Dr. Kortemeyer presented at these conferences before), the annual meetings of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft and the Gesellschaft f\"ur Didaktik der Chemie und Physik, and the American Association of Physics Teachers Annual and PERC Meetings. We will submit papers to journals such as The Physics Teacher, the American Journal of Physics, Computers and Education, and the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Finally, any content material adapted and implemented in this project will be immediately available to all participating LON-CAPA institutions, and via the LON-CAPA gateway to the NSF-funded National Science Digital Library. Any mature additional platform functionality will be made available in the production releases of the open-source freeware LON-CAPA system.
-\section{Project Timeline}
-The timeline for the project is outlined in Table~\ref{timeline}.
-
-\begin{table}
-\begin{tabular}{|l|p{3.2cm}|p{3.2cm}|p{3.2cm}|p{3.2cm}|}
-\hline
-&Tool Development&Materials Development&Study&Other\\
-\hline
-Year 1&Grading Tools&Categorization of the approx. 400 applicable problems per semester according to question type\newline
-Adaptation and implementation of new problems
-&Pre- and post-tests\newline
-Review and refinement of research methodology&Recruitment of programmer and graduate student\newline
-Visits to other Physics Education Research groups
-\\
-\hline
-Year 2&Grading Tools&Adaptation, implementation, and development of new problems
-\newline
-First deployment of new problems&First deployment of research methods and iterative refinement&Visits to other Physics Education Research groups\\
-\hline
-Years 3 and 4&Grading and Analysis Tools&Refinement of new problems&Data collection and analysis&Dissemination\\
-\hline
-Year 5&&&Final data analysis&Dissemination\\
-\hline
-\end{tabular}
-\caption{Project timeline\label{timeline}}
-\end{table}
-
\section{Results from Prior NSF Support}\label{results}
Gerd Kortemeyer is PI on the current NSF-ITR grant Investigation of a Model for Online Resource Creation and Sharing in Educational Settings (\#0085921, \$2,055,000, September 15, 2000 through July 31, 2005), which uses LON-CAPA as its model system. The project is designed to address questions of resource pooling and sharing across content areas. The investigators are incubating a multi-institutional collaboration and bring together stakeholders to address content issues such as reuse, customization, online community building, quality, and effectiveness. The project currently has more than 30 participating institutions, and continues to study the formation of its online collaborative community, including workshops, conferences, support, evaluation, and dissemination. The project maintains a gateway server to the National Science Digital Library, and the LON-CAPA shared resource pool is searchable and accessible from {\tt http://nsdl.org/}.
@@ -1135,86 +988,86 @@
% Mazur background
-\bibitem{mref1} R., W. J. Gerace, P. T. Hardiman, and J. P. Mestre, "Constraining novices to
-perform expert-like problem analyses: Effects on schema acquisition," Journal of the
+\bibitem{mref1} R., W. J. Gerace, P. T. Hardiman, and J. P. Mestre, {\it Constraining novices to
+perform expert-like problem analyses: Effects on schema acquisition}, Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 2 (3), 307-331 (1992).
-\bibitem{mref2} Gerace, W., R. Dufresne, W. Leonard, and J. Mestre, "Minds-On Physics: An integrated
-curriculum for developing concept-based problem-solving skills in physics" (1999), Cited at
+\bibitem{mref2} Gerace, W., R. Dufresne, W. Leonard, and J. Mestre, {\it Minds-On Physics: An integrated
+curriculum for developing concept-based problem-solving skills in physics} (1999), Cited at
http://umperg.physics.umass.edu/library/UMPERG-2000-08.
-\bibitem{mref3} Hake, Richard, "Socratic Pedagogy in the Introductory Physics Lab," The Physics Teacher,
+\bibitem{mref3} Hake, Richard, {\it Socratic Pedagogy in the Introductory Physics Lab}, The Physics Teacher,
30, 546 (1992).
-\bibitem{mref4} Heller, P., R. Keith, and S. Anderson, "Teaching problem solving through cooperative
-grouping. Part 1: Group vs. individual problem solving," and P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh,
-"Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and
-structuring groups," American Journal of Physics, 60, 627-644 (1992).
+\bibitem{mref4} Heller, P., R. Keith, and S. Anderson, {\it Teaching problem solving through cooperative
+grouping. Part 1: Group vs. individual problem solving}, and P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh,
+{\it Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and
+structuring groups}, American Journal of Physics, 60, 627-644 (1992).
\bibitem{mref5} Laws, Priscilla, Workshop Physics Activity Guide, John Wiley \& Sons, New York (1997);
-McDermott, Lillian C., and members of the Physics Education Group, "Physics by Inquiry,
-Vols. I and II", John Wiley \& Sons, New York (1996).
-\bibitem{mref6} Novak, Gregor, Evelyn T. Patterson, Andrew D. Gavrin, and Wolfgang Christian, "Just-in-
-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology", Prentice Hall, Upper
+McDermott, Lillian C., and members of the Physics Education Group, {\it Physics by Inquiry,
+Vols. I and II}, John Wiley \& Sons, New York (1996).
+\bibitem{mref6} Novak, Gregor, Evelyn T. Patterson, Andrew D. Gavrin, and Wolfgang Christian, {\it Just-in-
+Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology}, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ (1999).
-\bibitem{mref7} Redish, E.F., J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, "On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement
-Microcomputer-Based Laboratories," American Journal of Physics, 65, 45-54 (1997).
-\bibitem{mref8} Reif, F., "Instructional design, cognition, and technology: Applications to the teaching of
-scientific concepts," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 (4), 309-324 (1987).
-\bibitem{mref9} Sokoloff, David, Priscilla Laws, and Ronald Thornton, "RealTime Physics", Vernier
+\bibitem{mref7} Redish, E.F., J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, {\it On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement
+Microcomputer-Based Laboratories}, American Journal of Physics, 65, 45-54 (1997).
+\bibitem{mref8} Reif, F., {\it Instructional design, cognition, and technology: Applications to the teaching of
+scientific concepts}, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 (4), 309-324 (1987).
+\bibitem{mref9} Sokoloff, David, Priscilla Laws, and Ronald Thornton, {\it RealTime Physics}, Vernier
Software, Portland, OR (1995).
-\bibitem{mref10} Halloun, I. A., and D. Hestenes, "Modeling instruction in mechanics," American Journal of
+\bibitem{mref10} Halloun, I. A., and D. Hestenes, {\it Modeling instruction in mechanics}, American Journal of
Physics, 55, 455-462 (1987).
-\bibitem{mref11} Mazur, E., "Peer Instruction: A User's Manual", Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
+\bibitem{mref11} Mazur, E., {\it Peer Instruction: A User's Manual}, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
(1997).
-\bibitem{mref12} Crouch, Catherine H.; and Eric Mazur, "Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and
-Results," American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977 (2001), Cited at
+\bibitem{mref12} Crouch, Catherine H.; and Eric Mazur, {\it Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and
+Results}, American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977 (2001), Cited at
http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf\&id=AJPIAS0000690000
09000970000001\&idtype=cvips.
-\bibitem{mref13} Crouch, Catherine H., Emily Fair Oster, and Eric Mazur, "Factors Affecting Gender
-Disparity in Introductory Physics," presented at the American Physical Society Centennial
+\bibitem{mref13} Crouch, Catherine H., Emily Fair Oster, and Eric Mazur, {\it Factors Affecting Gender
+Disparity in Introductory Physics}, presented at the American Physical Society Centennial
Meeting, Atlanta, GA, March (1999), Cited at http://mazurwww.
harvard.edu/Talks/pdf\_files/Talk\_262.pdf.
-\bibitem{mref14} Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith, "Active Learning: Cooperation in
-the College Classroom", Interaction Book Co., Edina, MN (1991), and references therein;
-Bruffee, Kenneth A., "Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence and the
-Authority of Knowledge", Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1999).
-\bibitem{mref15} Johnson, D.W., and R, Johnson, "Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research",
+\bibitem{mref14} Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith, {\it Active Learning: Cooperation in
+the College Classroom}, Interaction Book Co., Edina, MN (1991), and references therein;
+Bruffee, Kenneth A., {\it Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence and the
+Authority of Knowledge}, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1999).
+\bibitem{mref15} Johnson, D.W., and R, Johnson, {\it Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research},
Interaction Book Co, Edina, MN (1989).
-\bibitem{mref16} Treisman, Philip Uri. "A Study of the Mathematics Achievement of Black Students at the
-University of California, Berkeley", unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
+\bibitem{mref16} Treisman, Philip Uri. {\it A Study of the Mathematics Achievement of Black Students at the
+University of California, Berkeley}, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, Professional Development Program (1985).
-\bibitem{mref17} Fullilove, Robert E., and Philip Uri Treisman, "Mathematics achievement among African
+\bibitem{mref17} Fullilove, Robert E., and Philip Uri Treisman, {\it Mathematics achievement among African
American undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: An evaluation of the
-Mathematics Workshop Program," The Journal of Negro Education, 59 (3), 463-478 (1990)
-\bibitem{mref18} Treisman, Uri, "Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority students
-in college," The College Mathematics Journal 23 (5), 362-372 (1992).
+Mathematics Workshop Program}, The Journal of Negro Education, 59 (3), 463-478 (1990)
+\bibitem{mref18} Treisman, Uri, {\it Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority students
+in college}, The College Mathematics Journal 23 (5), 362-372 (1992).
\bibitem{mref19} Dougherty, R.C., C.W. Bowen, T. Berger, W. Rees, E.K. Melton, and E. Pulliam,
-"Cooperative learning and enhanced communication: Effects on student performance,
-retention, and attitudes in general chemistry," Journal of Chemical Education, 72 (9), 793-
+{\it Cooperative learning and enhanced communication: Effects on student performance,
+retention, and attitudes in general chemistry}, Journal of Chemical Education, 72 (9), 793-
797 (1995).
-\bibitem{mref20} Kovac, Jeffrey, "Student Active Learning Methods in General Chemistry," Journal of
+\bibitem{mref20} Kovac, Jeffrey, {\it Student Active Learning Methods in General Chemistry}, Journal of
Chemical Education 76 (1), 120-124 (1999), Cited at
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Jan/PlusSub/V76N01/p120.pdf
-\bibitem{mref21} "The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University,
-Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities"
+\bibitem{mref21} {\it The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University,
+Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities}
(1998) Cited at http://notes.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf
-\bibitem{mref22} "Transforming Undergraduate Education", National Academy Press, Washington, DC
+\bibitem{mref22} {\it Transforming Undergraduate Education}, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
(1999).
-\bibitem{mref23} "Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook", National Academy Press, Washington, DC
+\bibitem{mref23} {\it Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook}, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
(1997).
-\bibitem{mref24} Paulson, Donald R, "Active learning and cooperative learning in the organic chemistry
-lecture class," Journal of Chemical Education, 76 (8), 1136-1140 (1999), Cited at
+\bibitem{mref24} Paulson, Donald R, {\it Active learning and cooperative learning in the organic chemistry
+lecture class}, Journal of Chemical Education, 76 (8), 1136-1140 (1999), Cited at
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Aug/PlusSub/V76N08/p1136.pdf.
-\bibitem{mref25} Janicki, Terence C., and Penelope L. Peterson, "Individual characteristics and children's
-learning in large-group and small-group approaches," The Journal of Educational
+\bibitem{mref25} Janicki, Terence C., and Penelope L. Peterson, {\it Individual characteristics and children's
+learning in large-group and small-group approaches}, The Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71 (5), 677-687 (1979)
-\bibitem{mref26} Okebukola, Peter A., and Meshach B. Ogunniyi, "Cooperative, competitive, and
-individualistic science laboratory interaction patterns "Effects on students' achievement and
-acquisition of practical skills," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21 (9), 875-884
+\bibitem{mref26} Okebukola, Peter A., and Meshach B. Ogunniyi, {\it Cooperative, competitive, and
+individualistic science laboratory interaction patterns; Effects on students' achievement and
+acquisition of practical skills}, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21 (9), 875-884
(1984).
-\bibitem{mref27} Fagen, A., C.H. Crouch and E. Mazur, "Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of
-Classrooms", The Physics Teacher, 40, 206-209 (2002), Cited at
+\bibitem{mref27} Fagen, A., C.H. Crouch and E. Mazur, {\it Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of
+Classrooms}, The Physics Teacher, 40, 206-209 (2002), Cited at
http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf\&id=PHTEAH000040000
004000206000001\&idtype=cvips.
-\bibitem{mref28} Hake, R.R, "Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student
-survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," American Journal of
+\bibitem{mref28} Hake, R.R, {\it Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student
+survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses}, American Journal of
Physics, 66 (1). 64-74 (1998).
@@ -1249,6 +1102,58 @@
\bibitem{mazur12} "Classroom Demonstrations: Learning Tools or Entertainment?" Catherine H. Crouch, Adam P.
Fagen, J. Paul Callan, and Eric Mazur, American Journal of Physics, 72, 835-838 (2004).
+%
+%
+
+\bibitem{beichner}
+Robert J. Beichner, {\it Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs},
+Am. J. Phys., 62, 750-762 (1994)
+
+\bibitem{mcdermott}
+Lillian McDermott, Mark L. Rosenquist, and Emily H. van Zee,
+{\it Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: examples from kinematics},
+Am. J. Phys., 55, 503-513 (1987)
+
+\bibitem{wallace}
+Raven Wallace,
+{\it Online learning in higher education: a review of research on interactions among teachers and students}
+Education, Communication and Information, 3, 241-280 (2003)
+
+\bibitem{kashy03},
+Deborah A. Kashy, Guy Albertelli, Wolfgang Bauer, Edwin Kashy, and Michael Thoennessen,
+{\it Influence of non-moderated and moderated discussion sites on student success},
+Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 31-36 (2003)
+
+\bibitem{redish}
+Edward F. (Joe) Redish,
+{\it Teaching Physics},
+ISBN 0-471-39378-9,
+Wiley (2003)
+
+\bibitem{jitt}
+Gregor M. Novak, Evelyn T. Patterson, Andrew D. Gavrin, and Wolfgang Christian,
+{\it Just-in-time teaching: blending active learning with web technology},
+ISBN 0-13-085034-9, Prentice Hall (1999)
+
+\bibitem{kashyd01}
+Deborah A. Kashy, Guy Albertelli, Guy Ashkenazi, Edwin Kashy, Hon-Kie Ng, and Michael Thoennessen,
+{\it Individualized interactive exercises: a promising role for network technology},
+Proc. Frontiers in Education, ISBN 0-7803-6669-7, 31, 1073-1078 (2001)
+
+
+\bibitem{steinberg}
+Richard N. Steinberg and Mel S. Sabella,
+{\it Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems},
+Phys. Teach., 35, 150-155 (1997)
+
+\bibitem{lin}
+Herbert Lin", {\it Learning physics vs. passing courses}
+Phys. Teach., 20, 151-157 (1982)
+
+\bibitem{chi}
+Michelle T. H. Chi, Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert Glaser,
+{\it Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices},
+Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152 (1981)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
--www1115604654--