Using Lecture Demonstrations, Computer Simulations and CDROM Video Clips to
Enhance Student Learning in a Traditional Lecture Environment
Alexander P. Mazzolini
School of Biophysical Sciences & Electrical Engineering,
Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122, Australia
Abstract
A broad survey [7] of many students studying physics at the secondary and tertiary level
has demonstrated that teaching methods that promote "active learning" (AL) are far
superior to traditional passive learning modes for improving students' conceptual
understanding. The Asian Physics Education Network (ASPEN) [1] has been successfully
introducing some of these new student-centred learning approaches via national physics
education workshops in developed and developing countries throughout Asia. These
workshops (which are funded by UNESCO) develop a “home-grown” version of AL that
can be easily implemented within the Asian context.
Often teaching in many universities is somewhat limited by the traditional large-group
lecture format as this may inhibit the students’ ability to actively participate in the learning
process. The use of Interactive Lecture Demonstrations (ILDs) can prove useful in both
stimulating the students’ interest and in promoting useful class discussions based on the
“Predict, Observe, Explain” model.
The development of ILDs suitable for the Asian context has involved using not only
computer-interfaced demonstrations, but inexpensive non-computer-based demonstrations,
computer simulations and CDROM video clips. Some examples of typical ILD material
will be discussed in this seminar.
5
Introduction
I have been asked to report on the work the Asian Physics Education Network (ASPEN) [1]
is undertaking to promote the development of new active learning strategies for the
teaching of physics education throughout the Asian region. I would like to do this by
dividing my talk into three sections.
• The first section deals with an explanation of what ASPEN is: its past history, its
present activities and its future goals.
• The second section deals with a discussion of the “active learning” technique and
why we, at ASPEN, consider it so important for the development of physics
education in the Asian region (especially for developing countries).
• The third section deals with some examples of the possible implementation of active
learning ideas using IT-based activities from my own teaching.
ASPEN: The Past
Although I have been the Executive Secretary for ASPEN since only 1997, I have had a
much longer association with ASPEN that has extended over the past two decades. During
this time I have seen many important changes in ASPEN and its philosophy in fostering
physics education in the Asian region.
ASPEN was established 1981 as an outcome of a UNESCO Consultative Committee
Meeting held in Khon Kaen, Thailand. At this meeting representatives from 10 countries in
the Asia-Pacific region agreed to develop a program of cooperation and self-help that
would be coordinated by a university physics teaching network specifically set up for the
Asian region. This network is known as the Asian Physics Education Network (ASPEN).
The four main objectives for ASPEN are:
• to help promote the overall development of university physics education in the
Asian region.
• to establish a programme of cooperation amongst members in physics education and
related areas.
• to establish effective channels of communication.
• to disseminate information on physics education and related ideas.
ASPEN's activities essentially fall into three categories:
• ASPEN organizes conferences or workshops in different member countries. These
are either national, international or regional. Funding for these meetings comes
mainly from UNESCO, local sources, ICTP and COSTED.
• ASPEN has always considered it important to develop concrete projects so as to
complement activities concerned with training. These projects may be on equipment
development, curriculum development, research and evaluation on a regional,
national or international level.
• ASPEN aims to disseminate information on university physics education among
member nations through its network of National-Points-of-Contacts (NPCs), which
in the case of Japan is Prof Akizo Kobayashi. Dissemination of information and the
development of planning strategies is via the ASPEN NPCs and other ASPEN
associates, in consultation with UNESCO representatives. Some of the future
6
planning is done via meetings of an ASPEN coordinating board, but generally much
can be achieved via the use of electronic communications (eg emails, internet
listserver, www homepage etc.).
Even though ASPEN representatives have a very diverse range of cultural, technical and
educational backgrounds, I am pleased to report that there is a high level of agreement and
cooperation at ASPEN meetings and activities. This is indeed a great achievement that we
are all very proud off, and we believe that it is driven by our long-term commitment to
improve the quality of physics education programs throughout Asia.
In its first one and a half decades, ASPEN focussed its efforts into coordinating large-scale
physics education conferences, so as to initiate and improve communication between
physics educators in the Asia-Pacific region. At these conferences, different approaches to
physics curricula, teaching techniques, lecture demonstrations, laboratory work, etc. were
shared and discussed.
One nice outcome of this style of ASPEN activity was the notion of co-hosting or coorganising education conferences. One example of this was the “Modern and Innovative
Technologies for Asian Physics Education” (MITAPE) conference which was held in
Manila in 1996. MITAPE was jointly organised by the Philippines and Australia, and
featured the use of hands-on computer workshops to demonstrate fairly sophisticated (for
that time) physics education software to ASPEN and Philippine educators. The conference
and workshops required close cooperation between the two hosts and utilised the skills of
many resource people from both countries. This cooperative spirit produced an ASPEN
activity that was of great benefit to all participants.
Another important ASPEN activity was the “UNESCO University Foundation Course in
Physics” UUFCP program. The UUFCP produced two first-year physics textbooks, many
supplementary elective modules, laboratory manuals, physics lecture demonstration videos
and educational software. The UUFCP generated a lot of educational material that could be
made available at very low cost. (Since this time much of the original UUFCP resource
material has been consolidated in electronic form onto a CDROM and web site, making
access even easier.)
There were a number of other ASPEN achievements over this time period:
• An ASPEN web site was created. The web site details the ASPEN philosophy, lists
the contact details of the ASPEN NPCs for each country, summarised past ASPEN
activities and announces future activities. The web site, which is currently hosted
by Swinburne University in Australia, can be found at the following sitewww.swin.edu.au/physics/aspen/
Mirror sites also exist in Japan and South Korea.
• An ASPEN list server was created so that NPCs and ASPEN associates could easily
communicate with each other as a group. The ASPEN listserver is calledAspen_npc-l
• An ASPEN CDROM of freeware and shareware physics education resource
material was collated and produced. This CDROM was then distributed throughout
Asia so that physics teachers had access to educational software without the need to
download it from the web. This was especially important for teachers from
developing countries that had poor or non-existent access to the internet at the time.
7
ASPEN: The Present
In more recent times, ASPEN has modified its strategy on how to promote the development
of physics education in the Asian region. Its priority has shifted from supporting largescale physics education conferences towards promoting much smaller-scale, hands-on
“active learning” workshops (ALW) and other activities. Active learning is now a wellestablished learning strategy that encourages students to actively participate in the learning
process rather than taking a more passive approach, as is the case in many traditional
teaching environments. ASPEN now sees ALWs as a great opportunity for countries in the
Asian region to significantly upgrade their physics education programs. In Ateneo De
Manila University in the Philippines, for example, the first year physics program is taught
to standards that are comparable to those in much better resourced Western countries.
One of the main catalysts for change in ASPEN’s education strategy came about in 1999.
In January of that year, the American National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored an
ALW in Melbourne Australia. The workshop was entitled “Promoting Active Learning in
Introductory Physics Courses” and it was run by three US experts in this area: Ron
Thornton, Priscilla Laws and David Sokoloff. In all, 12 ASPEN (and UNESCO)
representatives attended this workshop. The ALW had a profound influence on all of us,
and we felt that the promotion of “active learning” ideas would be very beneficial for all
countries (including developing ones) in the Asian region. We decided to try to implement
this strategy through organising small, hands-on regional workshops. These workshops
would have the following main aims:
• to familiarise Asian educators with the ideas and concepts behind the “active
learning” strategy
• to demonstrate how and why these “active learning” methods are more effective
than traditional teaching techniques
• to show how to adapt active learning strategies so that they are more appropriate to
the cultural, social and economic conditions that exist in the Asian region
• to provide help and guidance to improve the practical skills of the workshop
participants
• to train local resource persons with educational skills and capacities. These
resource people would have a sense of local ownership of the AL idea, and a “can
do” approach to its implementation
The last few points are particularly important. While learning from the experiences of
internationally-recognised physics education experts, ASPEN realised that true and
sustained improvement in Asian physics education can only occur if our own Asian
educations take on the responsibility for implementing physics education reform within
their own unique Asian context. To this end ASPEN has successfully trained a group of
Asian resource personnel who can lead ALWs in the region.
During the past few years, ASPEN (in partnership with UNESCO) has organized several
very successful “active learning” workshops, including:
• A regional ALW in Hanoi, Vietnam
• Two regional ALWs in Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
• A regional ALW in Chonju, South Korea
8
•
•
•
A regional ALW in Vientiane, Laos
An active Learning Trainers’ Workshop in Manila, Philippines
An ALW as part of a national education conference in Selangor, Malaysia
ASPEN (with UNESCO support) has also produced several IT packages for assisting
ALWs. These include:
• “Active Learning Classroom and Laboratory Activities” A CDROM produced by
Obiminda Cambaliza, Ivan Culaba and Joel Maquiling, Ateneo De Manila
University, The Philippines.
• “Virtual Physics”: A CDROM of Physics Lecture Demonstration Video Clips, Alex
Mazzolini, Swinburne University, Australia.
ASPEN: The Future
UNESCO has provided well over $ 280,000 USD to fund ASPEN education initiatives over
the years. This is a very large amount of funding for tertiary physics education
development in the Asian context. ASPEN acknowledges the great responsibility that it has
in ensuring that future UNESCO funds are used wisely. This means that future ASPEN
activities must be responsibly planned to ensure that they achieve the maximum “active
learning” outcomes for the minimum cost.
This will involve the delivery of more local ALWs (utilizing ASPEN resource personnel
wherever possible) and the development and implementation of assessment tools to gauge
whether our modified ALWs improve students’ physics understanding in the Asian context
Future local “active learning” activities are being planned for Cambodia, Malaysia,
Thailand, Pakistan, Korea and the Philippines.
The Active Learning Perspective
For the last 20 years, physics education research has given educators a way of evaluating
how well our students understand the concepts that they have been taught. Many different
studies have shown that students’ misconceptions are deeply rooted, and develop over a
lifetime of incorrectly interpreted personal experiences and observations [2]. Physics
education research has shown us that because of these deeply held misconceptions,
students’ understanding and hence appreciation of very basic physics concepts is not
greatly improved by traditional “passive” teaching [3] where students are not encouraged to
question what their teacher is saying. However, the quantification and interpretation of
student misconceptions has given insights for the development of more effective methods
of instruction in introductory physics courses [4]. These methods might involve the use of
cooperative style tutorial sessions, discovery-type laboratory work, inquiry-style small
group studio environments, or the use of interactive lecture demonstrations within
traditional lecture environments.
A common factor for all these methods is that they actively engage students in the learning
process, and collectively these are referred to as active engagement or active learning
techniques [5,6]. Indeed, there has been considerable evidence that these active learning or
9
interactive-engagement methods are far superior to traditional teaching methods for
improving students’ understanding of physics concepts in both the secondary and tertiary
education levels [7]. The evidence can be summarized by the graph shown in figure 1,
which is taken from reference no. 7. This graph, which accumulated from studies of about
6000 students studying mechanics in the US, shows that there is significantly more
improvement in students’ conceptual understanding when “active learning” rather than
“passive teaching” methods are used, and that this trend is present regardless of the initial
starting point of the students.
Figure 1: Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student
survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses (taken from reference 7)
There are many ways of including active learning in the classroom, but in a traditional
setup with poor equipment and infrastructure resources (as is the case in many developing
countries in Asia), keeping the traditional passive lecture format and supplementing it with
interactive lecture demonstrations can achieve surprisingly good results.
It is important to note, however, that teaching techniques that make use of demonstrations
and computer-aided instruction do not necessarily guarantee improved conceptual
understanding of physics, especially if the techniques themselves are not “student-centered”
in the sense that students remain mere passive receivers of information. Hence, lecture
demonstrations and computer-aided instruction can only be effective when incorporated
into a carefully designed student-centred learning strategy that encourages active
participation of the students in the learning process.
The “active learning” perspective has three underlying assumptions [8]:
10
•
•
•
Learning, by its very nature, is an active process.
Different people learn in different ways.
Learning is only meaningful when learners have taken knowledge and made it their
own.
Thus, to create an active learning environment inside the classroom, the instructor’s
facilitating technique should accommodate for the diverse range of learning styles of
students and should ensure that the students are actively engaged in the learning process.
An active learning approach that uses the “predict-observe-explain” approach provides
opportunities to constantly challenge students’ beliefs and common-sense notions about
very basic physics concepts. Table 1 adapted from reference [9] summarizes the differences
between an active learning and a passive (traditional) teaching environment.
Table 1. Passive Teaching versus Active Learning Environment
Passive Teaching
Instructor and textbook is source of ALL
knowledge
Students beliefs are rarely challenged
Students may never recognise the conflict
between their beliefs and what they are told
Instructor’s role is as an authority
Collaboration with peers is discouraged
Experimental results presented as FACTS
Active Learning
Students guided to CONSTRUCT
knowledge from observation. (The actual
observation is the authority)
Predict, Observe, Compare
These provide the contrast between beliefs
and observation
Their beliefs are constantly confronted by
personal observation
Instructor’s role is as a guide
Collaboration with peers is encouraged
Experiments are basic observations from
which each student must construct their
view of the physical world
In an active learning environment, the instructor ceases to be the source of all information
but rather assumes the role of a facilitator who guides the students in the learning process.
The basic principle underlying the active learning environment discourages the so-called
“teacher syndrome” where students regard the teacher as the fount of all knowledge. This
can be a challenge for instructors who were exposed to traditional learning environments
when they were students themselves. If one’s goal is to improve the conceptual
understanding of students, then the active learning environment entails greater demands on
the instructor.
The ASPEN approach to “active learning for Asia” has been to focus on how the “active
learning” strategy can be implemented within the two constraints often found in developing
Asian countries:
• poor infrastructure and equipment resources
• static and centrally-controlled curriculum.
With these constraints in mind we have concentrated our efforts (though not exclusively)
on the development of suitable Interactive Lecture Demonstrations (ILDs) to supplement
traditional lectures. These ILDs can be either computer based or non-computer based
depending on the equipment resources of the university, but must always stimulate “active
learning” amongst the students. At ASPEN we would hope that the successful
11
development of “active learning” activities relies more on the mental resourcefulness of the
instructor than on the physical resources of his or her physics department.
Implementation of Active Learning Ideas in an Introductory Electronics Unit
As an example of the development and use of a set of “active learning” ILDs in a
traditional lecture environment, I shall discuss one of the introductory electronics units
which I coordinate at Swinburne University in Australia. This unit is taken by a total of
approximately 400 students divided into three parallel lecture groups. A different lecturer
(of which I am one) teaches each of the groups. Because the three groups all sit the same
exam the syllabus is very well defined and must be rigorously adhered to for equity reasons.
Last year, I rewrote my lecture notes as Microsoft PowerPoint slides, and published the
notes in electronic form on Swinburne’s intranet and also in booklet form. As the students
now no longer need to take down detailed notes in class, the set syllabus (delivered in the
traditional passive lecture format to a class of over 100 students) can be covered in a much
shorter time. This meant that some of the free lecture time could be used for other
activities that help consolidate learning.
My aim is to use these activities (in a lecture hall environment) to improve students’
conceptual understanding while at the same time generating more student motivation and
participation. The latter point is very important as a reasonable proportion of the students
in my group (ie those studying civil or production engineering, computer science etc.) are
not particularly interested in, or see the relevance of, electronics. In this course, I introduce
ILDs to supplement the existing “passive learning” traditional lectures. These are
organized as a number of 2-hour “summary” interactive lecture demonstrations (SILDs)
that are presented at the end of each major topic section. In all 10 contact hours are
devoted to SILDs, which represents nearly 30% of the total time allocated to lectures.
The SILDs are run in the “predict, observe, explain” format with students in the lecture hall
collaborating in groups of 2 or 3. Active discussion (both within groups and to the whole
class) is actively encouraged. The philosophy is to show demonstrations that are based on
the topics that have been covered in lectures but to present them in a novel and unexpected
way. The particular examples chosen are not important in themselves but are meant to give
students feedback on their level of understanding and to motivate them to actively engage
with the topic under discussion.
Wherever possible real lecture demonstrations are used, and these are certainly very
popular. But lecture demonstration video clips and electronic simulations are also useful,
when using a real lecture demonstration is not feasible.
Table 2 shows the responses to a student questionnaire taken near the end of the course. As
can be seen, the SILDs seem to be a very worthwhile addition to the traditional lectures.
Almost all the class thought that the SILDs provided good feedback and helped them
consolidate their understanding. Around 80% of the class agreed that SILDs were more
interesting, and got them more involved, than conventional lectures. About 70% of the
class agreed that the SILDs helped motivate them and created an environment where they
could discuss their ideas. 65% of students found that SILDs were more useful in explaining
12
concepts than conventional lectures. 76% of students actually wanted more SIDLs instead
of traditional lectures in the course!
On the question of whether SILDs that used computer simulations were as good as those
that used real demonstrations, 50% agreed whereas 28% disagreed. This signifies that
certainly real demonstrations should always be the preferred option for interactive lecture
demonstrations but computer simulations or video clips are acceptable if the alternative is
not feasible.
Table 2 Questionnaire results for Summary Interactive Lecture Demonstrations
Introductory Electronics
SILDs provide good feedback on how well I
understand the conventional lecture material
SILDs help me consolidate my understanding
of the conventional lecture material
SILDs are more interesting than
conventional lecture material*
SILDs are more useful in explaining concepts
than conventional lectures*
SILDs get me more involved
than conventional lectures
I would like more SILDs in the lecture course*
SILDs give me the opportunity of
discussing my ideas with other students
SILDs motivate me to learn more
than conventional lectures*
SILDs that use computer simulations are as
good as those that use real demonstrations
strongly disagree disagree neither
agree strongly agree
0
0
3.4
79.4
17.2
0
0
3.4
75.9
20.7
0
1.7
19
53.4
25.9
1.7
10.3
22.4
43.2
22.4
0
5.2
5
5.2
11.9
14
69.5
54.4
13.6
21.2
3.4
5.2
22.4
53.4
15.6
0
10.3
19
53.4
17.3
6.8
20.7
22.4
46.7
3.4
*In the survey, these questions were originally worded in the negative sense, but for clarity have
been presented here in the positive sense
Some examples (computer based and non-computer based) of SILDs used in my
introductory electronics unit at Swinburne University will be discussed in this seminar.
These SILDs demonstrate fundamental principles from “electricity and magnetism”,
“simple DC circuits”, “RC and RL circuits” and “operational amplifiers”. These examples
will include a discussion of the demonstrations used, how the SILDs are presented and
student predictions of what will happen in the demonstrations.
References
1) http://www.swin.edu.au/physics/aspen/
2) D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, “Force Concept Inventory”, The Physics
Teacher, 30, pp. 141-151, 1992.
3) D.R. Sokoloff and R.K. Thornton, "Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to Create
an Active Learning Environment", The Physics Teacher, 35, p. 340, 1997.
4) L.C. McDermott, “Research on Conceptual Understanding in Mechanics”, Physics
Today, pp. 24-32, July 1984.
13
5) M.C. Alarcon, “Recent Innovations in University Introductory Physics Teaching”,
AAPPS Bull., 9(2), p.23, 1999.
6) E. F. Redish, “ New Models of Physics Instruction Based on Physics Education
Research”, Proceedings of the Deustchen Physikalischen Gesellschaft Jena Conference,
1996.
7) 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, p. 64,
1998
8) Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B., “Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college
classroom”, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1993.
9) P.W. Laws, "Promoting Active Learning Based on Physics Education Research in
Introductory Physics Courses", Am. J. Phys., 65, p. 14, 1997.
14