EF03: Large Lecture Theater
In-Seat Experiments for
Introductory Physics
Daniel L MacIsaac, SUNY Buffalo State
College Physics
(716) 878-3802
macisadl@buffalostate.edu
Abstract and Notes
I present and discuss examples of short qualitative and quantitative hands-on
activities for teaching introductory mechanics, electrostatics and optics.
These activities are designed to provide students with direct experience to
physics phenomena and to support student discourse and investigation of
phenomena within the many restrictions of a lecture setting.
URLs:
This Talk: http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/pubs/AAPTmtgs/
Seat Expts: http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/SeatExpts/index/
Whiteboards: http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/AZTEC/BP_WB/
This project was supported by the National Science Foundation through ACEPT (Arizona
Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers), and the US Department of
Education through AZTEC (Arizona Teacher Excellence Coalition).
My students (all preservice science teachers) who have contributed to the development of Seat
Experiments, taking pictures, videotaping and transcribing include: Tom Thompson, Amber
Cline, Heather Chlup, Nathan Marler, Nathan Davis, Tom Doran, Cherie Church, and
especially Chris Ackerley. Many of my students have provided patient, insightful comment.
Earlier versions of this presentation were given at the University of Helsinki, Finland in Nov,
1998 and the NSF CETP conference Mar, 2000 with their support.
The Problem
• Traditional lectures are far less-than-optimally effective at teaching physics
to nonmajors:
• students sit passively back (are not actively engaged) and take notes while
the instructor regurgitates the text (they watch the movie)
• for non-mechanics topics, students have little or no concrete experience with
most of the phenomena treated during the course (no clue)
• on tests and exams students cram and regurgitate material with little
understanding or experience with collusion by texts (vocabulary and chant:
coil vs. solenoid, N3)
• students work in isolation in a competitive, individualistic atmosphere (fine
for majors?)
• students are often very apprehensive (alienated; feel alone -- perhaps linked
to mathematics preparation)
• lecture practice (derivations and demos) does not match test and exam goals
(problem solving)
• students are highly grade-driven (not intrinsically motivated)
Seat Experiments
• short, concrete, just-in-time phenomenological activities carried out in the
seats of a large lecture theatre at pedagogically appropriate moments in
regular physics lectures.
• activities are between five and twenty minutes in duration and all involve
cooperative work in groups of 3 students.
• written qualitative and quantitative questions must be discussed and
answered by the group and turned in on a single sheet of paper.
• group members have assigned rotating roles: scribe, mechanic, critic. Group
dynamics are very important -- groups "dance."
• students share group grades for activities; activities are reiterated/expanded
on exams.
• experiments are chosen to introduce phenomena and anchor cooperative
group discussion in concrete experience (particularly lacking in introductory
electrical, magnetic and optical phenomena).
Examples of Seat Experiments and
Whiteboards
• Introductory courses
(http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/SeatExpts/index/)
• Geometric Optics
– Diverging Lenses
• Kinematics
– Kinematics and the Coin Toss
• Dynamics
– The Angle of Repose
• Measurement hints:
• Each major square of graph paper is 1” or 2.54cm
• A dollar bill is 6.16” or 15.6cm
hi  di
M

ho
do
1  di
 do
M

 di 
2
do
2
1 1 1
 
f di do
1 2 1
1
 
    f   do
f do do
do
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Instructor Commentary
• Instructor assessment has gone through the roof (high payoff / effort);
students try to stay past the end of lecture (have to be run out of the room videotape).
• Students claim "...this is my most fun class," "...I'm amazed to see how
organized / how much we get done in a single lecture..." "I never check the
clock in class and am often surprised when it ends..."
• Grading loads are managed by a very coarsely-grained 0 –5 pt system. The
first four points are given for thorough conscientious work, last 1 for
correctness (after student feedback). Complete/correct solutions are posted
for exam study. The idea is fast, easy and frequent feedback (helps
attendance, too!)
• Students perform an activity at least every 2nd lecture. Time to observe,
diagram, discuss, report and debrief these activities in lecture time is
significant and must be managed. Loss of topical breadth reviewing the
commercial text material is made up by either a weekly written summary of
the text material or by taking an electronically-offered test. Fewer topics are
treated in greater depth via Seat Experiments -- "less IS more!"
Student Commentary
• Student feedback to seat activities in general has been extremely supportive
and nearly all students claim or support claims that the activities are insightful,
motivational, memorable and enjoyable. Students routinely claim seat
experiments are concrete, hands-on, based in real-life situations and help put
their knowledge together.
• If the course were to change and I could only retain one aspect that would be
the seat experiments because they make the lecture come together in a
concrete way rather than having me leave class with a bunch of abstract
material floating around in my head.
• The seat experiments seemed very helpful to me because they were purposely
vague and they applied the concepts to real life. I liked them because they took
real life objects and situations and applied physics to them. Secondly they
required a more in depth understanding than just an equation.
• I enjoy most of the Seat Experiments because they give you a hands on
approach to what we are learning and helps visualize our concepts. The
Experiments test our knowledge, but since they are in class, we can get help if
we don't understand them. I like the magnetic field seat experiment because by
playing with the magnet we could see the direction and magnitude of the B
field.
Student Commentary
• Other student feedback themes include:
– seat activities provide a mean to keep motivation, concentration and interest
through long lectures
– activities make you prepare more/read ahead better for class
– group dynamics (guidance, makeup, changing, size) are critical to success
– grading and evaluation are concerns as are time constraints
– debriefing is critical, seat activities can be frustrating
• A Dissenting Student Comments:
Seat experiments are the stupidest thing I've ever had to deal with. I feel like
the instructor is basically too lazy to lecture and actually teach us the stuff, so
he has us "teach ourselves." The seat experiments are vague in instructions
and when we ask for help my group is always just given more and more
questions by whoever is helping us.
I would dispose of the seat experiments if I could get rid of anything in the
class. I cannot stress exactly how stupid and inane I find these things to be.
They waste my time, confuse me more and make me want to run screaming
from the room every time we do one.
Whiteboarding (Seat Problems)
•
Groups of three students are given whiteboards and markers and asked to answer
conceptual problems in
5 - 20 minutes.
•
Whiteboards are collected and coarsely group graded, related problems are given on
exams and homework.
•
Whiteboard problems are typically modified from curricular materials written by Arons
(1997), Laws et al (1997), Knight (1996) and Mazur (1996).
•
My large-group variants from Hestenes' high school instruction:
•
student discourse is anchored in the collaborative construction of solutions to abstract
problems on their whiteboards rather than focused on real apparatus;
•
no round-robin group presentation is made at the end, though groups may be called
upon during an instructor-led debriefing.
Student Commentary
• Students claim whiteboards promote collaboration allowing the whole group to
find mistakes in one another's reasoning, to teach (and learn from) one another,
and to jointly practice problem solving strategies.
• It also makes it easier for students to work together, not just one student
working on one sheet of paper. They are valuable to my learning. The
figuring out parallel resistors experiment was the most productive because the
entire team was involved in finding out answers.
• The white board force students to participate in active and in depth thinking.
Also by working in groups, you can share knowledge with one another. Or last
white board showed us the the magnetic field work with equations and
reiterated the right hand rules.
• White boards are just as helpful as experiments. Even though they are not
hands on I like being able to talk about the concepts with classmates and have
some extra practice at solving problems. Drawing things out is very helpful to
me in remembering how things such as electric and magnetic fields work.
• …it's nice to be able to work with people and talk about the things we are
learning. It helps to see that other people are confused too, and we can help
each other out.
Bibliography
Arons, A.B. (1997). Teaching introductory physics. Wiley: NY.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The Two Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group
Instruction as
Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4-16.
Chabay, R.W. & Sherwood, B.A. (1995). Electric and magnetic interactions. Wiley: NY.
Hake, R. R. (1996). Evaluating conceptual gains in mechanics: A six-thousand-student
survey of test data. Proceedings of the third international conference on undergraduate
physics education, College Park, MD.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousandstudent survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American
Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
Hake, R.R. (1992). Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab. Physics Teacher, 30,
546-552.
Hallouin, I.A. & Hestenes, D. (1987). Modeling instruction in mechanics. American Journal
of Physics, 55, 455-462.
Heller, P., Keith,R. & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative
grouping, Part 1: Group vs. individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics,
60, 627-636.
Bibliography
Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M., (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative
grouping, Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of
Physics, 60, 637-644.
Hestenes, D. (1996). Modeling methodology for physics teachers. Proceedings of the third
international conference on undergraduate physics education, College Park, MD.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the
college classroom. Interaction Book Co: Edina, MN.
Knight, R. (1997). Physics: A contemporary perspective. Addison-Wesley:NY
Sokoloff, D.R., Laws, P. & Thornton, R.K. (1998). Real-Time Physics. Wiley: NY.
Laws, P. (1991). Calculus-based physics without lectures. Physics Today, 44(12) 24-31.
Laws, P. (1995). Workshop physics activity guide. Wiley: NY.
Laws, P. (1989). Workshop physics: Replacing lectures with real experience. Proceedings
of the conference on computers in physics instruction,, 22-32. Addison-Wesley:
Reading, MA.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Prentice-Hall: NY.
Piaget, J. and Garcia, R. (1989). (H. Feider, Trans.). Psychogenesis and the history of
science. Cambridge: NY.
Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning, 2Ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bibliography
Thornton, R. K. (1989). Tools for scientific thinking: Learning physical concepts with realtime laboratory measurement tools. Proceedings of the conference on computers in
physics instruction,, 177-189. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D.R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time
microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58, 898-867.
Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D.R. (1995, preprint). >Assessing and improving student
learning of Newton's Laws part II: Microcomputer-based interactive lecture
demonstrations for the first and second laws.
<http://www.tufts.edu/as/cmst/research.html>
Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Overview case study physics. American Journal of Physics, 59,
898-907.
Van Heuvelen, A. (1995). Experiment problems for mechanics. Physics Teacher, 33, 176180.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). (Revised and edited, A. Kozulin). Thought and language. MIT:
Cambridge.
Wells, M., Hestenes, D. & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school
physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 64, 114-119.
Zollman, D. (1995). Millikan Lecture 1995: Do they just sit there? Reflections on helping
students learn physics. American Journal of Physics, 63, 606-619.