Lab 1 Literature Survey Example
*
( * not the same topic, but follow the format)
The core ideas of thirteen articles have been summarized in the following.
1.
Roeder, John L. (2003) Physics First— First Conference Held at Cornell. Retrieved
September 26, 2006, from Cornell University, Laboratory for Elementary-Particle Physics
website:
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/public/outreach/WS/Exploring%20Physics%20First/Roeder%2
0Physics%20First%20summary.pdf#search=%22teach%20physics%20to%20weak%20mat
h%22
The first article is actually a summary of a conference held at Cornell called “Physics First”
in 2003. Cornell University LEPP is taking an active role in supporting the Physics for All
("Physics First") movement in public schools throughout New York State. The purpose of
the conference is to put physics back to the science curriculum and should be introduced as
the first science course in 9th grade. Though “physics first” is not my major concern in my
current research, the conference did address some important issues in teaching physics,
including the relation between mathematics and physics. One of the conference participants
Mr. Vanacore said that “physics cannot be taught at any level without mathematics –
physics is where the mathematics meets the road." (Roeder, 2003) which quite match my
own feelings. He continued to say that the “role as a physics teacher is to create a
mathematical framework for his students to understand the world.” (Roeder, 2003) which is
the same as what I think that students need to think through the mathematics. The article
continues to describe the development of two different tracks for learning physics—
“computational and conceptual”. (Roeder, 2003) Computational track is designed for “mathminded” 9th grade students, while conceptual track is designed for 9th grade students who are
frustrated about math. Since my students are 11th grade students who have been screened,
they should have enough background to take the “computational track”.
2.
Watanabe,T., McGinnis, J. R., & Huntley, M. A. (1995) Integrating Mathematics and
Science in Undergraduate Teacher Education Programs: Faculty Voices from the Maryland
Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. Retrieved from the Maryland Collaborative for
Teacher Preparation website:
http://www.towson.edu/csme/mctp/Research/RCDPM.html
The second article is to report findings from studying MCTP college instructors' perceptions
about mathematics and science. Try to answer questions such as “how these disciplines
relate to each other?” and “what are the efforts to teach mathematics or science with an
emphasis on connections between these disciplines?” (Watanabe, McGinnis & Huntley,
1995) The MCTP (Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation) is an “NSF funded
project attempting to create teacher education programs to prepare special mathematics and
science teachers in the middle grades.” (Watanabe, McGinnis & Huntley, 1995)
This paper consists of three sections. The section which related to my research the most is
the third one— the findings from the first two years of an on-going longitudinal study.
The most common conclusion held by most of the science instructors is “that I would take
as a scientist, math as a tool to be used...” Math is a useful tool for science, which is my
basic assumption.
In addition to my main concern about teaching physics, there are bonus effects which can be
added to my proposal. Integrate math and physics can motivate students to learn math.
1
“Science can not only provide motivation for the development of mathematics as a
discipline through problems they pose, but it can also motivate individual students in their
learning of mathematics.” (Watanabe, McGinnis & Huntley, 1995)
3.
Barlow, Rich (1999, July 18) Dartmouth Project Seeks To Integrate Math Teaching. Valley
News. Retrieved from Dartmouth College Department of Mathematics website:
http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/PressReleases/ValleyNews7.18.99.html
The third article is from a newsletter report that by “realizing that math is the link between
many layers of academia, the federal National Science Foundation awarded Dartmouth $4
million to spread math instruction across disciplines and at campuses across the country.”
(Barlow, 1999) The federal government actually gave out $4 million to Dartmouth to
promote math across disciplines simply because math is so important. This math my basic
believe that we should not eliminate math from physics.
4.
Redish , E. F., Scherr, R. E., and Tuminaro, J. (2006) Reverse engineering the solution of a
“simple” physics problem: Why learning physics is harder than it looks. Retrieved from the
University of Maryland Physics Education Research Group website:
www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/redish/RevEngPre.pdf
The fourth article is a research report based on a group of students of college physics class
in University of Maryland. Since the time required for students to solve a simple physics
problem is almost two orders of magnitude longer than a typical teacher! The research was
trying to find out what students were doing during the problem solving process. A group of
students were video taped while they were solving the problem, and the tape was analyzed
in detail and the problem solving process was summarized.
“First, we observe that students tend to solve problems by working in locally coherent
activities in which they use only a limited set of the knowledge that they could in principle
bring to bear on the problem.” (Redish, Scherr & Tuminaro, 2006) There are four major
steps in solving the physics problems.
1)
2)
3)
4)
Physical mechanism: Understanding the physical situation.
Pictorial analysis: Drawing a picture.
Mapping mathematics to meaning: Identifying the relevant physics.
Mapping meaning to mathematics: Translating conceptual understanding into
mathematical formalism.
The analysis shows two things. First, “even simple physics problems are difficult for
novices. There are many conceptual and technical subtleties to physics problems that
experts tend to forget about because they are so familiar with these subtleties that they don’t
notice them.” This conclusion is pretty much matching my motivation to conduct my own
research. Second, what we may at first judge to be poor student problem- solving behavior
may actually be very good behavior.” (Redish, Scherr & Tuminaro, 2006)
5.
Maloney, D. P. (December 1997) Problem Solving and Learning Physics. FEd December
1997 Newsletter. Retrieved from the American Physical Society’s website:
http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/dec97/problem.cfm
The fifth article is to report findings from studying the physics education. It has shown that
“having students solve traditional textbook problems is of limited usefulness in helping
them learn the concepts, principles and relations.” “Modifying how traditional problems are
done, or modifying the problem format has been shown, in certain cases, can produce better
outcomes for conceptual understanding.” (Maloney, 1997) This article takes a step further to
clarify that just having some problems to solve may not help students, because students
2
tended to find a formula and then blindly plug and chug without further analysis. This
confirmed that the teaching of proper problem solving skills through proper problem format
is the key to succeed in physics learning.
The physics education research has shown that students can succeed in physics courses,
even those which require significant problem solving, without showing any growth in
reasoning skills or the development of a coherent conceptual framework. So, the author
looked into the problem solving process to identify the reason behind it and also looked for
alternative methods to improve the effectiveness.
The way experts solving problems follows the “knowledge development model” which
worked from the given information to the goal of the problem. While novices solving
problems follows the “means-end” method, which starts with the goal of the problem and
worked backwards to the given information. The means-end analysis is counter-productive
for learning the physics concepts, principles and relations that underlie the problem solving
with understanding.
Alternative approaches to problems and problem solving are investigated.
1) Multiple representation problem solving: Students will solve problems using sequences
of representation, such as everyday sketch of the problem situation, physics sketch (a
free-body diagram, an electric field map, a lens diagram, etc.), relevant equations,
answer calculation, and comments about what they have learned in solving the problem.
2) Qualitative strategy problem solving: The strategies contain three components:
i.
identification of the appropriate concepts, principles, and relations that apply to
the problem;
ii.
a reasonable and appropriate explanation of why they apply; and
iii.
a description of how they apply.
3) Spiral physics problem solving: Students are not asked to find any specific numeric
value. In stead, students must analyze the situation, determine what is happening, and
essentially find all major values associated with the situation.
6.
Blosser, Patricia E. (1988) Teaching Problem Solving--Secondary School Science.
ERIC/SMEAC Science Education Digest No. 2, 1988. Retrieved from the
ERICDIGESTS.ORG website: http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9212/problem.htm
The sixth article is about the problem solving research. “Research in physics has gone in
two directions: information processing research concerned with observable and measurable
steps in problem solving and research in constructing solutions in which investigators are
concerned with the internal cognitive processes that result in these steps” (Blosser, 1988) So
far, most of the articles are just doing conceptual discussion without implementation
examples. I’d like to explore more problem solving research reports to get practical
recommendations on how to implement the training of problem solving skills.
7.
Toback , D., Mershin, A., and Novikova, I. (2006) A Program for Integrating Math and
Physics Internet-Based Teaching Tools into Large University Physics Courses. Retrieved
from the Cornell University Library website:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0505/0505026.pdf
3
The seventh article summarized an integrated math and physics internet-based system (the
math subsystem is called AMES) which was implemented for large university physics
courses. The article is quite interesting because one of the main purposes of the system
exactly matched what I am trying to do— providing math remediation for students with
poor math skills.
There is strong correlation between math skills and physics learning. Students “must
become adept at turning the physical quantities into symbolic variables, translating the
problem into equations, and turning the crank on the mathematics to find both a closed-form
solution and a numerical answer.” (Toback, Mershin & Novikova, 2006)
The system provided a series of math quizzes. The system followed Mastery Learning
(repetition until achieving a certain score) and Precision Teaching (repetition until
achieving a predominated number of correct answers per unit time) models. Students need
to score a perfect 100% on each quiz within the allotted time in order to move on to the next
quiz. The math quizzes need to be taken during the first week of the semester.
Each quiz includes at least one problem from the following areas:
1) one-variable algebraic expressions;
2) systems of equations in two variables;
3) quadratic equations and identities;
4) geometry and trigonometry including vectors;
5) fractions, numbers, exponents, powers of ten;
6) word problems and proportionalities; and
7) differentiation and integration.
“Instructors using the system have reported a marked decrease in student complaints about
difficulty following simple mathematical steps and have noticed an increased general
readiness for exams.” (Toback, Mershin & Novikova, 2006)
8.
Warnakulasooriya, Rasil and Pritchard, David E. (2005) Learning and Problem-solving
Transfer between Physics Problems using Web-based Homework Tutor. Conference
Proceedings: EdMedia -World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia &
Telecommunications Vol. 2005, 2005, pp. 2976-2983. Retrieved from MIT RELATE
program website:
http://relate.mit.edu/timea.pdf#search=%22%22learning%20and%20problem%20solving%2
0transfer%22%22
The eighth article is to report the findings from a web-based physics homework tutor system
(MasteringPhysics) implemented in MIT. Though this system did not focus on the math
alone, their findings provided a confirmation of the effectiveness of the web-based system.
“With the requestable hints, descriptive text and feedback, twice as many students were able
to complete problems correctly in real time compared to problems that did not provide any
help.” (Warnakulasooriya & Pritchard, 2005)
Students solving physics problems can be classified into three distinctive groups:
1) Quick Responders: These students typically do not request any help (hints) or submit
wrong answers. They solved problems within 2.5 minutes.
2) Real Time Solvers: These students made mistakes and asked for help. They solved
problems between 2.5 minutes and 2.2 hours.
3) Delayed Solvers: These students requested help and submitted wrong answers. They
solved problems after 2.2 hours.
4
9. Risley, John. (2001) Motivating Students to Learn Physics Using an Online Homework
System. APS FORUM on EDUCATION Fall 2001 Newsletter. Retrieved from the American
Physics Society website:
http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/fall2001/pdf/ris.pdf#search=%22motivating%20stud
ents%20to%20learn%20physics%22
The ninth article is about the online physics homework system (WebAssign) at North
Carolina State University (NCSU). It delivers, collects, scores, and records student work. The
system included questions from many leading publishers. The article pointed out the benefits
of an online system is to motivate students to interact with physics concepts, and make sure
students’ involvement through automatic grading. According to the author, “we have seen
that it saves time while motivating students to do the work.” (Risley, 2001)
10. Batlle, C., Rinzema, K., and Bruijn, I. (2000) Training Mathematical Skills for Physics by
Means of a Web-Based Tool. Retrieved from 2000 Second European Conference on physics
teaching in engineering education website: http://www.bme.hu/ptee2000/papers/martin.pdf
The tenth article described the needs of mathematical skills for physics students which
exactly the same as mine. “Although most of the concepts and skills are taught in the
mathematics’ courses, students do not learn how to apply them to physical problems.” and
“In a regular physics course, lecturers have no time to train these skills and concepts because
the specific subject matter for the course is already large enough.” (Batlle, Rinzema & Bruijn,
2000) The authors pointed out that a web-based computer assisted course could supply the
extra teaching that most students require. The solution the authors tried to provide is identical
to what I am going to do except their target was college physics students and mine is high
school physic students.
The design of the tool is the most critical part in order to get positive learning effect. The tool
is based on HTML, adding the intelligent behavior by means of JavaScript. Maple V5 on the
server side is used to evaluate symbolic answers. Students’ answers are registered in an MS
Access database, by means of ODBC technology. The development process is a high time
consuming process. And all the technical work behind such courseware should not be
underestimated.
By studying the performance the courseware can be improved, and new misunderstandings
could be detected, which could lead to the development of new exercises. Since the tool is
web-based, the system can be easily updated, and there is no need for a distribution network.
However, computer training should be seen as a complement, and not as a substitute of a
teacher. Some process such as linking concepts cannot be substitute by computer.
When the tool was used on voluntary basis, the study showed that mainly good students did
the exercises. Weak students saw these exercises as an extra task, but not as a learning tool.
Tow tests were given, before and after the tool was implemented. The test results for two
consecutive years, with and without the tool, were also compared.
11. Pritchard, D. E., and Warnakulasooriya, R. (2005) Data from a Web-based Homework Tutor
can predict Student’s Final Exam Score. Conference Proceedings: EdMedia -World
5
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications Vol. 2005,
2005, pp. 2523-2529. Retrieved from MIT RELATE program website:
http://relate.mit.edu/finalpred.pdf
With web-based learning tool, students’ learning data such as time on task, number of
requested hints, and number of wrong answers given en route to the solution are available to
the teachers that are unavailable in traditional methods of instruction. Those information can
serve the following purposes:
1) To identify and develop more reliable (less measurement error) measures of a student’s
skill.
2) Develop measures to identify students who engage in intellectual dishonesty in webbased homework.
3) Predict students’ performance on high stakes exams based on skill measures developed.
The difficulty (D) of problems for a given student as determined by the time to first correct
response (t), the number of incorrect responses without advice (ina), and the hints (h) have
high reliability (96%).
D = 0.025*t + 0.248*ina + h,
For final exam score prediction, an item difficulty can be used to construct an item
discrimination measure () that would result in predicting with a correlation of 0.634.
Predicted final score = 0.474*T-2.2 – 0.037*s – 0.548*pfr-2.3 – 0.409*disca=2 +
0.632.
where s is solution requests; T is time to completion of a multiple-part problem; pfr is the
fraction of problems completed in 2.5 minutes; disc is the discrimination index.
High precision assessment is feasible with the data available from student interaction with the
internet learning tool (MasterPhysics).
12. Hart, D., Woolf, B., Roberta D., Beatrice B., and William V. (1999) OWL: An Integrated
Web-based Learning Environment. Retrieved from the Center for Educational Software
Development, University of Massachusetts OWL project website:
http://ccbit.cs.umass.edu/owl/pages/publications/MSET99.doc
Basic OWL (Online Web-based Learning) provides a powerful electronic homework model
used by thousands of students each semester. OWL’s open architecture allows for extensions
that expand its scope from the delivery of straightforward electronic quizzing to the offering
of a richer interactive learning environment.
Since the grading becomes automatically, TA requirements were halved while the amount of
graded homework for each student increased nine times over the previous, non-OWL
semester. The electronic homework afforded the opportunity to change the quiz/homework
model at the same time. Because the computer grades automatically, students could take and
retake “quizzes” repeatedly until they demonstrated mastery of each topic.
6
After the implementation, though there is no grade improvement, the real gains were seen in
students’ affective responses – surveys showed that students overwhelmingly preferred the
new approach. There were of course big gains in the cost efficiency of delivering the course.
Given that the new model saved resources, was preferred by students, and did not negatively
impact student performance, it was well accepted.
Basic OWL runs in Windows NT and uses straightforward Common Gateway Interface
programming written in C++. It uses the Netscape’s Enterprise Webserver and Microsoft’s
SQL Server database program. Students and content authors (instructors, teaching assistants)
can access OWL using the latest versions of Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer.
13. Greene, R. L. (2001) Physics Illuminations: Supplementing Instruction via Web-Based SelfStudy. The Physics Teacher, 39, 356-360 (2001). Retrieved from the Physics Illuminations
Project website: http://rlgreene.org/rlg/illum-tpt.pdf
Nationwide, a large majority of students are leaving their introductory physics courses with
little understanding of the basic concepts of physics.
Since computer-aided instruction users can control many features of their own education
process such as the pace and the duration of learning, and students’ social setting while
learning physics. On the other hand, students who learn better in a social setting can use the
computer in pairs or threes. All students can benefit from the interactivity and immediacy of a
well-designed computer-aided educational system compared to other learning tools.
Students were assigned many of the Illuminations for homework by the author. Some of the
applets keep running scores; these scores were recorded by a simple CGI program, and
formed part of their quiz grade.
There are many programs offered under the Physics Academic Software banner and
simulation software produced by several of the textbook publishers appear to be very good,
although very little of it has been subjected to formal assessment of its effectiveness.
Furthermore, the substantial cost of most of this software makes it unrealistic for institutions
to obtain sufficient licenses for the typically large numbers of students taking introductory
physics at any given time, or for many students to purchase their own copies for home study.
Computer-aided supplementary instruction can be a valuable means to help students lean
important physical concepts through more productive use of their out-of-class study time.
Physics Illuminations is freely-available, automatically –graded, conceptually-oriented.
7