Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Virtual Labs (was "No subject given")



In his 1/20/2000 Phys-L posting titled "No subject given," E.C.
Muehleisen writes:

"I have been re-enlisted to teach Physics at a 2-year tech college. There
are no lab facilities ...... I am proposing to set up a VIRTUAL LAB
utilizing the computer facilities ..... Thus far I am looking at
Pintarmedia and Interactive Physics." (my CAPS)

If "E.C.'s" goal is to enhance the conceptual understanding of
her/his students then s(he) might think twice about advisability of
setting up a "virtual lab" (an oxymoron?).

In a 5/16/99 PhysLrnR post "How Effective is 'Interactive Physics'?" I wrote:

"In attempting to comment on a physics-education research proposal
involving the use of Knowledge Revolution's(1) "Interactive Physics"
(IP), I did a superficial literature search. As far as that search
disclosed, even with all the talk about and use of IP ..... [see
e.g., the Phys-L archives at
<http://mailgate.nau.edu/archives/phys-l.html>]........ there's been
no rigorous testing to indicate its degree of effectiveness in
promoting conceptual understanding of mechanics! (Physicists
generally desert the scientific method when they engage in
undergraduate education.)"

To see this post (replete with references) and the ensuing discussion
go to the PhysLrnR archives
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>, click on
"Search the archives," and type "Interactive Physics" into the
subject slot to get 4 hits. (You will need to subscribe to PhysLrnR
to access the archives - instructions for so doing are at the
archives site.)

A research study by W-M. Roth et al.(2) on "Interactive Physics," of
which I had been unaware, was mentioned in a 5/17/99 post by Peg
Gjertsen in the PhysLrnR discussion noted above. Roth et al.
concluded that ".... while computer environments have some potential
as learning tools, they also limit interactions in significant ways,
rendering them less than ideal for everyday classroom use."

That conclusion is consistent with the comments of Hestenes(3):

"One of the most ambitious physics simulation packages is the heavily
marketed 'Interactive Physics' (1990). Its deficiencies are typical
of software in this tradition. It exhibits insensitivity to cognitive and
pedagogical issues and shows no trace of familiarity with CAI ...
(Computer Assisted Instruction).... and ITS ...(Intelligent Tutoring
Systems)... research. In short, it suffers from the lack of a theory
of software design...... The greatest deficiency of simulation software
like 'Interactive Physics' is that it fails to explicate (i.e., make
explicit) the structure of the underlying model that generates the
computer animations. Beyond that, it hardly begins to help students
develop coordinated modeling skills. For these reasons, 'Interactive
Physics' cannot be expected to improve physics instruction appreciably."

I think E.C. might consider, as an alternative to "virtual labs,"
REAL labs such as Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) labs.(4-8) SDI
labs usually require only the most elemental equipment (blocks of
wood, balls, string, springs, etc. - though some make use of IP-like
animations with guided discussions AFTER the students engage in steps
1-4 below). SDI labs were originally inspired by the work of
Arons(9), whose empirically-based ideas are consistent with much of
the recent work in cognitive science.(10)

In the mechanics portion of SDI Labs students collaborate in groups of four to:

1. Perform (often predict and then perform) simple hands-on
experiments involving a BODY at rest or in motion.

2. Draw "snapshot sketches" at sequential clock-readings showing (a)
color-coded vectors to indicate ALL the forces acting ON the BODY -
labeled as F on A by B, where A is the BODY and B is some other
interacting body; (b) color-coded velocity and acceleration vectors
"if they exist."

3. As the experiments proceed, discuss with other students and then
write down answers to questions that probe for reasoning skills and
basic conceptual understanding of Newton's laws. The question format
is such as to require rather complete explanations, justifications,
and/or sketches and not simply yes-or-no answers.

4. If stumped or confused on any of the above (after serious effort
and discussions with other students) engage in Socratic dialogue with
an instructor after signaling for help.

Over a ten-year period at Indiana University, SDI labs were
integrated into courses in which lectures, discussions, and exams
emphasized conceptual understanding and interactive engagement.
Lectures usually employed a standard textbook and back-of-chapter
problem assignments, and discussions were devoted to cooperative
group problem solving with Socratic guidance. The courses enrolled a
total of 1263 students (primarily pre-med and pre-health
professionals) and achieved an average normalized gain <g> = 0.60 on
the conceptual Halloun-Hestenes tests(11), considerably higher than
the average <g> = 0.47 of the other interactive-engagement courses
considered in my survey.(12)

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net> PLEASE NOTE NEW ADDRESSES!
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>

"One does not get anywhere simply by going over the successes again
and again, whereas by talking over the difficulties people can hope
to make some progress." Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac in "The Evolution
of the Physicist's Picture of Nature," Scientific American 208(5),
45-53 (1963). (My thanks to Len Jossem for this quotation.)


REFERENCES
1. Knowledge Revolution at <<http://www.krev.com/> and
<http://www.krev.com/products/ed_table.htm>.

2. W-M. Roth, C. Woszczyna, and G. Smith, "Affordances and
Constraints of Computers in Science Education," J. of Res. in Sci.
Teach. 33(9), 995-1017 (1996).

3. D. Hestenes, "Modeling Software for Learning and Doing Physics,"
in "Thinking Physics for Teaching," edited by Carlo Bernardini et al.
(Plenum Press, New York, 1995), p. 25-65.

4. R.R. Hake, "Promoting student crossover to the Newtonian world,"
Am. J. Phys. 55, 878-884(1987).

5. R.R. Hake, "Socratic Pedagogy in the Introductory Physics Lab,"
Phys. Teach. 30, 546-552(1992); an updated version is on the web at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>.

6. S. Tobias and R.R. Hake, "Professors as physics students: What
can they teach us?" Am. J. Phys. 56, 786-794 (1988).

7. SDI labs and ancillary materials are on the web at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi> and also at
<http://galileo.harvard.edu/> under "Hand-on Methods."

8. J.L. Uretsky, "Using 'Dialogue' Labs in a Community-College
Physics Course," Phys. Teach. 31(8), 478-481 (1993). Uretsky has
developed dialogue labs for E & M.

9. A.B. Arons, "A Guide To Introductory Physics Teaching" (Wiley,
1990); reprinted with minor updates in "Teaching Introductory
Physics" (Wiley, 1997). The latter book also contains "Homework and
Test Questions for Introductory Physics Teaching" (Wiley, 1994) along
with a new monograph "Introduction to Classical Conservation Laws."

10. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, R.R., Cocking, eds. "How People
Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School" (1999), Nat. Acad. Press,
1999); on the web at
<http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/enter2.cgi?0309065577.html>.

11. I. Halloun, and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of
college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043-1055(1985) -
contains the Mechanics Diagnostic test (the FCI progenitor); I.
Halloun and D. Hestenes "Common sense concepts about motion," Am. J.
Phys. 53, 1056-1065(1985); D. Hestenes, M. Wells, G. Swackhamer,
"Force Concept Inventory, "Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992); I.
Halloun, R.R. Hake, E.P. Mosca, D. Hestenes, "Force Concept Inventory
(revised, 1995),"password protected at
<http://modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling.html>.

12. R.R. Hake (all these are on the web as Adobe Acrobat Portable
Document Files at <http://physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>):

(a) "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74 (1998);

(b) "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics
courses," submitted on 6/19/98 to the "Physics Education Research
Supplement to AJP"(PERS); presents the tabulated data of ref. "a",
and discusses implementation problems which sometimes beset those who
attempt to use interactive engagement methods. (See the Dirac quote
in the above signature.)

(c) "Interactive-engagement vs Traditional Methods in Mechanics
Instruction," APS Forum on Education Newsletter, Summer 1998, p. 5-7
(counters some objections to "a" and physics-education research
generally - such as those recently raised by Tarara on Phys-L);

(d) R.R. Hake, "Towards Paradigm Peace in Physics Education
Research," accepted for presentation at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 24-28 April
2000. Lists recent research which is consistent with "a" and
discusses the complementarity of quantitative and qualitative
research in physics education.