Teaching and Learning Bucket Model: Experimented with Mechanics Baseline Test
Kizito Ndihokubwayo
,
Pascasie Nyirahabimana
,
Théophile Musengimana
Mechanics, as a large part of physics, shows the most basic concepts we encounter in our daily lives. With this regard, we implemented the mechanics b.
- Pub. date: April 15, 2021
- Pages: 525-536
- 1047 Downloads
- 1635 Views
- 6 Citations
Mechanics, as a large part of physics, shows the most basic concepts we encounter in our daily lives. With this regard, we implemented the mechanics baseline test (MBT) to the University of Rwanda - College of Education before and after the teaching mechanics module to track students learning. About 38 students participated in this study. We found the instructional strategies used to fit in a model we named "teaching and learning bucket" (lecturer backing and learners owning learning) during data analysis. The results showed that the performance occurred only in 12 out of 26 MBT items at a p<.001, and Cohen's D effect size of 1.26. Such analysis also allowed us to identify areas of mechanics that need teaching improvement, such as (a) constant acceleration, (b) average velocity, (c) the first law of Newton, (d) work and energy, and (e) energy conservation. There was also a positive correlation (r=0.58) between students' confidence in answering questions and correct answers provided and vice versa. Therefore, the research significantly informs lecturers to use various teaching approaches to effectively employ the teaching and learning bucket (TLB) model.
Keywords: Mechanics, TLB model, MBT, URCE students.
References
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267-272.
Baziruwiha, & Ntivuguruzwa. (2011). Module PHY101: Mechanics. Kigali Insitute of Education.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
Caballero, M. D., Greco, E. F., Murray, E. R., Bujak, K. R., Marr, M. J., & Catrambone, R. (2012). Comparing large lecture mechanics curricula using the Force Concept Inventory: A five thousand student study. American Journal of Physics, 80(70) 638-644. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3703517
Cardamone, C. N., Abbott, J. E., Rayyan, S., Seaton, D. T., Pawl, A., & Pritchard, D. E. (2012, February). Item response theory analysis of the mechanics baseline test. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1413(1). 135-138. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3680012
Crouch, F. C. H., Adam, P., Callan, J. P., & Mazur, E. (2004). Classroom demonstrations: learning tools or entertainment? American Journal of Physics, 72(6), 835-838. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1707018
Eijkelhof, H. M. C. (2011). The impact of interactive-engagement (IE) teaching on students understanding of concepts in mechanics : The use of force concept inventory (FCI) and mechanics baseline test (MBT). International Journal of Educational Planning & Administration, 1(1), 81–90.
Formica, S. P., Easley, J. L., & Spraker, M. C. (2010). Transforming common-sense beliefs into Newtonian thinking through Just-In-Time Teaching. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020106
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Hake, R. R. (1998). 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. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Hestenes, D., & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343498
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. 30(3), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
Jackson, J. (2003). Force concept inventory and mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 41(4), 254–254. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1564517
Mashood, K. K., & Singh, V. A. (2012a). An inventory on rotational kinematics of a particle : Unravelling misconceptions and pitfalls in reasoning. European Journal of Physics, 33(5), 1301–1312. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/33/5/1301
Mashood, K. K., & Singh, V. A. (2012b). Rotational kinematics of a particle in rectilinear motion: Perceptions and pitfalls. American Journal of Physics, 80(8), 720–723. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4721641
Mashood, K. K., & Singh, V. A. (2013). Large-scale studies on the transferability of general problem-solving skills and the pedagogic potential of physics. Physics Education, 48(5), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/48/5/629
Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249
Mazur, E., & Hilborn, R. C. (1997). Peer Instruction: A user’s manual. American Journal of Physics, 67(4), 359-360. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19265
Morote, E., & Pritchard, D. E. (2009). What course elements correlate with improvement on tests in introductory Newtonian mechanics? American Journal of Physics, 77(8), 746–753. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3139533
Ndihokubwayo, K., Mugabo, R. L., & Byusa, E. (2019). Training strategies used in strenghening sompetence-based curriculum in Rwanda. Svietmas: Politika, Vadyba, Kokybe Education Policy, Management and Quality, 11(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/http://oaji.net/articles/2019/513-1576094162.pdf
Nsengimana, T., Rugema Mugabo, L., Hiroaki, O., & Nkundabakura, P. (2020). Reflection on science competence-based curriculum implementation in Sub-Saharan African countries. International Journal of Science Education, Part B. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2020.1778210
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
Rimoldini, L. G., & Singh, C. (2005). Student understanding of rotational and rolling motion concepts. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1),1-9. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010102
Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). The Force Concept Inventory: A tool for monitoring student learning. Physics Education, 37(1), 45-52
Sayer, R., Marshman, E., & Singh, C. (2016). Case study evaluating just-in-time teaching and peer instruction using clickers in a quantum mechanics course. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020133
Singh, C., & Rosengrant, D. (2013). Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1571832
Sokoloff, D. R. (2012). RealTime physics (RTP) active laboratory learning: Light and optics (Module 4). Wiley Publishing.
Tennyson, R. D., & Rasch, M. (1988). Linking cognitive learning theory to instructional prescriptions. Instructional Science, 17(4), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056222
Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 64(4), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18863
Vaara, R., Guilherme, D., & Sasaki, G. (2019). Teaching kinematic graphs in an undergraduate course using an active methodology mediated by video analysis. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 7(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.7.1.374
Valamis. (2020, December 5). Cognitive learning theory. Valamis. https://www.valamis.com/hub/cognitive-learning