Modeling Active Engagement Pedagogy through Classroom Response Systems in a Physics Teacher Education Course

One of the most commonly explored technologies in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education is Classroom Response Systems (clickers). Clickers help instructors generate in-class discussion by soliciting student responses to multiple-choice conceptual questions and sharing the distribution of these responses with the class. The potential benefits of clicker-enhanced pedagogy include: increased student engagement, reduced anxiety, continuous formative assessment, and enhanced conceptual understanding. Most studies, however, investigate the effects of clicker-enhanced instruction in large undergraduate STEM courses. The impact of this pedagogy on learning in small secondary or post-secondary classrooms is still relatively unexplored. The context of this study is a secondary physics methods course in a Teacher Education Program at a large Canadian university. One of the course assignments required future teachers to develop multiple-choice conceptual questions relevant to the secondary physics curriculum. This study investigates the impact of modeling clicker-enhanced active engagement pedagogy on future teachers’ Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge, as revealed by this assignment. The results of the study indicate that: (1) modeling clicker-enhanced pedagogy in a physics methods course increases future teachers’ interest in active learning; (2) clicker-enhanced pedagogy is a powerful vehicle for developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge of future physics teachers; (3) clicker-enhanced pedagogy is a useful tool for teacher educators for identifying and addressing the gaps in the Content Knowledge of future teachers. This study sheds light on developing future teachers’ capacities to design and implement instruction that is driven by conceptual questions in the presence or absence of technology and the impact of this process on their Pedagogical Content Knowledge and attitudes about conceptual STEM learning.

[1]  K. Free,et al.  Writing multiple-choice test items that promote and measure critical thinking. , 2001, The Journal of nursing education.

[3]  Carl E. Wieman,et al.  Applying New Research to Improve Science Education , 2012 .

[4]  Wendy K. Adams,et al.  Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure Learning of Expert‐Like Thinking , 2011 .

[5]  Richard C. Cox,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain. An Annotated Bibliography. , 1970 .

[6]  Ian D. Beatty,et al.  Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching , 2005, physics/0508114.

[7]  Noah D. Finkelstein,et al.  Expert and Novice Use of Multiple Representations During Physics Problem Solving , 2007 .

[8]  C. Wieman,et al.  Teaching Physics Using PhET Simulations. , 2010 .

[9]  Marina Milner-Bolotin,et al.  The effect of interactive lecture experiments on student academic achievement and attitudes towards physics , 2009 .

[10]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Farewell, Lecture? , 2009, Science.

[11]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment , 2006 .

[12]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[13]  Peter J. Fensham,et al.  Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) , 2014 .

[14]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[15]  Sandhya N. Baviskar,et al.  Moving Students from Information Recitation to Information Understanding: Exploiting Bloom's Taxonomy in Creating Science Questions. , 2007 .

[16]  Louis Deslauriers,et al.  Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class , 2011, Science.

[17]  Philip M. Sadler,et al.  Connecting High School Physics Experiences, Outcome Expectations, Physics Identity, and Physics Career Choice: A Gender Study. , 2010 .

[18]  K. Crippen,et al.  Using professional development to achieve classroom reform and science proficiency: an urban success story from southern Nevada, USA , 2010 .

[19]  N. Lasry,et al.  Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college , 2008 .

[20]  Judi Harris,et al.  What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge , 2009 .

[21]  N. Lasry,et al.  Clickers or Flashcards : Is There Really a Difference ? , 2008 .

[22]  D. Meltzer,et al.  Transforming the preparation of physics teachers , 2014 .

[23]  D. Hestenes,et al.  Force concept inventory , 1992 .

[24]  Marina Milner-Bolotin,et al.  Can Students Learn From Lecture Demonstrations?: The Role and Place of Interactive Lecture Experiments in Large Introductory Science Courses. , 2007 .

[25]  M. Milner-Bolotin,et al.  Clickers beyond the First-Year Science Classroom. , 2010 .

[26]  M. Milner-Bolotin.  Increasing Interactivity and Authenticity of Chemistry Instruction through Data Acquisition Systems and Other Technologies , 2012 .

[27]  D. Hestenes,et al.  A mechanics baseline test , 1992 .

[28]  Peter J. Fensham.  Knowledge to deal with challenges to science education from without and within , 2011 .

[29]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , 1996 .

[30]  L. Shulman.  Those who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching , 2013 .

[31]  Tetyana Antimirova,et al.  Comparison of the effectiveness of collaborative groups and peer instruction in a large introductory physics course for science majors , 2010 .