Introduction to SCALE-UP: Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment University Physics.

SCALE-UP is an extension of the highly successful IMPEC (Integrated Math, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry) project, one of North Carolina State's curricular reform efforts undertaken as part of the SUCCEED coalition. The authors utilize the interactive, collaboratively based instruction that worked well in smaller class settings and find ways to economically accommodate classes of up to 100 students. Relative to students taught in traditional classes, SCALE-UP students are better problem solvers, achieve nearly four times the gain on some conceptual tests, have better attitudes toward science, and report greater satisfaction with tier instruction. Failure rates for females are half those in regular classes. For minorities, the failure rate drops by a factor of four. Technology is used to provide a phenomenological focus for students, allowing data collection, analysis, mathematical modeling, and advanced simulations. As student attention is drawn into analyzing different physical situations, teachers circulate around the room and engage students in Socratic dialogs. Lecturing is minimal, primarily for motivation and to provide an overview of topics. The main objectives of the course are presented along with a discussion of some of the instructional techniques employed. (Contains 39 references.)

[1]  Frederick Reif,et al.  Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes , 1995 .

[2]  Peter S. Shaffer,et al.  Tutorials in Introductory Physics , 1998 .

[3]  Jeffery M. Saul,et al.  Beyond problem solving: Evaluating intro-ductory physics courses through the hidden curricu-lum , 1998 .

[4]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Learning motion concepts using real‐time microcomputer‐based laboratory tools , 1990 .

[5]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of Classrooms , 2002 .

[6]  A. Astin What matters in college? : four critical years revisited , 1994 .

[7]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Hardware and software preferences , 1995 .

[8]  Edward F. Redish,et al.  Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics , 1994 .

[9]  D. F. Holcomb,et al.  The Introductory University Physics Project , 1993 .

[10]  A. V. Heuvelen,et al.  Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research‐based instructional strategies , 1991 .

[11]  Jeffery M. Saul,et al.  On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories , 1997 .

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

[13]  Priscilla W. Laws,et al.  Workshop Physics Activity Guide , 1996 .

[14]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperative learning : increasing college faculty instructional productivity , 1991 .

[15]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs , 1994 .

[16]  B. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , 1966 .

[17]  P. W. Laws,et al.  Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses , 1997 .

[18]  Richard R. Hake,et al.  Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory , 1992 .

[19]  Alan Van Heuvelen,et al.  Overview, Case Study Physics , 1991 .

[20]  Jeffery M. Saul,et al.  Student expectations in introductory physics , 1998 .

[21]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula , 1998 .

[22]  L. McDermott,et al.  Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research , 1999 .

[23]  John S. Rigden,et al.  The Introductory University Physics Project 1987–1995: What has it accomplished? , 1998 .

[24]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  The impact of video motion analysis on kinematics graph interpretation skills , 1996 .

[25]  Patricia A. Heller,et al.  Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving , 1992 .

[26]  Lillian C. McDermott,et al.  Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap , 1991 .

[27]  Carl F. Berger,et al.  The Importance of Group Size in the Use of Problem-Solving Skills on a Microcomputer , 1985 .

[28]  Richard M. Felder,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. IV. Instructional Methods , 1995 .

[29]  A. Astin What Matters In College , 1993 .

[30]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Real-Time Physics , 1998 .

[31]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Positive Interdependence, Academic and Collaborative-Skills Group Contingencies, and Isolated Students , 1986 .

[32]  Arnold B. Arons,et al.  A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching , 1990 .

[33]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. , 1981 .

[34]  Frederick Reif,et al.  Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes , 1995 .

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

[36]  Rebecca Brent,et al.  Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs. , 1994 .

[37]  Jack M. Wilson,et al.  The Comprehensive Unified Physics Learning Environment: Part I. Background and System Operation , 1992 .

[38]  Edward F. Redish,et al.  Teaching Physics: Figuring out What Works , 1999 .

[39]  J.B. O'Neal,et al.  An integrated first-year engineering curriculum at North Carolina State University , 1995, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1995 25th Annual Conference. Engineering Education for the 21st Century.

[40]  Priscilla W. Laws,et al.  Calculus‐Based Physics Without Lectures , 1991 .

[41]  Wolfgang Christian,et al.  Physlets: Teaching Physics with Interactive Curricular Material , 2000 .

[42]  Leonhard E. Bernold,et al.  Case study of the physics component of an integrated curriculum , 1999 .