Using interactive blackboard chats to promote student learning in physics

The Blackboard Learning System/spl trade/ is widely used on many college and university campuses today. This paper will explore the use of this system as a teaching and learning tool in introductory physics. Particular emphasis will be placed on the online chat feature available through blackboard. During the fall 2002 pilot semester, students enrolled in an introductory physics course for non-majors at American University made extensive use of live, interactive, online chats when completing homework assignments. These chats were peer-led and instructor-moderated. A Socratic dialogue approach was utilized to help promote deeper understanding of key topics and concepts. To address, in part, the question of whether deeper understanding was actually achieved, results from the force concept inventory (FCI), a widely used multiple-choice, survey-type instrument to assess student understanding of basic mechanics concepts in physics, was used. Pre-/post-test gains are compared for active participants in the online chats and the class as a whole to help ascertain student understanding. In addition, links to student learning styles are explored to determine whether learning style may be a factor in terms of active participation in the online discussions. Highlights of student perceptions regarding the use of blackboard technologies, particularly the online chats was shared.

[1]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Learning style based innovations to improve retention of female engineering students in the Synthesis Coalition , 1995, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1995 25th Annual Conference. Engineering Education for the 21st Century.

[2]  T. C. Bello.  COMPARISON OF ELEVEN MAJOR LEARNING STYLES MODELS: VARIABLES, APPROPRIATE POPULATIONS, VALIDITY OF INSTRUMENTATION, AND THE RESEARCH BEHIND THEM , 1990 .

[3]  Rita Dunn,et al.  Effects of Matching and Mismatching Minority Developmental College Students' Hemispheric Preferences on Mathematics Scores. , 1990 .

[4]  Barbara Nelson,et al.  Effects of Learning Style Intervention on College Students' Retention and Achievement. , 1993 .

[5]  Rita Dunn,et al.  What Does the Research on Learning Styles Have to do with Mario , 1985 .

[6]  Gerald M. Phillips,et al.  Teaching group discussion via computer‐mediated communication , 1989 .

[7]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[8]  Chet Meyers,et al.  Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom , 1993 .

[9]  S.E. Irvine,et al.  Different degrees of distance: the impart of the technology-based instructional environment on student learning , 1999, FIE'99 Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.99CH37011.

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

[11]  Richard M. Felder,et al.  MATTERS OF STYLE , 2004 .

[12]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  Thinking Styles: Keys to Understanding Student Performance. , 1990 .

[13]  R. Dunn.  UNDERSTANDING THE DUNN AND DUNN LEARNING STYLES MODEL AND THE NEED FOR INDIVIDUAL DIAGNOSIS AND PRESCRIPTION , 1990 .

[14]  Patricia Lemmon.  A School Where Learning Styles Make a Difference. , 1985 .

[15]  D. Kolb.  Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , 1983 .

[16]  J. Perrin,et al.  The Learning Styles Project for Potential Dropouts. , 1990 .

[17]  H. Patricia Spencer,et al.  The effects of computerized instruction on the improvement and transfer of writing skills for low-skilled and below-average-skilled sophomore students, considering student gender, ethnicity, and learning style preferences , 1993 .

[18]  T. L. Hein,et al.  Digital video, learning styles, and student understanding of kinematics graphs , 1997 .

[19]  John N. Harb,et al.  Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle and the 4MAT System in Engineering Education , 1993 .

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

[21]  S.E. Irvine,et al.  Assessment of student understanding using on-line discussion groups , 1998, FIE '98. 28th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Moving from 'Teacher-Centered' to 'Learner-Centered' Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.98CH36214).

[22]  Teresa L Hein.  Using writing to confront student misconceptions in physics , 1999 .

[23]  Jeffery E. Olson,et al.  A Meta-Analytic Validation of the Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style Preferences , 1995 .

[24]  J. E. Sharp,et al.  Combining Kolb Learning Styles and Writing to Learn in Engineering Classes , 1997 .

[25]  N. Sanjay Rebello,et al.  The effect of distracters on student performance on the force concept inventory , 2004 .

[26]  Harold F. O'Neil,et al.  Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. , 1994 .

[27]  Madlyn Levine Hanes.  Planning: The Key to Perpetuating Staff Development. , 1985 .

[28]  Lorin W. Anderson,et al.  Synthesis of Research on Compensatory and Remedial Education. , 1990 .

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

[30]  Richard R. Hake.  Promoting student crossover to the Newtonian world , 1987 .

[31]  R.K. Jurgen,et al.  Digital video , 1992, IEEE Spectrum.

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