Demo or Hands-on? A Crossover Study on the Most Effective Implementation Strategy for Inquir--Based Learning Activities
Demo or Hands-on? A Crossover Study on the Most Effective Implementation Strategy for Inquir--Based Learning Activities
复制标题
演示还是实践？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Widmann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Self;J. Widmann
在过去的五年中，我们的团队开发了许多实践探究性学习活动（IBLAs）。这些活动遵循预测-观察-解释的循环，首先向学生展示他们必须单独评估的物理场景。例如，在圆柱体IBLA中，学生被要求单独预测哪个会更快到达坡道底部，管道还是固体圆柱体。然后学生们分组讨论场景，随后观察实际的“比赛”。在观察之后，学生小组尝试使用指导工作表来解释结果。然后与教师讨论第一个场景，并介绍该场景的其他变体。当我们开展活动时，我们允许每个学生团队处理不同的人工制品并进行“实验”。我们目前的研究调查了让学生自己动手做实验和让老师在教室前做示范之间的区别。两位教师，A和B，根据相同的教学大纲，相同的课程笔记，采用非常相似的积极教学方法，在课堂上同时使用滑轮IBLA和滚动圆柱体IBLA。讲师A使用学生动手的方法进行滑轮IBLA，而讲师B则以教授领导的示范方式进行IBLA。对于圆筒IBLA，他们互换了；教员A做演示，教员B动手操作。我们比较了两组在动态概念量表（DCI）上的目标问题的结果，并将这些结果与其他不使用ibla和采用更传统的基于讲座的教学方法的教师进行了比较。对于滑轮IBLA， DCI在目标问题上的得分为：动手[95.4%]，演示[93.9%]，控制[70.8%]；圆筒型IBLA的结果为Hands-On（84.8%）、Demo（86.2%）、Control（61.2%）。动手组和演示组之间没有差异，但两者的表现都明显优于对照组。学生们还填写了一份主观调查，调查结果显示，学生们对动手教学和演示教学的偏好不大，而且这两种教学方式对他们的学习都有帮助。介绍和背景调查为基础的学习活动（IBLAs）正在成为有效的技术，以增加概念的理解在热传导2和动力学。“探究”一词在科学教育中被广泛使用，并且对基于探究的教学的确切定义存在许多变体。NRC确定了贯穿所有K-12年级的探究的五个关键特征：1。学习者被科学导向的问题所吸引。2. 学习者优先考虑证据，这使他们能够发展和评估解决科学导向问题的解释。3. 学习者从证据中制定解释，以解决科学导向的问题。4. 学习者根据不同的解释来评价他们的解释，特别是那些反映科学理解的解释。5. 学习者交流并证明他们提出的解释。Minner等人对138项研究进行了荟萃分析，以检验探究式教学对K-12学生科学概念理解的影响。他们发现“一个明确的、积极的趋势是支持探究性的教学实践，特别是那些强调学生积极思考和从数据中得出结论的教学。”尽管有强有力的证据表明探究活动在科学教育中的有效性，但在工程教育中使用探究活动的报道似乎相当有限。Prince等人已经成功地在化学工程中实现了IBLAs，特别是在热、能量和热力学方面。他们的工作是基于Laws等人和Workshop Physics （http://physics.dickinson.edu）的工作，后者定义了IBLAs的元素，如表1所示。表1。探究性学习活动的要素。(a)使用同伴指导和协作工作(b)使用以活动为基础的指导性探究课程材料(c)使用从预测开始的学习循环(d)强调概念理解(e)让物理世界成为权威(f)评价学生的理解(g)适当使用技术(h)从具体开始，向一般过渡。我们的ibla遵循预测-观察-解释的循环，学生面对一系列物理场景。对于每个场景，学生首先需要对感兴趣的物理现象做出个人预测，与一组34名学生讨论他们的预测，实验观察系统，然后在团队工作表上讨论和解释实验结果。在特定的实例中，直接指导被纳入以确保学生应用适当的科学原理（图1）。对于ibla，重点是通过在预测、观察和解释的循环中整合实践活动来理解概念。在大多数初始场景中，我们希望创造认知冲突-挑战学生当前的概念框架。通过观察实验结果，物理世界成为权威，而不是指导者的话语。图1所示。学习周期。
During the past five years, our team has developed a number of hands-on inquiry-based learning activities (IBLAs). These activities follow a predict-observe-explain cycle, where students are first presented a physical scenario that they must individually evaluate. For example, in the Cylinder IBLA, students are asked to individually predict what will reach the bottom of a ramp more quickly, a pipe or a solid cylinder. Students then discuss the scenario in teams, and subsequently observe the actual “race”. After the observation, the student teams try to explain the results using a guiding worksheet. The first scenario is then discussed with the instructor, and additional variations of the scenario are presented. As we developed the activities, we allowed each student team to handle the different artefacts and perform the “experiments”. Our current research investigates the differences between having the students perform the hands-on experiments themselves and having the instructor perform a demonstration in front of the room. Two instructors, A and B, teaching from the same syllabus, same course notes, and with a very similar active teaching approach, used both the Pulley IBLA and the Rolling Cylinder IBLA in their class sections. Instructor A did the Pulley IBLA using a hands-on student approach, while Instructor B did the IBLA as a professor-led demonstration. For the Cylinder IBLA, they switched; Instructor A did the demo while Instructor B did the hands-on. We compared results from targeted questions on the Dynamics Concept Inventory (DCI) between the two groups, and also compared these results with other instructors who do not use the IBLAs and who teach in a more traditional lecture-based approach. For the Pulley IBLA, DCI scores on the targeted questions were: Hands-On [95.4%], Demo [93.9%], Control [70.8%]; for the Cylinder IBLA, the results were Hands-On [84.8%], Demo [86.2%], Control [61.2%]. There was no difference between the Hands-On and Demo groups, but both significantly outperformed the control group. Students also filled out a subjective survey, which showed little preference for the Hands-On versus Demo modalities, and that both modalities helped with their learning. Introduction and Background Inquiry Based Learning Activities (IBLAs) are emerging as effective techniques to increase conceptual understanding in Heat Transfer 2 as well as in Dynamics. The term “inquiry” has been used extensively in science education, and many variations on the exact definition of inquiry based instruction exist. The NRC identifies five critical features of inquiry that extend across all K-12 levels: 1. Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions. 2. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions. 3. Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions. 4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding. 5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations. Minner et al performed a meta-analysis of 138 studies to examine the impact of inquiry based instruction on K-12 student science conceptual understanding. They found “a clear, positive trend favoring inquiry-based instructional practices, particularly instruction that emphasizes student active thinking and drawing conclusions from data.” Despite this strong evidence of effectiveness in science education, reports on using inquiry activities in engineering education appear to be quite limited. Prince et al. have had success in implementing IBLAs in Chemical Engineering, particularly to look at heat, energy, and thermodynamics. Their work is based on that of Laws et al. and on Workshop Physics (http://physics.dickinson.edu ), which defines the elements of IBLAs as summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Elements of Inquiry Based Learning Activities. (a) Use peer instruction and collaborative work (b) Use activity-based guided-inquiry curricular materials (c) Use a learning cycle beginning with predictions (d) Emphasize conceptual understanding (e) Let the physical world be the authority (f) Evaluate student understanding (g) Make appropriate use of technology (h) Begin with the specific and move to the general Our IBLAs follow a predict-observe-explain cycle, where students are confronted by a series of physical scenarios. For each scenario, the students are first required to make individual predictions about the physical phenomena of interest, discuss their predictions with a group of 34 students, observe the system experimentally, and then discuss and explain the experimental results on a team worksheet. At specific instances, direct instruction is incorporated to make sure students are applying appropriate scientific principles (Figure 1). With IBLAs, the focus is on conceptual understanding through the integration of hands-on activities in a cycle of predictions, observations, and explanations. In most of the initial scenarios, we hope to create cognitive conflict – challenging the students’ current conceptual framework. By observing the experimental results, the physical world becomes the authority rather than the word of the instructor. Figure 1. IBLA Learning cycle.