Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland (Gamow 1939) is a classic wonderful story to bring
home the concepts of Special Relativity – it is the content here that is more ...
Technology – the double edged sword in teaching? Lessons from a decade of teaching Modern Physics Shirin Haque Department of Physics University of the West Indies St Augustine Trinidad, West Indies
[email protected] Abstract A ten year trend from 1999- 2008 for the teaching and learning of a Modern Physics course at the University of the West Indies is examined with regard to different teaching methodologies applied. Trends indicate that increased use of technology does not necessarily improve student learning and a mix of traditional styles with technology yields better results.
Technology – the double edged sword in teaching?
Lessons from a decade of teaching Modern Physics
Abstract A ten year trend from 1999- 2008 for the teaching and learning of a Modern Physics course at the University of the West Indies is examined with regard to different teaching methodologies applied. Trends indicate that increased use of technology does not necessarily improve student learning and a mix of traditional styles with technology yields better results.
Keywords: Critical Thinking; Higher Education; Instructional Technology; Longitudinal Studies; Science Education; Technology
Introduction: A measure of the success of any endeavour is the end product or the output. When it comes to teaching, invariably that is student learning which can be measured by student performance using standard modes of assessment. Within the last decade, tremendous effort has been put into improving teaching methods which is the engine that is assumed to drive the end product and thus improving student learning. Better teaching should yield better student performance results reflecting better subject matter understanding as tested by the standard examination techniques. Inclusion of technology in teaching methodology is typically seen as being progressive. A discipline like Physics particularly seems to benefit from instructional technology tools (Beichner 2006).
2
Modern Physics, the foundation of any programme for a major in Physics at any University is used as a test course to see the impact of different teaching methodologies applied to a ‘classic’ course. This course is chosen because the course content deals with the developments in the early 1900s and remains unchanged. Indeed it is a course that is of great value in developing analytical and critical thinking skills in students of Physics in general (Shabajee& Postlethwaite 2000) and the level to which this is developed can be dependent on the different methods of teaching (Ding 2006). The assessment and examination for this course at the University of the West Indies test the course content for recall, problem solving, and conceptual understanding.
We explore the impact of different teaching methodologies on the Modern Physics course over a period of time by examining students’ assessment results over the period 1999-2008 taught by the same lecturer using different methods. The author has been teaching this course face to face for 12 years. The data is for a course on Modern Physics at the St. Augustine campus of the University of the West Indies taught at the advanced level of the undergraduate degree programme. This course is taught in the first semester in the 2nd year of the programme and is a compulsory course for students majoring in Physics. The course is Modern Physics 1, PHYS 2281 and has been administered to the students majoring in Physics for the period in question without any changes to the syllabus and has been taught by the same lecturer. The students qualify to do the course with the same pre-requisites over the period of study having been exposed to similar training up until that point of high school and the first year at the University. The lecturer is the recipient of three teaching awards - locally, regionally and internationally over the period of study as well. The question we hope to answer by this case study is if the use of
3
technology and modern teaching tools aid learning as measured by student performance on assessments.
Course Structure: Modern Physics 1 PHYS 2281 is a 4-credit course with 3-credit weighting for the theoretical aspect and 1-credit weighting to the laboratory component of the course. The theory comprises 70% of the course assessment and practical component counts for 30%. The 70% towards the assessment for the theory is comprised from coursework assessment and a 2-hour final written examination paper where students are required to do three questions out of a choice of five. We focus on the students’ performance for the theoretical aspect of the course and do not consider the practical part. The students’ performance in the practical aspect from 1999 – 2008 has always been extremely consistent at 70 ± 3 %. It is typically better than the performance in the theoretical aspect. This therefore, does not impact on the teaching of the theoretical aspect and the way the programme is organised. The administration of the laboratory component is handled separately from the classroom teaching and at the Department of Physics, the course lecturer focuses on the teaching of the theory. The course outline for PHYS 2281 for the 36 contact hours for the teaching is given below.
Course Description: Introduction to Special Relativity: The foundations of Special Relativity. Relativistic kinematics and relativistic particle Mechanics. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics: Evidence of the inadequacy of classical mechanics applied to atomic systems. Basic postulates of Quantum Mechanics. Schrodinger’s theory and applications to simple one-dimensional systems. Atomic Physics: Spectrum of the hydrogen atom based on the Bohr model.
4
Quantization and selection Rules. Behaviour of atoms in time-independent electric and magnetic fields. The Atomic Nucleus and radioactivity: Nuclear mass and binding energy. The liquid drop model of the nucleus. Radioactive Decay. The interaction of charged particles and radiation with matter.
Results: Table 1 gives the statistics for results for the theory part of the course Modern Physics I for the period 1999- 2008 with the student numbers and the average class percentage. There is consistent performance in different skill sets, with recall being the easiest. For example, students typically performed well at reproducing mathematical derivations. Problem solving and applying equations were more challenging. The students’ performance was poorest in conceptual understanding.
The method of teaching employed is also shown in Table 1. The teaching methodologies can be summarised as:
1. Chalk and talk (C & T) – Students make their own notes from the class lecture while the lecturer teaches on the board and the need for independent study by student is significant. 2. Transparency slides and handouts (TS/HO) – lecturer projects notes using overhead projector and students are able to copy notes verbatim – handouts are provided and independent study is still required. 3. Power Point presentations (PP) - overhead transparencies are replaced by Power Point presentations. Better diagrams, colour and simulations can now be introduced. Students are still
5
expected to take notes during class. A support manual is provided which is more extensive than handouts. 4. Power Point presentation with electronic support (e-PP) –Power Point presentations are supported partially by Web page and electronic support for course content and teaching. 5. E-supported (E) – Classes are taught using power point presentations with simulations. Note taking is not required by students in class as the lecture notes are provided to them after the class electronically. Increased web page and electronic support for teaching and tutorials used strongly. No support manual is provided.
Table 1 also indicates the level of internet accessibility for students at the campus in the last column. At the University of the West Indies, the campus became wireless in 2004, which immediately meant increased access for students using their laptops which was also subsidized around this time. Prior to this, internet access was confined to computer laboratories and libraries which was competitive for space. Figure 1 displays the average percentage of the class performance for the theory in the Modern Physics course for each year under question. The average percentage for the decade from 1999 – 2008 is 50% and this is indicated in Figure 1 as the solid reference line. It is clear that as the teaching methodology was modified, an optimum situation was obtained during the period 2002-2004 where there was a mix of use of technology with traditional teaching methods. From 1999 to 2008, the use of technology in teaching is on a continuous spectrum with it being strongly limited in 1999 to being a strong component in 2008. The more technology use and access increased, the student performance became poorer.
6
Furthermore, seventy-four students in the course in the year 2008 were administered a simple survey of which teaching methodology of the five listed above they preferred, and there was unanimous support for full access to lecture notes online so that they did not need to copy notes during class time and could pay attention to the concepts being explained and in understanding the material as exonerated by the students. We note of course that the worst performance by students was by the method that they preferred.
There is also the issue of whether the class size acts as a confounding variable and what its impact is likely to be on the overall performance of students. There is the general trend of increasing class sizes from 1999 – 2008 started with a class size of 25 and averaging 59 students for the period in question. Classes that would be classified as large for a course such as this, with numbers of 45 and 63, averaged peak class performance of 58.6 and 55 in 2003 and 2004 respectively. This was the peak performance while there was reduced performance with larger and smaller size classes. This therefore indicates that the class size was not the mitigating factor in performance as much as the teaching methodologies used. McKeachie (1980) has discussed the effect of class sizes and performance for several subject areas including Physics. Achievement of the large and small size groups studied was about equal and often favouring large size classes of about 100. In fifty-nine experiments, the results of forty-six favoured large sized classes with better performance.
7
Year
Number of students
Average Teaching Percentage Methodology in theory 41.4 Full e-support. No support manual (E). 46.7 Full e-support. No support manual (E). 48.8 Partial esupport & manual (e-PP) 42.6 Partial esupport & manual (e-PP) 55.0 Power Point/ handouts (PP)
2008
83
2007
86
2006
74
2005
97
2004
63
2003
45
58.6
2002
40
54.6
2001
36
52.1
2000
36
49.5
1999
25
51.2
Average
59
50.0
Power Point/ handouts (PP) Transparencies and handouts (TS/HO) Transparencies and handouts (TS/HO) Chalk & Talk (C&T) Chalk & Talk (C&T)
IT access for students Extensive
Extensive
Significant
Significant
Wireless implemented on campus – moderate Moderate Limited
Limited
Very limited Very limited
Table 1: Statistics for a 10 year period of the teaching of Modern Physics
8
Figure 1: Student performance in the theory of Modern Physics from 1999-2008. The solid line is the average performance for the period.
Discussion
Great effort is put into improving teaching methodologies and training teachers with a perception, that greater the technology usage, the better the results. Lecturers are inundated with training for Moodle, Mye-learning environment and Blackboard and other similar platforms. The ten year study shows that the increased use of technology in teaching is not necessarily a good thing with regard to student learning. It is not the critical factor in student learning as is typically thought. Why is it that easier and more access to information does not impact on student learning as would be expected? It appears that the student of yesteryear with far less immediate access to information actually had better understanding and grasp of conceptually 9
difficult material that a course like a Modern Physics entails. Carr (2010) proposes that the internet is actually negatively impacting on our ability to think deeply and critically as is required for a course on Modern Physics. Easy and quick access to information weakens our ability to concentrate – a critical component of studying and education. The depth of understanding weakens with increasing breadth of information that technology makes available. Critical and analytical thinking is replaced by regurgitation of information.
The student survey showed that they prefer the method which yielded the worst learning outcome. Clearly there is a gap in the teachers’ and students’ conception of teaching and learning. This gap has been demonstrated in other studies (Virtanen & Lindblom-Ylanne, 2010). Let us examine intimately what is going on in a typical teaching class - a group of students are exposed to the same teaching methodology by the teacher – this acts as a natural control in the experiment. Yet we typically get a normal distribution of student performances. Clearly the dominating factor is the individual student’s ability and their application to the performance attained. Excellent teaching can only be reflected in an overall increase in performance of the entire class as represented by the class averages.
The greater the ability and application by the student, better the performance. And herein lies the answer to the paradox of why it is that students in our University Physics classes are performing more poorly when they have access to more information and easier than ever before. Our newer teaching methodologies encourage laziness and lack of analytical skills in students – we give them the notes, and they learn less. Information alone does not create the knowledgeable student. When they are expected to decipher illegible handwriting by the teacher on the board, and make
10
sense of it and translate into their own notes –more learning has already occurred as the concentration increases. A student with the knowledge that the lecture notes are available has no need to concentrate or focus in a class although they may be physically present. We are actually doing learning a disservice by the new methods of teaching that focus on spoon feeding the student. Recent studies have also shown that multitasking on the internet reduces deep and focussed thinking a course like Modern Physics requires for understanding and application (Carr 2010).
What then is the real role of a teacher? Are they simply a leader focussing and directing the student or course with deadlines while all the course content is available at a click electronically? Are they an entertainer, whose main job is to motivate the student and show them how interesting the course really is while they must still do independent study? Entertaining teachers are typically thought of as better teachers by students because they are liked better and make learning fun – a very important aspect, naturally. But regardless, of the type of teacher or teaching methodology, it is abundantly clear, that the best teaching occurs when students are put into a position where they must apply themselves against their own better judgement.
As was done in the past, sitting in a library and having access to materials around us does not make us wiser. It is hardly different with that same access at a click on the world wide web and dedicated softwares. If increased use of technology means more time at the computer for student and teacher, then the teaching community needs to address the absolute learning value of that time spent and its implication for deep understanding and application as was required when a student had to sit to do the actual calculations with pen and paper and plotting data rather than
11
entering values and having results spewed out and seeing the automatic plot. Nothing substitutes for application by the student in the learning phase.
Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland (Gamow 1939) is a classic wonderful story to bring home the concepts of Special Relativity – it is the content here that is more relevant than the mode of transmission which is why it remains a classic teaching aid as a handout for over 70 years. How does it compare to a virtual reality game to demonstrate the effects of Special Relativity (McGrath et al, 2010) which showed a small but measurable improvement in the final exam. What former students of mine often recall is not so much the Physics I taught but the antics I did in demonstrating the principles of Physics. It is not what is taught but how it is taught – similarly, it is not so much as to what is learnt as to how it is learnt for long term retention.
The poignant point is that it does not matter how great a teacher is – the final acid test is the performance of the student as to whether effective learning has taken place. And this is dependent primarily on one factor – the student – their ability and application. The teaching methodology needs to foster that rather than inhibit it as a strong dependency on use of technology tends to do.
In the present academic teaching climate, we put a lot of focus on course outlines and the layout and making prettier text books – but unless a student applies himself or teaching is done in a manner that causes the student to do so, then all the best technology will hardly impact on learning. We can attract a horse to water, but are we making it drink?
12
Conclusion:
This paper makes the assertion that improved teaching methodologies using technology does not necessarily impact on improved student learning as indicated by the trends seen in a ten year study period of the teaching of a course on Modern Physics at the University level. The results indicate that a mix of technology and traditional methods of teaching auger best in the interest of the student being taught and learning and applying the content of conceptually difficult courses like Modern Physics.
13
References: Beichner, R. J. (2006). European Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 31, No. 4, 383–393.
Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember. London. Great Britain:Atlantic Books
Ding, Y. (2006). Improving the teaching and learning in Modern Physics with contemporary strategies. The China papers, Nov. 10-14.
Gamow, George. (1939). Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGrath, D.,Wegener, M., McIntyre, T. J., Savage, C., & Williamson, M. (2010). Student experiences of virtual reality: A case study in learning Special Relativity. American Journal of Physics. 78,8, 862-868.
McKeachie, W. J. (1980). Class Size, Large Classes and Multiple Sections. Academ:Bulletin of the AAUP. 66,6,24-27.
Shabajee, P. and Postlethwaite, K. (2000). What happened to Modern Physics? School Science Review. 81,297,51-56.
Virtanen, V. & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2010). University students’ and teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning in the Biosciences. Instructional Science. (2010) 38:355–370.
14
15
