The effect of interactive lecture experiments on student academic achievement and attitudes towards physics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the effects of computer-based Interactive Lecture Experiments (ILEs) in a large introductory physics course on student academic achievement and attitudes towards physics. ILEs build on interactive lecture demonstrations by requiring students to analyze data during and after lecture demonstrations. Academic achievement was measured using the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) and final examinations' grades; and student attitudes were measured using a Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS). FCI results showed a general positive shift (about average for an interactive course) but could not detect improvements in student understanding of specific topics addressed by ILEs. However, open-ended questions on the final exam showed differences between sections on topics that were addressed by ILEs. Attitude survey results showed a negative shift in student attitudes over the semester, which is a typical result for an introductory physics course. This finding suggests that ILE pedagogy alone is insufficient to significantly improve student attitudes toward science. The study also revealed possible improvements to implementing ILEs such as working in groups, ongoing feedback for students, and linking assessment to pedagogical practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it