Changing Students’ Approach to Learning Physics in Postsecondary Gateway Courses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated if and how a combined set of specially developed activities can help students change their approach to learning physics. These activities included (a) reflective-writing activities, (b) critique-writing activities, and (c) reflective write-pair-share activities combined with conceptual-conflict collaborative-group exercises. Each of these activities was previously successfully tested as a stand-alone activity. This investigation was conducted at two different institutions over a three-year period. At each institution the same instructor taught students in two sections. At the first, a university with a substantial graduate school, sections were relatively large (over 100 students each) covering a typical introductory calculus-based mechanics course. At the second, a community college, there were relatively small classes (32 students each) covering a typical algebra-based introductory course in mechanics, electricity, and magnetism. The courses at the two institutions used different textbooks and had different formats. Measured data included student interviews and writing products. We developed rubrics for evaluation of the impact of the writing products and interviews of students. The main results of this study were the changes in students’ approaches to learning physics, especially as revealed in the interviews. Students who experienced the full suite of activities (a) changed their understanding of physics from solving problems to creating a network of interrelated concepts, and they also (b) modified their approach to learning physics from repetitious review to consideration of the interconnections of the subject matter and (c) related their new learning to key concepts in an overall physics framework.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".