Teaching physics novices at university: A case for stronger scaffolding

In 2006 a new type of tutorial, called Map Meeting, was successfully trialled with novice first year physics students at the University of Sydney, Australia. Subsequently, in first semester 2007 a large-scale experiment was carried out with 262 students who were allocated either to the strongly scaf...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Christine Lindstrøm, Manjula D. Sharma
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: American Physical Society 2011-06-01
Series:Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research
Online Access:http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.010109
id doaj-5de4310feef94d96bb2a8e1fc87899a5
record_format Article
spelling doaj-5de4310feef94d96bb2a8e1fc87899a52020-11-25T00:53:19ZengAmerican Physical SocietyPhysical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research1554-91782011-06-017101010910.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.010109Teaching physics novices at university: A case for stronger scaffoldingChristine LindstrømManjula D. SharmaIn 2006 a new type of tutorial, called Map Meeting, was successfully trialled with novice first year physics students at the University of Sydney, Australia. Subsequently, in first semester 2007 a large-scale experiment was carried out with 262 students who were allocated either to the strongly scaffolding Map Meetings or to the less scaffolding Workshop Tutorials, which have been run at the University of Sydney since 1995. In this paper we describe what makes Map Meetings more scaffolding than Workshop Tutorials—where the level of scaffolding represents the main difference between the two tutorial types. Using a mixed methods approach to triangulate results, we compare the success of the two with respect to both student tutorial preference and examination performance. In summary, Map Meetings had a higher retention rate and received more positive feedback from students—students liked the strongly scaffolding environment and felt that it better helped them understand physics. A comparison of final examination performances of students who had attended at least 10 out of 12 tutorials revealed that only 11% of Map Meeting students received less than 30 out of 90 marks compared to 21% of Workshop Tutorial students, whereas there were no differences amongst high-achieving students. Map Meetings was therefore particularly successful in helping low-achieving novices learn physics.http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.010109
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Christine Lindstrøm
Manjula D. Sharma
spellingShingle Christine Lindstrøm
Manjula D. Sharma
Teaching physics novices at university: A case for stronger scaffolding
Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research
author_facet Christine Lindstrøm
Manjula D. Sharma
author_sort Christine Lindstrøm
title Teaching physics novices at university: A case for stronger scaffolding
title_short Teaching physics novices at university: A case for stronger scaffolding
title_full Teaching physics novices at university: A case for stronger scaffolding
title_fullStr Teaching physics novices at university: A case for stronger scaffolding
title_full_unstemmed Teaching physics novices at university: A case for stronger scaffolding
title_sort teaching physics novices at university: a case for stronger scaffolding
publisher American Physical Society
series Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research
issn 1554-9178
publishDate 2011-06-01
description In 2006 a new type of tutorial, called Map Meeting, was successfully trialled with novice first year physics students at the University of Sydney, Australia. Subsequently, in first semester 2007 a large-scale experiment was carried out with 262 students who were allocated either to the strongly scaffolding Map Meetings or to the less scaffolding Workshop Tutorials, which have been run at the University of Sydney since 1995. In this paper we describe what makes Map Meetings more scaffolding than Workshop Tutorials—where the level of scaffolding represents the main difference between the two tutorial types. Using a mixed methods approach to triangulate results, we compare the success of the two with respect to both student tutorial preference and examination performance. In summary, Map Meetings had a higher retention rate and received more positive feedback from students—students liked the strongly scaffolding environment and felt that it better helped them understand physics. A comparison of final examination performances of students who had attended at least 10 out of 12 tutorials revealed that only 11% of Map Meeting students received less than 30 out of 90 marks compared to 21% of Workshop Tutorial students, whereas there were no differences amongst high-achieving students. Map Meetings was therefore particularly successful in helping low-achieving novices learn physics.
url http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.010109
work_keys_str_mv AT christinelindstrøm teachingphysicsnovicesatuniversityacaseforstrongerscaffolding
AT manjuladsharma teachingphysicsnovicesatuniversityacaseforstrongerscaffolding
_version_ 1715905092435050496