Affiliation:
1. University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
2. University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia
3. Sorbonne University, France
4. University of Rijeka, Republic of Croatia
Abstract
Physics homework often boils down to solving end-of-chapter quantitative problems. For targeting different learning goals of physics education, different types of homework are needed. The aim of this research was to compare the effectiveness of simulation-based, video-based, and paper-and-pencil homework in developing an understanding about Newton’s laws and forming positive attitudes towards physics homework. 150 first-year students from the Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology at the University of Zagreb (Croatia) were randomly assigned to one of the three above-mentioned homework approaches. After, students had lectures and seminars on Newton’s laws, they were administered a pre-test. In the next three weeks, the students completed three homework assignments on Newton’s laws, after which they completed a post-test. For students from all three homework approaches a substantial improvement in conceptual understanding has been observed. Although the three approaches proved to be equally effective when it comes to developing understanding, the simulation-based approach was found to be superior when it comes to developing positive attitudes towards physics homework. If one controls for target knowledge, the modality of the homework assignment does not affect cognitive outcomes, but it does affect students’ attitudes towards homework.
Keywords: conceptual understanding, experimental study, simulation-based homework, video-based homework
Reference49 articles.
1. Adams, W. K., Armstrong, Z., & Galovich, C. (2015). Can students learn from PhET sims at home, alone? In A. Churukian, D. Jones, & L. Ding (Eds.), Proceedings of Physics Education Research (PER) Conference on Critical Examination of Laboratory-Centered Instruction and Experimental Research in Physics Education (pp. 23-26). AAPT. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2015.pr.001
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Abridged edition). Longman.
4. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. K. (2009). Introduction to research in education. Cengage Learning.
5. Aviani, I., Erceg, N., & Mešić, V. (2015). Drawing and using free body diagrams: Why it may be better not to decompose forces. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 11(2), Article 020137. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020137
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献