• Pattawan NarjaikaewEmail author
  • Narumon Emarat
  • Kwan Arayathanitkul
  • Bronwen Cowie


The study investigated the impact on student motivation and understanding of magnetism of teaching sequences based on an inductive approach. The study was conducted in large lecture classes. A pre- and post-Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism was conducted with just fewer than 700 Thai undergraduate science students, before and after being taught the concepts, in three academic years. For 2005 and 2006, overall, the students had a better understanding of concepts associated with electricity, but a majority of the students seemed not to understand magnetism after the teaching. Drawing on these findings, the teaching sequences of the magnetism topic were developed, and then implemented in the academic year 2007. The teaching sequences included demonstrations and visuals to help students infer rules and theories for themselves (inductive method). In addition, interactive notes, information on historical science discoveries about magnetic phenomenon, questions, student discussions, and magnetism problems were used to support student learning during lectures. Students in the academic year 2007 performed significantly better after the teaching. In addition, the students had a positive perception towards the teaching sequences, which allowed them to be involved more actively during lectures.


inductive approach large class students’ understanding teaching sequences 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aguirre, J. M. (1988). Student preconceptions about vector kinematics. Physics Teacher, 26, 212–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, B., & Bach, F. (2005). On designing and evaluating teaching sequences taking geometrical optics as an example. Science Education, 89(2), 196–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, J. L., Lee, M., & Carr, J. P. (2004). The effects of guided notes on undergraduate students’ recording of lecture content. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(4), 314–320.Google Scholar
  4. Bay, M., Staver, J. R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. B. (1990). Science instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(6), 555–570.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, L. M. (2006). An inductive approach to teaching elementary science. Science Education, 50(1), 31–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M., & Green, B. (1981). Naive beliefs in ‘sophisticated’ subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects. Cognition & Instruction, 9, 117–123.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, W. (2005). Impact of constructivist teaching on students’ beliefs about teaching and learning in introductory physics. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology, 5(1), 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (Eds.). (2000). Research methods in education (5th Ed.). London: Routlege Falmer.Google Scholar
  9. Coles, C. R. (1985). Differences between conventional and problem-based curricula in their students’ approaches to studying. Medical Education 19(4), 308–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driver, R., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Research, 23(7), 5–12.Google Scholar
  11. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science—From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht, the Netherland: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures--teaching for active learning. Bioscience, 47(9), 601–607.Google Scholar
  13. Edward, N. S. (2001). Evaluation of a constructivist approach to student induction in relation to students’ learning styles. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engelhardt, P. V., & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felder, R. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286–290.Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, B. J., & Wahlberg, H. J. (1995). Improving science education. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of EducationGoogle Scholar
  17. Haan, R. L. D. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(2), 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hewson, M. G. & Hewson, P. W. (2006). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunter, D., Gambell, T., & Randhawa, B. (2005). Gender gaps in group listening and speaking: Issues in social constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Educational Review, 57(3), 329–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use multimedia-supported predict–observe–explain task in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keyser, M. W. (2000). Active learning and cooperative learning: Understanding the difference and using both styles effectively. Research Strategies, 17, 35–44.Google Scholar
  22. Küçüközer, A. (2006). Evolution of the students’ conceptual understanding in the case of a teaching sequence in mechanics: Concept of interaction. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(1), 30–40.Google Scholar
  23. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leach, J., Hind, A., & Ryder, J. (2002). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lester, J. C., Stone, B. A., & Stelling, G. D. (1999). Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 9, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maloney, D. P., O’Kuma, T. L., Hieggelke, C. J., & Heuvelen, A. V. (2001). Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 69(7), S12–S23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCarthy, J. P., & Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments for history and political science. Innovative Higher Education, 24(4), 279–294.Google Scholar
  28. McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). RL-PER1: Resource letter on physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60(11), 994–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Méheut, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching–learning sequences: Aims and tools for science education research. International Journal of Science Education 26(5), 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Millar, R., Leach, J., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2006). Improving subject teaching. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Newble, D., & Cannon, R. (1995). A handbook for teachers in universities & colleges: A guide to improving teaching methods (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Pag.Google Scholar
  33. Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67 (9), 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paatz, R., Ryder, J., Schwedes, H., & Scott, P. (2004). A case study analysing the process of analogy-based learning in a teaching unit about simple electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1065–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: SageGoogle Scholar
  36. Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Roth, W.-M. (2007). On performing concepts during science lectures. Science Education, 91(1), 96–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.Google Scholar
  38. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14–20.Google Scholar
  39. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave science. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  40. Sokoloff, D. R., & Thornton, R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. Physics Teacher, 35(6), 340–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thacker, B., Kim, E., Trefz, K., & Lea, S. M. (1994). Comparing problem solving performance of physics students in inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 62(7), 627–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Viennot, L., & Rainson, S. (1999). Design and evaluation of a research-based teaching sequence: The superposition of electric field. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pattawan Narjaikaew
    • 1
    Email author
  • Narumon Emarat
    • 2
  • Kwan Arayathanitkul
    • 2
  • Bronwen Cowie
    • 3
  1. 1.Udon Thani Rajabhat UniversityUdon ThaniThailand
  2. 2.Department of Physics, Faculty of ScienceMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand
  3. 3.Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational ResearchUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations