Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 299–323 | Cite as

How Much Have They Retained? Making Unseen Concepts Seen in a Freshman Electromagnetism Course at MIT

  • Yehudit Judy DoriEmail author
  • Erin Hult
  • Lori Breslow
  • John W. Belcher


The introductory freshmen electromagnetism course at MIT has been taught since 2000 using a studio physics format entitled TEAL—Technology Enabled Active Learning. TEAL has created a collaborative, hands-on environment where students carry out desktop experiments, submit web-based assignments, and have access to a host of visualizations and simulations. These learning tools help them visualize unseen electromagnetic concepts and develop stronger intuition about related phenomena. A previous study has shown that students who took the course in the TEAL format (the experimental group) gained significantly better conceptual understanding than those who took it in the traditional lecture-recitation format (the control group). The present longitudinal study focuses on the extent to which these two research groups (experimental and control) retain conceptual understanding about a year to 18 months after finishing the course. It also examines students attitudes about whether the teaching format (TEAL or traditional) contributes to their learning in advanced courses. Our research has indicated that the long-term effect of the TEAL course on students’ retention of concepts was significantly stronger than that of the traditional course. This research is significant because it documents the long-term cognitive and affective impact of the TEAL studio physics format on learning outcomes of MIT students.


conceptual understanding electromagnetism longitudinal study retention undergraduate physics education visualization 



The TEAL project is supported by the d’Arbeloff Fund, the MIT/Microsoft iCampus Alliance, NSF Grant #9950380 and the MIT School of Science and Department of Physics.

Thanks to the director of Center for Educational Computing Initiatives (CECI), Steve Lerman for hosting the first author during the research period.

Thanks to the CECI staff: Andrew McKinney, Philip Bailey, Michael Danziger, Mesrob Ohannesian, Pierre Poignant, Ying Cao (Java Simulations); Mark Bessette, Michael Danziger (3D Illustration/Animation); Michael Danziger (Shockwave Visualizations); Andreas Sundquist (DLIC), Mesrob Ohannessian (IDRAW) (Visualization Techniques R&D).


  1. Arzi, H. J. Ben-Zvi, R. and Ganiel, U. (1985). Proactive and retroactive facilitation of long-term retention by curriculum continuity. American Educational Research Journal 22(3): 369–388.Google Scholar
  2. Barufaldi, J. P., and Spiegel, G. F., Jr. (1994). The effects of a contribution of text structure awareness and graphic postorganizers on recall and retention of science knowledge. ERIC Publication EJ498237Google Scholar
  3. Beichner, R., Dori, Y. J., and Belcher, J. W. (2006). New physics teaching and assessment: laboratory- and technology-enhanced active learning. In J. J. Mintzes and W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of College Science Teaching: Theory, Research and Practice, (pp. 97–106) NSTA Press, Washington, DC, USA, Chapter 10Google Scholar
  4. Cummings K., Marx J., Thornton R., Kuhl D. (1999). Evaluating innovations in studio physics. Physics Educational Research, (pp. 97–106) American Journal of Physics Suppl. 67:S38–S45Google Scholar
  5. Dori Y. J., Belcher J. W. (2005a). How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students’ Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts? Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(2): 243–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dori Y. J., Belcher J. W. (2005b). Learning electromagnetism with visualizations and active learning. In: Gilbert J. K. (Eds.), Visualization in Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dori Y. J., Belcher J. W., Bessette M., Danziger M., McKinney A., Hult E. (2003). Technology for active learning. Materials Today 6(12): 44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dori, Y. J., and Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), in press.Google Scholar
  9. Frank M. (2006). How to teach using today’s technology: Matching the teaching strategy to the E-learning approach. In: L. Tan, W. Hin, Subramaniam R. (Eds) Handbook of Research on Literacy in Technology. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, 372–393Google Scholar
  10. Frank M., Elata D. (2005). Developing the Capacity for Engineering Systems Thinking (CEST) of freshman engineering students. Journal of Systems Engineering 8(2):187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hake R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-students-survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halpern, D. F., and Hakel, M. D. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Change, July/August: 36–41Google Scholar
  13. Handelsman J., Ebert-May D., Beichner R., Bruns P., Chang A., DeHaan R., Gentile J., Lauffer S., Strwart J., Tilghman S., Wood W. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science Magazine 304:521–522Google Scholar
  14. Leonard W. H. (1987). Dose the presentation style of question inserted into text influence understanding and retention of science concepts? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leonard W. H., Lowery L. F. (1984). The effects of question types in textual reading upon retention of biology concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewalter D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction 13(2):177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowe R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction: The Journal of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction 13(2):157–176Google Scholar
  18. Maloney D.P., O’Kuma T.L., Hieggelke C.J., Van Heuvelen A. (2001). Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics – Suppl 69: S12–S23Google Scholar
  19. Martenson D., Eriksson H., Ingelman-Sundberg M. (1985). Medical chemistry: Evaluation of active and problem-oriented teaching methods. Medical Education 19:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. In D. F. Halpern & M. D. Hakel (Eds.), Applying the Science of Learning to University Teaching and Beyond (pp. 55-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Mazur A. (1997). Peer Instruction. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  22. McDermott L. C. (1991). Millikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned – closing the gap. American Journal of Physics 59:301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDermott, L. C., and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington. (1996). Physics by Inquiry, Volumes I & II. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Novak, J. D., Ring, D. G., and Tamir, P. (1971). Interpretation of research findings in terms of Ausubel's theory and implications for science education. Science Education 55(4): 438–526.Google Scholar
  25. Otto P. B., Schuck R. F. (1983). The effects of teacher questioning strategy training program on teaching behavior, student achievement and retention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20:521–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Redish E. F., Saul J. M., Steinberg R. N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories, American Journal of Physics 65:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sokoloff D. R., Thornton R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment, The Physics Teacher 35:340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schnotz W., Lowe R. (2003) Introduction. Learning and Instruction 13(2):117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tamir, P., and Amir, R. (1981) Retrospective curriculum evaluation: an approach to the evaluation of long term effects. Curriculum Inquiry 11: 249–278.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yehudit Judy Dori
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Erin Hult
    • 3
  • Lori Breslow
    • 2
  • John W. Belcher
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceTechnion, Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations