Instructional Science

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 519–533 | Cite as

Conceptual change through vicarious learning in an authentic physics setting

  • Derek A. Muller
  • Manjula D. Sharma
  • John Eklund
  • Peter Reimann
Article

Abstract

Recent research on principles of best practice for designing effective multimedia instruction has rarely taken into account students’ alternative conceptions, which are known to strongly influence learning. The goal of this study was to determine how well students of quantum mechanics could learn ‘vicariously’ by watching a student-tutor dialogue based on alternative conceptions. Two video treatments were created to summarize key aspects of quantum tunneling, a fundamental quantum mechanical phenomenon. One video depicted a student-tutor dialogue, incorporating many of the common alternative conceptions on the topic, and resolving inconsistencies in reasoning through discussion. The other presented the same correct physics material in an expository style without alternative conceptions. Second year physics students were randomly assigned to one of the two treatments and were tested before and after watching the video during a lecture. Results show a statistically significant (p < .01) advantage for the learners in the dialogue treatment (d = 0.71). Follow-up interviews of students yielded insight into the affective and cognitive benefits of the dialogue video.

Keywords

Conceptual change Physics education research Educational dialogue Multimedia Socratic dialogue Vicarious learning 

References

  1. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to learn. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse. Instructional Science, 27(6), 431–458.Google Scholar
  4. Craig, S. D., Driscoll, D. M., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialogue in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 163–183.Google Scholar
  5. Diakidoy, I.-A. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. diSessa, A. A. (1996). What do "just plain folk" know about physics? In D. R. Olson (Ed.), Handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 705–730). Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Domert, D., Linder, C., & Ingerman, A. (2005). Probability as a conceptual hurdle to understanding one-dimensional quantum scattering and tunneling. European Journal of Physics, 26, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edelson, D. C. (1996). Learning from cases and questions: The Socratic case-based teaching architecture. The Journal of the learning sciences, 5(4), 357–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fletcher, P. R. (2004). How tertiary level physics students learn and conceptualize quantum mechanics. Unpublished PhD, University of Sydney, Sydney.Google Scholar
  10. Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. G. (Eds.) (1998). International handbook of science education (Vol. 1). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Guzzetti, B. J., Williams, W. O., Skeels, S. A., & Wu, S. M. (1997). Influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 701–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hake, R. R. (1992). Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory. Physics Teacher, 30(9), 546–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston, I. D., Crawford, K., & Fletcher, P. R. (1998). Student difficulties in learning quantum mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, J., Dineen, F., McKendree, J., & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious learning: Cognitive and linguistic effects of observing peer discussion. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.Google Scholar
  18. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Mayer, R. E., & Jackson, J. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details can hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 11(1), 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (2001). Tutorials in introductory physics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  22. McKagan, S. B., & Wieman, C. E. (2005). Exploring student understanding of energy through the quantum mechanics conceptual survey. Paper presented at the American Institute of Physics Conference, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  23. McKendree, J., Stenning, K., Mayes, T., Lee, J., & Cox, R. (1998). Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(2), 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moore, D. M., Burton, J. K., & Myers, R. J. (2004). Multiple-channel communication: The theoretical and Research Foundations of Multimedia. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 979–1005). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Morgan, J. T., Wittmann, M. C., & Thompson, J. R. (2004). Student understanding of tunneling in quantum mechanics: Examining interview and survey results for clues to student reasoning. Paper presented at the Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings 2003.Google Scholar
  26. Muller, D. A. (2005). Inside the quantum mechanics lecture: Changing practices. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Sydney.Google Scholar
  27. Muller, D. A., & Sharma, M. D. (2005). Student conceptions of quantum tunneling. Paper presented at the International Conference on Physics Education, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  28. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1994). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.Google Scholar
  30. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. Philadelphia: The Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  31. Redish, E., Wittmann, M., & Steinberg, R. (2000). Affecting student reasoning in the context of quantum tunneling. Paper presented at the AAPT Summer Meeting, Guelph, Ontario.Google Scholar
  32. Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and observers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children’s self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer-model attributes and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sharma, M. D., Millar, R., & Seth, S. (1999). Workshop tutorials: Accommodating student-centered learning in large first year University Physics courses. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 839–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wetzel, C. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stern, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek A. Muller
    • 1
  • Manjula D. Sharma
    • 1
  • John Eklund
    • 2
  • Peter Reimann
    • 3
  1. 1.Sydney University Physics Education Research Group, School of PhysicsUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Access Testing CentreCrows NestAustralia
  3. 3.Computers and Cognition (CoCo), Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations