Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Active Learning Methods and Strategies to Improve Student Conceptual Understanding: Some Considerations from Physics Education Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Part of the book series: Challenges in Physics Education ((CPE))

Abstract

Active learning methods and strategies are credited to be an important means for the development of student cognitive skills. This paper describes some forms of active learning common in Physics Education and briefly introduces some of the pedagogical and psychological theories on the basis of active learning. Then, some evidence for active learning effectiveness in developing students’ critical cognitive skills and improving their conceptual understanding are examined. An example study regarding the effectiveness of an Inquiry-based learning approach in helping students to build mechanisms of functioning and explicative models, and to identify common aspects in apparently different phenomena, is briefly discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Albanese M, Mitchell S (1993) Problem-based learning: a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad Med 68(1):58–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson JW, Feather NT (1966) A theory of achievement motivation. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Huntington

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1977) Social learning theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbe WB, Swassing RH, Milone MN (1979) Teaching through modality strengths: concepts practices. Zaner-Bloser, Columbus

    Google Scholar 

  • Battaglia OR, Bonura A, Sperandeo-Mineo RM (2009) A pedagogical approach to the Boltzmann factor through experiments and simulations. Eur J Phys 30:1025–1037

    Google Scholar 

  • Battaglia OR, Fazio C, Guastella I, Sperandeo-Mineo RM (2010) An experiment on the velocity distribution of thermionic electrons. Am J Phys 78(12):1302–1308

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Battaglia OR, Di Paola B, Persano Adorno D, Pizzolato N, Fazio C (2017) Evaluating the effectiveness of modelling-oriented workshops for engineering undergraduates in the field of thermally activated phenomena. Res Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9660-0

  • Battaglia OR, Di Paola B, Fazio C (2019) Unsupervised quantitative methods to analyze student reasoning lines: theoretical aspects and examples. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res 15(2):020112

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry L Jr (1991) Collaborative learning: a program for improving the retention of minority students, ERIC # ED384323

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry JS, Burghes DN, Huntley ID, James DJG, Moscardini AO (1986) Mathematical modelling. Methodology, models and micros. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell CC, Eison JA (1991) Active Learning: creating excitement in the Classroom. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report no 1. George Washington University, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee RW (1993) An instructional model for science education. Developing biological literacy. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee RW, Taylor JA, Gardner A, Van Scotter P, Carlson Powell J, Westbrook A, Landes N (2006) The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins and effectiveness. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs

    Google Scholar 

  • Capps DK, Crawford BA (2013) Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: are they happening? J Sci Teach Educ 24(3):497–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen F, Lui MA, Martinelli SM (2017) A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in medical education. Med Educ 51:585–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng X, Ka Ho Lee K, Chang EY, Yang X (2017) The ‘flipped classroom’ approach: stimulating positive learning attitudes and improving mastery of histology among medical students. Anat Sci Educ 10:317–327

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings K (2013) A community-based report of the developmental history of PER. Paper presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers, Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirel M, Dağyar M (2016) Effects of problem-based learning on attitude: a meta-analysis study. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 12(8):2115–2137

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1916) Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. The Macmillan Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Paola B, Battaglia OR, Fazio C (2016) Non-hierarchical clustering as a method to analyse an open-ended questionnaire on algebraic thinking. S Afr J Educ 36(1):#1142

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Vesta F, Smith D (1979) The pausing principle: increasing the efficiency of memory for ongoing events. Contemp Educ Psychol 4(3):288–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy F, Segers M, Van den Bossche P, Gijbels D (2003) Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis. Learn Instr 13:533–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran M, Dokme I (2016) The effect of the inquiry-based learning approach on student’s critical thinking skills. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 12(12):2887–2908

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck C (2006) Mindset: the new psychology of success. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson KA (2004) Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 79(10 Suppl):S70–S81

    Google Scholar 

  • Everitt BS, Landau S, Leese M, Stahl D (2011) Cluster analysis. Wiley, Chichester

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio C, Spagnolo F (2008) Conceptions on modelling processes in Italian high-school prospective mathematics and physics teachers. S Afr J Educ 28(4):469–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazio C, Battaglia OR, Guastella I (2012) Two experiments to approach the Boltzmann factor: chemical reaction and viscous flow. Eur J Phys 33(2):359–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazio C, Battaglia OR, Di Paola B (2013) Investigating the quality of mental models deployed by undergraduate engineering students in creating explanations: the case of thermally activated phenomena. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 9:020101

    Google Scholar 

  • Feden P, Vogel R (2003) Methods of teaching: applying cognitive science to promote student learning. McGraw Hill Higher Education, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Feynman RP, Leighton RB, Sands M (1963) The Feynman lectures on physics, vol I. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 42-1–42.11

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming ND, Mills C (1992) Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. Improve Acad 11:137–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredericksen E (1998) Minority students and the learning community experience: a cluster experiment, ERIC # ED216490

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher S (1997) Problem-based learning: where did it comes from, what does it do and where is it going? J Educ Gifted 20(4):332–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgiou H, Sharma MD (2015) Does using active learning in thermodynamics lectures improve students’ conceptual understanding and learning experiences? Eur J Phys 36:015020

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormally C, Brickman P, Hallar B, Armstrong N (2009) Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. Int J Sch Teach Learn 3(2):Article 16

    Google Scholar 

  • Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66:64–74

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Herrington J, Oliver R (2000) An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educ Technol Res Dev 48(3):23–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson D, Johnson R (1989) Cooperation and competition, theory and research. Interaction Book Company, Edina

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson D, Johnson R, Smith K (1998a) Active learning: cooperation in the college classroom, 2nd edn. Interaction Book Co., Edina

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson D, Johnson R, Smith K (1998b) Cooperative learning returns to college: what evidence is there that it works? Change 30(4):26–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung CG (1971) Psychological types. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Karelina A, Etkina E (2007) Acting like a physicist: student approach study to experimental design. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 3:020106

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Krystyniak RA, Heikkinen HW (2007) Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open-inquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation. J Res Sci Teach 44:1160

    Google Scholar 

  • Laws P, Sokoloff D, Thornton R (1999) Promoting active learning using the results of physics education research. UniServe Sci News 13:14–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Laws PW, Willis MC, Sokoloff DR (2015) Workshop physics and related curricula: a 25-year history of collaborative learning enhanced by computer tools for observation and analysis. Phys Teach 53(7):401–406

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey BA, Hsu L, Sadaghiani H, Taylor JW, Cummings K (2012) Positive attitudinal shifts with the Physics by Inquiry Curriculum across multiple implementations. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 8:010102

    Google Scholar 

  • MacQueen J (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: LeCam LM, Neyman J (eds) Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability 1965/66, vol I. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, pp 281–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Major C, Palmer B (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of problem-based learning in higher education: lessons from the literature. Acad Exch Q 5(1):4

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RE (2008) Learning and instruction. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar R (2012) Rethinking science education: Meeting the challenge of “science for all”. Sch Sci Rev 93:21

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton DA, Colbert-Getz JM (2017) Measuring the impact of the flipped anatomy classroom: the importance of categorizing an assessment by Bloom’s taxonomy. Anat Sci Educ 10:170–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers IB, McCaulley MH, Quenk NL, Hammer AL (1998) MBTI manual: a guide to the development and use of The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 3rd edn. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman G, Schmidt H (1993) The psychological basis of problem-based learning: a review of evidence. Acad Med 67:557–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Oja KJ (2011) Using problem-based learning in the clinical setting to improve nursing students’ critical thinking: an evidence review. J Nurs Educ 50(3):145–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Panitz T (1999) The case for student centered instruction via collaborative learning paradigms, ERIC # ED 448444

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauling L (1988) General chemistry. Dover, New York, p 551

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelley J (2014a) Making active learning effective. Med Sci Educ 24(Suppl 1):S13–S18

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pelley JW (2014) Learning style: implications for teaching and learning. In: Matheson (ed) An introduction to the study of education, 4th edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelley JW, Dalley BK (2008) Success types in medical education. Retrieved 21 Dec 2018 from: https://www.ttuhsc.edu/medicine/medical-education/success-types/documents/stsinmeded.pdf

  • Persano Adorno D, Pizzolato N, Fazio C (2015) Elucidating the electron transport in semiconductors via Monte Carlo simulations: an inquiry-driven learning path for engineering undergraduates. Eur J Phys 36(5):055017

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen C, Gorman K (2014) Strategies to address common challenges when teaching in an active learning classroom. New Dir Teach Learn 137:63–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzolato N, Fazio C, Sperandeo-Mineo RM, Persano-Adorno D (2014) Open-inquiry driven overcoming of epistemological difficulties in engineering undergraduates: a case study in the context of thermal science. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 10:010107

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Pourshanazari A, Roohbakhsh A, Khazaei M, Tajadini H (2013) Comparing the long-term retention of a physiology course for medical students with the traditional and problem-based learning. Adv Health Sci Educ 18(1):91–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince M (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 93(3):223–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince M, Vigeant M, Nottis K (2012) Using inquiry-based activities to repair student misconceptions related to heat, energy and temperature. In: Frontiers in education conference proceedings (FIE), Seattle, WA, pp 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2012.6462344

  • Pritchard A (2009) Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintana C, Zhang X, Krajcik J (2005) A framework for supporting meta cognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educ Psychol 40:235

    Google Scholar 

  • Redish EF, Smith KA (2008) Looking beyond content: skill development for engineers. J Eng Educ 97(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Redish E, Saul J, Steinberg R (1997) On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. Am J Phys 65(1):45–54

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Reed-Rhoads T, Imbrie P K, Allen K, Froyd J, Martin J, Miller R, Steif P, Stone A, Terry R (2007) Tools to facilitate better teaching and learning: concept inventories. Panel at ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee, WI

    Google Scholar 

  • Revans RW (1982) The origin and growth of action learning. Chartwell-Bratt, Brickley

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl K, Hughes C, Schloss P (1987) Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teach Educ Spec Educ 10:14–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadeh I, Zion M (2009) The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: a comparison to guided inquiry setting. J Res Sci Teach 46:1137

    Google Scholar 

  • Sathya R, Abraham A (2013) Comparison of supervised and unsupervised learning algorithms for pattern classification. Int J Adv Res Artif Intell 2(2):34–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma MD, Johnston ID, Johnston HM, Varvell KE, Robertson G, Hopkins AM, Thornton R (2010) Use of interactive lecture demonstrations: a ten year study. Phys Rev Spec Top-Phys Educ Res 6:020119

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Shin IS, Kim JH (2013) The effect of problem-based learning in nursing education: a meta-analysis. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 18(5):1103–1120

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin R (1983) Cooperative learning. Research on teaching monograph series, ERIC digest ED242707

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, MacGregor J (1992) What is collaborative learning? In: Goodsell A et al (eds) Collaborative learning: a sourcebook for higher education. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment, University Park, pp 9–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokoloff DR, Thornton RK, Laws PW (2007) RealTime physics: active learning labs transforming the introductory laboratory. Eur J Phys 28:S83–S94

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer L, Stanne M, Donovan S (1999) Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 69(1):21–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Streveler RA, Litzinger TA, Miller RL, Steif PS (2008) Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: overview and future research directions. J Eng Educ 97(3):279–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Strobel J, van Barneveld A (2009) When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdiscip J Probl-based Learn 3(1):44–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarantino G, Fazio C, Sperandeo-Mineo RM (2010) A pedagogical flight simulator for longitudinal airplane flight. Comput Appl Eng Educ 18(1):144–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Terenzini P, Cabrera A, Colbeck C, Parente J, Bjorklund S (2001) Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: students’ reported learning gains. J Eng Educ 90(1):123–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Trautmann N, MaKinster J, Avery L (2004) What makes inquiry so hard? (and why is it worth it). In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada. http://ei.cornell.edu/pubs/NARST_04_CSIP.pdf

  • Vernon D, Blake R (1993) Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med 68(7):550–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky LS (1986) Thought and language (trans: Kozulin A). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Yen C, Huang S (2001) Authentic learning about tree frogs by preservice biology teachers in open-inquiry research settings. In: Proceedings of the National Science Council Republic of China, ROC(D), vol 11. Taiwan National Science Council, Taipei, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Yew EHJ, Goh K (2016) Problem-based learning: an overview of its process and impact on learning. Health Prof Educ 2:75–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Zion M, Slezak M, Shapira D, Link E, Bashan N, Brumer M, Orian T, Nussinowitz R, Court D, Agrest B, Mendelovici R, Valanides N (2004) Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning. Sci Educ 88:728

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Physics Education Research Group, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Claudio Fazio

Authors
  1. Claudio Fazio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Fazio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Donostia Physics Education Research Group (DoPER), Department of Physics Applied, Gipuzkoa School of Engineering, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain

    Jenaro Guisasola

  2. Donostia Physics Education Research Group (DoPER), Department of Physics Applied, Gipuzkoa School of Engineering, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain

    Kristina Zuza

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fazio, C. (2020). Active Learning Methods and Strategies to Improve Student Conceptual Understanding: Some Considerations from Physics Education Research. In: Guisasola, J., Zuza, K. (eds) Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin. Challenges in Physics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51182-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51182-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-51181-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-51182-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation