1 / 16

Interactive Lecture Demonstrations at the U of M

Interactive Lecture Demonstrations at the U of M. Brian Andersson University of Minnesota Based on Interactive Lecture Demonstrations developed by David Sokoloff and Ronald Thornton. Traditional Demo Sequence.

allenharden
Download Presentation

Interactive Lecture Demonstrations at the U of M

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Interactive Lecture Demonstrations at the U of M Brian Andersson University of Minnesota Based on Interactive Lecture Demonstrations developed by David Sokoloff and Ronald Thornton

  2. Traditional Demo Sequence • Instructor introduces demo (prop or mechanical device) during a discussion of related material. • Instructor may solicit informal predictions from class, but not always. • The demo is performed. • Instructor briefly explains what the demo displayed and a brief discussion may occur. • Students usually have little part in process.

  3. Current State of Demos • Some demos give confusing or unconvincing results. • Current list of demos contains very few computer aided activities. • A way of including the students in the demonstrations is needed.

  4. What is an Interactive Lecture Demonstration? • The demonstration is presented in such a way that the students become involved. Passive environment becomes active. • Demonstrations are performed using computers. The data collected is presented to the students. • Predictions and results are discussed amongst students and entire class. • The ILDs are not intended to replace the traditional lecture, but to enhance it.

  5. Mechanics ILD Sequences • Mechanics 1: Human Motion • Mechanics 2: Motion with Carts • Newton’s 1st and 2nd Laws • Newton’s 3rd Law • Energy of a Cart on Ramp Each sequence (containing 4-7 demos) is designed to be completed in approximately 40 minutes.

  6. Complete Interactive Lecture Demonstration Procedure • Perform the demo without MBL measurements. • Ask students to record individual predictions. • Have class engage in small group discussions with nearest neighbors. • Students record final prediction. This is turned in. Predictions may be graded as a form of attendance points.

  7. Procedure Continued • Ask for representative predictions from students. • Perform demo with MBL data displayed. • Ask a few students to describe the results of the demonstration. Students write down results on a sheet they keep. • Discuss different physical situation based on same concept.

  8. Critical Steps for Instructor • Instructor must convince the students that the probes used are collecting real and accurate data. • Instructor must pay attention to class during step 3. Know when to move on to next step. • Instructor must have an agenda during steps 7 and 8. He/she may need to direct discussion toward important points.

  9. Is the Complete Procedure Feasible at the U of M? • Will professors want to spend up to 40 minutes on an ILD? • Can this procedure be modified to decrease the lecture time used while maintaining the benefits?

  10. Modifications to Procedure • Use an ‘Ask the Audience’ type of device to solicit predictions from class. Bar graphs of the results could then be displayed, ala Who Wants to be a Millionaire. • Perform only 1-2 demos instead of the 4-7 in each sequence.

  11. Who Has Used The Program? • To date Eric Ganz, Paul Ellis, Tonnis Ter Veldhuis, and Gloria Martinez have performed portions of at least one sequence. • Professor Ganz has been my main guinea pig by performing portions of sequences 2, 3, 4, and 5. • All have felt the program work well (for the most part) and that it helped students understand the concepts a little more.

  12. Difficulties Observed During Initial Trials of Software • Acceleration vs. time can be noisy. • Maximum kinetic energy is consistently lower than maximum potential energy in energy demo. • Total energy sometimes parabolic, not constant.

  13. Sample ILDs • Program called LoggerPRO used for data acquisition. • 1st demonstration: Energy of a Cart • Cart moves up and down an incline • KE, PE, and ME vs. time are plotted • 2nd demonstration: Newton’s 3rd • Two force probes are hooked together • The force acting on each is displayed

  14. Demos Beyond Mechanics Sequence • More demos have been developed with the help of Prof. Ganz. • These demos illustrate static vs. sliding friction, Hooke’s Law, motion of a spring, and motion of a pendulum.

  15. Possible Future of ILDs at the U • Incorporate E&M ILDs involving voltage probes, Hall probes, etc. • Use Physlets with a modified ILD procedure. • Use LabVIEW programs from labs to either introduce upcoming problems or reinforce lab work.

  16. Do Students Learn From ILDs? • Studies were conducted at the University of Oregon and Tufts University. • Average understanding after traditional instruction in dynamics rose to less than 20%. • Average understanding after inclusion of ILDs was greater than 70%, rising as high as 90%. D. Sokoloff and R. Thornton, “Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to Create and active Learning Environment,” The Physics Teacher35, 340-347 (Sep. 1997)

More Related