Abstract
This paper presents a novel methodological approach to examining how different groups involved in upper secondary physics education perceive lecture demonstrations. The research utilizes a video-based, mixed-methods design that integrates high-inference rating scales and open-ended qualitative questions. This captures both holistic and analytical evaluations of demonstration quality. The paper focuses on the psychometric properties of the quantitative instrument and the alignment of ratings across four groups: secondary school students, in-service teachers, pre-service physics teachers, and teacher trainers. Initial findings suggest minimal statistically significant differences in how these groups evaluate physics demonstrations, indicating a potential universality in their perceptions. The methodological approach described in this paper offers a framework for assessing experiment focused lecture demonstrations. By providing insights into perceptions of teaching practices during demonstrations, this paper contributes to improving the design and delivery of physics demonstrations that engage diverse audiences and foster conceptual understanding.
References
Austin, S. R. P., & Sullivan, M. (2019). How are we performing? Evidence for the value of science shows. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1532620
Basheer, A., Hugerat, M., Kortam, N., & Hofstein, A. (2017). The effectiveness of teachers’ use of demonstrations for enhancing students’ understanding of and attitudes to learning the oxidation-reduction concept. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(3), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00632a
Breckler, J. L., Christensen, T., & Sun, W. (2013). Using a physics experiment in a lecture setting to engage biology students with the concepts of poiseuille’s law. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(2), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-08-0129
Buncick, M. C., Betts, P. G., & Horgan, D. D. (2001). Using demonstrations as a contextual road map: Enhancing course continuity and promoting active engagement in introductory college physics. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1237–1255. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010025030
Chamely-Wiik, D. M., Haky, J. E., Louda, D.W., & Romance, N. (2014). SQER3: An instructional framework for using scientific inquiry to design classroom demonstrations. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(3), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300689n
Chang, W., & Shieh, R. S. (2018). A study of the conceptual comprehension of electric circuits that engineer freshmen display. European Journal of Physics, 39(4), 045705. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/aab6e1
Crouch, C., Fagen, A. P., Callan, J. P., & Mazur, E. (2004). Classroom demonstrations: Learning tools or entertainment? American Journal of Physics, 72(6), 835–838. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1707018
Dalehefte, I.M., Rimmele, R., Prenzel, M., Seidel, T., Labudde, P., & Herweg, C. (2009). Observing instruction “next-door”: a video study about science teaching and learning in Germany and Switzerland. In T. Janík & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 83–99). Waxmann.
Dey, A. (2010). Incomplete block designs. World Scientific.
Di Stefano, R. (1996). Preliminary IUPP results: Student reactions to in-class demonstrations and to the presentation of coherent themes. American Journal of Physics, 64(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18293
Jewitt, C. (2012). An introduction to using video for research (National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper 03/12). Institute of Education.
Kácovský, P., & Snětinová, M. (2021). Physics demonstrations: who are the students appreciating them? International Journal of Science Education, 43(4), 529–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1871526
Lebak, K. A. (2023). Utilizing video-based pedagogical action research to transform teacher practice in elementary, middle and high school classrooms. Journal of Inquiry and Action in Education, 11(2). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/jiae/vol11/iss2/2
Lin, H.-s., Hong, Z.-R., & Chen, Y.-C. (2013). Exploring the development of college students’ situational interest in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2152–2173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.818261
Manivannan, K., & Meltzer, D. (2001). Use of in-class physics demonstrations in highly interactive format. Paper presented at Physics education research conference 2001, Rochester, New York. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2001.pr.011
Miller, K. (2013). Use demonstrations to teach, not just entertain. The Physics Teacher, 51(9), 570–571. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4830081
Miller, K., Lasry, N., Chu, K., & Mazur, E. (2013). Role of physics lecture demonstrations in conceptual learning. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020113
Milne, C., & Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: Science demonstrations and emotional energy. Science Education, 91(4), 523–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20203
Milner-Bolotin, M., Kotlicki, A., & Rieger, G. (2007). Can students learn from lecture demonstrations? Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(4), 45-49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42992942
Moll, R. F., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2009). The effect of interactive lecture experiments on student academic achievement and attitudes towards physics. Canadian Journal of Physics, 87(8), 917–924. https://doi.org/10.1139/P09-048
Nakagawa, S., Schielzeth, H., & O’Hara, R. B. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in ecology and evolution, 4(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
Neo, C. S., & Yap, K. C. (2009). The effect of classroom demonstrations based on conceptual change instruction on students’ understanding of electromagnetism and electromagnetic induction. In M. Kim, S.W. Hwang & A.-L. Tan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Science Education Conference 2009 (pp. 1346–1386). Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Nikitin, A. (2021). Fyzikální pokusy pro střední školy – videostudie [Masters, Charles University]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11956/127719
Nikitin, A., Kácovský, P., & Snětinová, M. (2022). Looking for parameters of students-lecturer interaction that influence how students perceive physics demonstrations. In J. Ondruška, Ľ. Valovičová & Ľ. Zelenický (Eds.), Didactic Transfer of Physics Knowledge Through Distance Education, AIP Conference Proceedings, 2458(1). AIP Publishing LLC. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0078259
Odom, A. L., & Bell, C. V. (2015). Associations of middle school student science achievement and attitudes about science with student-reported frequency of teacher lecture demonstrations and student-centered learning. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(1), 87–97.
Owen, S., Dickson, D., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (2008). Teaching physics: Students’ attitudes towards different learning activities. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140802036734
Rose, T. M. (2018). Lessons learned using a demonstration in a large classroom of pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(9), 6413. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6413
Roth, W.-M., McRobbie, C. J., Lucas, K. B., & Boutonné, S. (1997). Why may students fail to learn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199705)34:5<509::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-U
Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., Rasmussen, D., Trubacova, S., Warvi, D., Okamoto, Y., Stigler, J., & Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Statistical analysis report. NCES 2006-011. ED Pubs.
Ryan, R. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.43.3.450
Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006). Stability of teaching patterns in physics instruction: Findings from a video study. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.002
Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Rimmele, R., Dalehefte, I. M., Herweg, C., Kobarg, M., & Schwindt, K. (2006). Blicke auf den physikunterricht. Ergebnisse der IPN videostudie. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(6), 799–821.
Sharma, M., Johnston, I., Helen, J., Varvell, K., Gordon, R., Andrew, H., Stewart, C., Ian, C., & Thornton, R. (2010). Use of interactive lecture demonstrations: A ten year study. Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research, 6, 020119. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020119
Simpson, A., Vondrová, N., & Žalská, J. (2018). Sources of shifts in pre-service teachers’ patterns of attention: The roles of teaching experience and of observational experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(6), 607–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9370-6
Sokoloff, D. R., & Thornton, R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. The Physics Teacher, 35(6), 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2344715
Thijs, G. D., & Bosch, G. M. (1995). Cognitive effects of science experiments focusing on students’ preconceptions of force: a comparison of demonstrations and small-group practicals. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069950170304
Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18863
Vondrová, N., & Žalská, J. (2018). Ability to notice mathematics specific phenomena: What exactly do student teachers attend to? Orbis scholae, 9(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2015.81
Vonesh, E. F., Chinchilli, V. M., & Pu, K. (1996). Goodness-of-Fit in generalized nonlinear mixed-effects models. Biometrics, 52(2), 572–587. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532896
Walton, P. H. (2002). On the use of chemical demonstrations in lectures. University Chemistry Education, 6(1), 22–27.
Wang, J., Wang, Y., Wipfli, K., Thacker, B., & Hart, S. (2023). Investigating learning assistants’ use of questioning in online courses about introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(1), 010113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010113
Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Understanding affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.015
Zimrot, R., & Ashkenazi, G. (2007). Interactive Lecture Demonstrations: a tool for exploring and enhancing conceptual change. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90030E
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).