Abstract
It is now well known that carefully designed sequences of active physics learning support students’ comprehension of physical concepts and laws. If only this were its effect, active learning should replace lecture-based teaching and passive students’ learning at all educational levels. Fortunately, the impacts of active learning experiences in students are much broader. In this paper I present a few examples of tasks that are suited for engaging students in active learning along with research-based and anecdotal evidence about effects of active physics learning on students’ cognitive level, emotions and creativity.References
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 4(2),
–109.
Ayala, H., Slisko, J. & Corona, A. (2011). Magnetic demonstration of weightlessness: A
spark of student creativity. The Physics Teacher, 49 (8), 524–525.
Barbot, B., Besan¸con, M. & Lubart, T. I. (2011). Assessing Creativity in the Classroom.
In The Open Education Journal 4, Supplement 1: M5, 58–66.
Beichner, R. J. (1999, unpublished). Student-Centered Activities for Large-Enrollment
University Physics (SCALE UP). Lecture presented at the Sigma Xi Forum: Reshaping
Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education: Tools for Better Learning,
Minneapolis.
Belcher, J. (2013). MIT Physics Department’s experience with edX. MIT Faculty
Newsletter, 26(1), 12–14.
Bonello, C. & Scaife, J. (2009). PEOR: Engaging students in demonstrations. Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 32(1), 62–84.
Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning. Creating excitement in the
classroom. Washington: The George Washington University.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2001). How people learn. Brain,
mind, experience, and school. Expanded edition. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Bransford, J. D. & Stein, B. S. (1993). The ideal problem solver. A guide for improving
thinking, learning and creativity. New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Cheng, V. M. (2004). Developing physics learning activities for fostering student
creativity in Hong Kong context. Asia-Pasific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,
(2), 1–33.
Corona, A., SliËsko, J. & Planinsic, G. (2006). Rising freely bottle also demonstrates
weightlessness. Physics Education, 41(3), 8–9.
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E. & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved Learning in a
Large-Enrollment Physics Class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.
Dori, Y. J. & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect
undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279.
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California
Management Review, 41(2), 79–94.
Drucker, P. F. (2005). Managing Oneself. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 100–109.
Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C.F. & Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in
learning physics. Science Education, 76(6), 615–652.
Etkina, E. & Van Heuvelen, A. (2007). Investigative science learning environment — A
science process approach to learning physics. In Redish, E. F., Cooney, P. J. (Eds.),
Research-based reform of university physics. College Park, MD: American Association of
Physics Teachers.
Galili, I. (1995). Interpretation of students’ understanding of the concept of
weightlessness. Research in Science Education, 25(1), 51–74.
Galili, I. (1996). Students’ conceptual change in geometrical optics.International Journal
of Science Education, 18(7), 847–868.
Galili, I. (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: Historical and educational
perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1073–1093.
Gautreau, R. & Novemsky, L. (1997). Concepts first — a small group approach to
physics learning. American Journal of Physics, 65(5), 418–428.
Graham, P.A. (Ed.). (2002). Knowledge Economy and Postsecondary Education:
Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Gregerson, M. B., Snyder, H.T. & Kaufman, J.C. (2013). Teaching Creatively and
Teaching Creativity. New York: Springer.
Gregory, E., Hardiman, M., Yarmolinskaya, J., Rinne, L. & Limb, C. (2013). Building
creative thinking in the classroom: From research to practice. International Journal of
Educational Research, 62, 43–50.
Gürel, Z. & Acar, H. (2003). Research into students’ views about basic physics principles
in a weightless environment. Astronomy Education Review, 2(1), 65–81.
Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand
student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American
Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.
Harmin, M. (1994). Inspiring active learning. A handbook for teachers. Alexandria:
Association for Supervion and Curriculum Development.
Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T.M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61,
–598.
Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M. J. & Knight, R. D. (2005). A direct comparison of
conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style
classrooms. American Journal of Physics, 73(5), 459–463.
Jarvis, P. (Ed.). (2001). The Age of Learning: Education and the Knowledge Society.
London: Taylor and Francis Group.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional
Science, 40(4), 651–672.
Keeling, R.P. & Hersh, R.H. (2012). We’re Losing Our Minds. Rethinking American
Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lewin, W. (2012). For the Love of Physics: From the end of the rainbow to the edge of
time — a journey through the wonders of physics. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Lewin, W. (1999). Lecture 7. Available at http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-
physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-7/
Laws, P. (1991). Workshop Physics: Learning introductory physics by doing it. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 23(4), 20–27.
Laws, P.W. (1996). Workshop Physics Activity Guide Modules 1–4, New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Laws, P.W. (1997). Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics
education research in introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 65(1),
–21.
Low, R. & Jin, P. (2012). Self-regulated learning. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of
Learning (3015–3018). New York: Springer.
Marusic, M. & Slisko, J. (2012a). Influence of three different methods of teaching physics
on the gain in students’ development of reasoning. International Journal of Science
Education, 34(2), 301–326.
Marusic, M. & Slisko, J. (2012b). Effects of two different types of physics learning on the
results of CLASS test. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research,
(1), 010107.
Marusic, M. & Slisko, J. (2012c). Increasing the attractiveness of school physics: The
effects of two different designs of physics learning. Revista Mexicana de F´ısica E, 58(1),
–83.
Marusic, M. & Slisko, J. (2012d). Many high-school students don’t want to study
physics: active learning experiences can change this negative attitude! Revista Brasileira
de Ensino de F´ısica, 34(3), 3401.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
McDermott, L.C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned —
Closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301–315.
McDermott, L.C. (1993). Guest Comment: How we teach and how students learn — A
mismatch? American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 295–298.
Meltzer, D.E. & Thornton, R.K. (2012). Resource letter ALIP-1: Active-learning
instruction in physics. American Journal of Physics, 80(6), 478–496.
Michalewicz, Z. & Michalewicz, M. (2008). Puzzle-based learning: Introduction to
critical thinking, mathematics, and problem solving. Melbourne: Hybrid Publishers.
Perkins, D. (2000). Archimedes’ bathtub. The art and logic of breakthrough thinking.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of physical causality. Oxford: Harcourt, Brace
& Company.
Piirto, J. (2011). Creativity for 21st century skills. How to embed creativity into the
curriculum. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Pintrich, P.R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. New directions for teaching
and learning, 63, 3–12.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of
Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Rivera Hern´andez, S. & Slisko, J. (2005). Levantar dos vasos mediante un globo: usando
un truco de fiestas para enseËnar y aprender la naturaleza de la f´ısica. Memor´ıas del
taller internacional “Nuevas Tendencias en la EnseËnanza de la F´ısica”. Puebla:
Facultad de Ciencias F´ısico-Matem´aticas.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.
Scott, T., Gray, A. & Yates, P. (2013). A controlled comparison of teaching methods in
first-year university physics. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 43(2), 88–99.
Sharma, M. D., Millar, R. M., Smith, A. & Sefton, I.M. (2004). Students’ understandings
of gravity in an orbiting space-ship. Research in Science Education, 34(3), 267–289.
Sigler, L. E. (2003). Fibonacci’s Liber Abaci. Leonardo Pisano’s Book of Calculation.
First soft edition. New York: Springer.
Siler, S. A., Klahr, D. & Price, N. (2013). Investigating the mechanisms of learning from
a constrained preparation for future learning activity. Instructional Science, 41(1),
–216.
Singmaster, D. (2004). Sources in recreational mathematics. An annotated bibliography.
Eight preliminary edition. Available at
http://puzzlemuseum.com/singma/singma6/SOURCES/singma-sources-edn8-2004-03-
htm#Toc69534276
Slisko, J. (2010). “Total force” on bodies immersed in air and water: An error living
three centuries in physics textbooks. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT
Education, 4(1), 5–23.
Slisko, J. (2011). Repeated errors in physics textbooks: What do they say about the
culture of teaching? In Raine, D., Hurkett, C. & Rogers, L. (Eds.), Physics Community
and Cooperation. Vol. 2, Proceedings of the GIREP-EPEC & PHEC 2009 International
Conference, Leicester: Lulu / The Center for Interdisciplinary Science, University of
Leicester, 31–46.
Thacker, B., Kim, E., Trefz, K. & Lea, S.M. (1994). Comparing problem solving
performance of physics students in inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics
courses. American Journal of Physics, 62(7), 627–633.
Tural, G., Akdeniz, A.R. & Alev, N. (2010). Effect of 5E teaching model on student
teachers’ understanding of weightlessness. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
(5), 470–488.
Wagner, T. (2008). Rigor redefined. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 20–25.
Wells, D. (2012). Games and mathematics. Subtle connections. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Wells, M., Hestenes, D. & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school
physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 63(7), 606–619.
White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London and New York:
Falmer Press.
Wieman, C. & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming physics education. Physics Today,
(11), 26–41.
Wilson, J.M. (1994). The CUPLE physics studio. The Physics Teacher, 32(9), 518–523.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into
practice, 41(2), 64–67.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D.H. (Eds.). (2013). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Routledge.