Pathways to increase problem solving skills, motivation and depth of knowledge in a first year physics course

Winfried K. Hensinger
Centre for Laser Science, Department of Physics,
The University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia,

Abstract:

I will show how problem solving skills, motivation and depth of knowledge can be significantly increased by introducing a modified first year physics curriculum. This new curriculum consists of a series of educational interventions which can be applied in the frame-work and conditions of a standard Australian first year physics course. The problem context was a traditional first year physics course design. Students complained about a lack of motivation, and problem solving skills were not likely to be developed as well as they should be. The system unintentionally encouraged students to memorize knowledge and not necessarily to really understand the physics involved. A typical signature of this mechanism was the approach of many students to gain most of their skills a week before their exams rather than constructing them during the whole length of the course. I will introduce a series of educational interventions concerning assessment, learning inside and beyond the classroom as well as motivation, which I have applied and modified in the past two years. Outcomes, which will be discussed, indicate that these have successfully addressed the issues mentioned above. Furthermore I will also introduce some highly effective teaching evaluation schemes while critically evaluating some of the conventional ones.

1. Introduction

This paper introduces a number of ways to increase problem solving skills, motivation and depth of knowledge in a first year physics course. Substantial amounts of research have been undertaken in this area, therefore I will present only a rough introduction into some of the relevant literature. A vast range of literature shows that students who have been taught in the standard lecture-recitation format usually do not develop an understanding of physics different from their initial common sense (miss) conceptions i. Inquiry based physics coursesii have shown to be more efficient in teaching deeper conceptual understanding. Numerous previous works (for examples see ref (iii, iv, v, vi)) explore how problem solving skills of students can be improved by introducing an appropriate curriculum. While problem solving skills and depth of knowledge are attributed as major goals of a first year physics course, motivation has particular importance for achieving these goals. In fact the author believes that only a motivated student can gain a thorough knowledge of physics along with advanced problem solving skills. Questions like "why should this be studied" should be clearly answered in the applied curriculum.

The reasons why the educational intervention introduced in this work were developed, consist of the following:

• Some students reported being unhappy with the course design, they could not find enough motivation for a more successful study
• Due to the past course design problem solving skills were not as well developed as they should be.
• The old system still unintentionally encouraged students to memorize knowledge without necessarily understanding the physics involved. The importance of gaining problem solving skills to be more successful in other areas was largely unknown.

This mechanism became evident in the approach of many students to gain most of their skills a week before their exams rather than constructing them during the whole length of the course.

Therefore the aim of the educational interventions is broad. The author argues that it is important to implement changes in a wide range of curriculum design and enacted curriculum to achieve set curriculum goals. Single isolated measures are not likely to be successful as the learning process of the student should be taken into account in its full complexity. Divisions within the curriculum process can lead to an incoherent curriculum vii, viii.

Key concepts of the teaching model, which is introduced here, consist of:

including appropriate and sufficient motivation to enhance and justify students learning

introduce appropriate curriculum and learning methods into the course to develop problem solving skills of students

changing the course so it encourages deep understanding of subject matter, relating physical principles to students' own experiences, rather than only memorizing a variety of factual information

The creation and evaluation process involved past and present students, lecturers and tutors of the first year physics course, where this model was applied as well as students, lecturers and tutors who participated in the former more traditional approach. The teaching design was created in such a way so that it is suitable for a typical first year physics course and it takes account of the limitations of resources physics departments are often confronted with. To address the goals of this project adequately a wide variety of learning theory has to be taken into account.

2. Applied educational interventions

A constructivist ix learning and teaching approach was chosen to achieve the goals set above. In an article by Mestre x the importance of constructivist teaching in physics is stressed. The model states that all our knowledge is the result of a process to construct knowledge and skills rather than knowledge being absorbed by the learner. Mestre shows how student misconceptions can result from the wrong learning approach and persist even after students complete and receive high grades in science courses.

1. Motivation

The first step in introducing a successful curriculum is aiming to give students enough motivation to achieve the set goals. Particularly in physics it is important to make the acquiring of problem solving skills and deeper understanding more fun for the student. Chirnsidexi introduced the idea of concept rich problems. The problem is usually expressed in the second person with a narrative seeking to give a plausible reason for the calculation. It often tries to utilize the personal background and surroundings of the student. Although the authors of this work do not mention it explicitly, we have found that this kind of problem has a very motivating effect on students. This is one way to encourage the 'want to learn' mechanism in the student. It can be also seen as part of the constructivist approach of this course.

Constructivist teachingx means involving the student as equal partner on his/her way to achieve the construction of knowledge. Therefore achieving active participation of students in tutorials is used as one means to show students that they are taken seriously in their needs and problems. This has a very strong motivating effect on the student. Along these lines constructive evaluation of tutors, tutorial sheets and lecturers by students is strongly encouraged. Feedback about students' comments is given in the introductory section of the tutorial sheets. Quite a few improvements of the course (e.g. CON/PRO question and the PASS scheme (to be explained in the following sections)) result from this kind of dialogue with the students.

Ramsden viii (p. 89) states as a first property of good teaching the desire to share your love of the subject with the student. It is my strong belief that this is one of the best ways to improve. One way to achieve this is the "Mad Physicist's section" on all tutorial sheets. In first semester it gives summaries of the research carried out in our physics department. It is supposed to show the student how fascinating physics can be and what it means to be on the edge of knowledge. It is written in a way that should be easy to understand by first year students. It stresses that behind the barriers of difficult mathematics and sometimes boring basics, which one has to learn, there is a whole new world to explore. In second semester it contains interesting stories out of the world of physics, alternative careers of physicists and other interesting news.

2. Problem solving and learning help

Chirnside xi does not only see context rich problems as a source of motivation. He stresses their importance for the learning of problem solving skills. In our scheme most of the problems are designed so that they cannot be solved in one step merely by plugging numbers into a formula. Some data might have not been included deliberately to require a sensible estimate. Diagrams are usually left out so students have to make the effort to visualize and structure the problem. These concepts are followed during the course to increase the learning of problem solving skills. This scheme fits well into the concept of teaching as cognitive apprenticeship, mentioned by Bain xii. He states that one idea of this model is that learning should be focused on "authentic" tasks. Chirnside xi also stresses the importance of small group tutorials to acquire problem solving skills to enable active discussion. This has been taken into account. Small group tutorials of 12-18 students were implemented.

Problems have been subdivided into a CON/PRO classification. This tells the students whether a certain problem is set to mainly improve his/her problem solving skills (PRO) or whether it will deepen his/her conceptual understanding (CON). The idea of guided practice is cited by Bainxii as part of the cognitive apprentice learning model. Ramsdenviii mentions the importance of focussing on the key concepts of the topic and possible misunderstandings of the student. To focus on this a "Study guide" section was introduced on the problem sheets similar to the idea of the Study guide supplementxiii for Tipler's "Physics for scientists and engineers". Concepts which are particularly hard to understand, are discussed in more detail or they are further stressed. Furthermore, potential pitfalls are illustrated.

Learning help should be flexible and should reflect the individual and actual need of the students. The problem sheets contain therefore an introductory section containing a lot of miscellaneous hints and tips. This section provides the student with book tips, problem solving strategy, learning strategies and general information to the course.

3. Assessment

Chalmers and Fuller xiv have found that learning is strongly correlated to the assessment utilized.

"The assessment system will guide students in which kind of learning strategy they will use".

It has been shown by Biggs and Moore xv and by Gibbs xvi that assessment methods that allow students to obtain high marks by simply reproducing material they have learned will encourage students to adopt surface approaches in their learning styles. Chalmers and Fuller xiv stress the two main functions of assessment:

• grade students and certify they have met the course requirements
• support student learning

These two different functions should influence the type of assessment which is undertaken. These findings apply directly to the problem analyzed in this report. As Ramsden viii (p. 70) remarks correctly, the first function is often overemphasized by many lecturers. An important point, which is made by Chalmers xiv, is that students have clear beliefs about the cognitive demands associated with different assessment tasks. It is therefore important to choose an approach which students associate with the learning style the curriculum aims for.

Another finding of Chalmers xiv is that cooperation in preparation for assessment is especially appropriate for more complex tasks, in which the different perspectives and skills of group members can complement each other. The authors also stress the importance of a clear criteria catalogue so that students know the standards they should aim to achieve.

The article by Race xvii shows that a wide range of assessment techniques and processes should be used. He stresses the function of assessment to amplify 'the want to learn'. Commonly used assessment practices (e.g. end-of-semester exams) are often incapable of satisfying this need. The need to provide the student with feedback is recognized to be of high importance.

McDermott xviii criticizes traditional assessment schemes. They are often based on numerical problems. They are dependent on memorized formulas and do not encourage students to develop a functional understanding of physics. Rather than understanding the physical principles, students try to memorize the appropriate formula but they often fail to relate them to a deeper understanding.

In the light of these findings concerning assessment an oral test is included in the tutorial scheme. One major criterion of this oral test is to demonstrate appropriate problem solving strategies. It is made clear to the students that it is more important to have a good problem solving approach rather than to gain somehow the totally correct solution to the problem.

During the oral test the student tries to solve a problem on the board, with the help of a tutor. The class is encouraged to participate actively in a lively discussion. To find a mark for the student's performance the tutor will not take any questions into account which are asked by the audience to the student at the board. This encourages other students to ask questions without endangering their fellow student's score. The oral test is prepared always in pairs to encourage group work. The pair has to prepare all problems on the tutorial sheet together. In the actual tutorial the tutor chooses which of the two students solves which problem on the board. Furthermore the tutor will ask the student questions relating to the broad area of physics the problem deals with to probe whether the student has developed a deep understanding rather than only memorized a few formulas. The oral test is uniquely useful to probe for a deeper understanding. Introducing this new scheme it was hoped that students will adopt learning styles appropriate to prepare for this kind of assessment. Every week a new pair of students will be at the board. During the assessment all students can ask their own questions. As a student is solving the problems on the board, common student errors can be highlighted by the tutor. Focusing on the students' misunderstandings is mentioned by Ramsdenviii(p.89) as one quality of good teaching.

Students are supplied with a clear criteria catalogue with which they will be marked. The criteria catalogue is a guideline for acquiring an effective problem solving technique. Extensive feedback is given to the student after his test rather than only a numerical score. The student is asked to participate in his own evaluation of his performance. This way, students learn to assess their own performance rather than having a bad surprise in an end-of-semester exam.

In this scheme students also acquire advanced communication skills. "Teaching their own class" acts as additional incentive for better preparation. If time pemits students can repeat their oral test. This acts as further incentive to adopt the appropriate problem solving approach and to make use of the feedback which was provided after their first attempt.

Being an oral test of only 20 minutes duration a certain uncertainty in subjectivity is recognized by giving it a weight of only 10 % of the total mark. The end-of-semester exam worth 50 % of the final mark fulfills a maybe more objective grading function as mentioned by Chalmersxiv. To actively encourage students to participate in tutorials and to prepare tutorial sheets, another 10 % of the total mark is given for attempting tutorial sheets and participation in tutorials.

4. Tutorial system

McDermott xviii suggests destroying misconceptions by leading the student to a paradox using his/her initial presumption of the physical context. The paper stresses that students need practice in solving qualitative problems and explaining their reasoning. The tutorial system was changed to include a constructivist approach to the students learning. Mestre x states in this context that it is very important to find out about the students' thinking. Mestre provides examples of a constructivist class-room dialogue illustrating the two way communication for this kind of teaching approach. The student's thoughts are taken seriously and followed up by the teacher. Questions to the student help the student to deduce a logical result, compared to a transmissive approach where the student is only told the errors in his thinking process and is presented with the right solution. This constructivist attitude was adopted for this project encouraging the tutors involved to help the students to construct their learning themselves. The students are always the midpoint of the tutorial (they are the meaning makers) rather than a sponge waiting to absorb more knowledge.

The tutorial system for this course includes the introduction of learning strategies useful for a constructivist learning approach. One example which was utilized on the tutorial sheets was concept mapping explained by Novak xix. Concept maps are intended to represent meaningful relations between concepts helping the student link different concepts to acquire a deeper understanding.

There is open discussion about problems between the students, the tutor and the student engaged in the oral test. In this scheme the tutor acts more as a facilitator. Sometimes the tutor will interfere in this procedure to explain hard-to-understand concepts if there is a lot of confusion in the class. This has been found important as the tutorial time is very limited and students requested the opportunity to have some time in the tutorial reserved for their specific problems.

To encourage discussion even more, the last 10 minutes of the tutorial are reserved for open discussion and questions to the tutors. The oral test time is limited to 40 minutes per tutorial, which already includes open discussion between the student at the board, other students and the tutor.

At the request of students an Advanced Physics Tutorial (APT) is offered to the students. APT is an additional and optional one hour tutorial offered to the most interested students of the class. During that time students have the opportunity to discuss high level questions related to the hard problems on the tutorial sheets with a tutor. The tutorial is enacted in the form of an open discussion between students and the tutor. In conclusion the tutorial system enables students to construct problem solving skills rather than memorizing physics facts.

5. Flexible learning in the context of peer assisted learning

Flexible learning is often understood to involve new information technology or distance teaching xx. Here we refer to flexible learning as a learning setting, being non-compulsory and deliberately chosen by the student in which the modes of interaction are freely chosen by the participants. It as a code for deep learning fitting perfectly to the model of constructivist teaching. Teaching should be flexible in an interactive context being dependent on the individual needs of the students. Problem solving skills can only be learned by applying and practicing. An integral part of learning to problem solve is the ability to cooperate and to have discussion. This discussion will result in the construction of knowledge. As the standard tutorial time is too limited to accommodate sufficient discussion for all students of the class, new optional 1-hour classes without tutor have been introduced as part of this project. In this weekly Peer-assisted learning environment (PASS) students have the opportunity for extensive discussion. This will help them to gain a deeper understanding of the subject and will also improve their communication skills.

Another advantage of this scheme is that it offers students additional help especially with particularly hard problems. One problem, which might occur, is a disorganized and confused discussion. To prevent this, students choose in their first session one person as honorary departmental mentor. This person is responsible for facilitating the discussion and organizing the group. It is also hoped to improve the team working skills of the involved students. A very important function of the honorary departmental mentor is to give feedback to their tutor, tutorial coordinator and lecturer. Another goal for the PASS sessions is to provide some help with problems concerning the lectures. Note that the idea of implementing PASS sessions in that way proves to be economically desirable as well, as no additional tutors need to be employed for implementation of the scheme.

6. On-going curriculum evaluation and curriculum up-date

The author strongly believes that there is not a perfect curriculum. Therefore part of the educational intervention is to constantly review the other interventions and make changes if required. There are quite a number of feedback processes as described in the following section. One example for this is the "REC club tutorial" where students can talk in a very relaxed atmosphere about the problems they experience.

2. Evaluation methods and results

Whether the educational intervention was successful in the context of the problem given can be evaluated in a variety of ways. One way would be to split the group (~160 students) in two groups, teaching one group the traditional way and the other with this new model. The author has rejected this possibility due to ethical reasons. Furthermore it would not be sure there is a sufficiently high number of students in both groups to make a statistically valid conclusion out of the comparison.

Another way to collect evidence would be to compare results of previous years and this year. There are quite a few problems with this approach. The typical end-of-semester exam consists of relatively short questions. Most of them do not probe problem solving skills or deeper understanding explicitly in the author's opinion. As the aim of this project was to increase problem-solving skills, deeper understanding and motivation, the comparison of past and present exam results does not seem to be appropriate. Furthermore mark fluctuation in exams can result from a variety of factors (e.g. some exams are more difficult than others, different sets of students with different background etc.). However for completeness the exact results are as follows:

In first semester the exam results did not change significantly (first semester 1998: Mean: 53 (out of 100), first semester 1999: Mean: 50)

However in second semester an explosive shift in marks occurred (second semester in 1998: Mean: 37 (out of 100), second semester 1999: Mean: 57). Such a significant increase could possibly be associated with the new system.

I will summarize now a range of different evaluation approaches, which have been carried out.

It is important to find out what past students did not like in the old system. Therefore previous years students were interviewed to find out what they did not like.

This method was of high importance in different stages of the project. Most importantly it provided motivation to conduct most of the educational interventions used in the first semester of the project. It is important to conduct these interviews in a more casual and friendly atmosphere to enable students to be honest and therefore to gain a better understanding of students' thinking and learning processes. Some evidence given to me by past students is already in the introduction. Here I will introduce comparative evidence from students who have undertaken the course in earlier years and have repeated it in this year.

A student who undertook the course last year indicated a lack of problem solving learning in the previous year's course. He felt less stress in the final exam in the new systems. He felt that the oral test breaks up the monotony of tutorials. The tutorial in the previous year made him write down certain facts but did not involve him as a meaning maker. He associated the oral test with "real understanding". He also indicated a better motivation due to the new tutorial system.

He liked in particular the Mad Physicist's section and found the learning in this year as very thorough. Being asked about any negative sides of the system, he could not think of any.

Another important source is students whose first year physics course lies a number of years behind, for example PhD students. After making all their way through university it is important how they see their first year physics course. Most tutors have acknowledged the current approach to be a very valuable approach to a better learning compared to their first year. They like the interactive setting of the tutorial and find it to be very motivational. Only one tutor (out of 8) would have preferred a more traditional approach.

Informal interviews were carried out all through both semesters and provided a valuable source of feedback used to adjust and improve the components of the course as needed. The "Introductory section" on the tutorial sheets was used as a means to communicate with students and to seek and react to their feedback.

A lot of valuable data was taken out of these. Students' feedback was taken extremely seriously, as they should be an equal partner in the learning process (the student is the meaning maker).

Examples of the feedback gained from this kind of communication resulted in the introduction of Peer-assisted-Learning sessions (PASS). Furthermore, regular meetings between tutors and honorary departmental mentors were initiated. Some students requested more tutor input during the oral test which was given for consideration to the relevant tutors. The oral test duration was reduced slightly to allow for more miscellaneous questions. The Advanced Physics Tutorial (APT) was introduced on students' request. Additional readings and problem solving strategies were outlined in the introductory section on students' request.

Weekly tutor meetings were scheduled during the semester. As the scheme was carried out using small group tutorials, tutors have close contact with their students. This enables them to gain a feel for the student's needs and problems. Tutors can also assess the practicality and students' motivation with the new scheme. The feedback from tutors was twofold. First it highlighted any necessary changes to the system. Out of this resulted an improved marking scheme for the oral test and the introduction of the PASS scheme. But far more importantly it provided feedback between the tutors about teaching methods and problems they encountered and provided a constructivist learning atmosphere for the tutors themselves.

Tutors stated the current scheme to be very motivational for their students. Various possible changes to the current tutorial systems were named:

• introduction of a mid-semester test
• more group discussion/ group work
• not enough tutorial time
• decrease the oral test time to one question rather than two.

The tutor responsible for APT stated that it was a success with around 10 students attending regularly.

Informal get-togethers are an important factor to obtain valid feedback. Therefore we organised a get together with softdrinks and pizza ('Rec club tutorial') with students, tutors, tutorial coordinator, lecturers and head of department to find out what students think and how they learn. Feedback was gathered by all people involved in the teaching of this course. Therefore the probability is high that students will get involved in conversation with a person of their choice where they feel they can talk about the problems they have with their course. The atmosphere of this gathering was kept as informal as possible to enable students to bring up topics they would not usually bring up in a more formal setting. This setting is also useful as it decreases the personal distance between students and teachers. One of the key factors for this scheme to be successful was the strong emphasis that student's opinion and needs were taken very seriously and the curriculum adjusted accordingly.

"The informal 'parties' at the Rec Club were an amazing gesture of kindness, that I think everyone in first year really appreciated. Also your emphasis on feedback tutorials each semester gave a clear message to all that you valued our opinion."

In first semester quite a lot of communication was occuring at the tutorials. Students stated very openly their opinions about the scheme. The "Rec Club tutorials" provided a good midsemester evaluation opportunity and any necessary adjustments were made to the scheme. Overall the feedback was very positive with only few positive improvements. It was frequently stated that no other department puts that much effort into their first year courses.

As a problem solving exercise students were required to critically evaluate their teaching scheme and compare it to other possible systems. The problem sheet gave them well-defined questions about the system. Tutorial feedback problems sheets were carefully designed to maximize the authors understanding of students' learning.

The results from these questions were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Students were asked to respond with well reasoned answers to all questions rather than numberical scores. This data was then converted into numerical pie graphs to allow for a better overview. This section contains a representative selection of student's responses. Added to that are quantitative pie graphs.

Motivation is very important for successful learning. If the student can understand why it is important to learn physics the learning efficiency will be much higher. Applications also improve the learning as the students can relate much better to their own experiences in the learning process, a cornerstone of constructivist teaching.

Some feedback:

"I'll never look at a pub the same way again."

"I think they [the questions] are good, the "real life questions involving going to the pub and pushing glasses around on the beer splashed bar bars (and other questions similar to that) make otherwise boring questions different and a bit less drab."

"this way is good as it encourages/forces you to participate which is what is needed"

"The questions in the tutes really make you think about whats going on. You cannot just plug numbers in a formula for your answer. An efficient problem solving method is required."

It was quite amazing how many students liked this section. Only a few stated to be too busy to read it. Some comments:

"Definitely keep it- if nothing else, it gives you some idea of what physics can involve (as a career etc.)"

"Yes I love that section. Keep them coming"

"Hell yes its cool!"

As can be seen from the graph most students found the oral test to be a good idea. Some of the reasons for this are cited below:

The influence on their learning is described as follows:

"Yes, it give you a chance to explain what you are doing to other people. This is good because some people learn how to do things but then can't explain how they did it"

"It makes you understand what you are learning much better."

"It forces you to make your explanation very clear."

The enhancement of problem solving skills is mentioned:

"It helps your problem solving skills in that if you made a mistake you had to improvise and problem solve on the spot"

"Oral test good idea, since it is a test of really understanding the problem. It helps a great deal in problem solving skills because you have to show everybody how to do it"

One advantage of continuous assessment is stated :"takes pressure off final exam"

The importance of communication skills is acknowledged by students:

"The oral test is a good idea simply because it helps people at public speaking."

"Yes, I believe that science by itself is useless. It must be coupled with an ability to communicate otherwise it may be of no use to society."

A constructivist learning atmosphere emerges:

"Good because it stimulates discussion in the tutorials without the tutor having to drag comments kicking and screaming out of us"

Students who do not favor the oral test say:

"The oral test is a good idea up to a point. It does help develop your problem solving if you get it right. If you get it wrong, all it achieves is confusing both you and the rest of the class"

This is a valid and important point. It is possible for the tutorial setup to fail, if the tutor is not able to facilitate the tutorial in a professional way. If the student at the board is too nervous or just does not get anywhere with the problem, it is very important that the tutor takes over for at least a limited time, so that the other students who are watching gain more out of the very limited tutorial time. The tutor should also try to involve other students in such a situation. The student at the board will usually gain a second chance in a later tutorial so that he/she is encouraged to learn out of their experiences.

Some students find the test a great challenge and doubt that their problem solving skills can be improved by talking about the problem:

"No not really. To conduct an oral test in the first semester for what is for many, the first time at University is harsh. I don't think speaking about it really increases the problems solving skills involved"

A student named as possible improvement to use "better only one question than 2" for the oral test.

This question tried to find out it which ways the oral test contributes to learning. An obvious answer given by some students is "Yes, it gives you experience in talking in front of a crowd". In discussion about this scheme it was feared that it only caters for extraverted character types of students. Although it is surely easier for extroverted students, a student describes it as "I hate talking in front of people but it does help, you really need to understand your topic."

Specifically about learning, students state:

"I think explaining a problem to others improves my understanding of the problem - by talking a problem at loud you can often see flaws in the logic of your approach you have to understand the problem fully to answer the question"

Other students highlight the fact that it is very suitable to highlight misconceptions

"It definitely exposes some mathematical and physical concepts that are misunderstood by some people. These misunderstandings may not come to light otherwise"

Generally thorough understanding was often given as an attribute to the oral test:

"By having to explain a problem to the class, you must ensure that all our assumptions and the basic formulations of your argument are justified. Therefore, yes it does help".

Another student who does not like the oral test states "writing it down on a piece of paper and solving it helps more". The student's personal learning type is exhibited in this statement.

"Discussion or disagreement over a certain concept involved in the solution on the board can often expose misconceptions or misunderstanding I had previously"

Yes:

"oral test builds confidence and encourages group work / discussion" "the test makes you understand better your physics, isn't that what it's all about"

No:

"not really the goals don't mention anything about being able explain/present solution to problems, or having to be able "to engage in discussion..." about the subject like some other subject goals do. As the goals are now they can be achieved without the oral test"

Yes:

"students can explain things in simpler terms"

"for most problems I can follow what the students doing the oral is saying and for the harder questions our tutor will run through it on the board"

"yes as I'm normally checking their answer to mine and trying to work out what they doing, which leads to thinking about the problem and then understanding it".

"probably understand more with the student because he is at your level and gets things wrong and you get involved"

No:

"don't have a clue what the student is talking about but if I ask a question they don't know or don't understand"

Students stated:

"Physicists should be able to communicate with people, and this is the only experience we get at this point, gives some recognition to people who are better in an oral than in a written exam and requires deeper understanding than written exam"

"I don't think I sit exams well, in school, I reckon I understand the physics, answered exams properly, but only ever just passed"

"It is a good idea as it gives everybody a chance to teach and learn"

"I believe this oral test is a very effective way of stopping people slacking off during semester and then merely memorizing chapters out of the text book. and regurgitating them in an exam."

"It also improves problem solving skill and tests that people can understand the work and apply it to problems of a complex nature, and that their thought processes along the way towards their answer were in the right direction."

"This system makes people learn to a certain extent throughout the whole course instead of leaving it to the end and cramming."

"Oral test encourages the sharing of ideas, not only does one person get up and solve and explain a problem but other people can suggest alternative ways of solving the problem."

New idea:

"research assignment, everybody researches about topic he/she is interested in...and talks to the class about it twice per semester would increase interest and motivation"

The tutorial system was changed to include a constructivist approach to the students learning The students are always the midpoint of the tutorial. There is an open discussion about problems in between the students and the tutor. Tutor acts more as a facilitator.

Some more opinions about the tutorial system:

"The new approach is great. I failed PH143 in 1998 partially due to a low level of interaction in the tutorials and the new format is helping me learn the concepts and specific question a lot easier."

"I am happy with the present approach of how the tutorials are done - if the tutor did all the work on the board I would be tempted to simply copy and regurgitate ( no learning takes place."

One student describes the problems associated with the transmissive approach:

"I think all of my learning takes place because of the tutorials. In the lectures the information seems to have a direct connection to my pen and hence by passes my brain. I'm only learning because I have to apply the info to the tutorial."

"This way is good as it encourages/forces you to participate which is what is needed."

"The discussion, which results from the current system is better than seeing model answers written on the board."

Students who prefer a more traditional approach gave the following reasons:

"I probably prefer a more traditional approach with a substantial amount of student input. We could get a lot more out of it and learning would be much more streamlined."

The student believes that only because more problems might be discussed with the tutor explaining them on the board, the students' learning would be more efficient.

"A more traditional approach would be better because we would get through more problems and obtain a better understanding of them."

"It's easier to follow when someone actually knows what is going on explains, students often cannot effectively communicate, write up solutions not teach it 90 % of the time you just sit and watch people try to solve problems to me seems very silly."

One way to resolve these problems is to stress the role of the tutor in that he/she intervenes when it is needed.

One question asked students whether it was a good idea to introduce Peer-assisted learning. 82% appreciated it.

"Also, PASS is a time for discussion, either major or minor of concepts, topics, whatever which in my opinion strongly enhances learning. Working together in a group to tackle some of the more obscure tute problems is also hugely satisfying and beneficial for everyone involved. And socially? Perhaps this is hardly relevant but I'll include it anyway. This tute has allowed me to get to know the people in my tute group a whole lot better than last semester. I think that consequently, since everyone knows everybody better, the Friday tutes are a lot more fun and we have no longer those icky stony silences."

When asked to evaluate the introduction of the advanced physics tutorial 85 % found it a good idea, although only around 10% actually made use of it.

83% of all students appreciated the introduction of the PRO/CON classification. One student criticized that it is capable to create mental barriers.

The introductory section was appreciated by 89 % in first semester and by all students in the second semester.

"yes there is a big step up to the level of self discipline required compared to that at school. A few words of wisdom do not go astray"

"the intro section gives a lot of helpful hints"

"yes it gives me incentive to try on the sheet. I know it sounds stupid - but things like "Do not give up" work wonders"

An overwhelming majority remarked that the study guide was very helpful to them (Semester 1: 83%, Semester 2: 98%).

Some other questions were left more open while challenging the students' problem solving ability, e.g.

Students strongly appreciated this section. Nevertheless most students appreciated the current system. Comments were similar to the ones presented already. Some additional views were:

"More info about prac."

"Expose students to research in physics and employment."

"Give students reading up on the topic prior to the lecture."

"Have problem solving lecture."

"longer tutes"

"Students forward problems where they have trouble and tutor works through them."

"less emphasis on prac 20% endsemester, 20% midsemester, 20% prac midsemester worth 30% "

"The tutorial situation is far better than in any other subject I'm studying."

The problem sheet also contains a section for anonymous feedback. This is considered very important as students might fear a negative reaction on their feedback if their identity is disclosed. One question asked students to mark all the people involved in this course:

These feedback problem sheets were handed out in both semesters of the course to monitor the quality of the course effectively and to make any necessary adjustments.

Other forms to evaluate the applied educational interventions were communciations on student's request. Students are encouraged to see the tutorial coordinator with their feedback during office hours or send an email. This has led to quite an important pathway for feedback, although not a representative one. During the course of the year it became more and more normal that students came and talked with me about their problems/needs. Out of these discussions, meetings between individual tutors and the honorary departmental mentors were arranged, as it was found that the new scheme was fairly good but the way how some tutors implemented it could be improved. This illustrated the success of the scheme and highlighted the need for more tutor training. Tutor training was carried out on a weekly basis for around 20 min. Due to budget restrictions it was not possible to increase the length of tutor training.

A typical TEDI survey (students give numerical scores to a set of preset standard questions) was carried out in which students could quantitatively rate their course. A TEDI evaluation was carried out at the end of first semester. It is quite remarkable how little information came out of this evaluation and confirms the views of quite a few students I have spoken to. The wording of the questions was far too unspecific and the numerical results were indicating agreement with their learning system. This could be taken as evidence that students are fairly happy with their course, but the lack of specific and qualitative reasoning in students' answers partly disqualifies the whole survey in the author's opinion. The open-ended questions in this survey were a little more useful but as they were too broad, students did not give much feedback there either.

Feed back information resulting from these questionnaires included:

• Students would like a midsemester test.
• Labs need a major restructuring in the way they are conducted.
• Students requested PASS scheme (in first semester, where it was not introduced yet)

One of the responsibilities of the honorary departmental mentor (HDM) is to mediate between class and the tutor, tutorial coordinator and lecturer. As the HDM represents the whole class, high quality and honest feedback could be expected from this source, helping all parties involved to improve the course quality. The evaluative evidence provided by the Honorary Departmental Mentors (HDM) was twofold. First of all their most important task was to give feedback to their respective tutor on how well the tutorial was conducted and what could be improved during the semester. Secondly they were in contact with the tutorial coordinator concerning issues about the whole scheme and when it was needed for the tutorial coordinator to mediate between tutorial group and tutor. It was part of their responsibility to discuss the tutorial scheme with the author at the end of the two semesters in a meeting as well as providing a comprehensive written reflection. The full written reflections can be found in the reference [xxi] and only excerpts will be provided here. It is fascinating reading these reports as they give a full description of the students learning and show the student's perspective on the scheme. The constructivist atmosphere is mentioned in all reports as a very positive aspect of the new scheme. This is not only proof for the efficiency of the constructivist approach but also illustrates that the applied educational interventions fit well in the framework of constructivist teaching. It is mentioned that "the scheme meant that people were more involved with the physics department through their tutorial participation".

The PASS scheme was mentioned to encouraged group work and to improve understanding. PASS was seen as a forum for active discussion and group problem solving in a student orientated environment, furthermore they were described as highly interactive.

The tutorials were found to be very effective.

"I really liked the idea of getting students involved in both the teaching and learning of the subject - it's fairly well known idea that you really learn something when you try to teach it..."

HDM's found it to be a good idea that tutorial sheets had a much wider scope, e.g. discussing learning techniques.

They stated that less motivated students might prefer a more transmissive approach but it was acknowledged that the implemented scheme catered for a large student variety.

The oral test was associated with deep learning. "the inherent nature of the Oral Test means that that the tutorial sessions are very interactive". A few reasons for the efficiency of the oral test are given below:

"Firstly in order to participate, students must have some degree of understanding, to which they build by interacting with others (and we are assuming here that students do want to participate, and hence would be motivated to achieve a sound understanding in order to do so), the benefits of having this ongoing understanding throughout semester have already been discussed.

Secondly the Oral Test gives students an opportunity to ask questions publicly rather than independently, for others in the group these questions may be thought-provoking and a test of everyone else's understanding.

Thirdly numerous questions raised in the Oral Test may serve as indications for the tutor of weak spots in a certain area of the lecture material.

Fourthly questions or points brought up in the Oral Test may serve as a good bouncing board for deeper discussions whether for the sake of interest or to achieve a stronger understanding."

It was proposed to have some ice-breaker activities in the tutorials at the beginning of semester.

The importance of the role of the tutor was pointed out indicating the need for a thorough tutor training.

The increased student participation resulting from the new scheme was cited to increase motivation. The staff student liaison committee is a departmental committee trying to mediate between staff and students meeting on a regular basis. Some valuable feedback arose from this source. There were two meetings, one in each semester. In first semester it was stated that students had inadequate mathematics background for PH144. It is now being investigated whether there will be a one-week pre-semester mathematics background course or a specific mathematics program at the beginning of the semester. Furthermore one student stated the tutorial problems were found too be too hard. This was taken in further discussion with students later. In that discussion it was found that students can only gain problem solving skills if they try harder questions and it was therefore appreciated by students to have these harder problems. Evidence for this is also resulting from the feedback tutorial sheets. 81% of students actually appreciate hard questions as a means to gain better problem solving skills. It was requested that tutorial sheets should be marked rather than only having a Pass and Fail system. This was not possible to implement due to resource restrictions. It is also possible that marking tutorial sheets might actually compromise student participation in the tutorials.

Furthermore it was suggested to prepare a mathematics handout when appropriate. This was implemented in PH145 on a small scale and will be developed further in future years.

The meeting of the staff-liaison committee in second semester acknowledged the scheme to work satisfactorily. No proposals were made by students.

3. Conclusion

The evaluative data presented strongly indicates that the presented scheme has been highly successful in achieving the goals and objectives set by the author. Surely no teaching approach can ever be perfect but the results show that the presented approach has achieved an amazing amount of motivation in students resulting in deeper learning and advanced problem solving skills.

The data shows that students are more interested to understand the meaning and to ask "why" rather than learning facts. This is one of the major achievements of the scheme. Most importantly it becomes clear that it was successful as it treated the learner as an equal partner. Students' thoughts were taken very seriously in all stages of developing and applying the educational interventions, which are introduced here.

"The informal 'parties' at the Rec Club were an amazing gesture of kindness, that I think everyone in first year really appreciated. Also your emphasis on feedback tutorials each semester gave a clear message to all that you valued our opinion."

It is important to understand that any teaching scheme has to grow and change according to the immediate needs of both the educator and the student. The presented scheme did grow and that is one of the reasons why it was successful. I believe that any teaching scheme must carry a spirit of enthusiasm and fascination coupled with a strong respect for the students being partners in the learning process.

The data presented here shows that these principles were applied in this scheme.

There are a number of improvements possible, but the base line of the scheme does not need any major improvements. In second semester, one tutorial group showed distinctly different results compared to the other seven groups. Students in this group would have preferred a more traditional approach. This different behavior was thoroughly analyzed. The tutor involved did not really like the new scheme and would have preferred a more traditional approach. For the new scheme to work (for any constructivist approach) it is important that the tutor has not only enough competency in the subject area, but also advanced facilitating skills. This is outlined further in the discussion about the responses of the honorary departmental tutor. It is also very important that the tutor finds a balance between explaining concepts to students and giving them the chance to make meaning out of these concepts in some form of interactive communication between the student, other students and the tutor. If the tutor does not succeed in this role, students prefer the more transmissive approach. The scheme which is introduced here is not limited to a first year physics course but could also be applied to any science based course.

The conclusion of this paper is left to one of the honorary departmental mentors having made a really mind blowing comment in his/her reflection:

"...and I've come to the conclusion that there is a certain magic about the Physics department at UQ"

4. Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge very helpful discussion with Norman Heckenberg, Gary Tuck, Peter Drummond and Margaret Wegener. The whole project was undertaken in conjunction with a Graduate Certificate of Education course. I would like to express my gratitude to Jim Butler for a lot of very valuable advice.

i B. Thacker, E. Kim, K. Trefz and S. M. Lea, "Comparing problem solving performance of physics students in inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics courses", Am. J. Phys. 62 (7), 627-633 and references therein

ii L.C. McDermott et al., Physics by Inquiry (Physics Education Group, Physics Dept., University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1982-1992).

iii P. Heller, R. Keith and S. Anderson, "Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part1: Group versus individual problem solving", Am. J. Phys. 60, 627-636, (1991).

iv A. Van Heuvelen, "Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies", Am. J. Phys. 891-907, (1991).

v A. Van Heuvelen, "Overview, Case Study Physics", Am. J. Phys. 898-907, (1991)

vi M. Alonso, "Problem Solving vs. Conceptual Understanding", Am. J. Phys. 777-778, (1992)

vii M. Nelson, C. Jacobs and L. Cuban, "Concepts of curriculum", Teaching and learning in Medicine 4(4), 202-205(1992).

viii P. Ramsden, "Learning to Teach in Higher Education", New York: Routledge (1992)

ix C. Dawson, "Students' prior knowledge and teaching approaches: transmissive and constructivist teaching", Science Teaching in the Secondary School. London: Longman. pp. 47-55, (1994)

x J.P. Mestre, "Learning and instruction in pre-college physical science", Physics Today September, p. 56, (1991)

xi D. Chirnside, "Some current trends in physics education", Australian & New Zealand Physicist, 35(4) pp. 157-160, (1998)

xii J. Bain, "Academics' conceptions of learning and teaching: Implications for University Education", In Reaching More Students, Conrad, L. and Phillips, L.-A., Griffith Institute of Higher Education, pp. 11-22, (1995)

xiii G. Mosca, G.C. Kyker, Jr., R. Gautreau, "Study guide to accompany P.A. Tipler physics for scientists and engineers", W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1999

xiv D. Chalmer and R. Fuller, "The effect of assessment on learning", In Teaching and Learning at University: Theory and Practice (pp.47-57) Perth: Edith Cowan University(1995)

xv J.B. Biggs and P.J. Moore, "The Process of Learning", (3rd edn.) Sydney: Prentice Hall (1993)

xvi G. Gibbs, "Improving the Quality of Student Learning", Bristol: Technical and Education Services (1992)

xvii P. Race, "What has assessment done for us - and to us?" In P. Knight (Ed.), Assessment for learning in higher education (pp.61-74). London: Kogan Page, (1995)

xviii L. McDermott, "How we teach and how students learn", Australian & New Zealand Physicist 30 (3), pp. 151-163, (1993)

xix J. D. Novak and D. Govin, "Learning how to learn", Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 2, (1984)

xx T. Nunan, "Flexible delivery - What is it and Why is it part of the current educational debate?" presented at the HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, 1996

xxi W.K. Hensinger, "Introducing a more successful first year physics curriculum to increase problem solving skills, motivation and depth of knowledge", GCED Report, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, (1999)