Abstract
Although guided-inquiry methods for teaching introductory physics have been individually shown to be more effective at improving conceptual understanding than traditional lecture-style instruction, researchers in physics education have not studied differences among reform-based curricula in much detail. Several researchers have developed University of Washington--style tutorial materials, but the different curricula have not been compared against each other. Our study examines three tutorials designed to improve student understanding of Newton's third law: the University of Washington's Tutorials in Introductory Physics (TIP), the University of Maryland's Activity-Based Tutorials (ABT), and the Open Source Tutorials (OST) also developed at the University of Maryland. Each tutorial was designed with different goals and agendas, and each employs different methods to help students understand the physics. We analyzed pretest and post-test data, including course examinations and data from the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). Using both FMCE and course data, we find that students using the OST version of the tutorial perform better than students using either of the other two.
Highlights
Studies conducted in recent years have shown that guided-inquiry, University of Washington–style tutorials can be effective supplements to traditional introductory physics instruction.[1–4] little comparative research has been done concerning how different types of tutorials compare in effectiveness or vary in structure and content
In the context of Newton’s third law, three tutorials exist and can be compared in style and effectiveness: a pencil-and-paper tutorial from the University of Washington’s Tutorials in Introductory PhysicsTIP;[5] a microcomputer-based laboratory tutorial developed at the University of Maryland as part of the Activity-Based TutorialsABT;[6–9] and a refining raw intuitions tutorial that is part of the Open Source Tutorials developed at the University of Maryland.[10–12]
Consistent with the literature related to the three curricula from which we pulled the tutorials, all three tutorials were found to improve student understanding of N3
Summary
Studies conducted in recent years have shown that guided-inquiry, University of Washington–style tutorials can be effective supplements to traditional introductory physics instruction.[1–4] little comparative research has been done concerning how different types of tutorials compare in effectiveness or vary in structure and content. In the context of Newton’s third law, three tutorials exist and can be compared in style and effectiveness: a pencil-and-paper tutorial from the University of Washington’s Tutorials in Introductory PhysicsTIP;[5] a microcomputer-based laboratory tutorial developed at the University of Maryland as part of the Activity-Based TutorialsABT;[6–9] and a refining raw intuitions tutorial that is part of the Open Source Tutorials developed at the University of Maryland.[10–12]. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of each tutorial in improving student understanding of Newton’s third law. Throughout, we will refer to them by their abbreviationsTIP, ABT, and OSTeven when a phrase like “ABT tutorial” is redundantlike PIN number
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
