Serdyukova N.V. [nserdyuk@nu.edu]
National University, California, USA
Download in PDF: http://fmo-journal.fizmatsspu.sumy.ua/journals/2016-v3-9/2016_3-9-Serdyukova_Scientific_journal_FMO.pdf

UNCONVENTIONAL APPROACHES TO TEACHING COLLEGE PHYSICS

Анотація. Сердюкова Н.В. Нетрадиційні підходи до викладання фізикі у вищому навчальному закладі. Автор розглядає деякі методичні підходи з викладання курсу фізикі в амеріканськом університеті для студентів з непрофільною підготовкою з цього предмету.  Особлива увага приділяється використанню таких підходів: прискорене навчання в одномісячном та двомісячном курсових форматах, Ітеративна Навчальна Модель, та впровадження іноваційних технологій.  У статті представлено порівняння успішності студентів та приведені докази ефективності навчання в кожному з цих підходів.
Ключові слова: Викладання фізики, прискорене навчання, Ітеративна Навчальна Модель, технологія навчання.

Аннотация. Сердюкова Н.В. Нетрадиционные подходы к преподаванию физики в вузе. Автор рассматривает некоторые методические подходы к преподаванию курса физики в американском вузе для студентов с непрофильной подготовкой по этому предмету. Особое внимание уделено использованию следующих подходов: усконенное обучение в одномесячном и двухмесячном курсовых форматах, Итеративная Обучающая Модель, и применение инновационных технологий. В статье представлено сравнение успеваемости студентов и приведены доказательства эффективности обучения в каждом из этих подходов.
Ключевые слова: преподавание физики, ускоренное обучение, Итеративная Обучающая Модель, технологии обучения.

Abstract. Serdyukova N.V. Unconventional approaches to teaching college physics. The author discusses some methodological approaches for teaching Physics in the US university for non-majoring students. Specific consideration is given to the following approaches: accelerated learning in one and two-month course formats, Iterative Instructional Model, and integration of innovative educational technologies. The article offers a comparison of students’ achievements and demonstration of instructional effectiveness of each of these approaches.
Key words: Teaching Physics, accelerated learning, Iterative Instructional Model, educational technology.

References

1. Redish, E. (2003). Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
2. Merrill (2007).A Task-Centered Instructional Strategy. "Journal of Research on Technology in Education”, 40 (1), 33-50.
3. Mintzes, J. (2006). Handbook of College Science Teaching.NSTA Press.
4. Henderson, C., Dancy, M, and Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 – Published 31 July 2012. http://journals.aps.org/prper/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020104.
5. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., Clark, R. (2009). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
6. Serdyukova, N. (2015). What does indirect assessment tell us? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 8(1), 167-178.
7. Wlodkowski, R. (Spring 2003). Accelerated learning in colleges anduniversities. New directions for adult and continuing education, 97.
8. Serdyukov (2008). Accelerated learning: What is it?Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 1(1), 35-59.
9. Serdyukov, P., Subbotin, I, &Serdyukova, N. (Spring 2003). Accessible, convenient and efficient education for working adults in a shorter time: Is it possible? CAEL Forum and News, 26(3), 24-28.
10. Halpern, D. &Hakel, M. (2004, April). Applying the science of learningto the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Presentation at 80^th WASC Annual Meeting. San Jose, CA.
11. Serdyukova, N. (2008). Accelerated General Physics: Real challenges and possible solutions. JRIT 1(1), pp. 95-112.
12. Serdyukov, P., Greiner, C., Subbotin, I. &Serdyukova, N. (2004). Enhancing E-learning outcomes through iteration.Proceedings of E-Learn World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education, Washington, D.C..
13. Komerath, N. (2001). Design-centered introduction: Experience with iterative learning. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. http://www.adl.gatech.edu/archives/adlp01062501.pdf
14. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., III, &Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning themicrogenetic analysis of one student's understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (4). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Hmelo, C. Holton & D. Kolodner J. (2000). Designing to Learn about ComplexSystems. The  Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247-298.
16. Farr, M. (2012).The long-term retention of knowledge and skills: A cognitive and instructional perspective. Arlington, VA: Springer-Verlag.
17. Dempster, F. (1991). Synthesis of research on reviews and tests.Journal of Educational Leadership, 48(7), 71-76.
18. Atkinson, R. &Shifrin, R. (1968). Human memory: A proposed systemand its control processes. In K.W. Spence and J.T. Spence (Eds.).The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8. London: Academic Press.
19. Estes, W. (1962).Learning theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 13,107-114.
20. Quirk, C. (2000).How do presentation modality and strategy useinfluence memory for paired concepts. Journal of Instructional Psychology. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ How+do+Presentation+Modality+ and+Strategy+Use+Influence+Memory+for...-a063365167.
21. Snodgrass, J. & Kinjo, H. (1998). On the generality of the generationeffect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24(3), 645-648.
22. Ofen-Noy, N., Dudai, Y. &Karni A. (2003). Skill learning in mirrorreading: How repetition determines acquisition. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 507–521.
23. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language.Ed. by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24. Serdyukova, N., Subbotin, I.( 2014).Teaching General Physics: Innovative Instructional Models and Their Fuzzy Logic Evaluation. International Journal of Applications of Fuzzy Sets and Artificial Intelligence, 4, 187-202.
25. Chen, J. (2003). Educational Technology in Introductory College Physics Teaching and Learning: The Importance of Students’ Perception and Performance, Beyond Boundaries Conference, October 24, 2003. https://und.edu/research/institutional-research/_files/docs/ presentations/beyond-boundaries-2003-physics.pdf
26. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W., van der Veen, J. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education.Computers & Education.58(1), January 2012, Pp. 136–153. http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0360131511001758.
27. Beichner, R. J. (2006). Instructional technology research and development in a U.S. physics education group.European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(4), 383–393.
28. Richards-Babb, M., Drelick, J., Henry, Z., & Robertson-Honecker, J. (2011). Online homework, help or hindrance: What students think and how they perform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 81- 93.