Dewey I. Dykstra

Using Knowledge Representation to Study Conceptual Change in Students for Teaching Physics

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr. et al. — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:02:27 PDT

A Learning Cycle on Exponential Growth and the Energy Crises

Dewey Dykstra Jr. — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:02:25 PDT

For the past several years Professor A. A. Bartlett has been pointing out the conflict between exponential growth and a finite environment.¹ Recently, he has not been alone, as was indicated by the attendance and participation in the Speaker's Workshop: Exponential Growth a la Bartlett held at the Summer, 1980 AAPT meeting at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY.

This note is prompted by two things. At the workshop, the question was asked: How can a speaker convince his audience of the mind-boggling growth which occurs? Those of us who have faced the same problem in the classroom have a hard time finding activities which help the students experience exponential change. There is a way to deal with both of these problems.

Science Education in Elementary School: Some Observations

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr. — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:02:22 PDT

As one whose classroom teaching experience consists of ninth grade physical science through upper division college physics, whose only experience with elementary students in Summer enrichment programs and as one whose science education research efforts have been mainly from the front of classrooms, I would like to humbly make the following assertion and then justify it:

The task of teaching science in the elementary schools is more demanding that teaching science in high school or college.

Some readers may respond that this is nothing new. Others will say that this notion is incorrect: children cannot learn as much science as older folks can, therefore their teachers do not need to know much science. Please allow a new perspective on this issue to be presented. This insight comes from research on what is variously known as alternative frameworks, alternative conceptions, preinstructional conceptions, or misconceptions and from the developmental paradigm. Further, it does not seem to have been succinctly stated in the literature, as yet.

Why Teach Kinematics? An Examination of the Teaching of Kinematics and Force I

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 13:15:21 PDT

Why Teach Kinematics? An Examination of the Teaching of Kinematics and Force II

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 13:12:13 PDT

A Constructivist Education, Conceptual Change, and the Role of Technology

Dewey Dykstra Jr. — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:43:34 PDT

A constructivist interpretation of the learning process has been supported by research on students conceptions in physics in the last twenty years. The paper outlines the elements of a constructivist view of learning referring to knowledge as a personal construction, which is bound by viability criteria, not by the non operational notion of an objective reality. Conceptual change is, or should be, the objective of instruction. Computer technology can be used in education to establish a constructive environment, which would help students by providing a new understanding of the world.

Physics Classroom Engagement: Constructing Understanding in Real Time

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr. — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:43:32 PDT

The dismal results of standard physics teaching found in the research in physics education are explained and justified by the folk theory of physics teaching. Challenging this folk theory at its core results in far superior student learning. An example of an alternative practice called student understanding-driven instruction is described. Implications for the role of the teacher and for teacher preparation are drawn, as are challenges to engaging in this alternative physics teaching practice.

Cross-Disciplinary Course on Teaching for GTAs

Dewey Dykstra Jr. et al. — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:43:30 PDT

Physics Teaching and the Development of Reasoning

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr — Tue, 17 May 2011 09:43:28 PDT

Research in Physics Learning

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr — Tue, 17 May 2011 09:40:24 PDT

Physics Teaching and the Development of Reasoning

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr — Tue, 17 May 2011 09:38:26 PDT

Preparing Future Generations: A Bit With Some Promise

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr — Tue, 17 May 2011 09:35:43 PDT

Teaching Introductory Physics to College Students

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr — Tue, 17 May 2011 09:23:04 PDT

Teaching Introductory Physics to College Students

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr — Tue, 17 May 2011 09:18:40 PDT

Science Education

Dewey I. Dykstra Jr — Tue, 17 May 2011 09:05:54 PDT

College Teaching and the Development of Reasoning

Robert G. Fuller et al. — Tue, 17 May 2011 08:17:32 PDT

This book is intended to offer college faculty members the insights of the development of reasoning movement that enlighten physics educators in the late 1970s and led to a variety of college programs directed at improving the reasoning patterns used by college students. While the original materials were directed at physics concepts, they quickly expanded to include other sciences and the humanities and social sciences. On-going developments in the field will be included. The editors have introduced new topics, including discussions of Vygotsky's ideas in relation to those of Piaget, of science education research progress since 1978, of constructivist learning theory applied to educational computer games and of applications from anthropology to zoology. These materials are especially relevant for consideration by current university faculty in all subjects. Following an Introduction and History, contents include fourteen chapters: (1) How Students Reason; (2) Concrete and Formal Reasoning; (3) Formal Reasoning Patterns; (4) Interviews of College Students; (5) College Student Research Findings; (6) Analysis of Test Questions; (7) Analysis of Textbooks; (8) Self-Regulation; (9) The Learning Cycle; (10) Teaching Goals and Strategies; (11) Implementation; (12) Progress since 1978; (13) Theoretical Foundations for College Learning: Sorting Fact from Fiction; and (14) College Programs. Bibliography and Index are also included. Appended are: (1) Additional Readings; and (2) Physics Teaching and Development of Reasoning Materials[C] 1975 AAPT.

Unfortunate Outcomes of a “Funny” Physics Problem: Some Eye–Opening YouTube Comments

Josip Slisko et al. — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:57:37 PST

The impressions we make as instructors of physics can affect student learning and public perception of physics teachers, physics as an academic subject, and physics as a profession. There are many sources from which we can collect evidence of these impressions. Among these sources are online public forums such as those at the Internet site known as YouTube. Whether we are proud of these impressions we make or not, we should consider how constructive these impressions are for our students' physics learning and their impact on the public perception of physics and the community of physicists.

Conceptual Development About Motion and Force in Elementary and Middle School Students

Dewey I. Dykstra et al. — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:25:51 PST

Methods of physics education research were applied to find what kinds of changes in 4th, 6th, and 8th grade student understanding of motion can occur and at what age. Such findings are necessary for the physics community to effectively discharge its role in advising and assisting pre-college physics education. Prior to and after instruction the students were asked to carefully describe several demonstrated accelerated motions. Most pre-instruction descriptions were of the direction of motion only. After instruction, many more of the students gave descriptions of the motion as continuously changing. Student responses to the diagnostic and to the activity materials revealed the presence of a third “snapshot” view of motion not discussed in the literature. The 4th and 6th grade students gave similar pre-instructional descriptions of the motion, but the 4th grade students did not exhibit the same degree of change in descriptions after instruction. Our findings suggest that students as early as 6th grade can develop changes in ideas about motion needed to construct Newtonian-like ideas about force. Students’ conceptions about motion change little under traditional physics instruction from these grade levels through college level.

What Can We Learn from the Misunderstandings of Radical Constructivism?: Commentary on Slezak’s “Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite”

Dewey I. Dykstra — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:25:50 PST

>Problem • What alternative strategies from our experiences using a Piaget-based radical constructivist pedagogy might have more and better results than the current practice of responding in debate form, each side trying to prove the other wrong? >Method • Use of Slezak’s paper to illuminate the point that the central problem with the interpretation of RC generally used in such writing is that the authors seem not to be able to operate from the central tenet of RC, which is the opposite of that used in realism. Description of how this failure to use the central tenet of RC results in claims that RC is irrelevant to education and to definitions of good teaching. >Results • A specific approach shown to be useful in facilitating the construction of new understanding in science is adapted in order to guide interaction between an RC and a realist, which can result in the realist understanding the RC point of view. >Implications • Instead of debating with critics of RC, where each side is trying to prove the other side wrong, we need to change the interaction to one in which members of opposing sides attempt to understand the other’s position. In this situation we are in a position to use a pedagogical strategy in which the realist examines her own fundamental assumption that we can know a mind-independent world, and considers the implications of a starting assumption that is exactly the opposite.

Radical Constructivism Has an Answer - But This Answer Is not an Easy One

Dewey I. Dykstra — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:25:49 PST

>Context • In spite of its advantages and its ability to make valid responses to objections, radical constructivism is not mainstream. >Problem • Extolling the virtues of radical constructivism and responding logically to the objections does not work. We know this from the evidence of many attempts. Our theoretical stance, radical constructivism, also suggests this approach is not likely to have much influence on realists. We cannot transmit understanding in the signals with which we attempt to communicate. How can we in radical constructivism enable those outside of RC to understand our explanation of human knowing? >Method • Examine our understanding of radical constructivism itself, because it is an explanation of how, why and under what circumstances people change their understandings of their experiential worlds. >Results • We must find ways to direct the attention of others to situations that they cannot explain with their existing understanding of the world. Then we must create conditions conducive to their revising and testing new understandings for fit with the evidence of their experience. >Implications • Since radical constructivism is a theory of human knowing, it tells us how humans develop knowledge, hence it is an answer to the questions central to this special issue. This answer is not one to be used to win in debates with realists. Radical constructivism gives us an answer to the problem of engaging realists in understanding our position, but strategies consistent with radical constructivism are not easily carried out. Developing and executing such strategies is the work at hand.