 Good afternoon. I have a small request on behalf of the speaker. He would prefer if people come front, occupy whatever that's available in the front. He needs people to be in groups. Can you please do that? I'm sorry, this is on behalf of the speaker. It's not my fault. Thank you, thank you. Yes, we will start. For the post-transition, we have David Sokolov giving us a review talk. And I have the pleasant task of introducing him. I realized there's a lot of material for introduction. And I showed this to him. He said, tell my name, get lost. Don't eat into my time. So that's exactly what I'm going to do. But I think it would be very unfair not to say a few words about him. David Sokolov is presently an emeritus professor at the University of Oregon. He's very famous for his physics curriculum development, where they have four modules on real-time physics, active learning laboratories, and interactive lecture demonstrations. They're very, very interesting way of learning in an active mode. They're very popular and they're still being practiced in the university that he developed. And he's also conducting a two-day workshop starting from 10th. So people who are going to be involved in that will see what real-time physics and active learning is about. I will not take any more time as I promised him. And I'll invite Dr. Sokolov to take the day. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon. And I want to thank the organizers for inviting me. And I hope this will be of interest to you. It's a little bit different talk than most of the ones you've been hearing. I want to give credit to the people I've worked with most over the years, Priscilla Laws and Ronald Thornton. And we've actually worked together for, it's going on 32 years. And as part of the activity-based physics group, which is a group of people including these three, but there are others who have worked on these projects as well. And the group, the activity-based physics group, was the winner of the 2010 American Physical Society Excellence in Physics Education Award. And the materials that I'm going to be talking about and most of the research and curriculum development we've done could not have been done without support from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education. So the problem that we addressed when we first started doing this is, as you're well aware by now, students come into the introductory physics course and they have had many physics experiences. They ride bicycles, many of them drive cars, they walk, they run, and they have some fairly definite views of physics. Many of these are not quite correct. Physics education research shows that the vast majority of students who come into an introductory physics course taught in a traditional way will not change those views and will leave the course with exactly the same conceptual ideas that they had when they came in. And this result seems to show that it's traditional methods of instruction that don't work regardless of how talented the instructor is. And this research has been done in many, many different forms. It started out by demonstration interviews and then long answer questions, short answer questions, multiple choice questions, and all of the research reaches pretty much the same conclusion. So it's something like this. Do you know Bart Simpson? I will not learn physics concepts in physics class. Or perhaps you know Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory who says, how can it be possible when I spend so much time designing perfectly logical, sublimely entertaining lectures, how can it be possible that my students don't learn physics? Well we did some research and this research was done with the force in motion conceptual evaluation in the air of mechanics. We've done research in other areas of physics as well. And this just very briefly, I'm not going to say very much about it, it's a research validated multiple choice alternative to the FCI. The FCI which several people have mentioned in their talks. And the advantage over the FCI is that it provides a lot of information about the conceptual models that students are using to answer the questions and therefore it aids in the development of curricular approaches and in the assessment of whether those approaches work or not. So it's not this kind of a test. This says bonus question, 50 points. What's the name of that thing that hangs down in the back of our throats? Supposedly on the medical boards. That's a factual question. The FMCE and the FCI for that matter are tests that require reasoning from basic concepts to answer the questions. Here's an example of research results from actually from my university, university level students back when we still were teaching the introductory course in a traditional way. And the left hand bar is pre-instruction and the right hand bar is post-traditional instruction. It means at the end of the course and you see that the change in these conceptual questions is very small. In fact, the normalize gain which is a comparison of the actual gain to the possible gain is only 8% for this group. For the whole course, usually with traditional instruction that gain is somewhere between 8%. This is a low one and maybe 20%. But not much more than that. Bart Simpson again, underachiever and proud of it. The proposed solution, active learning environments, but importantly complimenting but not replacing more quantitative work. In other words, the interactive lecture demonstrations that I'm going to talk to you about and our real-time physics labs are largely designed to focus on concepts. I don't want you to get the idea that in our introductory physics course, we've thrown out problem solving. No, we still do a lot on problem solving, but that's not the focus of my talk. I'm going to talk about traditional or passive learning environments and active learning environments. I want to right up front define what I mean by those in the context of what we've worked on. Here's a table on the left hand side are the characteristics of a passive learning environment or traditional learning environment. The right hand side, active learning environment. In a passive learning environment, the instructor's role is as the authority. The instructor knows things that he or she is going to transmit to the students. The flow of information is generally in only one direction, from the authority to the students. In an active learning environment, the physical world is the authority. The instructor's role is as a guide to guide students to learn from their physical environment. In a passive learning environment, students' naive beliefs that they bring into the course are not challenged. But in an active learning environment, we use a learning cycle. Students make predictions. They make observations. They compare their observations to their predictions. So it directly challenges the beliefs that they have when they come into the course. In traditional learning environments, collaboration with peers is often discouraged. Students are told to work alone. But in our active learning environments, we encourage students to work together because we know that if a group of students has information on the physical world that they can share with each other, they can learn from each other and from that information very quite well. In passive learning environments, experimental results are often presented as facts in a lecture. But in our active learning environments, work in the laboratory results from real experiments, observed in understandable ways, often using computers, are used as the basis for learning the concepts. And then lastly, in a traditional learning environment, the laboratory is often a place to confirm what you already learned. But in our learning environments, the laboratory is a place to learn the basic concepts. Now, there's often some confusion because people will say, active learning, you mean hands-on. Hands-on and active learning, they're the same thing, right? No, they're not the same thing. Hands-on means that you're doing something with your hands. Maybe you're doing an experiment. Maybe a little stretch. I'm doing a demonstration for you so there's a real experiment and you're not actually doing it with your hands, but it's an experiment. I would call those hands-on, but active learning is much, much more than hands-on. Active learning, so let me give you examples. You could do the most fun, exciting, dramatic demonstration or experiment in a laboratory with your students, and if you don't do anything to engage them in the learning process, it is not active learning. And usually that engagement is produced by having predictions and having discussions. Many, I'm sure most of you, by the way, I recognize that most of the people in this room are not physicists, so I think. So I apologize if at some points in my talk I act like this is an audience of physics teachers. I don't intend it to be that way, but there may be places where I start to say something that I didn't intend to say. So the people who are physics people most likely know who Eric Mazur is, and many other people may not, but he's a person who developed a method of instruction called peer learning, and peer learning is a very active learning strategy, but it involves no hands-on at all. There's no experiment, there's no demonstration. It involves students discussing things, and yet it is active learning. So probably a better terminology would be hands-on, minds-on, both. Now we come to the question. I don't know if your students are like this. You know if students are sitting in a lecture, especially a large lecture, and I just keep talking and talking and talking, eventually I'm sure there's a student who feels like raising his or her hand and saying, Stop! My brain is full. So the question is, can we make a lecture room, like this one, an active learning environment? And by the way, there's not very much difference between a large lecture or a small lecture if the information is only flowing in one direction. It could be one student, and if I'm doing all the talking and the student is supposedly doing all the listening, it's just like a large lecture. By the way, what does it mean when your students are sitting and they're going like this? What does that mean? Does that mean they understand everything you're saying? No, it means, okay, keep going. It'll be over soon. Okay, so the answer to this question is, in our view, is yes, interactive lecture demonstrations. And so, in order to familiarize you with what interactive lecture demonstrations are, I'm going to do some examples, and that means, no, one for each person. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, and in order to do this, I'm going to ask your indulgence that for the next 15 minutes you are my introductory physics class. So, good afternoon class. Here's what we're going to do. They are giving out to you a prediction sheet. And I'm going to show you some demonstrations and ask you to make some predictions about the results. You see there's a place for your name. Don't worry, I'm not going to collect these from you. So feel free to make predictions. I want to tell you, and I tell this to my students the very first day that we do this, that predictions are never graded. They will never have any influence on your grade in this course. A prediction is something that you make based on everything you've learned up until that moment. And in order for learning to take place, it should be your prediction, your individual prediction. So when you're making a prediction, don't go like this, but make your own prediction, okay? By the way, we often, in order to encourage students to come to class when we do interactive lecture demonstrations, we might give them one point out of the hundred points for the whole course just for coming and participating and turning in the sheet. But that's not a grade based on what they did, it's based on the fact that they participated. Okay, so I'm going to ask you to make some predictions, wait until we get to that point. Then I will ask you to discuss those predictions with your neighbor or neighbors, it shouldn't be more than three people. So if you're not sitting next to anybody, you might want to move next to someone. And then if your small group doesn't agree, you might see if you can reach a consensus and agree. And then finally I will do the demonstration and show you the results. And I will ask for volunteers to explain the result, that's the way it works in general. Now as I said, most of you are not physicists, but let me remind you that you've all studied physics. Well many of you have studied physics, I'm not trying to deny that. But even those of you who may never have studied physics or it's been a long time, you study physics every day of your lives. So you can base your predictions on what you've learned in your lives. But just do your best. And I'll just say to you that normally I would have equipment set up and I would do the demonstrations for you. But mostly because I was carrying a suitcase filled with equipment for a workshop that I'm doing on Wednesday and Thursday. I didn't bring equipment for the demonstrations but I have videos and photos of them which I've used before. And I think they will give you a good idea of what's going on. So if you look at your sheet, you'll notice the first demonstration. It describes the motion of a cart. And it says that this cart has a fan on it. And it's given a push away from the motion detector. I'll show you a picture of this. Actually let me show you the picture right now. This is what the apparatus looks like. There is a, this is a pointer. I got it. Oh, okay. Thank you. All right. So there is, this is the cart. And mounted on the cart is a fan. There's a propeller. And it's flowing in this direction. So it's applying a force to the left. I'll tell you, as it says here, the positive direction is towards the right. I'm, and there's a motion sensor here. And the motion sensor for those of you who have not used one, it measures the position of the object by sending out ultrasound waves. And it can therefore tell you the position, the velocity, the acceleration of that cart. And so it's going to be doing the measurements. And what I'm going to do with the cart is I'm going to give it a little push. It's going to go, but it's being pushed back the other way. So it'll go to the right. And then it'll go back to the left. So let me show you what that looks like, hopefully. So here is the demonstration. Okay. That's the motion of the cart. I'll do it, I'll do it one more time. Give it a push. And it comes back. So what I'd like you to do, and I'll only give you maybe a minute or so to do this, is individually sketch a graph of what you think the velocity versus time and the acceleration versus time will look like for that motion. And just to make it simple, don't worry about the push and don't worry about the stop. So from the moment it leaves, from the moment it leaves my hand until just before it hits my hand again. Okay. So go ahead. I'll give you about a minute. Just do your best. This thing actually produces a constant force. Just do the first one. Okay. Because my time is limited, I'm going to cut off your time. And what I want you to do now is turn to your neighbor or if there are two people, three people close together, that'll be fine. Compare your predictions. If you don't agree, then see if you can reach a consensus on what the graph should look like. And again, I'm not going to give you a lot of time to do it. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm going to cut you off because I want to make sure I can finish everything. So please. Sorry. I would give students more time than this. But first of all, I want you to, I'm sure you noticed that during this period that you were discussing, this did not look like a normal lecture class. The students were actively involved in something, not just sitting there and receiving information. What I'd like to do is ask for a volunteer from the class who is willing to share with the whole group what your group agreed on as far as the graphs. Do we have a volunteer? Did you volunteer? Yes, please. Speak for, stand up and speak loudly. And you can motion with your hands what the graph would look like. All right. Yeah. Thank you very much for the opportunity of volunteering. In the first demonstration for velocity versus time graph, velocity starts from some positive point at time t is equal to zero. And it continuously goes down like a linearly because ISM is linear. And at the second dotted line, it will cut to the origin. v is equal to zero line. And then it goes further down with the same slope. So watch, he's showing you. Okay. All right. Thank you. And in the acceleration curve is like this. Because we have a constant force, so acceleration doesn't change. That means, so acceleration becomes like this. At the time, maybe I'm doing my left hand. It goes like this. And at the time when velocity is changing the direction, and it cuts down. And then again, it goes to the other direction with the same constant, parallel to the time axis. Okay. So let me just make sure that the velocity goes like this. Right? Can you look well? So the velocity is a line like this, starts positive, ends up negative. That's what you said. And what about the acceleration? Did it start positive and then go? Yes. Okay. It starts positive and goes parallel. And then at the time, it changes direction suddenly. And then like a sudden change to negative direction and goes to the negative all the way. Again, parallel to the time axis. All right. Yes. Thank you very much. You have something different than that. Yes. I mean, there's only one. Stand up so they can hear you. Okay. Thank you. Yes. I think there's only one force. And the force is the fan. The fan only goes in the same direction. So in my opinion, the acceleration must be all the time negative and constant. So you agree with his velocity? Yes. So he agrees the velocity should be like this. But he says the acceleration should be negative and constant. And of course, about the... Okay. Again, for time reasons, I'm not going to ask for more. I would with my class. But I do want to ask one other question. What do you think your students would predict? Any ideas? Those of you who teach physics. Okay. All right. Anything else? I would expect most students will say acceleration like the one the first gentleman said. And I would also expect students will also mess up velocity by predicting some sinusoidal curve or something like that. That is what is most experienced in class. Okay. Okay. So again, I apologize because I don't want to run out of time. I'll just say to you that many students will draw a velocity graph that looks like this. And the vast majority of students will in one way or another make sure that the acceleration at the moment that the cart reverses its direction is what? Zero. Zero. That it is zero there. Okay. All right. Let's go on. In class, I would now actually do the demonstration and with the motion detector, the graph would plot out as the thing was moving. So I'll oops. So there it is. Imagine that we did it again and there's the graph. So can somebody, those are the real graphs. Can somebody just tell me how do those graphs represent what the cart did? Do I have a volunteer? Yes, please. Yeah. So when I have actually pushed it, this velocity has actually increased slightly. And then as it kept moving to the right, the velocity started decreasing and it became zero and then it started moving behind. So the velocity started becoming negative. And same is the case with acceleration. The initial peak that you see is because of the force that I have applied. And then there is this constant force because of the fan that's rotating which is in the negative direction till it's coming back. Okay. Thank you. All right. Now, is this still on? Okay. All right. So again, I'm not modeling quite what I would do because I don't want to use up all my time. But we get the people from the class and if they don't, if you want to have them clarify, you might ask the student questions about what he said or she said. Last question though about this demonstration. Can you think of the motion of something else that would give graphs that are the same shape as these graphs? In other words, in motion of something else that would look like this. I see people going like this. Okay. So in fact, if you look on your sheets, you see that I'm not going to do demonstration number two with you in the way I just did it. I would with the class. If you go and put the motion detector on the floor and toss a soccer ball in the air, you get these graphs. And by the way, I'll just say for those of you who teach physics that when we talk about gravitation, often the experiment that we do is we measure G. And I guarantee that 95% of your students who can tell you the value for G, whether they've measured it themselves or not, will tell you that that acceleration will be zero when the ball is up at the top. But you see that the shapes of the graphs are exactly the same. The motion is exactly analogous. Okay. Let me do one more. Yes. Let him. I would have preferred students to draw the graph from the acceleration, I mean the acceleration graph in the very first instance, and then to go to the velocity one, because we're dealing with force here. So there's a direct relationship between force and acceleration. So they can better visualize that process. Okay. Yeah. I understand what you're saying. Actually, let me say that these particular ILDs are not actually about force. What we're looking for in this set of interactive lecture demonstrations is the relationship between acceleration and velocity. So even though I let somebody said, oh, because the force is positive, the acceleration is positive. Normally, if I had more time, I would have asked somebody about the definition of acceleration, because that's really what we're looking at. So I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it applies with what we're trying to do. Quick. How essential is the motion sensor to this exercise? Do you have something to say about that? I'll just say quickly that the first time I saw those graphs, which is probably 30 years ago, I looked at those graphs and it was like looking at some piece of modern art. I had never seen such a clear demonstration of the fact that the acceleration was constant. So if you ask me, I say that having a way of actually measuring the acceleration is really essential for getting students to be able to see this, because this is a very, very strongly held misconception by students. The fact that if the thing is at rest, for a moment, it must have zero acceleration. This is a very compelling thing. And this is the only way I've ever seen to get very major changes in a class. We only use technology when it does things that you can't do otherwise. I'll say that. So I was going to do this next demonstration for you in all of its steps, just like I just did. But I'm not going to do that, because we will run out of time. I'm just going to show this to you. It talks about a truck, a heavy cart crashing into a light cart. And as you can imagine, if I ask students to predict, let me show you what it looks like. What we ask students to predict is compare the force of the cart on the left to the one on the right, or the cart A to cart B, compare that force to the force of cart B on cart A. And what do you think students will say? That cart A will exert a bigger force. And you can actually do this very nicely. Again, it's something you can do with technology better than any other way that I've ever seen. And there are the graphs measured with two force probes. And it's so compelling that they are equal and opposite. Normally, we would go through all the steps. But okay, now I'm going to summarize for you the steps of this strategy, interactive lecture demonstration. There are eight steps. Describe the demonstration and do it for the class without the results displayed. Ask students to record their individual predictions on a prediction sheet. Have the class engage in small group discussions. Elicit predictions from volunteers in the class. Students can then change the prediction on their sheet if they want to. We don't encourage them or discourage them from doing that. But that prediction sheet will be collected. Carry out the demonstration and display the results. Ask a few volunteers to describe the results in the context of the demonstration. And I'll just say to you that there's also a result sheet. So normally, students would get two sheets stapled together. One is the prediction sheet, which they turn in. The other one looks exactly the same. But they keep that when they can take notes on it. If they want to have a record of what they did in class. So that's what the result sheet is. If appropriate, discuss analogous physical situations with different surface features. So that was the ball toss. Or sometimes we might discuss an application. Because it's not that often that there's a really nice analogy. Often in physics there is, but not really that often. And these steps are done for each demonstration. A prediction sheet might have six demonstrations on it that you would do in one class. One after the other. Do students learn better from ILDs than from traditional instruction? And this is a question. If you make curricular changes, if you design new strategies for teaching, then I believe that you must be able to answer this question. Otherwise, we're back in the dark ages because we all thought that traditional instruction worked very, very well until we started to test what students knew. And then we found out they weren't learning concepts at all. So you have to test. And so we've used the FMCE in that way. And this is just one example. This is a class where we added one more hour of work, namely we did the ILDs. And you see the improvement, 74% gain compared to 8% gain. Why are they effective? What are the characteristics? And these characteristics are, you know, there are many, many people doing physics education. And there are many, in the U.S. there are many, many different strategies. But pretty much they all have characteristics like this in common. So we ask students to make predictions. By making predictions, students have to consider what are their beliefs before they see the demonstration. So before they observe the physical world, what do they believe about the physical world? So we're building on what they bring into the course. And we're also making sure that they know what they brought into the course before they see they might change those views. They are asked to make a prediction, to put it on a sheet of paper that will be collected, even though we say we're not going to grade them, to defend it to their peers. Do you think after they've done all of those things that they care about the result? Well, let me tell you, the majority of students are sitting in their chairs believing that the graph that's going to come out is exactly what they predicted. And so when the graph is not what they predicted, there's what psychologists call a disequilibrium. And they want to know, they are then open to learn, why was my prediction wrong? What was going on here? So there is the opportunity for effective learning. And so then students' knowledge is constructed from real observations of the physical world, which are displayed in understandable ways. And again, I'll say they don't have to be, you don't have to use technology. In fact, I'm going to show you an example that doesn't use technology at all. But let me just say, how do we use them? We often use ILDs to introduce concepts, but we equally often use them to review concepts because sometimes it helps to introduce the terms, like for electric circuits. If we haven't talked about current voltage power, then to do ILDs that are related to those concepts would be meaningless. But even though we've talked about them, it doesn't mean that the students understand them. So in that case, we would review or clarify things. And I'll just say to you that when I teach my class, I typically out of three hours of lecture in a week, I will devote one of those to interactive lecture demonstrations. But it would be possible to do a few each day rather than do it. Logistically, it's easier to do them all one day because you set up the equipment. Now some of you are sitting there thinking, he's taken away one-third of the class. So how does he cover as much material? And my answer to that is, you do the ILDs on the things that you know from research the students have the most difficulty with, like Newton's Third Law, for example. And that means you can spend less time on other things. So that's the way it works. Okay, these are lecture demonstrations. Almost every physics teacher who has any equipment loves to do lecture demonstrations. So the students learn from traditional lecture demonstrations. By traditional lecture demonstrations, I mean one where I come in and say, here's this equipment. Look, I do this and there's the result. I don't ask them to make a prediction. I don't ask them to have a discussion. This is a traditional lecture demonstration. The answer is no. They don't learn from those. And their research has been done. Eric Mazur's group did a study where they took one of the most popular demonstrations. It's called Shoot the Monkey. And some of you know what that is. I'm not going to get into the details. But basically what they did is they divided the class into two groups. One group made a prediction before they saw the demo. The other group did not make a prediction. They just saw the demo. The group that did not make a prediction when they were asked after class to describe the result of the demonstration. Not to see whether they learned anything, but just describe what happened. The majority of those students could not describe the result correctly. If they can't describe the result correctly, then they can't possibly learn from that demonstration. Okay. I'll say to you that if those of you who teach physics or know somebody who teaches physics, there's a book that has 28 sets of interactive lecture demonstrations. It has the prediction sheets and result sheets. It has the teacher's guides and so on. It has the eight-step process suitable for framing. You can put it up on your wall. It's a free book from Wiley, but probably the chances of getting one from India are fairly small. So instead, you can download it from my website, and if you look at the top of this sheet, take this sheet with you, it gives you the link. You go there, you can download the whole book electronically. Don't tell Wiley I did that. Okay, let me just show you some low-tech demos. These involve image formation. There was some research done on student understanding of the function of a lens in forming an image. What this research discovered was done by Fred Goldberg, who was working in Lillian McDermott's group at the University of Washington. What the research discovered was that students really had no idea what the lens did. They didn't understand, number one, that for every point on an object, there's an infinite number of light rays leaving that point, and some of those light rays hit the lens. All the light rays that hit the lens, if it's a perfect lens, get focused to a corresponding point on the image. That's what a lens does. Thank you. Students didn't understand that, and one of the reasons why they got confused is because when physicists do ray diagrams with their students, they draw two rays or three rays, and students are going into this process thinking of a small number of rays rather than an infinite number of rays. When we do these demos, and again I'm running out of time, I'll just tell you and I'll show you what it looks like, but I won't ask you to make predictions. We use two small light bulbs. Let me show you what it looks like. We use two small light bulbs, so there's the famous image, a physicist's image is always an arrow, because it has direction, and there's a light bulb there and a light bulb there, and then this is a cylindrical lens. It's not the normal kind of lens that we use, and this is what it looks like. If I turn on both light bulbs, and I could put a green filter in front of one of these, I would see that the light from the top light bulb is going down and focusing there, and the light from the bottom one is coming up and focusing there. So there's my image. So now I'm going to ask you, let's see if we can do this quickly, what would happen? I have this there, and I come along, and I block the top half of the lens, like that. What would happen to the image? Less bright? What do you think your students will say? The majority of students will say, you'll only see half the image, or no image. And by the way, you know why they do that? Because if they think about two rays, and you block one of them, there's a quandary, if you don't understand what that means, if you had two rays and now you have one ray, that's one half as many, so you see half the image. If they understand a little bit better, they say, wait, if I don't have two rays, there's nothing intersecting, so there's no image. So again, there's nothing wrong with ray diagrams, but it can lead students the wrong way. So let me show you what this looks like. So I would have asked you to make predictions and so on. This is what it looks like, and you can see that the whole image is still there, still light coming up like this and like that. It's only the bottom half of the lens that's doing it, and the image is the same, but it's not as bright. What's an application of this? Well, if you block them, what's an application, but you're close? The camera? Or the iris of your eye? It closes down when you come into a bright... When I walk into this room, do I only see half of you? No. Of course, if you block half of the object, then half of the image does go away because there's no light from that part of the object. The students learn better with image formation ILDs. I'm not going to go through this. I'll just show you there. Yes, they do, quite a bit better. Same thing. Skip this. Conclusions about ILDs. They provide a research validated strategy to turn even a large lecture class into an active learning environment. So you're only limited by how big an apparatus you need. If you have a lecture room with 500 students in it, you better have something big enough so everybody can see it, and they better be able to hear you and you better have some way they can hear each other, but you can do it on a large scale. My lecture classes typically have 200 to 250 students. An advantage of ILDs, as far as active learning is concerned, is they only require one set of equipment. You don't have to have multiple sets for a laboratory. From the point of view of conceptual learning, you can do something for a large number of students with small amount of equipment. Students usually enjoy seeing demonstrations in class. There's famous demonstrations that many, many introductory physics instructors do, but the research evidence shows that students may not learn anything from them. They may come to class only to see the demos, and that's a good thing, but they don't learn from them. I'll just say that we've used personal response systems instead of doing paper and pencil predictions, and they work reasonably well, and we've also done some ILDs that use video analysis, which again, that's something that requires no equipment, so it's kind of nice. All right, now I just want to very, very quickly say something about the laboratory. So what about active learning in the laboratory? And we have a curriculum called real-time physics, and there are four modules of real-time physics. They were developed parallel with interactive lecture demonstrations, mechanics, heat and thermal, electricity and magnetism, light and optics. The idea was to develop computer-based labs. They're not all computer-based, but they mostly are. That could be substituted for the traditional labs. At the time that we did this, and I think it's largely still true, nobody liked the introductory labs. The labs that people did had been around for 20 years. The equipment was falling apart. Everybody was ripe for something new, but the question was, what was it? And we said, let's develop something really new. And so these labs, they're a series of lab modules that use computer-based tools to help students develop physics concepts. Ignore that. That's best. I don't know what that is. They use the learning cycle of prediction, observation and comparison, and they have been demonstrated to enhance student learning of physics concepts. They are designed to help students acquire a set of related concepts to provide students with direct experience of the physical world using computer-based tools, often real-time measurements. They're designed to enhance traditional laboratory skills, which means they're real experiments. Students are learning from observing the physical world. That's what you do in a laboratory. So it is a real laboratory, but it's enhanced to also have students learn concepts. And sometimes they're designed to reinforce concepts. I'm going to skip through this because it's not essential, and I want to leave some time for questions. So I encourage you, not just in physics, but in all science disciplines, to engage your students. And the evidence very strongly says that if you don't engage your students in some way, and there's many different strategies for doing it, they are not changing their views that they brought into the course, especially it's known in physics. Okay, that's the end. So thank you. Sorry I rushed at the end. Because it is so interesting for students who come in, and if they talk about it later, do you think students who come into the course or who come into the lab a second time, do they get influenced by what the earlier students saw? Have you been able to track that? You know, we haven't researched that, but actually, so in my situation, there's only one class where we're doing it. It's my class. So you're saying students from the next section come in. You know, if they do that, it's quite possible that the students in the next section are benefiting from the demos I did, but the next guy is not doing them. So yeah, but I don't know. There's another interesting question, though, and that is if students have done labs and then they come and also do interactive lecture demonstrations, two questions, number one, do they help the other students? What is their experience? They've seen the concepts in labs and then they come to lecture. And number two, do they get bored and say why are you doing the same thing over again? And the answer to those two questions, resoundingly, students, when they fill out course evaluations, almost universally say that they love interactive lecture demonstrations and it's the thing they like the best about the course and they don't... I don't know whether they're doing the lab or not because everybody doesn't do the lab. So the ones who are doing lab, they say they love them and the ones who aren't doing lab, they say they love them. So what can we say? Maybe the ILDs reinforce what they learned in lab. Maybe the students who did the lab are helping the other students. Maybe they're making correct predictions and they're really happy about that and they already learned the concept. Maybe the bad one, they don't recognize that it's the same thing. That would be bad, but okay. Yeah. Yeah, so, you know, as you pointed out, that there are a large number of curricula interventions that are research-based. Particularly in physics education, I think there is a large number of them. And like ILDs, you know, 32 years ago, they were called MBLs, microcomputer-based laboratories. But basically when real-time data and these motion detectors became available, all these, you know, new methods came into being. And now they have been around for 30 years, some of them for less than 30 years, but there is a large number of them. And generally, when one finds the results, it is usually at the, say, before a lecture, after a lecture, or at most before in the beginning of the course and end of the course or two parallel ways. Now, is there any data on the long-term learning effects? Because given the number of such interventions, one would think that, you know, the quality of physics education should have gone up, you know, say 75% gains are routinely seen. You know, you see in every paper there are these huge gains. So what is, does one see any large effect of that on engineers, on physicists, or in any area? Sure. I mean, it's all anecdotal. So I don't know that anybody has done a large-scale study to look at that. In terms of our research, the best we've done is, you may realize that if we're doing kinematics, we've finished that by the third week of the term, and we've done studies where we have tested students after the third week, and then we've tested them again at the end of the course, so that's seven weeks later, and the gains are always persistent to then. But no, I don't have an answer to your question. I mean, I know at places like Dickinson College where they do workshop physics, they would definitely say that the students who they see coming into their upper division courses demonstrate a much better understanding of concepts. But I have no evidence to say that. I think it's true, but I don't think there's any published results on that. Yeah. Here. Yes. This is Durga Prasad. So I have a question. In ILDs, as you have also shown, some improvement in students' understanding from the physical phenomena as they are also seeing the graphs of acceleration and velocities in real-time. And I actually think there is another jump that is needed from the graphs into arriving the actual relationships between these quantities, algebraically, which is also a significant part of doing physics where they use a lot of equations, laws and others in the form of equations. Sure. So have you seen any improvement in the students' abilities to actually parse or understand whatever they do algebraically related to physics after they have gone through this program? Well, okay. I mean, first of all, ILDs are designed completely to just look at concepts. And that's why I said at the beginning they complement whatever else you do. So if I'm teaching a course and I do ILDs and I also do real-time physics labs, the real-time physics labs actually do get much more quantitative than the ILDs. But if I'm doing these things, then I combine them together in such a way that I build on what we do in ILDs. So for example, if I do a set of ILDs on motion, for example, me walking in front of a motion detector, I will, the next step will be to move that to representing it graphically and representing it by an equation. That's what I would do. And you can do that. Yes, but it's not from this, it's from other things that you do in the course. We do collaborative problem solving in the courses that I teach. And when we do that, we tie those in with the ILDs and in with the labs. But you have to tie these things together. You're right. I think your point is that it doesn't happen naturally. Just because they understand the concepts better doesn't mean they understand the mathematical representation better. You have to pay attention to that. During my classroom interaction, I get into a difficulty of whether should I encourage independent thinking or group thinking like the way you did. Because the pros and cons are in group thinking, there will be only one guy who will be thinking the rest of them will be simply agreeing with him. And I don't really reach out to each one of them. So what do you suggest? Is it? Which is better than what are the pros and cons? I suggest that in a large, there are many people, one of the main criticisms we hear about ILDs, there are many people who think that in order for a student to learn, they have to discuss in detail, explain in detail their incorrect prediction. And if they don't do that, they don't learn. And you notice that in my process, I asked for volunteers, but I certainly don't ask every student in the class to describe their prediction. In fact, one important thing, I never asked anybody to explain their prediction. I asked you to tell me your prediction. And you may have noticed, I tried not to say anything. He told me his graphs. I said, thank you. I didn't say he was right. I didn't say he was wrong. And I didn't ask him to explain it. Some people say you must have students explain, or they won't learn. We say that the group process is the place where they can explain. They have the opportunity to explain. If we had every student in a class of 200 explain their prediction, then we would teach only one topic in the entire course. So I like group discussion for that reason, for sure. I don't know that it's important that they reach a consensus, because each student might still retain their own prediction, and they're still going to see the result, and they're still going to have to come to terms with why is their prediction different than the result? So I don't worry about that, and I think it adds the fact that they can actually say, oh no, this is what happens because when it gets to the top, it's not moving, so it can't have any acceleration. And then when it isn't that way, they have to explain why it's not that way. Thank you. Thank you, David, for this interesting presentation. I find that if you're passionate about something new that you want to introduce, things I think will work. But the problem is that if you don't get the support of other people around you, then you find eventually the project dies, or take other form. Just to give you an example, some 10 years back I introduced the use of data logging in teaching and learning of physics, and with the expectation that teachers will use that. The equipment are lying in school, in laboratories, but they are not being made use of. And by the way, if you looked at my life over the last 15 years, someone was right in saying that real-time physics and interactive lecture demonstrations were first developed, oh, certainly 25 years ago. I mean, there have been some updates and newer things, but the first ones were done 25 years ago. But the last 15 years of my life, when I haven't developed too many new things, I have been disseminating these things. And we have run, I don't count anymore how many teachers we have seen in workshops, and a significant percentage of those have gone and used this stuff because we spend time on training them how to do it and supporting them in doing it. So, yes, developing something and saying, here it is doesn't work at all. I'm not saying that that's what you did. And I know you are aware of this, but we've spent a lot of time not only indoctrinating people, but teaching them how to do it. In fact, now, every time we do a workshop now, as part of our workshop, we not only show people ILDs and do them the way I did them with you, we have almost at least half a day in the workshop where they present their own ILDs and we critique them because we found, you know what happens with ILDs? I'll finish in a minute. You know what happens with ILDs? People love them. They say, oh, I want to do them. And they set them up, they do the demonstration, they get the student predictions, they show the result, and what do you think they do then? They lecture. They start lecturing. They say, oh, do you see this beautiful curve? Do you see the acceleration is constant? That doesn't work. We have so much evidence that that doesn't work. So, to break people of their habits because we love lecturing because we wouldn't be teachers if we didn't love explaining things to people. The problem is that students don't learn from our explaining. They have to do it themselves. And so when we have the participants present ILDs to the group, then we can critique them and say, you're lecturing. Why are you lecturing? I thought these were interactive lecture demonstrations. So there's a big load, but we have evidence from many, many, many places. I showed you research evidence from Oregon because I know exactly what went on there. We have research evidence from many, many places. The learning gains are not as big, but they're still very, very significant for secondary adopters who went and used our ILDs. I'm sorry. We didn't have to stop here. David is around. Anybody can ask questions. Thank you for a very great lecture. Thank you. And the best thing to happen post-lunch. Nobody could really sleep. Okay. I'm back with the announcement.