Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 3, Issue 1, Article 3(June, 2002) Wheijen CHANG, Alister JONES and Rainer KUNNEMEYER Interactive Teaching Approach in Year One University Physics in Taiwan: Implementation and Evaluation Previous Contents Next

·      The student survey: A comparison between the intervention and traditional teaching
The second part of the data is from the questionnaire survey. The results are presented under three headings: (1) students' perceptions of the teaching approach and affective learning outcomes, (2) students' comments about the main features of the course and their effects, (3) the crucial roll of interactive teaching in promoting intellectual engagement.

1. Students' perceptions of the teaching approach and affective learning outcomes
   The students' responses in the closed questions regarding their perceptions of the teaching approach and their affective learning outcomes are presented in Table I.

   Table I: A comparison of students' responses between intervention (IT) (N=53) and traditional (TD) (N=327)teaching in closed questions
   Questions	agree %		t-test
   	IT	TD
   My physics lecturer has been aware of our learning outcomes when teaching	77	60	***
   In the physics class, I am involved in the discussions	81	32	***
   My physics lecturer has adopted a uni-directional delivery teaching method	4	27	***
   The physics lessons promote my interest in learning physics	58	40	**
   In the physics class, the teaching methods are monotonous	6	28	***
   In the physics class, I feel that learning physics is a matter of enjoyment	55	47	*
   I feel satisfied with the physics course overall	74	55	**
   Until now, I have learnt nothing from this course#	0	8	**

   *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

   The students' responses in closed questions indicate a significantly divergent perception between the ITP and the traditional teaching. The ITP students responded with significantly more agreement that (1) the lecturer was more aware of the learning outcomes, (2) the students were involved in discussion in the class, and (3) the teaching was not uni-directional. The results show that the ITP successfully promoted interactions in class when compared with the traditional teaching approach. This finding may be surprising to many Taiwanese physics lecturers, who commonly perceive the task of engaging students in discussions as very difficult or even unfeasible considering the existing teaching environment²⁸.

   The ITP students also expressed significantly more positive responses with respect to their affective learning outcomes when compared with their peers in traditional classes. These include: (1) interest in learning physics, (2) a lack of monotony in teaching methods, (3) feeling of enjoyment in learning physics, (4) feeling of satisfaction with the course overall, and (5) denial of learning nothing.

   It should be noted here that the feeling of enjoyment appears to be less significant compared with other affective responses, such as feelings of interest, satisfaction, etc. This may be because the term "enjoyment" in Mandarin also implies "easy". As described above, the researchers intentionally increased the cognitive challenge for the students when designing the ITP. This strategy may therefore have reduced the students' feeling of "enjoyment".

2. Students' comments about the main features of the course and their effects
   In addition to the closed questions, the students' responses in the open-ended questions also indicated a considerable difference between the two styles of teaching. The open-ended questions asked the students to comment on the main features of the course, both the positive and the negative ones, and their effects. The ITP students gave more responses, about two to three statements per student, than the traditional group, who gave one statement on average. The major responses are listed in Table II.

   Table II: A comparison of the students' comments about the features and their effects of the intervention and traditional teaching in the open-ended questions
   	Intervention (53 students)	Traditional (327 students)
   Interactive teaching approach	42%	4%
   Introduces real life examples	49%	5%
   Promotes interest (is boring)	25% (0)	2% (17%)
   Stimulates thinking	24%	4%
   Gives lucid lecture/teaching commitment	0	13%
   Satisfaction with learning achievement	19%	1%

   The data shows that the intervention students' perceptions were more positive than the traditional group's with respect to the teaching and learning in general. More than 40% of the ITP students commented on the interactive teaching approach and the introduction of real-life examples. On the contrary, no more than 5% of the traditional group of students commented on these two features. Examples of the ITP students' comments include:

   Discussing with peers helps me realize my misconceptions rather than merely knowing the right concepts.

   The interaction between the lecturer and the students stimulates our thinking, and then promotes our learning interest.

   The course introduced many examples that we are familiar with in everyday life. This promoted my interest in learning physics.

   The above quotes indicate the ITP students' agreement with the interactive teaching approach and the introduction of real-life examples. These two features were also related to the outcomes of stimulating thinking and promoting interest. As a result, approximately a quarter of the ITP students commented that the teaching promoted learning interest and stimulated their thinking about physics concepts, while as low as 2-4% of the traditional students noted these two strengths. On the other hand, 17% of the traditional students expressed their feeling of boredom in physics classes in contrast to none in the intervention group. Examples of the traditional students' feelings of boredom are as follows:

   Keeping copying notes throughout the whole lesson makes me feel really tired.

   The professor's tone was too flat, his classes lacked real-life examples and made it easy for me to fall asleep.

   The quotes indicate that the traditional students attributed the feeling of boredom in a physics class to the content design and the didactic teaching approach.

   At the same time, the traditional students seemed to give much praise for the teaching performance and teaching commitments, while students' praise was absent in the ITP group. For example:

   I like the professor's teaching performance. He can explain the concepts clearly and helps us to clarify the key points.

   I like the professor's attitude; he teaches conscientiously. However, I do not absorb the content well since I feel tired.

   The quotes indicate a paradoxical perception of the students: their appreciation of the teaching performance and commitment may exist along with disappointment in their own learning engagement and outcomes. Meanwhile, the quotes also indicate the traditional students' passive attitudes towards their learning, expecting the lecturers to clarify the key points and passively "absorb" the content. Although similar praise on teaching performance and commitment was absent in the ITP group, no students from the intervention class were found to criticize the lecturer for not giving lucid lectures and/or "working hard on talking". To the intervention students, these strengths seemed not to be an issue of concern. The program therefore seemed to successfully shift the students' focus from teaching performance to their own learning process and outcomes.

   As a result, 19% of the intervention students expressed their satisfaction with the learning achievement in contrast to only 1% of the traditional group. Examples of the intervention students' comments are listed below:

   I have a better understanding of the physics concepts. But a three-week period (for the intervention teaching) is too short. There is not enough time for us to comprehend a more flexible learning method. Also, we have not organized the concepts well yet.

   The teaching style helps me a lot in clarifying my understanding of the concepts, but some existing misconceptions are still hard to change.

   While the intervention students expressed their satisfaction with their learning achievement, some of them also indicated a broader perspective of their learning and their role as learners. The above quotes imply the intervention students' awareness of the complexity of learning physics as well as taking charge of an active role in the learning process. The program seemed to not only engage learning and promote affective learning outcomes but also develop the students' perspectives of learning.

   The students' responses in the open-ended questions indicated their appreciation of the ITP design. A discussion of the links between the main features and their effects can help to further reveal the strengths of the new teaching approach.

3. The crucial role of the interactive teaching in facilitating intellectual engagement.
   The two main features of the ITP, interactive teaching approach and introducing real-life examples, were found to link to the outcomes of stimulating thinking and/or discussion, promoting interest, and enhancing concepts, which are presented in Figure 2. The numbers are the students' responses, which made links between the features and the outcomes.

   
   Figure 2 Two major features of the ITP and the number of students linking these to their outcomes.

   Figure 2 shows that although both features of the ITP: interactive teaching approach and real-life examples, were noticeably linked to the outcomes of promoting interest and enhancing concepts, the outcome of stimulating thinking and/or discussion was shown to be related only to the feature of interactive teaching approach. The students made no direct link between real-life examples and stimulating thinking and/or discussion. The results imply that only introducing real-life examples may fail to engage the students' participation in the learning process. In other words, the modification of the traditional didactic teaching approach is essential for shifting the learners from being passive receptors to active participants in learning physics.

·      The academic performance: A comparison between the intervention and traditional teaching
The third part of the data is the students' performance in a standardized test: Mechanics Baseline, and the results are listed in Table III.

Table III: A comparison between intervention and traditional teaching in Mechanics Baseline
Class average	pre-score29	post-score	Gain percentages30
ITP (N=57)31	47	50	6 %
Traditional A (N=53)	49	51	5 %
Traditional B (N=56)	53	57	8 %

The gain percentage results do not provide any evidence of the ITP teaching improving academic achievement. Regardless of the slight differences between the classes, the academic achievements overall are hardly satisfactory. The gain percentages are no more than 8%. To encourage the students' involvement in answering the test, the results of the post-test were counted as part of their grades³². Therefore, the poor results of the post-test should reflect their actual learning achievement and should be seen as a warning signal.

Possible reasons for the ITP teaching not producing any positive results in the academic test are discussed below.

Firstly, the tests included a wider scope of content than that covered by the ITP. The test covered the whole subject of linear mechanics, which had taken seven teaching weeks, while the ITP took only three of those seven weeks. Secondly, the test questions were presented in a traditional style, which is usually decontextualised when dealing with the physics concepts, while the questions discussed in the intervention program were embedded in the contexts of everyday life. The different context of the questions may have hindered the ITP students' performance in the tests³³. Thirdly, the significant affective learning outcomes of the ITP may need more time to influence learning attitudes and learning strategies, and manifest themselves in the students' academic performance thereafter. With such a short intervention program, a significant improvement in academic performance is not expected.