Students’ Understanding of the Basic Concepts of Newtonian Mechanics vis-a-vis Lecture Method: The case of Dilla University

  • Tesfaye Getinet

Abstract

This paper addresses issues about the use of lecture method in teaching and learning of the course mechanics at Dilla University and students‟ performance on standardized mechanics test. Students were given Mechanics Baseline Test (MBT) before instruction of the course mechanics. The method of instruction used was the „lecture method‟. After the completion of the course, students were given the same test without announcement. The MBT scores of students were collected and analysed. The analysis of the result showed that the average pre-test and post-test scores were 19.93% (Std. Dev. 6.35%) and 28.32% (Std. Dev. 6.45%) respectively. The average post test was much less than the thresholds score of mechanics test (60%) for understanding the basic concepts of mechanics.The gain in students‟ understanding of the basic concepts of Newtonian mechanics after instruction with lecture method was found to be negligible. The average normalized gain on mechanics test for the sample student was 0.10 (Std.Dev.0.05). This is extremely small with the maximum possible value being unity. Students have real deficiencies in understanding the basic concepts of mechanics even after the instruction of the course with lecture method. The result indicated that the use of lecture method to provide students bunches of facts, pricnciples, laws , and derivation of mathematical expressions has little benefit to students conceptual understanding.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Crouch C.H. & Mazura (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9).
Hake R.R. (1997). Evaluating Conceptual Gains in Mechanics: A Six-Thousand Student survey of test Data. In Redish E.F. and Rigden, J.S.(Eds.)(1997). The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the ICUPE, 595 – 604. New York : AIP, Woodbury.
Hake R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. American Journal of Physics, 66 (1), 64-74.
Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students. American Journal of Physics, 53 (11), 1043–1055.
Hestenes, D. & Wells, M. (1992). A Mechanics Baseline Test. Physics Teach, 30 (3), 159 –166.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. Physics Teach, 30, 141 - 158.
Kim, E. & Pak, S.J. (2000). Students do not Overcome Conceptual Difficulties after Solving 1000 Traditional Problems. American Journal of Physics, 70 (7), 759-765.
Lawson R.A. & McDermott L.C. (1987). Students Understanding of the Work-energy and Impulse Momentum Theorems. American Journal of Physics, 55, 811.
McDermott, L.C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What Teach and what is Learned -Closing the Gap. American Journal of Physics, 59, 301–315.
Tesfaye Getnet. (2006). Causes of High Attrition Among Physics PPC Students of Dilla College. Ethiopian Journal of Education, 26 (1), 53-48.
Tesfaye Getnet. (2007). Practices and Problems in Teaching and Learning Physics in Preparatory Schools. (Unpublished).
Published
2007-06-02
How to Cite
GETINET, Tesfaye. Students’ Understanding of the Basic Concepts of Newtonian Mechanics vis-a-vis Lecture Method: The case of Dilla University. The Ethiopian Journal of Higher Education, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 2, p. 23 - 35, june 2007. Available at: <http://ejol.aau.edu.et/index.php/EJHE/article/view/285>. Date accessed: 24 sep. 2017.