Initiation of student-TA interactions in tutorials

(Some reference links may require a separate subscription.)

1. Other models of small-group, active-engagement, worksheet-based learning include, for example, D. Hammer, Discovery learning and discovery teaching, Cogn. Instruct. 15, 4 (1997).
2. E. F. Redish, D. Hammer, and A. Elby, NSF REC 0087519, 2001–2005 (unpublished).
3. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, edited by J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
4. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1998); P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II: Design of instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 60, 11 (1992); and, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's machine, 62, 1 (1994) [CrossRef].
5. N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
6. See Refs. [1–5, 12, 15]; R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998) [SPIN][INSPEC][ADS]; E. F. Redish, Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics, 62, 796 (1994) [CrossRef][SPIN].
7. Strategic Help-Seeking: Implications for Learning and Teaching, edited by S. A. Karabenick (Lawrence Erlebaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1998).
8. Help Seeking in Academic Settings: Goals, Groups, and Contexts, edited by S. A. Karabenick and R. S. Newman (Lawrence Erlebaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 2006).
9. S. A. Karabenick and R. Sharma, in Student Motivation, Cognition, and Learning: Essays in Honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie, edited by P. Pintrich, D. Brown, and C. E. Weinstein (Lawrence Erlebaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1994).
10. A. Arbreton, in Strategic Help-Seeking: Implications for Learning and Teaching (Ref. [7]), Chap. 5.
11. R. Ames, in New Directions in Helping: Vol. 2. Help Seeking, edited by B. M. DePaulo, A. Nadler, and J. D. Fisher (Academic Press, New York, 1983).
12. E. F. Redish, J. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 65, 45 (1997) [SPIN][INSPEC]; E. F. Redish and R. N. Steinberg, Teaching physics: Figuring out what works, Phys. Today 52 (1), 24 (1997) [INSPEC][ADS][CAS].
13. For descriptions of the use of tutorials, see Refs. [4, 5, 12].
14. A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, D. Hammer, S. Vokos, and S. Rosenberg, NSF CCLI 0341447, 2004–2006 (unpublished).
15. A. Elby, Helping physics students learn about learning, Am. J. Phys. 69, S54 (2001) [SPIN].
16. These groups were not the only “watchable” groups; some videotaped groups were not classified. The groups included average, above-average, and below-average students as measured by their overall performance in the course. “Watchable” groups were not typically better than average or more successful in mastering the conceptual content of the tutorials, except to the extent that on-task groups tend to do better than off-task groups.
17. That number may be different from the number of tutorials (seven) due to missed weeks, substitutions, or (in the case of the red group) missing videotapes.
18. The averaging is necessary because for one group (red), only five tutorials are documented, rather than seven.
19. Since not all TAs were observed for the same number of hours, and different TAs served different numbers of groups, the figure presents each type of interaction averaged over the number of “group-hours” observed for that TA. “Group-hours” is the total number of hours that a TA spent with the groups observed, i.e., the sum of each row in Table 1 .
20. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools, Am. J. Phys. 58, 858 (1990) [SPIN][INSPEC].
21. Since not all tutorials were observed for the same number of groups, the figure presents the number of interactions of each type averaged over the number of groups that were observed doing that tutorial.
22. Tutorial 1 had one explicit checkpoint, tutorials 2–4 had two each, tutorials 5 and 6 had three each, and tutorial 7 had none.
23. The number of interactions is too small to support a statistical analysis.