Measuring fidelity of implementation of named active learning methods in physics
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866915686523076608 |
|---|---|
| author | Bukola, Ibukunoluwa Sundstrom, Meagan Gambrell, Justin Green, Colin Traxler, Adrienne L. Brewe, Eric |
| author_facet | Bukola, Ibukunoluwa Sundstrom, Meagan Gambrell, Justin Green, Colin Traxler, Adrienne L. Brewe, Eric |
| contents | Various active learning methods have been developed for introductory physics, and these methods are increasingly being adopted by instructors. However, instructors often do not implement these methods exactly as was originally intended by the developers, as they may face issues related to funding and institutional support for active learning and/or have different instructional contexts (e.g., student populations) and environments (e.g., physical classroom layouts) than the developers. Existing research does not sufficiently capture the range of variation in instructor implementation of established active learning methods, especially in comparison to high-fidelity implementations. In this study, we first identify the critical components (i.e., components without which the active learning method cannot be said to have been implemented) of three named active learning methods: SCALE-UP, ISLE, and Tutorials. We then evaluate the fidelity with which 18 different introductory physics instructors implement these methods by analyzing classroom observations and comparing the extent to which these broader implementations use each critical component in their classroom to high-fidelity implementations. We find across all three active learning methods that broader implementations spend similar amounts of class time on the critical components as high-fidelity implementations. At the same time, we observe substantial variation in the specific styles that broader implementers operationalize these critical components (e.g., doing a few long activities versus many short activities). Finally, we find no clear relationship between fidelity of implementation and student conceptual learning gains for our study's sample of instructors, providing preliminary evidence that different ways of implementing the critical components of active learning method may all effectively improve student understanding. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2512_17699 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Measuring fidelity of implementation of named active learning methods in physics Bukola, Ibukunoluwa Sundstrom, Meagan Gambrell, Justin Green, Colin Traxler, Adrienne L. Brewe, Eric Physics Education Various active learning methods have been developed for introductory physics, and these methods are increasingly being adopted by instructors. However, instructors often do not implement these methods exactly as was originally intended by the developers, as they may face issues related to funding and institutional support for active learning and/or have different instructional contexts (e.g., student populations) and environments (e.g., physical classroom layouts) than the developers. Existing research does not sufficiently capture the range of variation in instructor implementation of established active learning methods, especially in comparison to high-fidelity implementations. In this study, we first identify the critical components (i.e., components without which the active learning method cannot be said to have been implemented) of three named active learning methods: SCALE-UP, ISLE, and Tutorials. We then evaluate the fidelity with which 18 different introductory physics instructors implement these methods by analyzing classroom observations and comparing the extent to which these broader implementations use each critical component in their classroom to high-fidelity implementations. We find across all three active learning methods that broader implementations spend similar amounts of class time on the critical components as high-fidelity implementations. At the same time, we observe substantial variation in the specific styles that broader implementers operationalize these critical components (e.g., doing a few long activities versus many short activities). Finally, we find no clear relationship between fidelity of implementation and student conceptual learning gains for our study's sample of instructors, providing preliminary evidence that different ways of implementing the critical components of active learning method may all effectively improve student understanding. |
| title | Measuring fidelity of implementation of named active learning methods in physics |
| topic | Physics Education |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17699 |