English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Instructors in introductory physics courses often use labs and demonstrationsto reinforce that the physics equations introduced in lectures and textbooksdescribe what actually happens in the real world. The surface features andinstructional learning goals of such labs and demonstrations may seem quitesimilar (predict-observe-explain). Nonetheless, physics education research hasfound very different impacts of these instructional methods on students'physics content knowledge that depend critically on several instructionalcharacteristics. In this paper, we disentangle the research by comparingdetails of the learning methods in verification labs, traditional lecturedemonstrations, and enhanced lecture demonstrations. We discuss possiblemechanisms for the measurably different learning outcomes by dissecting theactivities according to the role of prediction, cognitive load, and engagement.We use this characterization to motivate rethinking the goals of labs towardsexperimentation skills and beliefs, rather than for verifying physics content.

Seeing the real world: Comparing learning from verification labs and traditional or enhanced lecture demonstrations