Students enrolled in 8 summer intensive physics courses for academically gifted students participated in a pilot study to assess the effectiveness of such courses compared to ordinary year-long high school physics courses. The students in each class completed the Force Concept Inventory (FCI), and the average normalized gains for each class were compared with previously published data from both year-long high school courses and semester-long college courses. The average gains achieved by students in the intensive courses were comparable to those achieved by students in the ordinary-length courses. Recent work in physics education research has made such direct comparisons of standard-length and intensive physics courses possible and also suggests ways to improve student learning in both types of courses. Some further questions for research concerning intensive physics courses for gifted students are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beichner, R. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62, 750-762.
2.
Crouch, C., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977.
3.
Francis, G., Adams, J., & Noonan, E. (1998). Do they stay fixed?The Physics Teacher, 36, 488-490.
4.
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
5.
Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043-1055.
6.
Heller, P., & Huffman, D. (1995). Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory. A reply to Hestenes and Halloun. The Physics Teacher, 33, 504-504, 507-511.
7.
Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part I: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60, 627-636.
8.
Henderson, C. (2000,January). Common concerns about the force concept inventory. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, Kissimmee, FL. (Available from http://www.physics.umn.edu/groups/physed/Talks/Charlesl-00.pdf)
9.
Henderson, C. (2002). Common concerns about the force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 40, 542-547.
10.
Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 33, 502-502, 504-506.
11.
Hestenes, D., & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30, 159-166.
12.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
13.
Huffman, D., & Heller, P. (1995). What does the Force Concept Inventory actually measure?The Physics Teacher, 33, 138-143.
14.
Laws, P. (1997). Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 65, 14-21.
15.
Lynch, S. J. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academically talented: A six-year perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 147-154.
16.
Maloney, D., O'Kuma, T., Hieggelke, C., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2001). Surveying students' conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. Physics Education Research Supplement to the American Journal of Physics, 1, S12-S23.
17.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
McDermott, L. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59, 301-315.
19.
McDermott, L., & Shaffer, P. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60, 994-1003.
20.
Reif, F., & Scott, L. (1999). Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other. American Journal of Physics, 67, 819-831.
21.
Steinberg, R., & Sabella, M. (1997). Performance on multiplechoice diagnostics and complementary exam problems. The Physics Teacher, 35, 150-155.
22.
Thacker, B., Kim, E., Trefz, K., & Lent, S. (1994). Comparing problem solving performance of physics students in inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 62, 627-633.
23.
Thornton, R., & Sokoloff, D. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58, 858-867.
24.
Thornton, R., & Sokoloff, D. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66, 338-352.
25.
Wosilait, K., Heron, P., Shaffer, P., & McDermott, L. (1998). Development and assessment of a research-based tutorial on light and shadow. American Journal of Physics, 66, 906-913.
