Education has certainly evolved into the 21st-century, and the way in which physics is taught is not shy to this phenomenon. How is physics taught? What are some problems associated with these teaching methods? How can we fix them?

Students in physics classrooms are often sorted into two groups: those who believe that physics consists of many unrelated concepts and facts, and those who believe that physics is a set of interconnected concepts and ideas (Elby, 2001). These students can be sorted further, based on their attitudes towards learning physics as a whole. Some students think that they will memorize formulas and theories, while others think it is about “relating fundamental concepts to problem-solving techniques” (Elby, 2001). Teaching methods are always changing, and one method under investigation is the hold/withholding answers method.

When you attempt a question in class, does it help or hinder you to be presented with the answer after you have gone through the solution? This topic has been researched in the physics classroom to determine whether or not students should be given either minimal or no guidance. Research shows that students perform better when they are provided some form of guidance (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006). In 2018, Zhang found that students perform better when activities are both hands-on and under minimal guidance. Students took tests about concepts in optics in three conditions: hands on and answers provided, hands on and no answers, and no hands on and no answers. Students typically find it more difficult to reason with the material when there are no “objectives” or answers provided and performed better overall with both hands on content and instruction (Figure 1). In particular, Zhang (2018) found that students used less mental resources when they did not spend the entire learning session searching for answers. From this, it is evident that giving students a challenge but also providing them with the correct answers is the most optimal way of educating physics students.

Moving forward, it is clear that asking students to form small groups and discuss the content is a great practice. This is substantiated by Elby’s 2001 study, wherein they highlighted that class discussions help to “diversify” the material. Each student brings their own individual experiences and education to the group, where they can help and guide each other towards solutions. Seeing the correct solution after allows them to determine gaps in their knowledge, thus enabling them to grow as learners (Elby, 2001). Elby (2001) also states that allowing students to correct their own work helps them become more familiarized with the work they produce. Finally, instructors can help students by starting small with concepts to “construct schemas” before teaching more complex subjects in order to “secure their understanding” (Garnett, 2020). Construct schemas are frameworks used to organize knowledge and understand processes, such as rubrics (Atherton and Nutbrown, 2015).

As you move forward with your science education, have you noticed the various teaching methods employed in your lectures? Have they been effective? Questioning these methods and understanding how individuals learn is the key to ensuring that physics and science as a whole is communicated well and in a way that keeps learners engaged.

Works cited

Atherton, F., Nutbrown, C., 2015. Schematic pedagogy: Supporting one child’s learning at home and in a group. International Journal of Early Years Education. 24(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2015.1119671

Bao, L., Koenig, K., 2019. Physics education research for 21st century learning. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0007-8

Elby, A., 2001. Helping physics students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics. 69. Available at: 10.1119/1.1377283

Garnett, S. 2020. Cognitive load theory: A handbook for teachers. United Kingdom: Crown House Publishing

Kirschner, P. A.,Sweller, J., Clark, R. E., 2006. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2), pp. 75–86. Available at: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Zhang, L., 2018. Withholding answers during hands-on scientific investigations? Comparing effects on developing students’ scientific knowledge, reasoning, and application. International Journal of Science Education. Available at: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1429692