Exploring a Deep Learning Approach on the Teaching and Learning of Introductory Physics

Edilberto Arteaga-Narváez, Santander Nieto-Ramos, Angel Ojeda-Castro


The main goal of this paper is to explore the effectiveness of an experimental learning approach in an introductory physics course regarding to student’s academic achievement.  Research articles point out that learning difficulty about science basic concepts, impact both, the quality of the skills and knowledge learned and hinder students’ retention in science basic courses.  For this research, Bachelor’s Degree students of Natural Sciences, Chemistry, Bio Medical, Biology, Computer Sciences, Medical and Engineering Technology programs were selected.  The teaching methodology used was named Learning Two Time Strategy (LTTS).  The methodology consisted in applying active learning strategies, but at the same time lowering considerably the time for the traditional teaching process.  This strategy allowed students to dedicate more time for classroom learning by increasing in about two thirds the active learning periods.  The period assigned for instructions was turned into active learning sessions.  Active learning was based in different strategies like “Context-Rich Problems”.  The methodological concept used was causal comparative (or ex post facto).  Seven hundred and sixty-seven (767) students from two private universities in Puerto Rico participated in the study.  The students were divided in two groups.  The base group of 407 students was not exposed to didactic strategy.  Another group of 360 students was exposed to the strategy.  The statistical test shed a significant difference in students’ academic achievement (value of p = 0.007) measured by the score of their final grades in the course. As a result, the group that was submitted to the strategy showed positive results in the student’s evaluation.  


Deep Learning; Active Learning; Teaching and Learning of Physics; Puerto Rico.

Full Text:



Biggs, J. “Calidad del aprendizaje universitario”. Narcea, S.A, ediciones, Madrid, España, 2006.

Bain, K. “Lo que hacen los mejores profesores universitarios”. Publicaciones de la Universidad de Valencia. 2007.

Lightman, A., and P. Sadler. Teacher Predictions Versus Actual Student Gain. The Physics Teacher, Vol. 31, p.162, 1993.

Laws, P., D. Sokoloff, and R. Thornton. “Promoting Active Leaning Using the Results of Physics Education Research”. Universe Science News, Vol. 13, July 1999.

Chi, M. R. H. “Commonsense conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust”. Journal of the Learning Science, Vol. 14, pp. 161-199, 2005.

Reiner, M., J. D. Slotta, M. T. H. Chi, and L. B. Resnick. “Naïve Physics Reasoning: A commitment to Substance-Based Concepts”. Cognition & Instruction, Vol. 18, pp. 1-34, 2000.

Prince, M. Vigeant and K. Nottis. “Assessing Misconceptions of Undergraduate Engineering Students in the Thermal Sciences”. International Journal of Engineering Education (Special Issue on the Application of Engineering Education Research) Vol. 26 Iss. 4, 2010.

Krause, S., Decker, J., and Griffin, R. “Using a Materials Concept Inventory to Assess Conceptual Gain in Introductory Materials Engineering Courses”. Frontiers in Education Conference, 2003.

Steif, P.S. and Dantzler, J.A. “A Statics Concept Inventory: Development and Psychometric Analysis”. Journal of Engineering Education, 2005.

Miller, R.L., Streveler, R.A., Olds, B.M., Chi, M.T.H., Nelson, M.A., and Geist, M.R. “Misconceptions About Rate Processes: Preliminary Evidence for the Importance of Emergent Conceptual Schemas in Thermal and Transport Science”. Presented at ASEE Annual Conference. 2006.

Streveler, R. T., Litzinger, T., Miller, R., and Steif, P. “Learning Conceptual Knowledge in the Engineering Sciences: Overview and Future Research Directions”. Journal of Engineering Education. 97(3), 3: 279-294, 2008.

Biggs, J. “Teaching for Better Learning”. LegEdRev 8, pp. 1991-90, 2(1) Legal Education Review 133, 1991.

Handelsman, D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S. M. Tilghman, W. B. Wood. “Science”, New Series, Vol. 304, No. 5670. pp. 521-522, 2004.

Mazur, E. “Peer Instruction: A User´s Manual”. New Jersey. Prentice Hall, 1997.

I. Halloun and D. Hestenes. “The initial knowledge state of college physics students”. Am. J. Phys. Vol. 53, pp. 1043–1055; corrections to the Mechanics Diagnostic test are given in Ref. 14; (b) ‘‘Common sense concepts about motion,’’ ibid. 53, 1056–1065, 1985.

Redish, E. F. “Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite”. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. USA, 2003.

Finkel, D. “Dar clase con la boca cerrada”. Traducido por Oscar Barberá. Universidad de Valencia, (1era edición inglesa, 2000), 2008.

Arteaga, E y Gómez, W. (2013). “Implicaciones educativas de la medición del aprendizaje de la Física en las universidades: un análisis bajo la perspectiva de la escritura como proceso cognitivo”. Available at http://kalathos.metro.inter.edu/kalathos_mag/publications/archivo3_vol6_no2.pdf

Beichner, R.J., and Saul, J.M. (2003). “Introduction to the SCALE-UP (Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs) Project”. Proceedings of the International School of Physics ‘‘Enrico Fermi’’, Varenna, Italy. http://www.ncsu.edu/per/scaleup. html (accessed 7 June 2005).

Prince, M. “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research”. J. Engr. Education, 93(3), pp. 223-231, 2004.

Redish, E., J. Saul, and R. Steinberg. “On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories”. American Journal of Physics, vol.65 No. 1 p.45, 1997.

Harley, J., and Davies, I. Note Taking: “A Critical Review”. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, Vol. 15, pp. 207-224, 1978.

Hake, R.R. “Interactive-engagement vs. Traditional methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses”. Am. J. Phys. Vol. 66, pp. 64–74, 1998.

Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking. (2000). “How People Learn: Body, Mind, Experience and School”. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. (Commission on Behavior and Social Science and Education, National Research Council). Available online at http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/

Carlino, E. “Escribir, leer y aprender en la universidad: una introducción a la alfabetización académica”. Fondo cultural económico, 2005.

Prince, M., and R. Felder. “Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Based”. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 95. Pp. 123-138, 2006.

Knight, R. “Five Easy Lessons: Strategies for Successful Physics Teaching”. Pearson Education, 2004.

Honeycutt, B. “101 Ways to Flip!: Ideas to help you create learning experiences that are engaging, interactive and motivational”. Flip It Consulting, LLC, 2012.

Wankat, P. “The effective Efficient Professor: Teaching Scholarship and Service”. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, 2002.

Bligh, D. A. “What’s the use of lectures?” Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2000, pp. 44-56.

Stuart, J. & Rutherford, R. J. “Medical student concentration during lectures”. The Lancet, 1978, pp. 514-516.

Fasce, E. (2007). “Aprendizaje profundo y superficial”. Rev. Educ. Cienc. Salud, Vol. 4(1), 2007, pp. 7-8.

Ary, D, Jacobs, L, Sorensen, C, Razavieh, A. “Introduction to Research in Education”. Eigth Edition. WADSWORTH, CENGAGE Learning Editor, Canada, 2010.

Fraenkel, J, and Wallen, N. “How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education”. Seven Edition. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. New York, 2009.

Portuondo, D, Raúl. “Enseñanza de la Física: Algunas dificultades”. University of Puerto Rico (RUM-UPR). Printed in USA by Bookmasters, Xlibris, 2016.


  • There are currently no refbacks.





About IJSBAR | Privacy PolicyTerms & Conditions | Contact Us | DisclaimerFAQs 

IJSBAR is published by (GSSRR).