JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Physics Education for the Learning-disabled by the Direct Instruction
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Physics Education for the Learning-disabled by the Direct Instruction
Hwang, Un-Hak;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The Direct Instruction (DI) was applied to the learning-disabled in the basic engineering education (especially, physics education). The DI is specified as an educational method in which the instructor strongly controls during the whole process of the entire course. The tests of understanding, reasoning, memory, and problem-solving speed showed that 20 students (20%) out of random 100 students are learning-disabled. The average points of mid-term and final exams were 53.7% and 61.0% respectively for a certain 41-students class. However, in this class, for the lower point students who obtained less than 50% points, the average points of mid-term and final exams were 29.8% and 28.2% respectively, which showed decreased. From this lower point group, the 8 students (20% students of 41 students) were selected as the learning-disabled. With additional DI studies provided, the average points of mid-term and final exams for the learning-disabled were 18.9% and 25.5% respectively, which showed 6.6% increase that means the DI for the learning-disabled was effective.
 Keywords
Direct Instruction;Engineering education;Learning- disabled education;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
L. Aguilar, G. Walton, and C. Wieman, "Psychological insights for improved physics teaching," Physics Today, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 433-49, 2014.

2.
L. B. Stebbins, R. G. St. Pierre, E. C. Proper, R. B. Anderson, and T. R. Cerva, Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model. vols. 4 A-D. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 1977.

3.
G. D. Borman, G. M. Hewes, L. T. Overman, and S. Brown, "Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis," Review of Educational Research Summer, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 125-230, 2003. crossref(new window)

4.
R. Herman, D. Aladjem, P. McMahon, E. Masem, I. Mulligan, A. S. O'Malley, S. Quinones, A. Reeve, and D. Woodruff, An Educator's Guide to School Reform. Washington, DC expenditures, 1999.

5.
National Research Council, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.

6.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science for all Americans: Project 2061, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990.

7.
B. Alberts, "Considering science education," Science, vol. 319, no. 5870, p. 1589, 2008. crossref(new window)

8.
U. H. Hwang, "Analysis of the deductive inference in engineering education through the experiments of elliptical trainers," Journal of Practical Engineering Education, vol. 5, no.1, pp.1-13, 2013.

9.
U. H. Hwang, "Variable control in inductive inference for engineering education," Journal of Practical Engineering Education, vol. 6, no.1, pp.1-7, 2014. crossref(new window)

10.
J. Handelsman, D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S. M. Tilghman, and W. B. Wood, "Scientific teaching," Science. vol. 304, no. 5670, pp. 521-522, 2004. crossref(new window)

11.
B. Alberts, "Redefining science education," Science, vol. 323, no. 5913, p. 437, 2009. crossref(new window)

12.
D. Klahr, Paths of Learning and Their Consequences: Discovery learning versus direct instruction in elementary school science teaching [Internet]. Available:http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/supergroup/.

13.
D. Wechsler, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 4th ed. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 2003.

14.
G. H. Roid, Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th ed. Itasca, IL: Riverside, 2003.

15.
A.S. Kaufman, and N. L. Kaufman, Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd ed. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance, 2004