Feynman, Lewin, and Einstein Download Zoom: A Guide for Incorporating E-Teaching of Physics in a Post-COVID World
FFeynman, Lewin, and Einstein Download Zoom: A Guide forIncorporating E-Teaching of Physics in a Post-COVID World
Daniel J. O’Brien ∗ Department of Physics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057 (Dated: October 20, 2020)
Abstract
Distance education has expanded significantly over the last decade, but the natural scienceshave lagged in the implementation of this instructional mode. The abrupt onset of the COVID-19pandemic left educational institutions scrambling to adapt curricula to distance modalities. Withprojected effects lasting through the 2020–21 academic year, this problem will not go away soon.Analysis of the literature has elucidated the costs and benefits of, as well as obstacles to, theimplementation of e-learning, with a focus on undergraduate physics education. Physics facultyreport that a lack of time to learn about research-driven innovation is their primary barrier toimplementing it. In response, this paper is intended to help physics lecturers and lab instructors re-think their courses now that distance learning is far more prevalent due to the pandemic. This paperserves as an all-in-one guide of recommendations for successful distanced educational practices,with an emphasis on smartphones and social media. These technologies were chosen for theirutility in a virtual environment. Additionally, this paper can be used as a resource for universityadministrators to adapt to the changing needs associated with new teaching modalities. a r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . e d - ph ] O c t . INTRODUCTION Despite much debate, no consensus has been formed in the literature as to a universaldefinition of e-learning.
For the purposes of this paper, it is defined as “technology-basedlearning in which learning materials are delivered electronically to remote learners via acomputer network.” E-learning can be divided into two categories: asynchronous and syn-chronous. The former is commonly implemented through a combination of pre-recordedvideos, email, and discussion boards. The latter is usually implemented through a combi-nation of videoconferencing and chat platforms (Zoom, WebEx, Skype, etc.). Within theliterature, “virtual” learning often refers to synchronous methods, whereas “online” refersto asynchronous.From 2002–2016, distance enrollment at higher education institutions rose dramatically,averaging an increase of 18.5% per year, largely driven by e-learning. Meanwhile, on-campusenrollment dropped by 6.4% between 2012–2016.
When compared to students in otherfields, undergraduate physical science students consistently rank near the bottom in termsof the ratio of online to in-person classes taken. In the 2015–16 academic year, for example,although 43.1% of the entire U.S. undergraduate population took an online course, only32.8% of students in the physical sciences did so. However, a few universities have housedonline physics classes for decades, demonstrating the field’s ability to thrive over time.
The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted academic institutions, causing most USuniversities to shut down on-campus classes and ousting students from their dormitories be-fore the scheduled end of the 2019–20 school year. In an attempt to maintain instructionalcontinuity, teachers turned to videoconferencing and recordings of lectures, labs, and officehour sessions. This change may be particularly detrimental to students within STEM sub-jects due to at-home students’ lack of access to instructional technologies critical to STEMlearning. This pandemic may therefore act as a motivator for physics faculty and administrators toupdate curricula, adopt novel teaching modalities, and embrace research-based innovations.This change is not unreasonable; a survey of U.S. physics faculty found that 92% reportedthat their department encouraged improving instruction. Nearly half (48%) of the surveyedfaculty reported that they currently use at least one research-based innovation strategy intheir teaching. Unfortunately, 53% of those answering replied that the principal reason for2ot using more research-driven innovations in their classroom is a lack of time (especiallytime to research and implement changes).
As a response, the aim of this manuscriptis to act as a brief but thorough guide for educators. This article presents an explanationfor some of the above trends, as well as specific guidance for implementing techniques ande-learning systems in physics.First, the benefits of, barriers to, and key factors for the implementation of physics e-learning will be discussed. Next, the fact that e-learning has an unequal impact on studentsfrom different demographic groups (based on gender, household income) is addressed. Fol-lowing that, the smartphone will be introduced as an important educational tool for physicse-learning. The smartphone can be very useful for both doing science (data collection,analysis, demonstrations) as well as facilitating other technologies, such as social media.Applications of social media in the traditional and virtual classrooms are then presented,and their use is examined in depth. Other technologies for e-learning are then briefly in-troduced. Finally, the need for extensive institutional support to facilitate e-learning hasbeen widely recognized and thoroughly researched. Consequently, a guide for administra-tors on the keys to success in this implementation is presented. In all, it is the goal ofthis manuscript to act as an easy-to-read comprehensive guide that may help to facilitatee-learning in the physics community.
II. BENEFITS, BARRIERS, AND KEY FACTORS
E-learning has a well-documented array of benefits and drawbacks.
Notably, it widensaccess to education and offers opportunities for pedagogical improvements by instructors. However, due to its drawbacks, e-learning is plagued by low-retention rates.
In recent years, studies have identified some areas where e-learning may be advantageousfor physics teaching, especially through the use of smartphones, online learning systems, andsocial media. Each of these technologies can be implemented in the classroom for specifictasks—e.g. by facilitating group interaction and feedback loops, or by encouraging interestin coursework.
By pairing these technologies with research-driven innovations, e-learningcan be made more effective for physics education, as will be elaborated upon in the followingsections.As previously mentioned, electronic instruction of physics faces specific barriers not found3mongst teaching of the social sciences, humanities, and other natural sciences. First, e-learning is less well-suited and less effective for science education that requires hands-on (e.g.laboratory) instruction. Additionally, students often find it difficult to visualize physicalphenomena, especially those in 3-D (like the right-hand rule), through a screen. From astructure standpoint, teachers tend to have low competency with technologies required fore-teaching physics. These factors, when paired with the lack of community students feel inonline classes, contribute to higher withdrawal rates for online undergraduate introductoryphysics courses than in-person classes. With these many costs and benefits in mind, it becomes clear that certain strategies forimplementing e-learning are key to its success. These best practices are well-documented andextensively studied.
The primary factors for successful and equitable e-learning includethat:1. professional training is crucial and has been shown to improve teachers’ acceptance oftechnology for physics instruction;
2. real-time tech support is essential to successful instruction;
3. participation in small-group collaborative learning correlates with deeper learning,increased teamwork, and can increase students’ sense of community;
4. mechanisms to directly combat high dropout rates for e-learners must be developed,including communication with lower-achieving students; and5. inequalities should be considered when implementing e-learning, especially their effecton access to technology. III. ADDRESSING DEMOGRAPHIC CONCERNS
If e-learning is to be implemented equitably, economic concerns must be addressed. Theabrupt shift to an e-learning environment caused by COVID-19-induced closures generatedsignificant difficulties for lower income families across the globe. These closures “dispropor-tionately affect vulnerable groups, in particular students with disabilities and those relianton their educational institution for food, shelter, residency, and safety.” Income-drivendisparities are worse in urban centers like New York City, where 10% of students were4omeless or had unstable housing last year.
These cities are especially vulnerable toCOVID resurgences due to high population densities.Data also shows that home computer availability in the U.S. scales with householdincome. Alternatively, smartphone access is nearly ubiquitous amongst both teens andadults; it is nearly uniform amongst people of varying gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeco-nomic status.
Smartphones also have utility in addressing other demographic differences,such as empowering visually and hearing impaired students. The smartphone is evidentlya key tool to address educational inequality and improve physics education in the wake ofCOVID-19, and will be discussed more thoroughly in the following section.It is well known that sex and gender inequality is rampant in the sciences, especially inphysics. Although the percentage of female scientific authors increased substantially from12% in 1955 to 35% in 2005, both physics and math still had female representations of15%. Additionally, within the classroom, female students have fewer successful learningand identity-forming experiences than males. Gender and socioeconomic differences can also be found in the use of technology for e-learning. Although it has been shown that there is no difference in scientific literacy acrossgenders, males may show better performance in science practices because of their techno-logical knowledge base formed from daily activity. Multiple studies have shown that thesuccess of technology is affected by gender differences in its perceived usefulness, perceivedease of use, and attitude towards its use.
Educators should therefore communicate withtheir students to identify deficiencies in technological aptitude and comfort before electroniccourse instruction. They should utilize feedback loops integrated into learning managementsystems to continuously address the needs of underrepresented and disadvantaged students.These support structures must be designed and backed by the educational institutions, asteachers rarely have the resources or time to both develop their own feedback systems andimplement them within the classroom.Lastly, when considering partial campus returns, household internet availability, technol-ogy access, and difficult home situations must be considered in selecting populations thatwill be allowed to return for on-campus instruction. These actions will assist in makingscience education more accessible and will address inequality prevalent in the sciences.5
V. SMARTPHONES AS EDUCATIONAL TOOLS
Over the last decade, cell phones have increasingly distracted students in the classroom.However, when teachers permit their use, smartphones can be effectively transformed intoa learning tool. They can facilitate the use of social media and learning management sys-tems within and outside of the traditional classroom, and effectively complement othertechnologies. Researchers have advocated for smartphone use in teaching, arguing thatsmartphones offer benefits of “rich content deliverability, knowledge sharing, and dynamiclearning activities where students can expect to experience multiple channels of interactionsin learning.”
Comprehensive lists of the advantages of smartphone use in the classroomare readily available.
Such advantages include the smartphone’s ability to encouragecollaborative learning, students’ existing familiarity with smartphones, and the fact that96% of young adults (aged 18–29) in the U.S. own smartphones. Additionally, if imple-mented properly, smartphone use can raise curiosity about physics content while simultane-ously introducing minimal distractions and having no dependence on gender, self-concept,or experimental experience.
This section will elaborate on the physics-specific uses andadvantages of smartphones for e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.Smartphones are especially useful in laboratory settings due to their multitude of inte-grated high-precision sensors and analysis tools. As described by Kolb, “many teachers arediscovering that a basic cell phone can be the Swiss army knife of digital learning tools.” Such sensors include sound meters, accelerometers, magnetometers, proximeters, gyroscopes,photometers, cameras, GPS, and barometers. In order to access these sensors directly, ahost of physics toolbox and lab function apps have been developed. Ideally, an app used fordata collection and analysis should be free, easy to use, intuitive, open-source, and allow forprocessing and exportation of data as needed. Some examples of apps include the PhysicsToolbox Sensor Suite, phyphox, Sensor Kinetics, Sensors Toolbox, and Sensors Pro. Theformer four are available as free apps (some with premium versions), while the latter is paid.Table I contains a list of smartphone-based lab experiments that can be used in under-graduate (and high school) introductory physics labs with little other equipment. Theseexperiments are particularly relevant for planning post-COVID, on campus/small grouplearning, where smartphones can be employed to limit the use of shared equipment. TableII contains a similar list, but is specifically geared towards smartphone-based lab experi-6ents that can be conducted outside of the lab or at home. These experiments should beadapted so that the lab instruction is aligned with AAPT Recommendations for the Under-graduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum. One process for implementing such a transitionhas been explicitly laid out. It has been shown that smartphone experiments “may be more effective in improvingstudents’ understanding of acceleration with respect to traditional ‘cookbook’ and real-timeexperiments,” with the most significant improvements seen in students’ critical deductivethinking capability when designing their own experiments.
In order to carry out thisapproach, teachers are encouraged to adapt the POE method (predict-observe-explain) forsmartphone-based experiments—have students predict the results of an experiment, collectdata with smartphone sensors, and explain the resulting phenomenon theoretically. Byallowing students to utilize this method in association with familiar smartphone technology,improvements in conceptual understanding of underlying phenomena can be achieved.The smartphone can be utilized in lecture sections as well. For example, the slow motioncamera has been used to demonstrate center of mass rotation, the Doppler effect, a frustratedNewton’s cradle, the falling chimney effect, and tautochrones.
The smartphone can bepaired with external sensors like a thermal imaging camera to demonstrate phenomena suchas work and energy transfer within the body.
Additionally, pairing smartphones with asmart student response system can promote active physics learning in the classroom. Theseuses of smartphones will help transform it into a device with utility in the virtual classroomand laboratory.
V. INTEGRATING SOCIAL MEDIA IN “THE CLASSROOM”
The pervasiveness of social media (SM) presents an intriguing opportunity for studentsto collaborate on physics inside and outside of the traditional classroom. SM comprises anarray of online tools through which users can quickly create and share content digitally—e.g.Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Wikipedia. The integration of SM within the learningenvironment offers students self-agency in their learning and career planning. Despite thesepositive attributes, most universities continue to rely on more conservative, established learn-ing management systems and environments. Ignoring social media prevents educators fromcapitalizing on the collaborative potential of social networks and the associated social skills7
ABLE I. Smartphone-based lab experiments
Subject Topic, CitationKinematics Gravitational Acceleration Dynamics Static Friction Dynamics Kinetic Friction
Dynamics Atwood Machine Work & Energy Energy Conservation
Impulse & Momentum Collisions Impulse & Momentum Impulse Impulse & Momentum Ballistic Pendula Impulse & Momentum Collisions/Magnetism Oscillations & Waves Spring Constants
Oscillations & Waves Simple/Damped Oscillations
Oscillations & Waves Harmonic Series Oscillations & Waves Doppler Effect Rotation Rotational Motion Rotation Coriolis Acceleration Rotation Angular Acceleration/Spinning Discs Rotation Damped Rotational Motion Fluids & Pressure Fluid Mechanics Fluids & Pressure Surface Tension/Dispersion Relation Thermal Physics Introductory Thermodynamics Electricity Skin Depth Effect Electricity Eddy Currents Magnetism Faraday’s Law Magnetism Inductive Metal Detector Magnetism Basic Magnetism
Magnetism Collisions/Magnetism Magnetism Eddy Currents Light Malus’ Law
Light Absorption / Scattering Light Lens Equation Light Brewster’s Angle Light Linear Light Source Light Properties of EM Waves Quantum Mechanics Double-Slit Quantum Mechanics e/m Experiment Astronomy Astronomy & Seasons
Materials Physics Polymer Physics
Electronics Oscilloscopes that students bring into the classroom.
Concern due to privacy laws is a primary reasonthat educators are relucant to use SM; to comply with these laws while using SM, instructorsshould never share grades, records, or personal information via platforms not maintained bythe university. Furthermore, faculty who use SM for e-learning should discuss and includea statement in their syllabi about proper conduct and expectations for online privacy, andshould also consult their university SM/privacy guidelines.
Other reservations held byfaculty about the implementation of SM in the classroom include the following: ABLE II. Smartphone-based at-home experiments
Subject Topic, CitationKinematics Gravitational Acceleration
Kinematics Free Fall
Kinematics Basic Kinematics
Dynamics Air Resistance
Dynamics Drag Coefficient
Impulse & Momentum Collisions
Impulse & Momentum Conservation of Momentum
Oscillations & Waves Acoustics
Oscillations & Waves Pendula
Oscillations & Waves Speed of Sound
Oscillations & Waves Mechanical Wave Physics
Oscillations & Waves Acoustic Resonance
Oscillations & Waves Sound Directivity
Oscillations & Waves Acoustic Modeling
Oscillations & Waves Pressure Waves
Oscillations & Waves Hooke’s Law
Rotation Rolling Motion
Rotation Radial Acceleration
Rotation Phase Space
Rotation Parallel Axis Theorem
Rotation Angular Velocity
Rotation Mechanics
Rotation Centripetal Acceleration
Fluids & Pressure Stevin’s Law
Fluids & Pressure Atmospheric Pressure Profiles
Fluids & Pressure Fluid Dynamics
Light Ray Optics
Special Relativity Time Dilation
Nuclear & Particle Physics Radiation
Astronomy Orbital Angular Velocity
1. Not all students have smartphone access (although, in the U.S., ∼
95% do).2. Cultural/Social—Instructors show reluctance because: • there is a perceived erosion of traditional roles and difficulties in managing rela-tionships with students; • students may engage in inappropriate chatting; and • language barriers and unconscious biases can lead to misunderstandings.3. Pedagogical—Perceived usefulness is an important motivator for technology usage, butinstructors often rate SM poorly in this category. Many instructors perceive direct,face-to-face relations with students as indispensable and more effective than SM use.4. Administrative/Institutional—Instructors show reluctance because the success of9eaching technology is reliant on financial investment and institutional support pro-vided by the university (elaborated in final section).Not all instructors hesitate to employ SM in the classroom, and its uses vary by field. Ina survey of 459 secondary teachers, almost all teachers used SM in the class. There were,however some differences in the modes of use; for example, teachers in the natural sciencesused SM less often for the facilitation of self-regulated learning. Conversely, another studyshowed that university faculty used SM less (41% of faculty use at least one tool on a monthlybasis). Younger faculty used SM more than their colleagues, particularly Twitter—thoughit was concluded that age differences require further investigation. Math, computer science,and natural science faculty used SM less than those in humanities and social sciences.
The tendency for natural science faculty to use SM less than their colleagues is attributedto “a lack of relevant content on social media sites for their particular discipline.”
Thedearth of relevant content has been explained by a trend in faculty consuming rather thanproducing digital resources (which requires a large time investment).
Science faculty, as aresult, tend to prefer blogs/Wikipedia and Youtube/Vimeo information sources to promotecollaborative learning, rather than Facebook/Twitter type communication SM channels.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of SM within the classroom and to address the barrierspresented previously, some specific examples can be offered. One principle of high-impactonline education is faculty/teaching assistants providing timely feedback to students outsideof class.
This task can be assisted through SM communication channels. For example,WhatsApp can facilitate student-teacher interaction within online college courses.
Con-necting with students outside of classroom hours through WhatsApp can permit physicsteachers to identify problems that are not recognized during the traditional class hours.
Other similar messaging apps including Slack, Discord, GroupMe, and Google Hangouts canreplace WhatsApp with similar functionality. Overall, SM helps teachers share information,questions, and insights to promote curiosity in physics.
Perhaps of most importance, a lack of community is often blamed for the high with-drawal rates of online learning.
Microblogging (e.g. Twitter) has been shown to combatthis flaw, strengthening a sense of community in virtual classes within higher education.
Classroom-specific Twitter threads can be used to provide course updates and facilitateacademic conversations in a manner familiar to students.
WhatsApp can be employedto encourage student-student messaging and sharing of ideas.
Similarly, the use of Face-10ook groups for sharing ideas and support, asking questions, and participating in discussionshas been shown to promote a virtual student learning community.
Therefore, integrationof SM—especially through inclusive technologies such as the smartphone—can be key tobattling low retention rates in virtual education during the COVID-19-induced closures.Research on innovative practices is crucial for adapting to changing learning environ-ments. Sharing of effective practices can assist in the re-thinking of pedagogies, and couldshift attitudes from resistance to a welcomeness in using SM to assist and improve physicsteaching in higher education.
VI. OTHER NOVEL AT-HOME TECHNIQUES
Smartphone use is a promising way to do physics at home, but other technologies canbe used in complement with smartphones or can replace them for various e-learning taskswhen they are unsuitable. For example, experimental kits provide students the opportunityto conduct physics right on the kitchen table, and can be instructor-provided or student-assembled. Such kits have been implemented in the classroom, for massive open onlinecourses (MOOCs), in open universities, for in-class demonstrations, and for experi-mental distance learning.
Kits can even be paired with smartphones as data collectionand analysis devices to increase student comfort with the experiments.Given the inaccessibility of physical laboratory equipment, experiments can also be con-ducted remotely. Virtual and remote labs have been around since commercialized internetbecame prevalent across the world, and their use has expanded significantly over time.
These are real experiments (housed at hosting institutions) which are accessed and con-trolled by individual users through the internet.
One such facility is FARLabs, led byLa Trobe University, which allows users to remotely access lab technologies for real-timeexperiments.
Some researchers are endeavoring to promote remote labs through sharingeconomy platforms such as LabsLand.
Remote experiments can be used to teach manyaspects of physics, for example, radioactivity and electronics.
Such a platform pro-vides clear financial advantages over physical analogs. These platforms also allow for betterstudent access to equipment, increased scheduling flexibility, a wider range of possible as-signments and activities, and more opportunities for student-student collaboration.
For instructional demonstrations of concepts and simple experiments simulations can be11xtremely useful. Simulations have been used in the physics classroom for many years, andmuch research has been conducted on successful approaches for their use.
Two such simu-lation bases are the PhET project developed by the University of Colorado and PhysClips ofthe University of New South Wales.
Many simulations and other resources can also befound on The Physics Source at AAPT’s ComPADRE site.
Simulations can be especiallyadvantageous for instructors struggling with the extra preparation time required for onlinecourses.Lastly, free online materials can be useful and are often overlooked.
Whereas YouTubevideos—such as those generated by Physics Girl, minutephysics, etc.—might be used bystudents intermittently, the consistent use of resources such as Khan Academy and Hy-perPhysics can fill gaps in student knowledge, or act as a support system for a strugglingstudent.
Lists of similar online resources can be found readily.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
Whereas this manuscript is aimed at assisting physics educators shift to online learning,effective recommendations for implementing e-learning necessarily include an administrativecomponent.
The effectiveness of pandemic-induced e-learning will depend on educationalinstitutions realigning with and embracing the necessary structural changes associated withit.
Such changes are outlined below.1. Online mental health and medical services should be expanded.
It was found that20–35% of the 2,530 surveyed students and workers at a Spanish university reportedmoderate to severe symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress after COVID-19 schoolclosures.
Similarly, nearly half (46%) of Australian young people studying at homeare “vulnerable to adverse effects on their educational outcomes, nutrition, physicalmovement, social, and emotional wellbeing.”
Universities (and other educationalinstitutions) are recommended to: • expand the availability of online counseling services; and • encourage faculty to employ technology as a means to increase interactivity, en-rich learning, and enhance the student experience, .12. Direct financial investment into e-learning should be a priority. An analysis of blendedlearning at one university showed that student satisfaction was best predicted by theavailability of university resources.
Another study showed that the top faculty-identified needs for successful e-learning are multimedia development support andreal-time help desks. Universities are recommended to: • make expenditures related to internet access necessary for hybrid approaches; • engage in hiring or contracting of support staff for IT; and • ensure proper compensation for instructors; (this is important for quality onlineinstruction ).3. Pedagogical research, data collection, and evidence-based practices focused on e-learning should be expanded. Student feedback can be motivated by effective commu-nication mechanisms integrated into a student’s online learning space, and hasbeen shown to be of great value in improving blended course quality. Universitiesare recommended to: • organize a system to analyze feedback data, identiffy problem points, delegateresponsibility for addressing them, and report back to the students on resultingactions. Integrating easy-access course feedback into virtual learning manage-ment system is an excellent way to “close the feedback loop”; and • adopt a hiring and promotion process that factors in teaching achievementthrough student feedback. This will help incentivize research-driven innovationand teaching practices in the classroom.4. Teacher training capabilities for multiple modes of e-learning should be expanded. Training is essential to the effective delivery of electronic physics instruction, and hasbeen demonstrated to lead to instructors’ enthusiastic acceptance of mobile technologyfor teaching.
A general outline of the contributions necessary from administrators, faculty, and studentsis offered in Fig. 1. As learning institutions resume education during COVID-19, facultyshould encourage administrators to adopt these recommendations as they are essential tothe success of education under circumstances induced by the pandemic.13 tudents -Use social media for student-student interaction -Engage in and embrace self-mediated learning
Teachers -Adapt curricula to new technologies -Ensure individual training with new technologies
Institutions -Invest in internet access technologies -Invest in varied teaching modalities -Contract/hire IT support -Close feedback loop -Provide technology training moduli -Adopt teaching achievement-based hiring/promotion -Provide real-time tech support -Provide feedback to schools-Provide feedback on tech usefulness -Encourage novel research-based innovations -Integrate SM/phones in teaching -Provide feedback on coursework outside of the “classroom” -Outline rules for proper tech use -Focus on student experiences-Use SM for student-teacher interaction -Provide feedback on teaching modalities used in classroom-Provide easily-accessible feedback modules for students -Provide real-time tech support -Expand online mental health and medical services -Ensure food security and accommodation (where applicable)
ROUTES FOR SUPPORTING ELECTRONIC PHYSICS EDUCATION
Pedagogical Technological Personal
FIG. 1. A graphical representation of support mechanisms for improving e-teaching and e-learningof physics at the university level (color online)
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
The COVID-19 pandemic thrust learners and educators across the world into a new envi-ronment, in which e-learning became the foremost method of education. As the communityis unsure about how this pandemic will persist, it is of paramount importance to embracee-learning in physics education. First, demographic concerns were addressed, includingtechnology’s association with income and gender differences in physics. Consideration ofdemographics is key to the equitable implementation of e-learning. Second, it was proposedthat adopting research-driven innovation will help teachers adapt curricula to the changingneeds of students in the wake of the pandemic. The smartphone was explored as an edu-cational tool; its advantages in the classroom and its range of sensors and apps for use inthe laboratory were identified. Nearly 80 examples of smartphone-based lab and at-homeintroductory physics experiments were provided and sorted by subject. Following that, aguide for the use of social media as a classroom tool was presented. While smartphones andsocial media are key for some aspects of e-learning, other technologies like remote labs andexperimental kits can complement their use effectively. Lastly, a guide for institutional ad-ministrators was offered. This guide highlighted the need for online mental health/medicalservices, financial investment in e-learning, pedagogical research initiatives, and teachertraining. This manuscript should be utilized by the physics community as a whole to helpguide the implementation of fruitful electronic learning practices.14
CKNOWLEDGMENTS
Much thanks to A. J. Nijdam, P. Johnson, and L. Doughty (Georgetown), S. Fisher(William & Mary), and A. Sedlack (NIH) for careful review of the manuscript, as well as myadvisor, M. Paranjape, for encouraging me in undertaking this project. Thank you to boththe NSF for current funding through award number CBET-1938995, the Achievement Re-wards for College Scientists-Metro Washington Chapter, and the Forster Family Foundationfor general research funding. ∗ [email protected] V. Singh and A. Thurman, “How Many Ways Can We Define Online Learning? A SystematicLiterature Review of Definitions of Online Learning (1988-2018),” Am. J. Distance Educ., (4), 289–306 (2019). J. L. Moore, C. Dickson-Deane, and K. Galyen, “e-Learning, online learning, and distancelearning environments: Are they the same?,” Internet High. Educ., (2), 129-135 (2011). S. Guri-Rosenblit, “ ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing,” High. Educ., , 467–493 (2005). D. Zhang, J. L. Zhao, L. Zhou, and J. F. Nunamaker, “Can e-learning replace classroomlearning?,” Commun. ACM, (5), 75–79 (2004). S. Hrastinski, “A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered thateach supports different purposes,” EDUCAUSE Q., (4), 51–55 (2008). J. E. Seaman, E. I. Allen, and J. Seaman,
Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in theUnited States , Wellesley, MA: The Babson Survey Group (2018). E. I. Allen and J. Seaman,
Sizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Educationin the United States, 2002 and 2003 , Needham, MA: Sloan-C (2003). T. D. Snyder, C. de Brey, and S. A. Dillow,
Digest of Education Statistics 2018 (NCES 2020-009). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Depart-ment of Education. Washington, DC (2019). G. Kortemeyer, “Lessons from (almost) 25 years of hybrid and online physics courses at Michi-gan State University,” EdMedia + Innovate Learning, Washington, DC (2017). R. Lambourne, “Laboratory-based teaching and the Physics Innovations Centre for Excellencein Teaching and Learning,” Eur. J. Phys., (3), S29–S36 (2007). R. Lambourne, “Einstein at a distance,” Eur. J. Phys., (6), S135–S140 (2005). N. D. Adams, “Teaching Introductory Physics Online,” ERIC, ED478781 (2003). E. J. Sintema, “Effect of COVID-19 on the performance of grade 12 students: Implications forSTEM education,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Tech. Ed., (7), 1–6 (2020). M. Dancy and C. Henderson, “Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics fac-ulty,” Am. J. Phys., (10), 1056–1063 (2010). C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, “Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies:The influence of both individual and situational characteristics,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys.Educ. Res., (2), 1–14 (2007). V. Arkorful and N. Abaidoo, “The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of itsadoption in higher education,” Int. J. Instruct. Technol. Distance Learn., (1), 29–36 (2015). A. F. Mayadas, J. Bourne, and P. Bacsich, “Online education today,” Science, (5910),85–89 (2009). G. Packham, P. Jones, C. Miller, and B. Thomas, “E-learning and retention: key factorsinfluencing student withdrawal,” Educ. Train., (6/7), 335–342 (2004). C. A. Murphy and J. C. Stewart, “On-Campus students taking online courses: Factors associ-ated with unsuccessful course completion,” Internet High. Educ., , 1–9 (2017). A. Rosenthal, “The Trouble with Online College,”
New York Times X. Zhai, M. Li, and S. Chen, “Examining the uses of student-led, teacher-led, and collaborativefunctions of mobile technology and their impacts on physics achievement and interest,” J. Sci.Educ. Technol., , 310–320 (2019). C. Zhu, “Student Satisfaction, Performance, and Knowledge Construction in Online Collabo-rative Learning,” J. Educ. Technol. Soc., (1), 127–136 (2012). M. B. Kustusch, “Assessing the impact of representational and contextual problem features onstudent use of right-hand rules,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., (1), 010102 (2016). A. Badia, D. Mart´ın, and M. G´omez, “Teachers’ Perceptions of the Use of Moodle Activitiesand Their Learning Impact in Secondary Education,” Technol. Know. Learn., , 483–499(2019). E. K. Faulconer, J. C. Griffith, B. Wood, S. Acharyya, and D. Roberts, “A Comparison of On-line, Video Synchronous, and Traditional Learning Modes for an Introductory UndergraduatePhysics Course,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., , 404–411 (2018). P-C. Sun, R. J. Tsai, G. Finger., Y-Y. Chen, and D. Yeh, “What drives a successful e-Learning?An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction,” Comput.Educ., (4), 1183–1202 (2008). H. M. Selim, “Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models,”Comput. Educ., (2), 396–413 (2007). X. Zhai, M. Zhang, and X. Zhang, “Understanding the relationship between levels of mobiletechnology use in high school physics classrooms and the learning outcome,” Brit. J. Educ.Technol., (2), 750–766 (2018). A. S. Chow and R. A. Croxton, “Designing a Responsive e-Learning Infrastructure: SystemicChange in Higher Education,” Am. J. Distance Educ., (1), 20–42 (2017). J. E. Brindley, L. M. Blaschke, and C. Walti, “Creating Effective Collaborative LearningGroups in an Online Environment,” Int. Rev. Res. Open. Dis., (3), 1–18 (2009). J. K. Njenga and L. C. H. Fourie, “The myths about e-learning in higher education,” Brit. J.Educ. Technol., (2), 199–212 (2010). Z. D. Berger, N. G. Evans, A. L. Phelan, and R. D. Silverman, “Covid-19: control measuresmust be equitable and inclusive,” W. Van Lacker and Z. Parolin, “COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: a social crisisin the making,” Lancet, (5), E243–244 (2020). Federal Data Summary: School Years 2015–16 through 2017–18, Greensboro, NC: NationalCenter for Homeless Education (2020). M. Anderson and J. Jiang, “Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018,” Pew Research Center(2018). Pew Research Center.
Mobile Fact Sheet D. M. Coca and J. Slisko, “Software Socrative and Smartphones as Tools For Implementationof Basic Processes of Active Physics Learning in Classroom: An Initial Feasibility Study WithProspective Teachers,” Eur. J. Phys. Educ., (2), 17–24 (2017). J. Huang, A. J. Gates, R. Sinatra, and A-L. Barab´asi, “Historical comparison of gender in-equality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines,” P. Natl. A. Sci. USA., (9),4609–4616 (2020). Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M-C. Shanahan, “Connecting high school physicsexperiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice,” J. Res. Sci.Teach., (8), 978–1003 (2010). C. E. Porter and N. Donthu, “Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudesdetermine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics,” (9),999–1007 (2006). A. Pramuda, Mundilarto, H. Kuswanto, and S. Hadiati, “Effect of Real-time Physics OrganizerBased Smartphone and Indigenous Technology to Students’ Scientific Literacy Viewed fromGender Differences,” Int. J. Instr., (3), 253–270 (2019). A. Padilla-Mel´endez, A. R. del Aguila-Obra, and A. Garrido-Moreno, “Perceived playfulness,gender differences, and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario,” Comput.Educ., , 306–317 (2013). K-T. Wong, T. Teo, and S. Russo, “Influence of gender and computer teaching efficacy oncomputer acceptance among Malaysian student teachers: An extended technology acceptancemodel,” Australas. J. Educ. Tec., (7), 1190–1207 (2012). M. Moran, M. Hawkes, and O. El Gayar, “ Tablet personal computer integration in highereducation: Applying the unified theory of acceptance and use technology model to understandsupporting factors,” J. Educ. Comput. Res., (1), 70–101 (2010). B. Pynoo et al., “Predicting secondary school teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learningenvironment: A cross-sectional study,” Comp. Hum. Beh., (1), 568–575 (2011). C. M. Y. Rasimah, A. Ahmad, and H. Zaman, “Evaluation of user acceptance of mixed realitytechnology,” Australas. J. Educ. Tec., (8), 1369–1387 (2011). T. Teo, “Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development andtest,” Comput. Educ., (4), 2432–2440 (2011). B. ˇSumak, M. Heriˇcko, M. Puˇsnik, and G. Polanˇciˇc, “Factors Affecting Acceptance and Use ofMoodle: and Empirical Study Based on TAM,” Informatica, , 91–100 (2011). T. Ott, “Mobile phones in school: From disturbing objects to infrastructure for learning,”Ph.D. thesis, G¨oteborgs universitet, 2017. A. Buchholz, B. Perry, L. Beck Weiss, D. Cooley, “Smartphone Use and Perceptions amongMedical Students and Practicing Physicians,” J. MTM., M. Anshari, M. N. Almunawar, M. Shahrill, D. K. Wicaksono, and M. Huda, “Smartphonesusage in the classrooms: Learning aid or interference?,” Educ. Inf. Technol., , 3063–3079(2017). J. Attewell, “Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and m-learning projectsummary,” London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. (2005) L. Kolb, “Adventures with cell phones,” Educ. Leadership, (5), 46–55 (2011). D. K. Duncan, A. R. Hoekstra, B. R. Wilcox, “Digital devices, distraction, and new studentperformance: Does in-class cell phone use reduce learning?,” Astr. Educ. Rev., (1), (2012). J. A. Sans et al. “Smartphone: a new device for teaching Physics,” 1st International Conferenceon Higher Education Advances, Valencia, Spain (2015). K. Hochberg, J. Kuhn, and Andreas M´’uller, “Using Smartphones as Experimental Tools—Effects on Interest, Curiosity, and Learning in Physics Education,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., ,385–403 (2018). R. Vieyra, C. Vieyra, A-M. Pendrill, and B. Xu, “Gamified physics challenges for teachers andthe public,” Phys. Educ., (4), 1–7 (2020). K. Alexandros, L. Panagiotis, T. Serafeim, T. Pavlos, and V. Athanasios, “Possible TechnicalProblems Encountered by The Teacher in The Incorporation of Mobile Phone Sensors in ThePhysics Lab,” Eur. J. Phys. Educ., (2), 5–23 (2020). J. Kozminski et al.,
AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Cur-riculum
College Park, MD: AAPT (2014). N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, “Operationalizing the AAPT Learning Goals for the Lab,”Phys. Teach., , 296–299 (2019). U. Pili, R. Violanda, and C. Ceniza, “Measurement of g using a magnetic pendulum and asmartphone magnetometer,” Phys. Teach., , 258–259 (2018). S. Kapucu, “A simple experiment to measure the maximum coefficient of static friction with asmartphone,” Phys. Educ., (5), 1–3 (2018). A. C¸ oban and M. Erol, “Teaching and determination of kinetic friction coefficient using smart-phones,” Phys. Educ., (2), 1–5 (2019). C. Baldock and R. Johnson, “Investigation of kinetic friction using an iPhone,” Phys. Educ., (6), 1–6 (2016). D. Lopez, I. Caprile, F. Corvacho, and O. Reyes, “Study of a variable mass Atwood’s machineusing a smartphone,” Phys. Teach., W. Namchanthra et al., “Analyzing a torsion pendulum using a smartphone’s sensors: me-chanical energy conservation approach,” Phys. Educ., (6), 1–8 (2019). T. Pierratos and H. M. Polatoglou, “Study of the conservation of mechanical energy in themotion of a pendulum using a smartphone,” Phys. Educ., (1), 1–5 (2018). P. Vogt and J. Kuhn, “Analyzing collision processes with the smartphone acceleration sensor,”Phys. Teach., , 118–119 (2014). S. K. Ayop, “Analyzing Impulse Using iPhone and Tracker,” Phys. Teach., , 480–481 (2017). J. C. Sanders, “The effects of projectile mass on ballistic pendulum displacement,” Am. J.Phys., (5), 360–364 (2020). L. Seeley and E-H. Shin, “Colliding without touching: Using magnets and copper pipe fittingsto explore the energetics of a completely inelastic collision,” Am. J. Phys., (9), 712–717(2018). U. Pili, “A dynamic-based measurement of a spring constant with a smartphone light sensor,”Phys. Educ., (3), 1–3 (2018). U. Pili and R. Violanda, “Measuring a spring constant with a magnetic spring-mass oscillatorand a telephone pickup,” Phys. Educ., (4), 1–3 (2019). J. A. Sans, F. J. Manj´on, A. L. J. Pereira, J. A. Gomez-Tejedor, and J. A. Monsoriu, “Oscil-lations studied with the smartphone ambient light sensor,” Eur. J. Phys., (6), 1349–1354(2013). J. C. Castro-Palacio, L. Vel´azquez-Abad, M. H. Gim´enez, and J. A. Monsoriu, “Using a mobilephone acceleration sensor in physics experiments on free and damped harmonic oscillations,”Am. J. Phys., (6), 472–475 (2013). R. Jaafar, S. K. Ayop, A. T. Ismail, K. K. Hon, A. N. M. Daud, and M. H. Hashim, “Visualiza-tion of Harmonic Series in Resonance Tubes Using a Smartphone,” Phys. Teach., , 545–547(2016). J. A. G´omez-Tejedor, J. C. Castro-Palacio, and J. A. Monsoriu, “The acoustic Doppler effectapplied to the study of linear motions,” Eur. J. Phys., (2), 1–9 (2014). R. P´’orn and Mats Brask´en, “Interactive modeling activities in the classroom—rotational mo-tion and smartphone gyroscopes,” Phys. Educ., (6), 1–7 (2016). A. Shakur and J. Kraft, “Measurement of Coriolis Acceleration with a Smartphone,” Phys.Teach., , 288–290 (2016). M. S. M. N. F. Gomes, P. Mart´ın-Ramos, P. S. P. da Silva, and M. R. Silva, “The ‘spinningdisk touches stationary disk’ problem revisited: an experimental approach,” Eur. J. Phys., (4), 1–10 (2018). P. Klein, A. M´’uller, S. Gr´’ober, A. Molz, and J. Kuhn, “Rotational and frictional dynamicsof the slamming of a door,” Am. J. Phys., (1), 30–37 (2017). N-A. Goy et al., “Surface tension measurements with a smartphone,” Phys. Teach., , 498–499(2017). M. Wei et al., “The study of liquid surface waves with a smartphone camera and an imagerecognition algorithm,” Eur. J. Phys., (6), 1–8 (2015). M. R. Silva, P. Mart´ın-Ramos, and P. P. da Silva, “Studying cooling curves with a smartphone,”Phys. Teach., , 53–55 (2018). J. Rayner, “Using a Cell Phone to Investigate the Skin Depth Effect in Salt Water,” Phys.Teach., , 83–86 (2017). F. G. Tomasel and M. C. Marconi, “Rolling magnets down a conductive hill: Revisiting aclassic demonstration of the effects of eddy currents,” Am. J. Phys., (9), 800–803 (2012). A. A. Soares and T. O. Reis, “Studying Faraday’s law of induction with a smartphone andpersonal computer,” Phys. Educ., (5), 1–7 (2019). G. A. Sobral, “Development of a metal detector for smartphones and its use in the teachinglaboratory,” Phys. Educ., (4), 1–10 (2018). E. Arribas, I. Escobar, C. P. Suarez, A. Najera, and A. Bel´endez, “Measurement of the mag-netic field of small magnets with a smartphone: a very economical laboratory practice forintroductory physics courses,” Eur. J. Phys., (6), 1–11 (2015). Y. Ogawara, S. Bhari, and S. Mahrley, “Observation of the magnetic field using a smartphone,”Phys. Teach., , 184–185 (2017). T. Rosi and P. Onorato, “Video analysis-based experiments regarding Malus’ law,” Phys.Educ., (4), 1–5 (2020). M. Monteiro, C. Stari, C. Cabeza, and A. C. Mart´ı, “The Polarization of Light and Malus’Law Using Smartphones,” Phys. Teach., , 264–266 (2017). K. Malisorn et al., “Demonstration of light absorption and light scattering using smartphones,”Phys. Educ., (1), 1–8 (2020). J. Freeland, V. R. Krishnamurthi, and Y. Wang, “Learning the lens equation using water andsmartphones/tablets,” Phys. Teach., , 360–361 (2020). C-M. Chiang and H-Y. Cheng, “Use smartphones to measure Brewster’s angle,” Phys. Teach., , 118–119 (2019). I. Salinas, M. H. Gim´enez, J. A. Monsoriu, and J. C. Castro-Palacio, “Characterization oflinear light sources with the smartphone’s ambient light sensor,” Phys. Teach., , 562–563(2018). P. Onorato and L. M. Gratton, “Measuring the Raman spectrum of water with a smartphone,laser diodes and diffraction grating,” Eur. J. Phys., (2), 1–14 (2020). H. Ghalila et al., “Hands-on experimental and computer laboratory in optics: the Young doubleslit experiment,” SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, San Diego, CA (2018). M. Pirbhai, “Smartphones and Tracker in the e/m experiment,” Phys. Educ., (1), 1–5(2020). J. Durelle, J. Jones, S. Merriman, and A. Balan, “A smartphone-based introductory astronomyexperiment: Seasons investigation,” Phys. Teach., , 122–123 (2017). J. Vandermarli`ere, “On the inflation of a rubber balloon,” Phys. Teach., , 566–567 (2016). K. Forinash and R. F. Wisman, “Smartphones as portable oscilloscopes for physics labs,” Phys.Teach., , 242–243 (2012). O. Schwarz, P. Vogt, and J. Kuhn, “Acoustic measurements of bouncing balls and the deter-mination of gravitational acceleration,” Phys. Teach., , 312–313 (2013). P. Vogt and J. Kuhn, “Analyzing free fall with a smartphone acceleration sensor,” Phys. Teach., , 182–183 (2012). J. Kim et al., “A Measurement of Gravitational Acceleration Using a Metal Ball, a Ruler, anda Smartphone,” Phys. Teach., , 192–194 (2020). J. Kuhn, P. Vogt, and F. Theilmann, “Going nuts: Measuring free-fall acceleration by analyzingthe sound of falling metal pieces,” Phys. Teach., L. A. Testoni and G. Brockington, “The use of smartphones to teach kinematics: an inexpensiveactivity,” Phys. Educ., (6), 1–7 (2016). E. Azhikannickal, “Sports, Smartphones, and Simulation as an Engaging Method to TeachProjectile Motion Incorporating Air Resistance,” Phys. Teach., , 308–311 (2019). C. Fahsl and P. Vogt, “Determination of the drag resistance coefficients of different vehicles,”Phys. Teach., , 324–325 (2018). V. L. B. de Jesus and D. G. G. Sasaki, “Modelling of a collision between two smartphones,”Phys. Educ., (5), 1–7 (2016). V. Pereira, P. Mart´ın-Ramos, P. P. da Silva, and M. R. Silva, “Studying 3D collisions withsmartphones,” Phys. Teach., , 312–313 (2017). J. Kuhn and P. Vogt, “Analyzing acoustic phenomena with a smartphone microphone,” Phys.Teach., , 118–119 (2013). J. Kuhn and P. Vogt, “Analyzing spring pendulum phenomena with a smart-phone accelerationsensor,” Phys. Teach., , 504–505 (2012). S. Hellesund, “Measuring the speed of sound in air using a smartphone and a cardboard tube,”Phys. Educ., (3), 1–5 (2019). S. O. Parolin and G. Pezzi, “Measuring the speed of sound in air using a smartphone and acardboard tube,” Phys. Teach., , 508–509 (2013). A. Yavuz, “Measuring the speed of sound in air using smartphone applications,” Phys. Educ., (3), 281–284 (2015). S. Staacks, S. H utz, H. Heinke, and C. Stampfer, “Simple Time-of-Flight Measurement of theSpeed of Sound Using Smartphones,” , 112–113 (2019). J. Bonato, L. M. Gratton, P. Onorato, and S. Oss, “Using high speed smartphone cameras andvideo analysis techniques to teach mechanical wave physics,” Phys. Educ., (4), 1–5 (2017). M. Monteiro, C. Stari, C. Cabeza, A. C. Marti, “A bottle of tea as a universal Helmholtzresonator, Phys. Teach., , 644–645 (2018). S. H. Hawley and R. E. McClain, “Visualizing Sound Directivity via Smartphone Sensors,”Phys. Teach., , 72–74 (2018). M. Thees, K. Hochberg, J. Kuhn, and M. Aeschlimann, “Adaptation of acoustic model exper-iments of STM via smartphones and tablets,” , 436–437 (2017). A. M´’uller, M. Hirth, and J. Kuhn, “Tunnel pressure waves – A smartphone inquiry on railtravel,” , 118–119 (2016). R. P. Smith and E. H. Matlis, “Gravity-driven fluid oscillations in a drinking straw,” Am. J.Phys., (6), 433–435 (2019). U. Dilek and S. K. S¸eng´’oren, “A new position sensor to analyze rolling motion using aniPhone,” Phys. Educ., (4), 1–4 (2019). P. Vogt and J. Kuhn, “Analyzing radial acceleration with a smartphone acceleration sensor,”Phys. Teach., M. Monteiro, C. Cabeza, and A. C. Mart´ı, “Exploring phase space using smartphone acceler-ation and rotation sensors simultaneously,” (4), 1–9 (2014). I. Salinas, M. H. Gimenez, J. A. Monsoriu, and J. A. Sans, “Demonstration of the parallel axistheorem through a smartphone,” , 340–341 (2019). U. Pili and R. Violanda, “Measuring average angular velocity with a smartphone magneticfield sensor,” Phys. Teach. , 114–115 (2018). J. Chevrier, L. Madani, S. Ledenmat, and A. Bsiesy, “Teaching classical mechanics usingsmartphones,” Phys. Teach., , 376–377 (2013). S. Mau, F. Insulla, E. E. Pickens, Z. Ding, and S. C. Dudley, “Locating a smartphone’saccelerometer,” Phys. Teach., , 246–247 (2016). S. Macchia, “Analyzing Stevin’s law with the smartphone barometer,” Phys. Teach., , 373(2016). M. Monteiro, P. Vogt, C. Stari, V. Cabeza, and A. C. Marti, “Exploring the atmosphere usingsmartphones,” Phys. Teach., , 308–309 (2016). A. Girot, N-A. Goy, A. Viliquin, and U. Delabre, “Studying Ray Optics with a Smartphone,”Phys. Teach., , 133–135 (2020). B. Underwood and Y. Zhai, “Moving Phones Tick Slower: Creating an Android App to Demon-strate Time Dilation,” Phys. Teach., , 277–279 (2016). J. Kuhn, A. Molz, S. Gr´’ober, and J. Fr´’ubis, “iRadioactivity – Possibilities and Limitationsfor Using Smartphones and Tablet PCs as Radioactive Counters,” , 351–356 (2014). M. Meißner and H. Haertig, “Smartphone Astronomy,” Phys. Teach., , 440–441 (2014). A. Mazzella and I. Testa, “An investigation into the effectiveness of smartphone experimentson students’ conceptual knowledge about acceleration,” Phys. Educ., , 1–10 (2016). J. Lincoln, “Enhancing physics demos using iPhone slow motion,” Phys. Teach., , 588–589(2017). M. Kubsch, J. Nordine, and D. Hadinek, “Using smartphone thermal cameras to engage stu-dents? misconceptions about energy,” Phys. Teach., , 504–505 (2017). C. McLoughlin and M. J. W. Lee, “Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software,” Australas. J. Educ.Tec., (1), 28–43 (2010). J. E. Rodriguez, “Social Media Use in Higher Education: Key Areas to Consider for Educators,”J. Online Learn. Teach., (4), 539–550 (2011). T. Joosten,
Social media for educators: Strategies and best practices (Jossey-Bass, Hoboken,NJ, 2012).
S. Manca and M. Ranieri, “Facebook and the others. Potentials and obstacles of Social Mediafor teaching in higher education,” Comput. Educ., , 216–230 (2016). D. Bouhnik and M. Deshen, “WhatsApp Goes to School: Mobile Instant Messaging betweenTeachers and Students,” J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res., , 217–231 (2014). M. A. Ha¸silo˘glu, H. S. C¸ alhan, and M. E. Ustao˘glu, “Determining the Views of the SecondarySchool Science Teachers about the Use of Social Media in Education,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., , 346–354 (2020). M. Moran, J. Seaman, and H. Tinti-Kane, “Blogs, wikis, podcasts and Facebook: How to-day’s higher education faculty use social media,” Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions andBabson Survey Research Group (2012).
T. Buchanan, P. Sainter, and G. Saunders, “Factors affecting faculty use of learning tech-nologies: implications for models of technology adoption,” J. Comput. High. Educ., , 1–11(2013). Y. Cao, H. Ajjan, and P. Hong, “Using social media applications for educational outcomesin college teaching: A structural equation analysis,” Brit. J. Educ. Technol., (4), 581–593(2013). U. Matzat and E. M. Vrieling, “Self-regulated learning and social media – a ‘natural alliance’ ?Evidence on students’ self-regulation of learning, social media use, and student-teacher rela-tionship,” Learn. Media Technol., (1), 73–99 (2015). E. Hargittai and G. Walejko, “The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in thedigital age,” Inform. Commun. Soc., (2), 239–256 (2008). W. Bao, “COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking Univer-sity,” Hum. Beh. Emerging Technol., (2), 113–115 (2020). A. B. Amry, “The Impact of WhatsApp mobile social learning on the achievement and attitudesof female students compared with face to face learning in the classroom,” Eur. Sci. J., (22),116–136 (2014). A. Klieger and L. Goldsmith. “Expanding physics learning beyond classroom boundaries—acase study,” Phys. Educ., (2), 1–6 (2020). C. Hart, “Factors Associated With Student Persistence in an Online Program of Study: AReview of the Literature,” J. Interact. Online Learn., (1), 19–42 (2012). Y-C. Hsu and Y-H. Ching, “Microblogging for Strengthening a Virtual Learning Communityin an Online Course,” Knowl. Man. E-Learn., (4), 585–598 (2011). K. Page, “Using social media in a high school physics class,” Phys. Teach., , 184–185 (2015). S. E. Schoper and A. R. Hill, “Using Facebook to Promote a Virtual Learning Community: ACase Study,” J. Learn. Space., (1), 34–39 (2017). E. Gibney, “ ‘Open-hardware’ pioneers push for low-cost lab kit: conference aims to raiseawareness of shared resources for building lab equipment,” Nature, , 147–148 (2016).
J. DeBoer, C. Haney, S. Zahra Atiq, C. Smith, and D. Cox, “Hands-on engagement online:using a randomised control trial to estimate the impact of an at-home lab kit on studentattitudes and achievement in a MOOC,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., D. K. Kennepohl, “Providing Effective Teaching Laboratories at an Open Laboratory,” Int. J.Innov. Online Educ., (4), (2017). ˇS. Kub´ınov´a and J. ˇSl´egr, “Physics demonstrations with the Arduino board,” Phys. Educ., (4), 472–474 (2015). J. M. Long, B. P. Horan, and R. Hall, “Undergraduate electronics students’ use of home exper-iment kits for distance education,” Proc. 119th American Society for Engineering Education nnual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX (2012). R. W. Hendricks and K. Meehan,
Lab in a Box: Introductory Experiments in Electric Circuits (Wiley, New York 2009).
R. Heradio et al. “Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric analysis,” Comput.Educ., , 14–38 (2016). L. Gomes and S. Bogosyan, “Current Trends in Remote Laboratories,” IEEE T. Ind. Electron., (12), 4744–4756 (2009). J. Ma and J. V. Nickerson, “Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparativeliterature review,” ACM Surveys, (3), 1–24 (2006). D. Hoxley et al., “FARLabs: Enhancing student engagement via remote laboratories,” Proc.Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (2014).
C. A. Matarrita and S. B. Concari, “Remote laboratories used in physics teaching: A state ofthe art,” 2016 13th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumen-tation (REV), Madrid, Spain (2016).
P. Ordu˜na et al., “LabsLand: A sharing economy platform to promote educational remotelaboratories maintainability, sustainability and adoption,” IEEE Frontiers in Education Con-ference, Erie, PA, USA (2016).
K. Jona and M. Vondracek, “A Remote Radioactivity Experiment,” Phys. Teach., , 25–26(2013). M. Tawfik et al., “Virtual Instrument Systems in Reality (VISIR) for Remote Wiring andMeasurement of Electronic Circuits on Breadboard,” IEEE T. Learn. Technol., (1), 60–72(2013). J. G. Zubia and G. R. Alves,
Using remote labs in education: two little ducks in remoteexperimentation (University of Deusto Press, Bilbao, Spain, 2012).
A. Jimoyiannis and V. Komis, “Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: acase study on students’ understanding of trajectory motion,” Comput. Educ., (2), 183–204(2001). C. E. Wieman, W. K. Adams, and K. K. Perkins, “PhET: Simulations that enhance learning,”Science, , 682–683 (2008).
C. E. Wieman, W. K. Adams, P. Loeblein, and K. K. Perkins, “Teaching Physics Using PhETSimulations,” Phys. Teach., , 225–227 (2010). G. Hatsidimitris and J. Wolfe, “PHYSCLIPS: Multimedia Resources for Learning and TeachingPhysics,” 2nd International STEM in Education Conference, Beijing, China (2012).
D. MacIsaac, “ComPADRE Digital Collections,” Phys. Teach., , 398 (2006). C. Thompson, “How Khan Academy Is Changing the Rules of Education,” Wired Magazine , 1–5 (2011).
C. Lindstrøm, “Using Khan Academy to support students’ mathematical skill development ina physics course,” 122nd ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WA (2015).
M. Kettle, “Flipped Physics,” Phys. Educ., (5), 593–596 (2013). C. M. Toquero, “Challenges and Opportunities for Higher Education amid the COVID-19Pandemic: The Philippine Context,” Pedagog. Res., (4), 1–5 (2020). J. Peppard and J. Ward, “Beyond strategic information systems: towards an IS capability,” J.Strategic. Inf. Syst., (2), 167–194 (2004). P. Sahu, “Closure of Universities Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact onEducation and Mental Health of Students and Academic Staff,” Cureus, (4), 1–6 (2020). P. Odriozola-Gonz´alez, ´A. Planchuelo-G´omez, M. J. Irutia, and R. de Luis-Garc´ıa, “Psycholog-ical effects of the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown among students and workers of a Spanishuniversity,” Psychiat. Res., , 113108 (2020).
N. Brown, K. te Riele, B. Shelley, and J. Woodroffe,
Learning at home during COVID-19: Ef-fects on vulnerable young Australians Independent Rapid Response Report.
Hobart: Universityof Tasmania, Peter Underwood Centre for Educational Attainment. (2020)
O. Calderon, A. P. Ginsberg, and L. Ciabocchi, “Multidimensional Assessment of Pilot BlendedLearning Programs: Maximizing Program Effectiveness Based on Student and Faculty Feed-back,” J. Asynchronous. Learn. Netw., (3), 23–37 (2012). S. Guri-Rosenblit, “Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of e-learning in highereducation,” Distances et saviors, (4), 155–179 (2006). K. Mac Keogh, “National Strategies for the Promotion of On-Line Learning in Higher Educa-tion,” Eur. J. Educ., (2), 223–236 (2001). G. Mihhailova, “E-learning as internationalization strategy in higher education: Lecturer’s andstudent’s perspective,” Balt. J. Manag., (3), 270–284 (2006). T. Hatziapostolou and I. Paraskakis, “Enhancing the Impact of Formative Feedback on StudentLearning through an Online Feedback System,” Electron. J. E-Learn., (2), 111-122 (2010). M. Jara and H. Mellar, “Quality enhancement for e-learning courses: The role of studentfeedback,” Comput. Educ., (3), 709–714 (2010). S. Watson, “Closing the Feedback Loop: Ensuring Effective Action from Student Feedback,”Tertiary Educ. Manag., (2), 145–157 (2003). M. T. Afzal, A. Safdar, and M. Ambreen, “Teachers Perceptions and Needs towards the Use ofE-Learning in Teaching of Physics at Secondary Level.” Am. J. Educ. Res., (8), 1045–1051(2015).(8), 1045–1051(2015).