a research-validated approach to transforming upper ... · univ. of colorado a research-validated...

Univ. of Colorado

A research-validated approach to transforming upper-division physics "

Steven Pollock

Physics Dept. University of Colorado at Boulder

Upper-Level Course Transformation"DC Chair’s conference ‘13

Univ. of Colorado

Funded by: National Science Foundation William and Flora Hewlett Foundation American Association of Physics Teachers Physics Teacher Education Coalition American Institute of Physics American Physical Society National Math & Science Initiative Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Grad Students: Ian Her Many Horses George Ortiz Mike Ross Ben Spike Enrique Suarez Ben Van Dusen Bethany Wilcox Rosemary Wulf

Teachers / Partners / Staff: Shelly Belleau, John Blanco Kathy Dessau, Jackie Elser Molly Giuliano, Kate Kidder Trish Loeblein, Chris Malley Susan M. Nicholson-Dykstra Oliver Nix, Jon Olson Emily Quinty, Sam Reid Sara Severance

Faculty: Melissa Dancy Michael Dubson Noah Finkelstein Heather Lewandowski Valerie Otero Robert Parson Kathy Perkins Steven Pollock Carl Wieman (on leave)

Postdocs/ Scientists: Charles Baily Danny Caballero Stephanie Chasteen Julia Chamberlain Karina Hensberry Katie Hinko Emily Moore Ariel Paul Noah Podolefsky Benjamin Zwickl

Physics Education Research at CU Boulder��

Univ. of Colorado

Upper-Level Course Transformation"

Outline

•  Overview, and some background"•  Building on a research base:"

– Why transform upper division courses?"– What changed?"– Data collection"– Assessment"– Outcomes and research questions" "

Univ. of Colorado

Introductory Classes •  Tutorials in Introductory Physics"

– University of Washington"– Research-based"– Replace traditional recitation"

•  Peer Instruction in Lecture"– Eric Mazur"– Clicker Questions (3-5 per class)"

•  Active Learning"

Univ. of Colorado


Force Concept Inventory

<g> = post-pre 100-pre

red = trad, blue = interactive engagement

CU - w. Tutorials & LAs

CU - w. trad recitations

R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98). S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 (2008)

Less Learning More Learning

Univ. of Colorado


Longitudinal

After upper div. E&M. (Only students who took intro without Tutorials)

Upper division majors’ BEMA scores

S. Pollock, 2007 PERC, and Phys. Rev STPER 5 (2009)

Univ. of Colorado


Longitudinal

BLUE: students who took freshman E&M with Tutorials



Univ. of Colorado


Longitudinal

BLUE: students who took freshman E&M with Tutorials



(3.1 ±.1) (3.0 ±.1)

(3.3 ±.1) Grade in course

Univ. of Colorado

What about Upper-division?

•  Challenges"– Upper-division content is different."

•  More emphasis on mathematics"•  Connections between the math and physics"

– Upper-division students are different."•  More background with math and physics formalisms"•  Different beliefs about learning and knowing"•  More motivated"•  Beginning to identify as Physicists"

Can our majors learn better from interactive techniques adapted from introductory physics?

Univ. of Colorado

Establish learning goals

Apply research-based teaching techniques &

measure progress

Faculty & Staff

Using Research & Assessment

Model of Course Transformation

Chasteen, Perkins, Beale, Pollock, & Wieman, JCST 40 (4), 70, 2011

•  Sustainable & replicable

Univ. of Colorado

Materials for a Transformed Course

•  Consensus learning goals"

•  Interactive classroom techniques"–  Activities"– Concept tests"

•  Tutorials "•  Modified Homework"

– Homework help sessions"•  Conceptual assessments"•  Documented student difficulties"

All materials are freely available online

www.colorado.edu/sei/physics

Pepper et al, Chasteen et al, Pollock et al. PERC 2010

Univ. of Colorado

Transformed Courses at CU

Univ. of Colorado


What Changed? •  Faculty collaboration"•  Explicit learning goals"•  Collect student data!"

Students debate a concept test

•  Interactive classroom techniques"

•  Concept Tests "•  Modified Homework"•  Homework Help Sessions •  Tutorials

Pepper et al, Chasteen et al, Pollock et al. PERC 2010

Univ. of Colorado

Learning Goals •  Developed in faculty working groups"•  Framed the course transformations"•  Made explicit to the students"

•  Course-scale goals"

•  Topic/Content goals"

Pepper et al, PERC 2011

Students should be able to""… translate a physical description of a problem to a mathematical equation necessary to solve it.""… sketch physical parameters …""… articulate expectations for the solution, or justify reasonableness of a solution, by…"

What should students

learn?

Univ. of Colorado

Interactive Classroom Techniques: Concept Tests

•  Challenging, high-level questions"

•  Allow students to discuss and debate during lecture "

•  2-4 per 50 minute lecture (3-7 min each)"

What instructional approaches

improve student learning?

Univ. of Colorado

An Example from Quantum Mechanics

Compared to the infinite square with the same width a, the ground state energy of a finite square well is… A.  The same B.  Higher C.  Lower"

14% 33% 53%

Univ. of Colorado


An example from E&M

Univ. of Colorado


Did it Work? Assessments

•  Compared Traditional (9 courses) & Transformed (9 courses) at CU and elsewhere (N=515). !

"•  Common traditional exam questions (5)"

•  Developed e.g. Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics Assessment (CUE)!

( and in QM, EM2, and Class Mech/Math Methods)"

Chasteen et al, JCST 40 (2011) , Phys Rev STPER (2012)

What are students learning?

Univ. of Colorado

CUE assessment:


!

A grounded conducting plane with a point charge Q at a distance a. Find E (or V) at point P.

DO NOT SOLVE the problem, we just want to know: - The general strategy (half credit) - Why you chose that method (half credit)

Univ. of Colorado

CUE assessment:


Univ. of Colorado


0"

10"

20"

30"

40"

50"

60"

70"

80"

S1" S2" S3" S4" S5" S6" S7" S8" S9"

Com

mon

CU

E Sc

ore

(%)!

CUE Total Post-test Score!

Standard Lecture-Based Courses!

Post: Standard" Average (Across Courses)"

Non-CU!CU!

CUE results: Trad courses

Chasteen et al , Phys Rev STPER 8 (2012)

Univ. of Colorado


!"

#!"

$!"

%!"

&!"

'!"

(!"

)!"

*!"

+#" +$" +%" +&" +'" +(" +)" +*" +," -./"#"-./"$"-./"%"-./"&"-./"'"-./"("-./")"-./"*"-./","

!"##"$

%!&'%()"*+%,-

.%

!&'%/"012%3"4050+40%()"*+%

3'65714+8%!"9*4+4%(01$81*8%:+)09*+5714+8%!"9*4+4%,(/;<.%

-0123"+2456476"-0123"/818479:;<4186"-0123"=746>428"+2>68521"

?@874A8"B?97011"C0>7181D"

;"$5!&% !&% ;"$5!&%!&%

Chasteen et al , Phys Rev STPER 8 (2012)


Univ. of Colorado


!"

#!"

$!"

%!"

&!"

'!"

(!"

)!"

*!"

+#" +$" +%" +&" +'" +(" +)" +*" +," -#" -$" -%" -&" -'" -(" -)" -*" -,"

!"##"$

%!&'%()"*+%,-

.%

!&'%/"012%3"4050+40%()"*+%

3'65714+8%!"9*4+4%(01$81*8%:+)09*+5714+8%!"9*4+4%,(/;<.%

./012"+1345365"

./012"-7073689:;3075"

./012"<635=317"+1=57410"

>?763@7"A>86/00"B/=6070C"

;"$5!&% !&% ;"$5!&%!&%


Univ. of Colorado

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

!"# !$# !%# !&# !'#

!"#$%&'(#)*+,#-*./01)20*

()*+# ,-./0# ,-./+#

Traditional Exam questions


Chasteen et al, PERC 2011, AJP 80 (#10) 2012

Univ. of Colorado

Exam results by learning goals

Chasteen et al, PERC 2011, AJP 80 (#10) 2012

Univ. of Colorado APS ‘10


Example Questions

•  Conceptual"•  Math/Physics

connection"•  Application of

ideas"•  Step in calculation,

proof, derivation"

SP

Univ. of Colorado


Concept Tests



Questions: Fundamentals Freshmen: 45%, 60% next day UD: 60 % correct

30% correct (60% voting “C”) before discussion - then 60% correct

Univ. of Colorado


Homework

Univ. of Colorado


Term S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F Mech Math I

Mech MathII

EM I

EM II

QM I

QM II

Stat Mech

Solid State

Plasma

Nuclear/HE

04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

Upper-div Clickers at CU

Perkins et al, PERC 2009

Univ. of Colorado

Term S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F Mech Math I ✔ ✔Mech MathII ✔EM I

EM II

QM I

QM II

Stat Mech ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Solid State

Plasma

Nuclear/HE


04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

PER faculty

Upper-div Clickers at CU

Univ. of Colorado


04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

PER faculty

Upper-div Clickers at CU Term S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F

Mech Math I ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Mech MathII ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔EM I ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔EM II ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔QM I ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔QM II ✔ ✔ ✔Stat Mech ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Solid State ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Plasma

Nuclear/HE



Students Find Clickers Useful

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Pure lecture much more useful

Pure lecture more useful

Same

Lecture with clickers more useful

Lecture with clickers much more useful 79% of

students

12 courses, 264 student responses Upper-div courses using clickers:

Q: How useful for your learning is the addition of clicker questions compared to pure lecture with no clicker questions?

Perkins and Turpen, PERC 2009



Student’s can’t predict value

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Definitely not recommended

Not recommended

Neutral

Recommended

Highly Recommend

Q: Would you recommend using clicker questions in upper-level physics courses?

In highly rated pure lecture, No clickers (QM II, n=17) Add Clickers (QM I, n=30) Missing clickers? (EM II, n=16)

Perkins and Turpen, PERC 2009

Univ. of Colorado


Research on student difficulties

Research-based" Research-validated"

•  CUE instrument"•  interviews and class observations"•  pre/post Tutorial assessments"

"

•  Tutorials"•  Clicker Questions"•  Homeworks"•  Class activities""reflective development""

•  Consensus learning goals"

Univ. of Colorado

Summary •  We have introduced research-based

transformations in our upper-division courses."– Materials"– Assessments"

•  We have evidence of "–  Improved student understanding of advanced topics"– Sustainability"– Student buy-in"– Faculty buy-in"

Univ. of Colorado


Questions?

Transformed materials online at per.colorado.edu

or www.colorado.edu/sei/physics

[email protected]

Univ. of Colorado




EXTRA SLIDES

Univ. of Colorado

Do not solve, but give “the easiest method you would use to solve the problem” & “why”.

33% of students did not recognize Gauss’ law as the easiest way to solve. (N=325)

!(r) = !0e"r 2 / a 2

24% of students incorrectly chose Gauss’ law as the easiest way to solve. (N=325)

Student difficulties (from the CUE)

Univ. of Colorado

Activation of the tool"

Construction of the model"

Execution of the mathematics"

Reflection on the results"

Caballero, Wilcox, Pepper & Pollock, PERC Proc. 1531, 90, 2012

A framework for investigating student difficulties

ACER

Univ. of Colorado

ACER example: Taylor Series

U(φ) = mgR(1+cosφ). Find an approximate expression for potential energy near φ = 0.

~50% did not recognize the need to use Taylor Series without prompt.

Only ~25% could connect their approximate expressions to SHM physics when prompted to sensemake.or check.

Caballero, Wilcox, Pepper & Pollock, PERC Proc. 1531, 90, 2012

Univ. of Colorado

ACER example: Taylor Series

U(φ) = mgR(1+cosφ). Find an approximate expression for potential energy near φ = 0.

~50% did not recognize the need to use Taylor Series without prompt.

Only ~25% could connect their approximate expressions to SHM physics when prompted to sensemake.or check.

Only ~15% could articulate the region of applicability (what “small” means)

Univ. of Colorado

~40% have difficulty expressing dq.

~8% spontaneously reflected (i.e. checking units or limits)

Calculate electric potential at P from a disk with given σ.

ACER example: Continuous charge distributions

~ 50% cannot generate a useful formula for (r-r’)

Wilcox, Cabellero, Pollock, PERC 2012

a research-validated approach to transforming upper ... · univ. of colorado a research-validated...

Documents