physics education research at cu s.j. pollock sps fall 05 or why do i keep filling out those online...
TRANSCRIPT
Physics Education Research at CU
S.J. PollockSPS Fall 05
orwhy do I keep filling
out those online surveys at the start
of every course?
PERWe want to study the LEARNING of science… in a scientific wayDevelop curricula and test themCollect data - conceptual surveys (pre/post is best)
beliefs about science and learning ( “” )
Develop theoretical frameworks…
Pieces Coherence
By Authority Independent(experiment)
structure
learning
Novice Expert
Formulas & “plug ‘n chug”
Concepts & Problem Solving
content
think about science like a scientist
Learning goals?
“Content”
Force Concept Inventory (and many others)
• Research based• Experts (especially skeptics!) =>
necessary (not sufficient) indicator of understanding.
Sample question
Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98).
<g> = post-pre 100-pre
traditional lecture
FCI I
Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98).
<g> = post-pre 100-pre
red = trad, blue = interactive engagement
FCI II
Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98).
<g> = post-pre 100-preFa03/Sp04Fa98
red = trad, blue = interactive engagement
FCI at CU
Phys 1110 normalized gains
gain(1)= .66 +/-.02
distribution of g: compared
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
normalized gain
% of students
SP04
Phys 1110 normalized gains
gain(1)= .66 +/-.02 g(2)= .585 +/-.02 7.5 points lower => (more than half a letter grade)
distribution of g: compared
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
normalized gain
% of students
SP04
FA04
Phys 1110 normalized gains
gain(1)= .66 +/-.02 g(2)= .585 +/-.02 g(3)= .45 +/-.0221 points lower gain (!) Course (3) (trad recit.) => significantly lower gains. (but still, double nat’l standards!)
distribution of g: compared
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
normalized gain
% of students
SP04
SP05
1120 E&M pre/postBEMA (matched) (CU scoring) Fa04
g(ave)=.44, N=331
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96
Score (%) (CU scoring)
# of students
Pre (ave=26)
Post (ave=59)
LA pre
LA post
TA post
TA pre
CU upp div post
1120 post
NCSU tradpost
NCSU honor& CMU tradpost
CMU M&Ipost
CMU uppdiv post
~40%
~75%
* Mazur, E. Peer Instruction, Prentice Hall
Attitudes and Beliefs
Assessing the “hidden curriculum”
Ex: ““I study physics to learn knowledge I study physics to learn knowledge that will be useful in life.”that will be useful in life.”““TTo learn physics, I only need to memorize solutions to sample problems”
CLASS pre/post
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Unfavorable
Favorable
Overall Pre
Indep. Pre
Coher. Pre
Conc. Pre
R. App. Pre
R. Care. Pre
Math Pre
Effort Pre
Skept. Pre
Overall Post
Indep. Post
Coher. Post
Conc. Post
R. App. Post
R. Care Post
Math Post
Effort Post
Skept. Post
W. Adams 2003, replicating Redish, Steinberg, Saul AJP 66 p. 212 (‘98)
(Typical) attitude shifts
CLASS pre/post
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Unfavorable
Favorable
Overall Pre
Indep. Pre
Coher. Pre
Conc. Pre
R. App. Pre
R. Care. Pre
Math Pre
Effort Pre
Skept. Pre
Overall Post
Indep. Post
Coher. Post
Conc. Post
R. App. Post
R. Care Post
Math Post
Effort Post
Skept. Post
Concepts
Reality
W. Adams 2003, replicating Redish, Steinberg, Saul AJP 66 p. 212 (‘98)
(Typical) attitude shifts
Shift (%) (“reformed” class)
-6-8-12-11-10-7-17+5(All ±2%)
CLASS categories
• Real world connect...• Personal interest........
• Sensemaking/effort...• Conceptual................
• Math understanding...• Problem Solving........
• Confidence................
• Nature of science.......
Engineers: -12
Phys Male: +1Phys Female: -16
But it’s possible to do better
Conceptual Understanding
35
45
55
65
75
g<=.25 0.25<g<=0.5 0.5<g<=0.75 0.75<g<=0.9 0.9<g<=1
Learning GainsLow learning gain <---------> high learning gain
Blue= preRed= post
Data from instructor attending (somewhat) to “hidden curriculum”)
But it’s possible to do better
Conceptual Understanding
35
45
55
65
75
g<=.25 0.25<g<=0.5 0.5<g<=0.75 0.75<g<=0.9 0.9<g<=1
Learning GainsLow learning gain <---------> high learning gain
Blue= preRed= post
Data from instructor attending (somewhat) to “hidden curriculum”)
But it’s possible to do better
Conceptual Understanding
35
45
55
65
75
g<=.25 0.25<g<=0.5 0.5<g<=0.75 0.75<g<=0.9 0.9<g<=1
Learning GainsLow learning gain <---------> high learning gain
Blue= preRed= post
Data from instructor attending (somewhat) to “hidden curriculum”)
But it’s possible to do better
Conceptual Understanding
35
45
55
65
75
g<=.25 0.25<g<=0.5 0.5<g<=0.75 0.75<g<=0.9 0.9<g<=1
Learning GainsLow learning gain <---------> high learning gain
Blue= preRed= post
Data from instructor attending (somewhat) to “hidden curriculum”)
1110 Overall CLASS
55
75
12 22
% unfavorable
% favorable
1-Tut
3-Trad
2-Workbook
“Beliefs” survey: CLASS pre/post
Trad’l Models of Education
Theory: Trad’l Model of
EducationInstruction viatransmission
Individual
Content (E/M)
Theory ingredients - to think about
• Construction of knowledge• Resources• Cognitive psych: “in the individual” head
• Context (setting, norms and practices)
• Learning is social (and political!)
Questions?!