Building on a Base:

1. Building on a Base: S.J. Pollock N.D. Finkelstein Physics Department Thanks for support from: Pew/Carnegie CASTL, NSF CCLI NSF STEM-TP APS: PhysTEC tools, practices, and implications from physics education research (PER)

2. Overview • Physics Education Research (PER) Rapid growth, subfield of physics • A Physicist’s History: Research on student concepts (Arons, McDermott, ...) Concept Inventories (Halloun, Hestenes , Hake, ...) Curriculum (Washington, Maryland, Mazur, many...) Theoretical Frames (Redish, diSessa, many...)

3. Building on a base Classroom practice Curricular reforms Data Student concepts and engagement Theoretical frames

4. Concepts & Problem Solving Formulas & “plug ‘n chug” What’s our goal? Expert Novice Coherence structure Pieces content Independent (experiment) By Authority learning think about science like a scientist COGNITION AND INSTRUCTION (physics), David Hammer

5. APS In recent years, physics education research has emerged as a topic of research within physics departments. ... The APS applauds and supports the acceptance in physics departments of research in physics education. -The American Physical Society Statement 99.2 Research in Physics Education (May 1999)

6. Professional recognition • Journals (AJP, and Physical Review) • NSF funding • >50 institutions with PER groups

7. Data on student conceptions Interviews/open questions (e.g. Arons, McDermott, ...) • Prior knowledge • Basis for surveys and curriculum reform

8. A possible “tilting” development • Force Concept Inventory(Hestenes, Wells, Swackhamer, Physics Teacher 20, (92) 141, Halloun and Hestenes) • Multiple choice survey, (pre/post) • Experts (especially skeptics!) => necessary (not sufficient) indicator of conceptual understanding.

9. Sample question

10. FCI I <g> = post-pre100-pre Force Concept Inventory (FCI) traditional lecture R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98).

11. Trad’l Model of Education Instruction via transmission Individual Content (E/M) transmissionist

12. Where does this come from? • Our classes

13. FCI II <g> = post-pre100-pre Force Concept Inventory (FCI) red = trad, blue = interactive engagement R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98).

14. Individual Instruction via transmission Content (E/M) transmissionist Construction constructivist Content (E/M) Individual Prior knowledge basic constructivist PER Theoretic Background J. Piaget - Swiss psychologist (1896-1980) Students: are active in the educational process construct understanding based on prior knowledge learn through individual development

15. Value of FCI • Based on research • Refocus on concepts • Quantitative basis for comparing curricula • Wake up call

16. FCI at CU <g> = post-pre100-pre Fa98 Fa03/Sp04 Force Concept Inventory (FCI) red = trad, blue = interactive engagement R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98).

17. Next steps Conceptual survey development www.flaguide.org Attitudes/student epistemology Research on student understanding -> guide to curricular reforms -> incorporate cognitive theories

18. Attitudes and Beliefs • VASS, MPEX, CLASS, ... (e.g. Saul, Redish, PER@C,...) • Assessing the “hidden curriculum” Examples: “I study physics to learn knowledge that will be useful in life.” • “To learn physics, I only need to memorize solutions to sample problems”

19. (Typical) attitude shifts W. Adams 2003, replicating Redish, Steinberg, Saul AJP 66 p. 212 (‘98)

20. (Typical) attitude shifts Reality Concepts W. Adams 2003, replicating Redish, Steinberg, Saul AJP 66 p. 212 (‘98)

21. Phys Male: +1 Phys Female: -16 CLASS categories Shift (%) (“reformed” class) -6 -8 -12 -11 -10 -7 -17 +5 (All ±2%) • Real world connect... • Personal interest........ • Sensemaking/effort... • Conceptual................ • Math understanding... • Problem Solving........ • Confidence................ • Nature of science....... Engineers: -12

22. But it’s possible to do better Data from instructor attending (somewhat) to “hidden curriculum”) Low learning gain <---------> high learning gain Blue= pre Red= post

23. Expectations/Beliefs matter pre CLASS (overall) low <--------------------------------------> high

24. Curriculum reform ConcepTests (Mazur) (easy to implement) Tutorials (McDermott) (modest infrastructure) Workshop physics (Laws) (resource intensive) And many more - can’t do justice! Interactive Lect Demos (Thornton, Sokoloff) Problem solving (Van Heuvelen, Heller,...) Based on empirical research Next generation: cognitive theory as well.

25. ReproducibilityPrimary/secondary implementation of “Tutorials” UW data from McDermott, Shaffer, Somers, Am. J. Phys. 62(1), 46-55 (94) Rounding all results to nearest 5%

26. Summary • State of PER: beyond “reflective teaching” • Data driven • Published/publishable results • Reproducible across institutions • Changing culture of departments (?!)

27. Discussion! • Starting ideas... • What sorts of practices occur in engineering / based on what sort of research/theoretical framing? • What assessment tools are there? • How well codified is the discipline / goals of instruction?

28. The end See:www.flaguide.orgper.colorado.eduwww2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Book/

29. Impact of peer instruction

30. CU reformed course Fa 03

31. %gain vs %pretest Traditional vs. Interactive Engagement (From Hake, see earlier ref, AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98)

32. Impact of tutorials