1 / 28

When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department

Steven Pollock , Noah Finkelstein, Katherine Perkins, Stephanie Chasteen, Michael Dubson, Steven Goldhaber, Chandra Turpen CU Boulder For AAPT July 2009. When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department.

benjy
Download Presentation

When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Steven Pollock, Noah Finkelstein, Katherine Perkins, Stephanie Chasteen, Michael Dubson, Steven Goldhaber, Chandra Turpen CU BoulderFor AAPT July 2009 When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department

  2. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. REC 0448176, CAREER: Physics Education and Contexts of Student Learning. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF Acknowledgements Ph. D. students: Chandra Turpen Lauren Kost Charles Baily Ben Spike +recently graduated: 4 with PhD, 1 with MSc. School of Ed collaborators:Valerie Otero Derek Briggs Kara Gray Bud Talbott May Lee Heidi Iverson Physics faculty: Michael Dubson Noah Finkelstein Kathy Perkins Steven Pollock Carl Wieman Postdocs/Scientists: Wendy Adams Stephanie Chasteen Steven Goldhaber Laurel Mayhew Archie Paulson Noah Podolefsky

  3. Outline Implementing, sustaining, spreading of educational reforms: What are the critical features? How and where do they arise? • Lower-division course transformation • Upper-division course transformation • Faculty (support and development)

  4. Force concept inventory traditional lecture interactive engagement fraction of courses less learning more learning normalized learning gain R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98).

  5. Lower-division at CU

  6. Transformations at CU

  7. Tutorial Success (at UW) D.E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, (1981). Am. J. Phys.49 (3), 242.

  8. Replication (at CU) S.Pollock, PERC 2004.

  9. curriculum matters

  10. Back to the FCI/FMCE traditional lecture interactive engagement 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)

  11. Physics 2: BEMA pre/post trad post IE post Kohlmeyer et al F04 (N=319) Post: 59% S05 (N=232): 59% S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 (2008)

  12. pedagogy & faculty matter Why the variation?

  13. Characterizing Faculty PracticeChandra Turpen % of time Ans. St. Q’s Leaves Stage Discuss w/st.

  14. institutionalization How did this happen?

  15. PhysTec (APS, AIP,NSF) External support CCLI (NSF) LA-TEST (NSF) STEM-TP (NSF) ‘06 ‘08 ‘04 ‘07 ‘05 Provost Dean (Arts and Sciences) Institutionalsupport Dep’t: Team Teaching Dep’t: Classroom Space Dep’t course fees: equipment ‘06 ‘08 ‘04 ‘07 ‘05 P2 9 5 5 14 8 P2 13 4 4 3 11 3 4 8 P1 P1 P1 3 P1 P1 7 12 3 10 11 6 Phys I Faculty involvement Phys II

  16. Dissemination (beyond PER):Critical features (??) Initiators/proponents Materials Faculty buy-in and pedagogy Institutional support

  17. Upper-division

  18. Why transform upper division? ? Can our majors learn better from interactive techniques adapted from introductory physics? Lecture with clickers Washington Tutorials

  19. Clickers in Upper-division at CU • 12 non-PER and 2 PER faculty Sp04 Sp09

  20. Case study: E&M I: Institutional support - SEI postdoc involvement (KP) - Learning Assistant Faculty collaboration Explicit learning goals Students debate a concept test What Changed? How did this happen? • Interactive classroom • Concept Tests • Homework • Help Sessions • Tutorials

  21. Development (PER-1) Team teaching (PER-2 + 3) 3 CU Trad CU IE 100 Assessing transformations: the CUE 90 80 70 60 50 Average Score (%) 40 30 20 10 0 IE1 Trad IE2 IE3 IE/transformed courses

  22. institutionalization? How did this happen?

  23. Faculty ownership - Designing goals - Developing materials - Personalizing materials Faculty buy-in Departmental culture - Working groups - Brown bags - Faculty meetings - Rotating faculty and team teaching

  24. Student buy-in 82% of students Upper-div courses using clickers: 16 courses, 400 student responses 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% % of students Q: How useful for your learning is the addition of clicker questions compared to pure lecture with no clicker questions? Lecture with clickers much more useful Lecture with clickers more useful Same Pure lecturemore useful Pure lecturemuch more useful

  25. Critical features?? Initiators/proponents Institutional support. Resources (e.g. materials, staff, class space) Faculty buy-in inclusion/further material development support/team teaching Student buy-in Dep’t culture

  26. Summary/conclusionsDissemination and sustainability? Initiators/proponents Institutional support. Resources (e.g. materials, staff, class space) Faculty buy-in inclusion/further material development support/team teaching Student buy-in Dep’t culture

  27. Summary/conclusionsDissemination and sustainability? Towards a model/theory of STEM educational change.

  28. Questions? Much more at: per.colorado.edu

More Related