1 / 32

Changes In The Teaching of Freshman Physics at MIT 2001-2006

Changes In The Teaching of Freshman Physics at MIT 2001-2006. Outline of Presentation. Pedagogy The Classrooms Experiments, In Class Questions, Visualizations Student Reaction Assessment Prognosis for Lasting Change . The Pedagogy. Why The Change in Format?.

clemance
Download Presentation

Changes In The Teaching of Freshman Physics at MIT 2001-2006

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. Changes In The Teaching of Freshman Physics at MIT2001-2006

  2. Outline of Presentation Pedagogy The Classrooms Experiments, In Class Questions, Visualizations Student Reaction Assessment Prognosis for Lasting Change

  3. The Pedagogy

  4. Why The Change in Format? • Large freshman physics courses have inherent problems • Lecture/recitations are passive (and not well attended at MIT) • No labs since 1970 in the mainline course leads to lack of physical intuition • Math is abstract, hard to visualize (esp. E&M)

  5. Some Background on TEAL Origins • Prof Belcher lectured the 700 student 8.02 (E&M) from 1991-1994, successfully as measured by the student Course Evaluation Guide (CEG) • CEG Evaluation 8.02 Spring 1994: [Lecturer] Professor John Belcher is highly praised by most of his 8.02 students. "He was one of the best professors I have had here -- interesting, relevant, and a good teacher. He is funny too!" • Three students claim: "Everything about him is effective." Over half the class remarks on his "awesome board technique," noting especially his excellent use of colored chalk to keep diagrams clear, and respondents refer to his in-class experiments as "awesome demos."

  6. Belcher also receives high marks for his ability to explain concepts clearly, for the outlines he uses in lectures, and for his reviews of previous lectures. Most class members praise his attitude toward teaching and toward his students: "He definitely knows how to teach," and "He cares about his students." • One individual states that Belcher is "phenomenal in his organization." Another student writes: "Belcher obviously prepares his lectures ahead of time and is the best professor I have had yet. He makes it a point to be structured and organized. “ • CEG “lecturer” rank 6.6/7.0, Department Buechner Teaching Prize, MacVicar Fellow. • What is the problem?

  7. What’s Wrong With This Picture? • The CEG comments above were based on 175 responses to a questionnaire in class in the last week of the term • There were 700 students in the class • 175/700 = 0.25 (average attendance was ~40%) • Belcher’s sense was that the students were not learning very much, certainly not enough to justify the enormous effort I put in. • No labs. E&M is a very mathematical subject. The lack of experiments that the students actually do to explore the phenomena is a major failing. • So in 1994 he decided he would never do this again. • But…..

  8. Overview of TEAL/Studio • Funded by the d’Arbeloff Fund and iCampus • Finished the Fifth Year of a 5 year Development Plan in 2005 • Follows RPI’s Studio Physics & NCSU’s Scale-Up and Mazur’s (Harvard) Peer Instruction • Collaborative learning • Students in 12 groups of 9 students each • Groups work collaboratively • Desktop experiments • Networked laptops with data acquisition links between laptop and experiments • Three students per laptop • Media-rich interactive software for simulations

  9. What Facilitated This Change? • Department Head Marc Kastner and Associate Department Head Tom Greytak are strong supporters • Upper administration at MIT strong supporters, in particular the Provost Bob Brown and the Dean for Undergraduate Education Bob Redwine • Many members of the Department were strong supporters and put in a lot of effort.

  10. Chronology • 8.02(E&M) taught in TEAL format 4 times to 500 students, 6 times to 150 students. Mature, improvements at the margins • 8.01 (Mechanics) taught in this format for the second time fall 2004, to 150 students. • Went to 8.01 (Mechanics) “full-scale” 500 students Fall 2005. 8.01 developers: Peter Dourmashkin, David Litster, David Pritchard, Bernd Surrow. • To TEAL format except for 8.012 and 8.022 (and 8.01L) in AY 2005-2006.

  11. The Classroom

  12. Modeled after NCSU’s Scale-Up Classroom Second classroom online Fall 2005

  13. Experiments, In Class Questions, Visualizations

  14. 8.02 Experiments • Electrostatic Charge with Faraday Ice Pail • Electrostatic Force (from 8.02X) Compares electrostatic attraction to gravitational attraction • Circuits: RL, RC, RLC, driven and undriven • Field of Magnet (with dual-axis Hall Probe) • Levitating Coil (using a magnet with a surface field of 6 KG) • Magnetic Force (from 8.02X) Compares magnetostatic repulsion to gravitational attraction • Faraday’s Law Microwave Generator • Total of 13 desktop experiments, about one a week

  15. Faraday’s Law Magnetic Flux Move down

  16. Faraday’s Law Move down Magnetic Flux

  17. Student Reaction

  18. Student Reaction • Reaction to first two prototype 8.02 courses Fall 2001 and Fall 2002 with 180 students each was favorable • Reaction to first on-term course in Spring 2003 with 500 students was mixed to very negative—numerous critical articles in the student newspaper and a petition signed by 150 students • Reaction to Spring 2004/2005 8.02 with 500 students was more positive—many start-up bugs corrected: • More training for teaching staff in IE methods • More faculty experienced in teaching in this format and more teaching staff on the floor (more undergrad TAs) • Heterogeneous grouping as opposed to random • Materials better organized, fewer experiments

  19. Student Reaction(continued) • Fall 2005 TEAL 802 was very popular (5.6/7.0 for Hudson as lecturer, 5.7/7.0 for the course overall). • Spring 2006 8.02 dropped in popularity, again articles in the student newspaper criticizing the format. • Department is seriously considering whether to offer a traditional lecture/recitation format for 8.02 in addition to the TEAL format. • This is a direct result of student unhappiness with the format. Buzz on the street: “TEAL sucks” • This unhappiness has permeated to the Physics Department Visiting Committee; the last Visiting Committee report was critical of the format based on student complaints to the Committee.

  20. Why are CEG scores lower for TEAL? • Students say they don’t like • Experiments • Group work • Pre-lab work • Set up of the TEAL room • Too much like high school • Powerpoint …. • What they don’t say is that they do not like coming to class, but it is probably the major reason the course is less popular

  21. Student Popularity Ratings

  22. Is Sampling a Larger Population a Factor In Decrease In Popularity? 1/3rd of respondents not previously present

  23. Assessment led by Professor Judy Dori of the Department of Education in Technology and Science at the Technion. Professor Dori is an internationally known educator whose expertise is the assessment of learning strategies in science and technology education We used a variety of assessment techniques, including the traditional in-class exams, focus groups, questionnaires (in addition to MIT’s CEG questionnaire), and pre and post testing. Requires COUHES approval (Committee On the Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects) Assessment results have been published in the Journal of The Learning Sciences, Dori and Belcher, 14(2), 2004 • Assessment

  24. Pre/Post Conceptual Test Scores N students = 176 N students = 121 Experimental group - Fall 2001 Control group - Spring 2002

  25. Pre/Post Conceptual Test Scores

  26. Study Limitations • Attendance monitored In Experimental Group, not in Control Group. At end of term, 50% in Control, 80% in Experimental. • Demographics of Control and Experimental Groups different (not true in Spring 2003 comparison) • Experimental Group used a mix of both analytic and conceptual problems in class, Control primarily analytic. • Control Group pre- and post-tests volunteer basis; Experimental Group tests counted toward course grade. • “Teach To Test” in Experimental Group? Hawthorne Effect?

  27. What Impeded These Changes? • A few prominent faculty members who actively campaign against it, and encourage student criticism of the format. • Student reaction. • There is a student culture at MIT of not going to class. In TEAL if you do not go to class you cannot get an A.

  28. Prognosis for Lasting Change • This mode of teaching requires more effort on the part of the faculty. • Continued lack of enthusiasm from students and some who are actively hostile is a major problem, even in the face of evidence that they learn considerably more. • An alternate lecture format with no labs and attendance not required will draw the majority of the students, and kill TEAL, or at least relegate it to minor status.

  29. For more information • http://jlearn.mit.edu • http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/resources/resources.htm • http://web.mit.edu/viz/soft/

More Related