Introductory Physics Course Reform at UA – Current Status and Lessons Learned

1. Introductory Physics Course Reform at UA – Current Status and Lessons Learned J.W. Harrell and Stan Jones Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Alabama

2. Introductory PH and AY Courses at UA • Algebra-based: PH101/102 - Mostly life-science majors • Calculus-based: PH105/106 - Mostly engineering majors (and PH) • Conceptual Physics: PH115 - Mostly elementary education majors • Total annual intro PH enrollment ~ 1900 • Also, AY101 (~1900 students)

3. NSF Foundation Coalition • Reform began with NSF-FC program in 1993 - One of 8 NSF funded engineering coalitions to improve undergraduate engineering curriculum. • Active learning, teamwork, curriculum integration. • New technology enabled classrooms • Pilot sections of physics (separate lecture-lab)

4. Studio Physics • Similar to FC, but integrated lecture and lab. (after RPI, NCSU) • Started in 2002 • Full implementation in 2005 • Now both Studio and traditional lecture-lab sections (~50/50) • 5 contact hours/week (2 + 2 + 1) • Lecture lite • Labs and other group activities • Online homework

5. Studio Physics • 2 classrooms (54 and 60 students) • 3 students/group • Instructor, GTA, UGTA • Computer data acquisition in labs

6. Studio vs Non-Studio -preference and attendance • Attitudinal survey (2002-2003) • Prefer Studio: 53% • Prefer non-Studio: 26% • No preference: 20% • Attendance (influenced by graded classwork) • Studio: ~ 85% • Non-Studio: ~ 65%

7. Studio vs Non-Studio- Completion rates • Median W/F rate • Studio: 16.5% • Non-Studio: 23.5% • Instructor factor? • Most instructors either teach one format or the other. Cumulative %(x) = % with W/F ≥ x

8. Studio vs Non-Studio- Force Concept Inventory • FCI gains • Studio: 27% • Non-Studio: 17% • Wide range of gains • Low for interactive engagement classes • Instructor effect? Cumulative %(x) = % with gain ≥ x

9. FCI and BEMA • Combined results for Studio and Non-Studio • FCI = 27% • BEMA = 20% (Now using CSEM )

10. Astronomy Conceptual Gains • AY conceptual test - developed by UA faculty • AY gains >> PH gains • Clicker sections > non-clicker sections • Instructor effect?

11. Conceptual Physics • Taken primarily by elementary education majors • Before 2011: Hewitt text, Studio format • 2011: PET curriculum Inquiry and activity based • Conceptual gains (PET concept test) Pre-test = 25%, post-test = 65%  Gain = 54% • Attitudinal survey – very positive

12. PET Concept Test – example question A) A force of gravity pulling downward. B) A force from the kick pushing upward. C) A force of gravity pushing upward. D) A force pushing upward due to the motion of the ball. E) Some other force (describe what you think it is below)

13. Lessons Learned • Studio Physics well received by students and administration • A significant number of faculty prefer Studio. • Student retention and FCI gains higher than in lecture-lab format. • Conceptual gains in Studio lower than expected for interactive engagement courses. • Instructor effect on retention and gains not known. • Clickers now used in many lecture and Studio courses, but effect has not been quantified.

14. Importance of Studio Physics Curriculum • Curriculum and how it is implemented is critical. • Little improvement in learning gains in early years of Studio Physics at RPI. • Gains improved after curriculum changes. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Cummings_Presentation_Workshop2.pdf

15. Recommendations • Better coordination of Studio courses. • Training of new and inexperienced faculty. • Improved GTA and UGTA training. • Revise labs and activities – more inquiry based. • Identify and implement best practices (successful faculty, PET curriculum, …)