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?!