Active Learning in the Third Year Statistical Physics Module at the University of the Witwatersrand Jonathan Keartland School of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand

Introduction A large body of educational and psychological research supports Active Learning (AL) techniques AL includes measures such as Lecture Activities, Co- operative Learning and Collaborative Learning Most studies have focussed on large 1 st Year classes in Physics – very few reports of applications of AL in upper level courses This paper describes an attempt to introduce AL in the 3 rd Year Statistical Physics module; student reaction and module results are presented

Teaching Strategies It was made clear to the class at the start of the year that they were being taught using active learning techniques Lecture Activities – examples will be given in due course Minute papers and responses – the class were asked to provide feedback Conceptual questions – difficult concepts addressed in groups by the students – good debate ensued “Active” tutorials – the class were given the responsibility of presenting tutorial solutions

Lecture Activities At points during the lectures students were provided with a handout that they worked through (in pairs) These activities varied in approach and intent – some helped with problem solving technique, some dealt with derivations, some introduced new material Activities included a ‘revision problem’ on Thermodynamics in the first lecture, introduction to combinatorics using poker hands as an example, an application of the micro-canonical ensemble, density of states and the Debye model, and adiabatic demagnetization.

Lecture Activity Example

Minute papers and responses Student feedback was requested at the end of each double lecture – all students were polled Two questions were put –  What were the main points of the previous double lecture?  What were the least clear points of the previous double lecture? The minute papers were processed, and the number of responses categorized as shown on the next slide Feedback was given to the class at the beginning of the next lecture in the form of a PowerPoint presentation which was also put on the class website

Example of a Minute Paper Response

Response to Bayes’ Theorem concerns Women of 40 have a 1% chance of developing breast cancer. A mammography test gives a positive result in 80% of those who have breast cancer, but 10% of women tested who do not have breast cancer also test positive. A patient of the relevant age tests positive. What is the probability that she has breast cancer? Is this a good test? Test positive Cancer free Have cancer

Student Evaluations of Lecturer Performance A SELP survey was administered by the University’s Centre for Teaching and Learning Development in 2008 to the 2 nd year Thermal Physics class, and an identical survey was administered in 2009 Results showed a 9.8 % increase in the general score (from 8.33 to 9.44 out of a maximum of 10) Impressive increase in student confidence with taking part in the lectures (see the next slide) Positive responses in the open-ended questions in the 2009 survey – the class were particularly asked to comment on active learning

SELP Comparison - Highlights Statement % Change Stimulates interest in the subject % Always well-prepared for class % Clear, understandable explanations % Gets feedback on understanding % Links lecture to other parts of the course % Digressions made which add interest % Approachable for questions % Welcomes different viewpoints % Comfortable about participating %

SELP – Student comments “The minute papers are a very nice addition. It is really nice to have a lecturer that clearly puts so much effort in. Thanks.” “Exercises (activities) are awesome” “The lecture activities keep us focussed during lectures and they make us aware of our knowledge.” “I found the activities really good; you learn while you do them and can't go lazy on your attention. They made lectures more enjoyable. I also looked forward to the tut sessions, and the minute paper responses are appreciated.”

Student performance – “common” students Change in markTotalExam + 20 % to + 30 %214% % to + 20 %321%3 0 % to + 10 %429%536% – 10 % to 0 %321%214% – 20 % to – 10 %17%1 – 30 % to – 20 %17% %14100% Improved 64% 71%

Student performance – whole class ClassCommonClassCommon Exam Average Pass Rate89%93%100% Final Average Pass Rate100%

Conclusions The introduction of AL has had a dramatic effect on student confidence, particularly in participating actively in discussions during lectures AL addresses key indicators in lecturer performance evaluations, including enhanced feedback to students Student performance improves in the module as a whole, and particularly in the exams No indication that AL has any deleterious effects, and it should be considered seriously by lecturers involved in upper level Physics courses