Higher Standards and fewer failures?

1st effort: Working with High School Physics Teachers To Launch Students into College Physics 2/7/2019 8:30-2:30 NJIT CKB 116 Professor Gordon Thomas, Workshop Leader Presented by NJIT Center for Pre-College Programs, Physics Department, College of Science and Liberal Arts NJIT Welcomes You

2nd effort: Working on teaching methods

Old effort Results: Lectures and old assessment: results

2nd and 3rd efforts: Active learning and controlled assessment

2nd and 3rd methods: results

Adoption of active learning?

4th: Attitude is another factor

Different teaching Summary Failure rates Control: College boards “A” rates Different sections of same course, same exams, same homework, same tutoring, similar students}

U. Washington data is consistent with NJIT:

How I started to study teaching: October 27, 2011 My course: 1. Multi-section, required, intro physics course with 15 sections “A Gateway Course”. 2. Must learn to solve physics problems using math 3. Uses multiple choice questions

Analyzed learning with assessment We have addressed both standards and the failure rate in a 15-section physics course that is required for most students at NJIT. This course is the first one that entering students take, and prior to our project 50% of the students failed and 10% got A grades. Over 5 years, we tried a variety of changes, designed to keep the % of A grades constant while reducing the failure rate. We have succeeded in both keeping high standards and reducing failure. This talk will analyze the methods we used, including encouraging a philosophy among the faculty of helping rather than weeding out students. We also used an ETS method of exam construction, variants of active learning, less pure lecturing, increased tutoring, and increased advising. We also see problems with these efforts in the future.

Attitudes: What can we do about them? Nature, July 2015, M. Mitchell Waldrop Attitudes: What can we do about them?

Latest % failure with different teaching styles in same course. Mostly lecture 23% Mostly Active % Fail SAT Scores

Gen-Ed Courses Dr. Elizabeth Petrick, Assistant Professor, Federated History Department Problems with student engagement: Serving the needs of majors and non-majors Classroom management / lecture plans: In-class group work Mixing learning styles / teaching delivery Discussion-focused class time

Student scores from 1st part of 2018: STUDIO

Student final scores F2017 SCALE-UP

F 2015

Student success is predicted by entrance score NJIT Texas Tech One of the plotted data points (bottom left) belongs to Wright State as this graph is repurposed from another use. The regression line was computed for the peer institutions plus Wright State.

Careless mistakes cause the most trouble.

Data on failure and success Traditional method 0 25 50 75 100 %J Fail Pass Data on failure and success Traditional method frequency 0 25 50 75 100% Grade New method Active learning Step by step, basics + physics Exam that matches learning

% of student failure {same course, same exams, same homework, same tutoring, similar students}

Different Profs fail many more students Lectures Active Learning Lecture methods 59% 7%