Implications of the inclusion of students collaborative group work on advanced course materials in introductory physics courses Sunil Dehipawala and Vazgen Shekoyan Physics Department Queensborough Community College, CUNY

Outline Introduction Course description Intervention Evaluation 1: Course content mastery Evaluation 2: Physics learning attitudes (CLASS survey) Student feedback Summary

Introduction Introductory Physics is one of a gateway courses for engineering technology and other STEM fields. It is difficult to determine the best methods of teaching physics to improve comprehension of physics concepts and problem-solving skills. Although Physics Education Research (PER) is a rapidly growing field, not all findings can be generalized to community college settings.

Collaborative learning Key components of collaborative learning 1 : 1.Positive interdependence 2.Individual accountability 3.Face-to-face promotive interaction 4.Appropriate use of collaborative skills 5.Group processing 1 Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, (2 nd ed.); Interaction Book: Edina, MN

Collaborative Group Problem Solving University of Minnesota PER team evaluated the effectiveness of collaborative group work on solving context-rich problems in recitations Positive results were replicated also at a local community college back in 1990 (sophomore- level modern physics course) Would the results be the same for student cohort of the year of 2014? For a freshman course?

Queensborough Community College (QCC), CUNY Open admission policy Total enrollment: 16,182 students Great diversity: 30% Hispanic, 26% Black, 26% Asian, 8% White, 5% International students Remedial needs for freshman cohort (Fall, 2014): 70% in Math 27% in Writing 23% in Reading Graduation rates: 3 year graduation rate: 18% 6 year graduation rate: 36.5%

Our Study: Course Description Two–semester long algebra-based physics course for Engineering Technology and Computer Technology majors QCC typically offers 4 lecture sections of the course with about 30 students in each section. Weekly Distribution: 2.5 hours lecture, 1 hour recitation, 2 hours lab. Textbook: Serway & Vuille, “College Physics”.

Intervention Two parallel sections were used as Control and Experimental groups Both groups had the same lecture instructor Both groups received same weekly homework assignments (end-of-chapter problems from the textbook) Both groups had access to posted homework solutions

Intervention Both groups had same tests and final examination. Both groups had access to posted homework solutions. Example problems were solved during each lecture with participation of students in both sections.

Collaborative group work In the experimental section 5 collaborative groups were formed (4-5 students per group). The collaborative groups were required to study their assigned topic in depth beyond the scope of the class including solving real-life problems. They had to present their work to the class (8 weeks of preparation was given). The groups typically met with instructor for 10 minutes each week to discuss their progress and to get suggestions.

Collaborative Groups and Assigned Topics Collaborative GroupsAssigned topics# of students in the group Group 11-D motion, Kinematics4 students (all male) Group 2Projectile motion4 students (1 female) Group 3 Newton’s law of motion- Friction, Free body diagram, Mechanical Equilibrium 4 students (1 female) Group 4 Circular motion- Gravitation 4 students (all male) Group 5 Work, Energy, Conservation of Energy 5 students (all male)

Grading Collaborative Group work 20% of the course grade comes from the collaborative group work 15% - from presentation 5% - from submitted work All members of the group had to know the material and be prepared to present any part of their work at the final presentation time. One group member’s failure affected other group members’ grade.

Evaluation: Conceptual understanding To evaluate students’ conceptual gains we have administered pre and post Force Concept Inventory (FCI) test. The groups were equivalent before and after the intervention (p-values of 0.7 and 0.3, respectively) Normalized gains: Experimental G = 0.36 Control G = 0.21

Evaluation: Physics Problem Solving Exp. N = 21 Contr. N = 29 First TestSecond TestThird TestFinal Exam Median (out of 100) Median (out of 100) Median (out of 100) Median (out of 100) Exper. 51 Control 45 Exper. 48 Control 45 Exper. 45 Control 39 Exper. 45 Contr. 44 p-value Effect size r = 0.13r = 0.001

Evaluation: Physics Problem Solving Comparison of collaborative groups’ performance on final exam problems directly related to their topic. Final exam pr. 1Final exam pr. 2Final exam pr. 3Final exam pr. 5Final exam pr. 4 Grp. 1The rest Grp. 2The rest Grp. 3The rest Grp. 4The rest Grp. 5The rest Proble m score p - value First Test (before intervention)Final exam Groups Grp. 1 Grp. 2 Grp. 3 Grp. 4 Grp. 5 Grp. 1 Grp. 2 Grp. 3 Grp. 4 Grp. 5 Median score (out of 100)

Evaluation: Learning Attitudes Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS) CLASS PHYSICS is a widely used instrument designed to measure student beliefs about physics and learning physics 42 5-point Likert scale questions from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”

Evaluation: Learning Attitudes For the analysis we have merged Strongly Agree and Agree responses (as well as Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses). The survey is scored is by comparing students’ responses to responses given by physicists (experts).

Sample statements from CLASS  I enjoy solving physics problems.  Reasoning skills used to understand physics can be helpful to me in my everyday life.  Nearly everyone is capable of understanding physics if they work at it.  Reasoning skills used to understand physics can be helpful to me in my everyday life.  Knowledge in physics consists of many disconnected topics.  When I solve a physics problem, I locate an equation that uses the variables given in the problem and plug in the values.  I do not expect physics equations to help my understanding of the ideas; they are just for doing calculations.

Percentages of CLASS favorable and unfavorable responses and their shifts Pre Favorable % Post Favorable % Pre Unfavorable % Post Unfavorable % Experimental Control It has been shown that traditional teaching practices result in the overall decrease of CLASS scores. Our experimental group showed significant favorable shifts.

CLASS categories PI = Personal Interest (do students feel a personal interest/connection to physics?); RWC = Real World Connections (seeing the connection between physics and real life); PS - G = Problem Solving General; PS - C = Problem Solving Confidence; PS - S = Problem Solving Sophistication; SM/E = Sense Making/Effort (for me [the student], exerting the effort needed towards sense-making is worthwhile); CU = Conceptual Understanding (understanding that physics is coherent and is about making sense, drawing connections, and reasoning not memorizing. Making sense of math); ACU = Applied Conceptual Understanding (understanding and applying a conceptual approach and reasoning in problem solving, not memorizing or following problem solving recipes).

Student feedback Students’ rating of their overall experience with collaborative work for the class:

Student Feedback Test 1 score versus satisfaction level, from Poor (level 1) to Excellent (level 5)

Sample survey answers Q2: What do you like about collaborative work? It helps built character The teamwork It help improve grade Can get help from others Well, that you can learn different technique from the peer student. Sometimes student can explain better than instructor Everyone participates I could discuss about/I don’t know or confused about more freely with other students than the instructor Learning about problems I like to work with group It allows us to work together and correct mistakes Have time to discuss and learn new things Everyone feeds off of each other, and you end up learning more when you heard from different people Its great. You learn lot more from others We learn from each other I like working with people. It gives everybody something to do and if you don’t know something others will help More comfortable to work with friends Others motivate me.

Sample survey answers Q3: What do you dislike about collaborative work? Nothing at all Sometime people won’t do the work Not everybody do the same work Some are lazy only want to learn from others and no contributions None When nobody can figure out a problem Hard to find time for everybody to free Others don’t work Sometimes people don’t put their weight Not all work same way Relying on others If you work with group you kind of lazy Working on problems that were not taught well Time management. Everyone has different schedule Nothing Sometimes work load is on one student only. Others don’t do the work Nothing Always need to go to other class Nothing. It is good Have to cooperate with people

Q5: In addition to learning the content of the course, what other skills did you learn/acquire through the collaborative group work? How to do better research How to solve different things I learned momentum Helping needy one Communication skills, being able to work other type of people Power point Teamwork How physics works in everyday life How to work as a team Care about others Appreciate other ideas Measurement in the lab How to memorize a formula Nothing Learn more about my team How to communicate How to learn from one another Feelings of others Sample survey answers

Summary Students’ overall final exam grades and conceptual learning gains were equivalent between the treatment and control groups. However, few collaborative groups outperformed the others on final exam problems related to their assigned topic. There was a striking difference in students’ physics learning attitudes with experimental group showing significant positive shifts. Surveys showed that students from all-performance level enjoyed the experience and found it useful (no “poor” ratings and only one “fair” rating).

Acknowledgments We would like to thank PSC-CUNY C3IRG grant for supporting our project. We also would like to thank our colleagues David H. Lieberman and Tak D. Cheung for their support in the implementation of this project and for insightful discussions.