1. Philip W. Young Dept. of Chemistry & Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin-Platteville, Platteville, WI 53818 Correlation between FCI Gains and the Level of Interactive Engagement in the Calculus-Based Mechanics Course Transition to Studio Classrooms  Prior to S 2009 all Introductory Physics was taught in lecture halls with individual seating (capacity 65). Lab was a separate course.  S2009 – S2012 Physics taught in studio classrooms with 14 tables, 4 students per table. Labs are integrated with the lecture.  Studio classrooms are designed to accommodate a full range of teaching styles. Assessment Methods and Participation  Force Concept Inventory (FCI) administered in calculus-based Mechanics in the first and last weeks of the semester Spring 2008 – Spring 2011  FCI administered on-line through a secure course management system. Participation is voluntary, although students are rewarded for participation  31 of 33 sections taught by 12 instructors participated; 21 sections had >50% participation  875 students took both the pre- and post- tests (~58% of enrollment) Studio Index (SI) The 12 instructors adopted different approaches to teaching their classes. A studio index (SI) was developed to quantify the level of interactive engagement in a class (Table I).  Each section was assigned an SI based on an interview with the instructor.  SI values ranged from 1.5 to 6.0 FCI vs. Studio Index  Normalized gains were calculated for each section using only those students who took both the pre- and post- test.  The correlation between the FCI normalized gain and SI was 0.83 for the 21 sections with >50% participation.  Figure 1 shows the normalized gain versus the studio index for each section  Sections were grouped by studio index to increase statistics (dotted outlines). Each group represents similar levels of activity/interactivity. Average gains were calculated for all the students at each SI level. These gains are included in Figure 1. SI 1 (0.51 – 1.50) 36 participating students SI 2 (1.51 – 2.50)147 SI 3 (2.51 – 3.50)194 SI 4 (3.51 – 4.50)309 SI 5 (4.51 – 5.50)168 SI 6 (5.51 – 6.51) 21  The uncertainties on the average gains are based on the standard deviations of all pre- and post- scores and the number of students in each category.  There are too few sections at levels 1 and 6 for meaningful averages. Figure 1: FCI gain as a function of teaching style. о = sections with >50% participation;  = section with <50% participation;  = group averages. Figure 2: FCI gain as a function of teaching style for different grade levels This project is funded in part by NSF-DUE CCLI #0633583 Conclusions  Normalized gain on the FCI appears to increase with increased interactive engagement, even for incremental increases as reflected in the Studio Index.  Students in all passing grade levels appear to benefit from increased interactive engagement in a studio classroom Table I: Studio Index FactorHow assignedRange Time in Active Learning % of time students are involved in active learning divided by 20 0 - 5 Group Problem Solving Measure of students’ involvement in group problem solving during class. Group management is taken into account. 0 – 1 Concept Discussion Measure of how much the students are actively engaged with physics concepts. Group interaction is taken into account 0 – 1 Interactive Demonstrations Measure of the use of hands-on activities to reinforce physics principles. Students must be actively engaged in the activity, at least making predictions, answering questions, etc. 0 – 1 Integrated Laboratory To what degree is the lab an integrated part of the class, contributing to the students’ understanding of physics principles. 0 - 1 Class Interaction/ Modeling Measure of interactive engagement through large group/full-class sharing or modeling instruction 0 - 1 Studio Index (SI)0 - 10 FCI vs. SI for each grade level  FCI scores in SI category were also sorted by the students’ grades and average gains were calculated for each letter grade at each SI level. Number of participating students at each grade SI Level A B C D/F 228 584912 331 588619 4701348223 534 645317 F’s and D’s were not included due to low numbers. Students must achieve a C to go on to Physics II, so D and F students often did not bother to take the post assessment.  Figure 2 shows the normalized gain as a function of the SI category for each letter grade.