1. Univ. of Colorado Research-validated approach(es) to transforming upper-division E&M Steven Pollock Physics Dept. University of Colorado at Boulder Course Transformation Corvallis ‘14

2. Univ. of Colorado Course Transformation Outline 1)Curriculum (re)design and course transformation 2)Assessment and research 3) Sustainability and “cultural change” Role(s) of data Outcomes and research questions

3. Univ. of Colorado Funded by: National Science Foundation William and Flora Hewlett Foundation American Association of Physics Teachers Physics Teacher Education Coalition American Institute of Physics American Physical Society National Math & Science Initiative Howard Hughes Medical Institute Grad Students: Ian Her Many Horses George Ortiz Mike Ross Ben Spike Enrique Suarez Ben Van Dusen Bethany Wilcox Rosemary Wulf Teachers / Partners / Staff: Shelly Belleau, John Blanco Kathy Dessau, Jackie Elser Molly Giuliano, Kate Kidder Trish Loeblein, Chris Malley Susan M. Nicholson-Dykstra Oliver Nix, Jon Olson Emily Quinty, Sam Reid Sara Severance Faculty : Melissa Dancy Michael Dubson Noah Finkelstein Heather Lewandowski Valerie Otero Robert Parson Kathy Perkins Steven Pollock Carl Wieman (on leave) Postdocs/ Scientists: Charles Baily* Danny Caballero* Stephanie Chasteen Julia Chamberlain Karina Hensberry Katie Hinko Emily Moore* Ariel Paul Noah Podolefsky Benjamin Zwickl* Physics Education Research at CU Boulder

4. Univ. of Colorado Guiding questions Do we know how to develop and support faculty buy-in? Course Transformation Do we know what constitutes evidence-based course transformation?

5. Univ. of Colorado Upper-division E&M specific research Singh ‘06: Symmetry and Gauss’ law Manogue et al ‘06: Ampere’s law Bing/Redish ‘09: Epistemological framing Pepper et al ‘10/’12: Gauss/math in E&M Wallace/Chasteen ‘10 Ampere Course Transformation Examples:

6. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Longitudinal study After upper div. E&M. (Only students who took intro without Tutorials) Upper division majors’ BEMA scores S. Pollock, 2007 PERC, and Phys. Rev STPER 5 (2009)

7. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Longitudinal study BLUE: students who took freshman E&M with Tutorials Upper division majors’ BEMA scores S. Pollock, 2007 PERC, and Phys. Rev STPER 5 (2009)

8. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Longitudinal study BLUE: students who took freshman E&M with Tutorials Upper division majors’ BEMA scores S. Pollock, 2007 PERC, and Phys. Rev STPER 5 (2009) (3.1 ±.1) (3.0 ±.1) (3.3 ±.1) Grade in course

9. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Longitudinal Yellow: students who had been E&M LAs S. Pollock, 2007 PERC, and Phys. Rev STPER 5 (2009) Upper division majors’ BEMA scores

10. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Upper division Can our upper-division majors learn better from interactive techniques adapted from introductory physics? In what ways is upper-division similar to/different than lower division? In what ways can/should we take the same approaches to course transformation?

11. Univ. of Colorado Establish learning goals Apply research-based teaching techniques & measure progress Faculty & Staff Using Research & Assessment Model of Course Transformation Chasteen, Perkins, Beale, Pollock, & Wieman, JCST 40 (4), 70, 2011 Chasteen et al., AJP 80, 923, 2012, PRSTPER 8 020108, 2012 E&M 1 & II QM I Class Mech/Math Methods Labs

12. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Learning Goals From faculty working group Framed course transformations Made explicit to students Students should … be able to achieve physical insight through the mathematics of a problem … be able to choose and apply the appropriate problem-solving technique … demonstrate intellectual maturity Pepper et al, PERC 2011

13. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Basis for Course transformation Research-basedResearch-validated valid/reliable instruments interviews and class observations pre/post assessments (intermediate or course scale) Tutorials Clicker Questions Class activities Homeworks reflective development Consensus learning goals Evidence-based course transformation?

14. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Changes in Curricula – CU model Faculty collaboration Explicit learning goals Collect student data Students debate a concept test Interactive classroom techniques Homework Help Sessions Tutorials Pepper et al, Chasteen et al, Pollock et al. PERC 2010 Concept Tests Modified Homework

15. Univ. of Colorado Topical Pre-post shifts (effect size) Course Transformation

16. Univ. of Colorado Topical Pre-post shifts (effect size) Course Transformation

17. Univ. of Colorado Course Transformation Course scale assessments Compared Traditional (9 courses) & Transformed (10 courses) at CU and elsewhere (N=540). Common traditional exam questions (5) Developed Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics Assessment (CUE) Chasteen et al, JCST 40 (2011), Phys Rev STPER STPER 8 020108 (2012)

18. Univ. of Colorado Course Transformation CU CUE results: Trad courses Chasteen et al, Phys Rev STPER 8 (2012)

19. Univ. of Colorado Course Transformation

20. Univ. of Colorado Course Transformation Grads

21. Univ. of Colorado CUE score distribution Course Transformation Updated Sp’14: N tot =632 traditional lecture interactive engagement (with CU materials)

22. Univ. of Colorado R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98). traditional lecture interactive engagement FCI Learning gains Less Learning More Learning

23. Univ. of Colorado Traditional exam questions Upper-Level Course Transformation Chasteen et al, PERC 2011, AJP 80 (#10) 2012 5 exam questions

24. Univ. of Colorado Research on Student difficulties:

25. Univ. of Colorado Research on Student difficulties: Midterm exam, N = 59 Where in space (if anywhere) does the divergence of E vanish? R. Pepper et al, PR-STPER 8 010111 (2012) Modified version in Sp ‘13, N=64: 79% correct, with 49% “correct-complete”

26. Univ. of Colorado Do not solve, but give “the easiest method you would use to solve the problem” & “why”. 33% of students did not recognize Gauss’ law as the easiest way to solve. (N=325) 24% of students incorrectly chose Gauss’ law as the easiest way to solve. (N=325) Student difficulties (from the CUE) R. Pepper et al, PR-STPER 8 010111 (2012)

27. Univ. of Colorado Student difficulties (from the CUE) Given a solid conducting cylinder in an external E field…. - Sketch the induced charges - Sketch the E-field. Chasteen et al, Phys Rev STPER 8 (2012)

28. Univ. of Colorado Common responses Chasteen et al, Phys Rev STPER 8 (2012)

29. Univ. of Colorado Common Difficulties: Examples: Gauss’s Law –Inverse problems –Precise symmetry arguments –Impossible vs. difficult Vector Fields –Making meaning of div, grad curl –Magnitude and direction Potential R. Pepper et al, PERC 2010

30. Univ. of Colorado Common Difficulties: Examples: Gauss’s Law –Inverse problems –Precise symmetry arguments –Impossible vs. difficult Vector Fields –Making meaning of div, grad curl –Magnitude and direction Potential R. Pepper et al, PERC 2010

31. Univ. of Colorado Common Mathematical Difficulties: set up and interpret results connect math to physical situation accessing math tools Examples: Gauss’s Law –Inverse problems –Precise symmetry arguments –Impossible vs. difficult Vector Fields –Making meaning of div, grad curl –Magnitude and direction Potential R. Pepper et al, PERC 2010

32. Univ. of Colorado Common Mathematical Difficulties: set up and interpret results connect math to physical situation accessing math tools Examples: Gauss’s Law –Inverse problems –Precise symmetry arguments –Impossible vs. difficult Vector Fields –Making meaning of div, grad curl –Magnitude and direction Potential

33. Univ. of Colorado A framework for investigating student difficulties ACER Caballero, Wilcox, et al., PERC Proc. 1531, 90 (2013), Wilcox, Caballero, et al., PERC Proc. 1531, 418 (2013) From: Bing, Tuminaro, Dokter theses, Redish “World View on PER 2005”, Reif (AJP 44 212 (76), Heller AJP 60 (92)

34. Univ. of Colorado ACER example: Taylor Series U(φ) = mgR(1+cosφ). Find an approximate expression for potential energy near φ = 0. ~50% did not recognize the need to use Taylor Series without prompt. Only ~25% could connect their approximate expressions to SHM physics when prompted to sensemake.or check. Caballero, Wilcox, et al., PERC Proc. 1531, 90 (2013) Wilcox, Caballero, et al., PERC Proc. 1531, 418 (2013) Wilcox, Caballero, et al., PRST-PER, (2013, in prep) 

35. Univ. of Colorado ACER example: Taylor Series U(φ) = mgR(1+cosφ). Find an approximate expression for potential energy near φ = 0. ~50% did not recognize the need to use Taylor Series without prompt. Only ~25% could connect their approximate expressions to SHM physics when prompted to sensemake.or check. Only ~15% could articulate the region of applicability (what “small” means) Caballero, Wilcox, et al., PERC Proc. 1531, 90 (2013) Wilcox, Caballero, et al., PERC Proc. 1531, 418 (2013) Wilcox, Caballero, et al., PRST-PER, (2013, in prep)

36. Univ. of Colorado ~40% have difficulty expressing dq. ~8% spontaneously reflected (i.e. checking units or limits) Calculate electric potential at P from a disk with given . ACER example: Continuous charge distributions ~ 50% cannot generate a useful formula for (r-r’) Caballero, Wilcox, et al., PERC Proc. 1531, 90 (2013) Wilcox, Caballero, et al., PERC Proc. 1531, 418 (2013) Wilcox, Caballero, et al., PRST-PER, (2013, in prep)

37. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Term SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF Mech Math I Mech MathII EM I EM II QM I QM II Stat Mech Solid State Plasma Nuclear/HE 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Upper-div Clickers at CU Perkins et al, PERC 2009

38. Univ. of Colorado Term SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF Mech Math I ✔✔ Mech MathII ✔ EM I EM II QM I QM II Stat Mech ✔✔✔✔ Solid State Plasma Nuclear/HE Upper-Level Course Transformation 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 PER faculty Upper-div Clickers at CU

39. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 PER faculty Upper-div Clickers at CU Term SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF Mech Math I ✔✔✔✔✔ Mech MathII ✔✔✔✔ EM I ✔✔✔✔✔✔ EM II ✔✔✔✔✔ QM I ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ QM II ✔✔✔ Stat Mech ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ Solid State ✔✔✔✔ Plasma Nuclear/HE

40. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Students Find Clickers Useful 0%10%20%30% 40% Pure lecture much more useful Pure lecture more useful Same Lecture with clickers more useful Lecture with clickers much more useful 79% of students 12 courses, 264 student responses Upper-div courses using clickers: Q: How useful for your learning is the addition of clicker questions compared to pure lecture with no clicker questions? Perkins and Turpen, PERC 2009

41. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Student’s can’t predict value 0%10%20%30%40%50% Definitely not recommended Not recommended Neutral Recommended Highly Recommend Q: Would you recommend using clicker questions in upper-level physics courses? In highly rated pure lecture, No clickers (QM II, n=17) Add Clickers (QM I, n=30) Perkins and Turpen, PERC 2009

42. Univ. of Colorado FFPER ‘13 Upper-Level Course Transformation Summary -What is the nature of UD student difficulties? Course transformation (and broader questions) focusing on upper-div are still at an early stage

43. Univ. of Colorado FFPER ‘13 Upper-Level Course Transformation Summary -What is the nature of UD student difficulties? -Do the means to address these differ in substantial ways from lower division? Course transformation (and broader questions) focusing on upper-div are still at an early stage

44. Univ. of Colorado FFPER ‘13 Upper-Level Course Transformation Summary -What is the nature of UD student difficulties? -Do the means to address these differ in substantial ways from lower division? - Assessment and research bases are available (but limited/early stage) Course transformation (and broader questions) focusing on upper-div are still at an early stage

45. Univ. of Colorado FFPER ‘13 Upper-Level Course Transformation Summary -What is the nature of UD student difficulties? -Do the means to address these differ in substantial ways from lower division? - Assessment and research bases are available (but limited/early stage) - What forms of data support faculty buy-in, & how far and how fast can/should we push? Course transformation (and broader questions) focusing on upper-div are still at an early stage

46. Univ. of Colorado Upper-Level Course Transformation Questions! Lower division: per.colorado.edu/cts Upper division: per.colorado.edu/seiper.colorado.edu/cts

47. Univ. of Colorado Course Transformation ‘13