1. Building on a Base: tools, practices, and implications from physics education research (PER) S.J. Pollock N.D. Finkelstein Physics Department Thanks for support from: Pew/Carnegie CASTL, NSF CCLI NSF STEM-TP APS: PhysTEC

2. Overview Physics Education Research (PER) Rapid growth, subfield of physics A Physicist’s History: Research on student concepts (Arons, McDermott,...) Concept Inventories (Halloun, Hestenes, Hake,...) Curriculum (Washington, Maryland, Mazur, many...) Theoretical Frames (Redish, diSessa, many...)

3. Theoretical frames Student concepts and engagement Curricular reforms Data Classroom practice Building on a base

4. structure Pieces Coherence By Authority Independent (experiment) learning COGNITION AND INSTRUCTION (physics), David Hammer Novice Expert Formulas & “plug ‘n chug” Concepts & Problem Solving content think about science like a scientist What’s our goal?

5. APS In recent years, physics education research has emerged as a topic of research within physics departments.... The APS applauds and supports the acceptance in physics departments of research in physics education. -The American Physical Society Statement 99.2 Research in Physics Education (May 1999)

6. Professional recognition Journals (AJP, and Physical Review) NSF funding >50 institutions with PER groups

7. What we won’t cover Lots! Details of curricula/research based reforms advanced undergrad/grad Survey of current research topics

8. Data on student conceptions Interviews/open questions (e.g. Arons, McDermott,...) Prior knowledge Basis for surveys and curriculum reform

9. A possible “tilting” development Force Concept Inventory (Hestenes, Wells, Swackhamer, Physics Teacher 20, (92) 141, Halloun and Hestenes) Multiple choice survey, (pre/post) Experts (especially skeptics!) => necessary (not sufficient) indicator of conceptual understanding.

10. Sample question

11. Force Concept Inventory (FCI) R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98). = post-pre 100-pre traditional lecture FCI I

12. Trad’l Model of Education Instruction via transmission IndividualContent (E/M) transmissionist

13. Where does this come from? Our classes

14. Force Concept Inventory (FCI) R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98). = post-pre 100-pre red = trad, blue = interactive engagement F C I II

15. PER Theoretic Background Instruction via transmission IndividualContent (E/M) transmissionist Individual Prior knowledge Content (E/M) Construction constructivist basic constructivist J. Piaget - Swiss psychologist (1896-1980) Students:are active in the educational process construct understanding based on prior knowledge learn through individual development

16. Value of FCI Based on research Refocus on concepts Quantitative basis for comparing curricula Wake up call

17. Force Concept Inventory (FCI) R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98). = post-pre 100-pre Fa03/Sp04 Fa98 red = trad, blue = interactive engagement F C I at C U

18. Next steps Conceptual survey development www.flaguide.org Attitudes/student epistemology Research on student understanding -> guide to curricular reforms -> incorporate cognitive theories

19. Attitudes and Beliefs VASS, MPEX, CLASS,... ( e.g. Saul, Redish, PER@C,...) Assessing the “hidden curriculum”Examples: “I study physics to learn knowledge that will be useful in life.”  “T  “To learn physics, I only need to memorize solutions to sample problems”

20. W. Adams 2003, replicating Redish, Steinberg, Saul AJP 66 p. 212 (‘98) (Typical) attitude shifts

21. Concepts Reality W. Adams 2003, replicating Redish, Steinberg, Saul AJP 66 p. 212 (‘98) (Typical) attitude shifts

22. Shift (%) (“reformed” class) -6 -8 -12 -11 -10 -7 -17 +5 (All ±2%) CLASS categories Real world connect... Personal interest........ Sensemaking/effort... Conceptual................ Math understanding... Problem Solving........ Confidence................ Nature of science....... Engineers: -12 Phys Male: +1 Phys Female: -16

23. But it’s possible to do better Low learning gain high learning gain Blue= pre Red= post Data from instructor attending (somewhat) to “hidden curriculum”)

24. Expectations/Beliefs matter low high pre CLASS (overall)

25. Curriculum reform ConcepTests (Mazur) (easy to implement) Tutorials (McDermott) (modest infrastructure) Workshop physics (Laws) (resource intensive) And many more - can’t do justice! Interactive Lect Demos (Thornton, Sokoloff) Problem solving (Van Heuvelen, Heller,...) Based on empirical research Next generation: cognitive theory as well.

26. TopicU. Wash. no tutorial U. Wash. with tutorial CU with tutorial Newton’s law & tension25%50%55% Newton & constraints45%70%45%/75% Force diagrams30%90%95% Newton’s III law15%70% Combine Newton’s laws35%80% Reproducibility Primary/secondary implementation of “Tutorials” Rounding all results to nearest 5% UW data from McDermott, Shaffer, Somers, Am. J. Phys. 62(1), 46-55 (94)

27. Summary State of PER: beyond “reflective teaching” Data driven Published/publishable results Reproducible across institutions Changing culture of departments (?!)

28. Discussion! Starting ideas... –What sorts of practices occur in engineering / based on what sort of research/theoretical framing? –What assessment tools are there? –How well codified is the discipline / goals of instruction?

29. The end See: www.flaguide.org per.colorado.edu www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Book/ www.flaguide.org

30. Examples of “building on a base”: PER@CPER@C group: http://per.colorado.edu Secondary implementations Research based simulations CLASS survey Theoretical perspectives...

31. Impact of peer instruction

32. CU reformed course Fa 03

33. Traditional vs. Interactive Engagement (From Hake, see earlier ref, AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98 ) %gain vs %pretest

34. Impact of tutorials