1. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 1www.physics.uiuc.edu Educating in Bulk: The Introductory Physics Course Revisions at Illinois Educating in Bulk: The Introductory Physics Course Revisions at Illinois Mats Selen, UIUC Department of Physics l Our Clients è Faculty, Students, College of Engineering, U of I l Our approach è Infrastructure è Pedagogy è Technology l Some Research Results è The particle physics approach. l “Physics 100” è Helping under-prepared students l Deep thoughts è Just Do It

2. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 2www.physics.uiuc.edu Our Clients: Each week: Lectures (2x75 min) Discusison (2 hrs) Lab (2 hrs) Calculus Based: Total enrollment of about 3500/year Mostly Engineering (& Physics) students Physics 111 (4 hrs, mechanics) Physics 112 (4 hrs, E&M) Physics 113 (2 hrs, thermo/stat-mech) Physics 114 (2 hrs, waves/quantum) Each week: Lectures (2x50 min) Discusison (2 hrs) Lab (3 hrs) Algebra Based: Total enrollment of about 1100/year Mostly pre-med & biology students Physics 101 (5 hrs, mechanics, heat, fluids, waves) Physics 102 (5 hrs, E&M, Light, Atoms, Relativity)

3. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 3www.physics.uiuc.edu How it used to work: l Tradition, Tradition, Tradition èLecturer “owns” the course and is free to “reinvent the flat tire” every semester. èDiscussion TAs pretty much on their own. èLabs intellectually disconnected from rest of course. èTypically only quantitative problems on exams. l RESULTS: NOBODY IS HAPPY !! èLecturer dislikes it since it’s a monster teaching assignment. èStudents dislike it because they see the lecturer dislikes it and because the organization is often “uneven” at best.

4. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 4www.physics.uiuc.edu How we do it now: l Integrate active learning team teaching l Integrate all aspects of a course using active learning methods in a team teaching environment. è Typically 3 faculty share the load for a class: »Lecturer (lectures, ACTs, preflights, exams). »Discussion Director (TA training, quizzes, exams). »Lab Director (TA training, web homework, exams). è Course administration is shared responsibility: »Faculty meet at least once a week with each-other and with their TA’s to plan the campaign. »Overall co-ordination is very tight (web helps this). »Everybody works on creating exams. è Course material changes adiabatically: »Recycled & tuned from semester to semester. »People don’t need to re-invent the whole stew, but can focus on the spices!

5. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 5www.physics.uiuc.edu èExisting (evolving) infrastructure lowers the bar for participation. »This is now seen as a reasonable teaching load. »Most of our new junior faculty start teaching in these courses (i.e. not a heavy assignment). èPain & Gain are shared »No burnout & No heroes. »Makes it possible to keep quality high and material consistent even though instructors are changing. Advantages of this approach: 42 of ~70 faculty have taught in these courses since 1995 !

6. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 6www.physics.uiuc.edu Feedback Feedback (are things better now ?) THE OLD Spring 95 Total Physics TAs = 77 # “Excellent” = 15 19 ± 5 % THE NEW Spring 01 Total Physics TAs = 75 # “Excellent” = 58 77 ± 6 % THE OLD good bad THE NEW good bad

7. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 7www.physics.uiuc.edu Standard stuff these days Details of some key components: WEB-centric organization Peer instruction in Discussion & Lab sections ACTs & Preflights in Lecture Homework & Interactive Examples Exams

8. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 8www.physics.uiuc.edu l All l All course materials available on-line. è Lectures, discussion & lab materials, exams… è Makes our job easier (copy spring01  fall01). l All students do several on-line assignments every week: è Homework, Interactive Examples, Quizzes è Preflights for lectures, labs & discussion è Exam preparation & exam results è All grades & progress throughout the semester »Students know in advance what everything is worth and the final thresholds for A,B,C,D,F etc WEB-centric organization

9. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 9www.physics.uiuc.edu This is hard for TA’s to get used to: Training ! Details of some key components: WEB-centric organization Peer instruction in Discussion & Lab sections ACTs & Preflights in Lecture Homework & Interactive Examples Exams

10. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 10www.physics.uiuc.edu TA to the rescue ! A Question NO LECTURING HERE l Key Idea: Collaborative Learning èStudents work in groups of 4 on problems prepared by the senior staff. TAs act as facilitators, not lecturers. èTA preparation very important (extensive training program). »Orientation, Weekly Meetings, Mentor TAs, Observation èContent of prepared materials very important Discussion Sections

11. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 11www.physics.uiuc.edu Lab Sections PREDICT OBSERVE EXPLAIN èEngage the students in the learning process and promote mastery of concepts by manipulation of experimental apparatus. èWeb-based Prelabs; Lab reports finished within class period.

12. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 12www.physics.uiuc.edu The most fun you’ll ever have teaching! Details of some key components: WEB-centric organization Peer instruction in Discussion & Lab sections ACTs & Preflights in Lecture Homework & Interactive Examples Exams

13. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 13www.physics.uiuc.edu Pre-Flights !! l Students are asked to answer a set of conceptual questions (on the Web) prior to every lecture (and discussion, and lab). l The main structure is: èStudents read about material in text. èStudents answer pre-flight questions on material prior to lecture. »Physics 101 PF’s due at 6am, lecture starts at 1pm. »Graded on participation, not correctness. èInstructor uses pre-flight responses to guide lecture preparation. èPre-flights are reviewed during lecture, often presented again as ACTs, and often capped off with a demo. »Use their own words, (both right & wrong) l With careful preparation, the pre-flights can form the “backbone” of the lecture.

14. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 14www.physics.uiuc.edu What the students see on the web: What I typed in a simple text file:

15. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 15www.physics.uiuc.edu The instructors interface to the student responses (also on web): Statistics: Free response: “NTUPLE” inspired

16. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 16www.physics.uiuc.edu Lecture 6, Pre-Flight Questions 7&8 Two identical boxes, each having a weight W, are tied to the ends of a string hung over a pulley (see picture). What is the tension T in the string? 1. T=0 2. T=W 3. T=2W correct W W T This is exactly what I prepare before and show during the lecture

17. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 17www.physics.uiuc.edu Students see their own answers Two identical boxes, each having a weight W, are tied to the ends of a string hung over a pulley (see picture). What is the tension T in the string? 1. T=0 2. T=W 3. T=2W Due to Newton's second and third laws, the rope itself is massless, so any force transmitted across it is done so without the diminishing of any magnitude. As each box has an equal weight, the tension T must be zero, as each box's force cancels the other's out. The string has the tension of two weights. The force applied to the rope is transmitted to the other side. This example would be just like a person hoisting up a box, pulling on the rope with a force of W. In this case, the tension would just be W. W W T

18. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 18www.physics.uiuc.edu Students have fun with answers... Shown is a yummy doughnut. Where would you expect the center of mass of this breakfast of champions to be located? (Explain your reasoning Homer). CORRECT You're not getting my answer unless i get sprinkles.....suckers ! unfortunately, i think the center of mass of this perfectly symmetrical donut would be the center of the donut which does not seem to exist; so, i'll just say homer ate it. I think it would be in a the middle of the dough in a circular pattern. Kind of like the onion in an onion ring. UMMMMM..... Onion rings!!!! INCORRECT Homer: "mmmm.....donut...(slobbering)...center of mass in tummy...." Flanders: "why no diddly-o there Homer. The center of mass would be in the center of the hole." Homer: "Doh!"

19. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 19www.physics.uiuc.edu Details of some key components: WEB-centric organization Peer instruction in Discussion & Lab sections ACTs & Preflights in Lecture Homework & Interactive Examples Exams

20. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 20www.physics.uiuc.edu Interactive Examples (Socratic Dialogue)

21. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 21www.physics.uiuc.edu Details of some key components: WEB-centric organization Peer instruction in Discussion & Lab sections ACTs & Preflights in Lecture Homework & Interactive Examples Exams

22. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 22www.physics.uiuc.edu Students are happier… but are they learning more ?? Physics Education Research

23. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 23www.physics.uiuc.edu For Example: Do BEFORE vs AFTER study to see if student learning was impacted by the introduction of Interactive Examples (IEs): Choose Homework B “on-line quiz” performance as metric of learning

24. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 24www.physics.uiuc.edu “Homework B” Example l Given C 1, C 3, and C 4 èThree Qualitative »Compare Q 1 and Q 4 »Compare Q 1 and Q 3 » How does energy change if dielectric added to C 2 ? èTwo Quantitative »Given Q 1 and E, what is C 2 ? »Given Q 1 and E, what is V 3 ? 64% 74% 68% 56% 54% Four different versions given each week Total of 269 different questions!!

25. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 25www.physics.uiuc.edu Homework B Analysis The Homework B questions have a wide variation in difficulty Computing the total Homework B average (pre-IE), we see: Fall Avg = 63.2  0.2 Spring Avg = 67.8  0.3 We take this difference as a measure of the difference in populations, on-sequence vs off-sequence. Until we understand how to correct for this difference, we will compare only Spring to Spring and Fall to Fall.

26. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 26www.physics.uiuc.edu Homework B: Pre IEs Compare performance on Homework B questions (269 total!) in Physics 112 between Spring99 and Spring00 (pre IEs) Looks pretty similar.. We try to quantify.. - Question #

27. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 27www.physics.uiuc.edu Distribution of Differences Create model from the following input: Question Difficulty Distribution Student Performance Distribution Run “simulation” of two identical semesters and plot  distribution:  # Questions Sp99 – Sp00 Model Works  # Questions Sp99 – Sp00 Histogram the points on the previous plot to get a distribution of the normalized differences:   ( - )/  Distribution centered at 0 (mean = 0.09), with width 1.17 

28. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 28www.physics.uiuc.edu Compare Performance Post IE – Pre IE 112 Sp02 – Sp00  112 Fa02 – Fa00  111 Fa02 – Fa01  CONCLUSION: Systematic Improvement in all semesters of both courses!

29. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 29www.physics.uiuc.edu Physics 112 Sp02 + Fa02  More Observations: On avg, HWB score has improved by 1.6  A total of 47 questions have improvements > 3  ! Look in a little more detail at these 47 questions (18% of total) l Were improvements made in qualitative or quantitative questions? è Qualitative/Conceptual: 35 questions è Quantitative: 12 questions è Improvement occurs uniformly in both areas »fraction of all HWB questions that are quantitative = 25% l Very encouraging, but much more work is needed to understand this.

30. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 30www.physics.uiuc.edu Is Easy to Forget that Physics is Hard Can we help under-prepared students to “get it” ? And its even worse if you are not well prepared !

31. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 31www.physics.uiuc.edu Physics 100: ”Thinking About Physics” Physics 100: ”Thinking About Physics” (1 credit hour) l Despite the University of Illinois’ C of E very high admission standards, nearly 20% of accepted students are inadequately prepared to pass our introductory mechanics course Physics 111 (i.e. they earn a D or F). èThe failure rate is even higher for minority groups. »As high as 68% for African Americans !! (About six times higher than the average) l Many students do not realize that they are poorly prepared. l We need to identify inadequately prepared students and help them gear up for Physics 111 and beyond.

32. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 32www.physics.uiuc.edu l Typical Physics 100 enrollment ~ 100 èGetting students is a challenge…next slide. l Course Format èOnline “Asynchronous Lectures” (interactive slides with sound) èOnline Homework (heavy use of Interactive Examples) èTwo hour discussion/tutorial once per week (expert instructors) èMaterial covered is first 30% of Physics 111 èFollow-up prep classes in || with Physics 111 & 112 Fall(n) Spring(n+1) Fall(n+1) Mainstream Physics 111 Physics 112 Under-prepared Physics 100Physics 111 + 1hr prepPhysics 112 + 1hr prep l Physics 100 does not start until ~ 3 weeks into the fall semester. èGives students time to evaluate their situation èMany decide to take Physics 100 after doing poorly on the first Physics 111 mid-term exam.

33. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 33www.physics.uiuc.edu l Identify students at the beginning of the semester using an online Self Evaluation quiz in “Engineering-100”. èStudents receiving a score below a certain cutoff are “invited” to take Physics 100 (1 credit-hour). èFewer than half of identified students choose to participate initially. (This should be a placement exam!) Self Evaluation Score Physics 111 Grade

34. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 34www.physics.uiuc.edu Is Physics 100 helping students ? Q: Q: Can we reduce the failure rate of under-prepared students taking Physics 111/112/113/114 ? A: A: Probably YES (research by Gladding & Shoaf) All students Average physics 100 students Average physics 111 students Self Evaluation Score Physics 111 Grade

35. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 35www.physics.uiuc.edu l It seems like we might be helping, however there is a is a big caveat: Physics 100 students are self selected ! èAre we getting only those students that were going to do well anyway ? èWe need more data to study this. »A real placement test would be very helpful ! Is Physics 100 helping students…

36. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 36www.physics.uiuc.edu Summing Up l We have revised all of our “big” intro classes (both calculus and algebra based). èSo far so good. èFeedback very positive. »Students like it, the faculty likes it, the University likes it. èMaintaining momentum will be the challenge for the future l Our Physics Education Research Group is growing èThis is becoming a real PhD research program »Graduate students are very interested èWe have lots of data and many analysis ideas (like CLEO)! l Other projects èNew Inquiry based physics course for elementary-ed students »K-5 teachers need more science. »I’m very excited about this…ask me later.

37. Cornell (Mar/10/03): Pg 37www.physics.uiuc.edu l Strong departmental support is needed to pull this off: èVision, leadership, money (faculty release time). l Developing a sustainable infrastructure is the first part of the battle. èWe are eager to give away any/all of the materials & tools we have developed, and (of course) hope to get new ideas back. l Getting faculty to “buy in” is the second necessary ingredient. èNot everyone likes this approach. Concluding Thoughts l At UIUC, most people have bought in to the “new” way. è42 of ~70 faculty have taught in these courses since 1995 ! “I can do it better all by myself”