1. Introductory Physics Course Reform at UA – Current Status and Lessons Learned J.W. Harrell and Stan Jones Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Alabama

2. Introductory PH and AY Courses at UA Algebra-based: PH101/102 - Mostly life-science majors Calculus-based: PH105/106 - Mostly engineering majors (and PH) Conceptual Physics: PH115 - Mostly elementary education majors Total annual intro PH enrollment ~ 1900 Also, AY101 (~1900 students)

3. NSF Foundation Coalition Reform began with NSF-FC program in 1993 - One of 8 NSF funded engineering coalitions to improve undergraduate engineering curriculum. Active learning, teamwork, curriculum integration. New technology enabled classrooms Pilot sections of physics (separate lecture-lab)

4. Studio Physics Similar to FC, but integrated lecture and lab. (after RPI, NCSU) Started in 2002 Full implementation in 2005 Now both Studio and traditional lecture-lab sections (~50/50) 5 contact hours/week (2 + 2 + 1) Lecture lite Labs and other group activities Online homework

5. Studio Physics 2 classrooms (54 and 60 students) 3 students/group Instructor, GTA, UGTA Computer data acquisition in labs

6. Studio vs Non-Studio -preference and attendance Attitudinal survey (2002-2003) – Prefer Studio: 53% – Prefer non-Studio: 26% – No preference: 20% Attendance (influenced by graded classwork) –Studio: ~ 85% –Non-Studio: ~ 65%

7. Studio vs Non-Studio - Completion rates Median W/F rate – Studio: 16.5% – Non-Studio: 23.5% Instructor factor? –Most instructors either teach one format or the other. Cumulative %(x) = % with W/F ≥ x

8. Studio vs Non-Studio - Force Concept Inventory FCI gains –Studio: 27% –Non-Studio: 17% Wide range of gains Low for interactive engagement classes Instructor effect? Cumulative %(x) = % with gain ≥ x

9. FCI and BEMA Combined results for Studio and Non-Studio –FCI = 27% –BEMA = 20% (Now using CSEM )

10. Astronomy Conceptual Gains AY conceptual test - developed by UA faculty AY gains >> PH gains Clicker sections > non- clicker sections Instructor effect?

11. Conceptual Physics Taken primarily by elementary education majors Before 2011: Hewitt text, Studio format 2011: PET curriculum Inquiry and activity based Conceptual gains (PET concept test) Pre-test = 25%, post-test = 65%  Gain = 54% Attitudinal survey – very positive

12. PET Concept Test – example question 1.A soccer goalie is practicing by punting a ball straight up into the air and then catching it again when it falls back down. Consider a moment just after the ball has been kicked, but is still moving upward (as shown in the picture). Which of the following forces do you think are acting on the soccer ball at this moment? (Choose all those that you think are present.) A) A force of gravity pulling downward. B) A force from the kick pushing upward. C) A force of gravity pushing upward. D) A force pushing upward due to the motion of the ball. E) Some other force (describe what you think it is below)

13. Lessons Learned Studio Physics well received by students and administration A significant number of faculty prefer Studio. Student retention and FCI gains higher than in lecture-lab format. Conceptual gains in Studio lower than expected for interactive engagement courses. Instructor effect on retention and gains not known. Clickers now used in many lecture and Studio courses, but effect has not been quantified.

14. Importance of Studio Physics Curriculum Curriculum and how it is implemented is critical. Little improvement in learning gains in early years of Studio Physics at RPI. Gains improved after curriculum changes. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/ Cummings_Presentation_Workshop2.pdf

15. Recommendations Better coordination of Studio courses. Training of new and inexperienced faculty. Improved GTA and UGTA training. Revise labs and activities – more inquiry based. Identify and implement best practices (successful faculty, PET curriculum, …)