role of per in a thriving physics department - viewing learning through the lens of physics ken...
Post on 20-Jan-2016
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Role of PER in a Thriving Physics Department -Viewing Learning through the Lens of Physics
Ken HellerSchool of Physics and Astronomy
University of Minnesota
Supported in part by Department of Education (FIPSE), NSF,and the University of Minnesota
20 year continuing effort to improve undergraduate education with contributions by:Many faculty and graduate students of U of M Physics DepartmentIn collaboration with U of M Physics Education Group
Details at http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/
Our PER group2 faculty – 1 physics + 1 education1 post doc3 graduate students1 teacher-in-residenceVisiting scholarsEtc.
Outline for Discussion• What can PER do for your department.
• Examples
Are we a “thriving” department?
• Number of majors increased from about 15/yr to about 50/yr
• We are maxed out
• Instructional budget is “protected” by the Dean through numerous budget cuts
• Adequate funding for undergraduate program improvements both internal and external
• We have large improvements to make– we can do better.
• Improve the number of female majors
• Better measure of problem solving
• Modernize the curriculum
• More organized undergraduate research
All Physics Departments Teach The Same
Meta-stableSpecific Changes
Research-basedInstructional System
StableBetter Implementation
Individual Effort Departmental Commitment
StableSystemic Changes
Large continuous effortEasily returns to ground state
Small continuous effortStable against small changesCan jump to ground state
Small continuous effortStable against changeCan decay to ground state
PER: Helps Initiate Change
• Don’t try to invent a perpetual motion machine.– Good educational practice, like good science is often counter-
intuitive• Fundamental Principles (Causality, Unitarity, Lorentz Invariance)
• Theory (Electricity and Magnetism described by Maxwell’s equations)
• Empirical rules (Ohm’s law)
– Educational change has a long history • Many things are known not to work
• We even know why they don’t work
• Learning is a biological process, teaching is the action that helps people implement that process.– Neural science and cognitive psychology set boundary conditions
– Teaching is the manipulation of the learning environment
• Assessing change– What is an appropriate measure?
– Establishing a baseline
PER: Helps Implement Change
• Arrive at reasonable goals– Getting information from stakeholders
– What changes are easy
– What changes are hard
• Identify minimum necessary changes– Incremental or dive in
• Recognition that improvement takes time– Measurement and baseline data
– Change initially degrades performance
per
form
ance
time
PER: Helps Sustain Change
• A Physics Department is not a closed system– Inputs from Administration, Government, Parents, Students
• Initiatives to embrace
• Initiatives to ignore
• Initiatives to resist
– Finances are important – what to cut?
– Faculty time is important – effort balance
• Meaningful change is not initially popular– Understand dynamics of natural human resistance
– To identify and tweak the parameters requires measurements
• Countering entropy increase requires an energy input– Identify when system is degrading
– Initiate corrective action
PER Enriches the Intellectual Environment
• Research into learning from a physics point of view– Education– Cognitive psychology– Neural science– Measurement
• Quantitative – appropriate statistics• Qualitative
– Question the “frozen” curriculum
• Awareness of the field– Build on other people’s progress
• Research opportunities for students• Opportunities for outside collaboration• Opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration
Phenomenological Learning Theory Apprenticeship Works
coach
model
fade
Collins, Brown, & Newman (1990)
Learning in the environment of expert practice
• Why it is important• How it is used• How is it related to a student’s
existing knowledge
INSTRUCTION
Brain MRI from Yale Medical SchoolNeuron image from Ecole Polytechnique Lausanne
Pedagogy - Learning is a Biological Process
Neurons that fire together, wire togetherSimplification of Hebbian theory:Hebb, D (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
Cognitive Apprenticeship
LECTURES
Four hours/week, sometimes with informal cooperative groups. Model constructing knowledge in response to problems, model organized problem solving framework.
RECITATIONSECTION
LABORATORY
One hour each Thursday – cooperative groups practice using a problem-solving framework to solve context-rich problems. Peer coaching, TA coaching.
Two hours/week -- same cooperative groups practice using a framework to solve context-rich experimental problems. Same TA. Peer coaching, TA coaching.
TESTS
4 quizzes/semester on Friday -- problem-solving & conceptual questions (2 problems, 10 multiple choice) (1 group problem in previous discussion section).
Pedagogy – Cooperative Group Problem Solving
Scaffolding
Additional structure used to support the construction of a complex structure.
Removed as the structure is built
• An explicit problem solving framework - continually modeled • A worksheet that structures the framework – removed early in the course• Cooperative group structure that encourages productive group interactions• Limit use of formulas by giving an equation sheet (only allowed equations)• Explicit grading rubric for problem solutions to encourage expert-like behavior• Problems that discourage novice problem solving• Explicit grading rubric for lab problems to encourage expert-like behavior• TA education and support in pedagogy
Examples of Scaffolding in teaching Introductory Physics
Problem-solving FrameworkUsed by experts in all fields
Recognize the ProblemWhat's going on?STEP 1STEP 1
Describe the problem in terms of the fieldWhat does this have to do with ...... ?STEP 2STEP 2
Plan a solutionHow do I get out of this?STEP 3STEP 3
Execute the planLet's get an answerSTEP 4STEP 4
Evaluate the solutionCan this be true?STEP 5STEP 5
Competent Problem Solver
G. Polya, 1945
Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982)
Page 1 Page 2Problem Solving Worksheet used at the beginning of the course
Your task is to design an artificial joint to replace arthritic elbow joints in patients. After healing, the patient should be able to hold at least a gallon of milk while the lower arm is horizontal. The biceps muscle is attached to the bone at the distance 1/6 of the bone length from the elbow joint, and makes an angle of 80o with the horizontal bone. How strong should you design the artificial joint if you assume the weight of the bone is negligible.
Individual Context- Rich Problem on an Exam
Gives a motivation – allows some students to access their mental connections.Gives a realistic situation – allows some students to visualize the situation.Does not give a picture – students must practice visualization.Uses the character “you” – allows some students to visualize the situation.
Coaching With Cooperative Groups
u Positive Interdependence
u Face-to-Face Interaction
u Individual Accountability
u Explicit Collaborative Skills
u Group Functioning Assessment
Having Students Work Together in Structured Groups
I was reading through your 'typical objections'. Another good reason for cooperative group methods: this is how we solve all kinds of problems in the real world - the real academic world and the real business world. I wish they'd had this when I was in school. Keep up
the great work. Rick Roesler Vice President, Handhelds Hewlett Packard
Email 8/24/05
Drop % Physics 1301
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
% D
rop
semestersquarters
Retention
Dropout rate to 6%, F/D rate to 3% in all classes
Change from quarters to semesters
Final State
Student Problem Solutions
Initial State
AVERAGE FCI PRE-TEST & POST-TEST SCORESCALCULUS-BASED PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS, FALL TERMS 1993-2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A, F
93B
, F93
C, F
93D
, F94
E, F
94F,
F94
G, F
94H
, F94
bC, F
94I,
F95
J, F
95K
, F95
L, F
95D
, F95
M, F
96G
, F96
N, F
96G
, F96
O, F
96P
, F97
O, F
97K
, F97
D, F
97N
, F97
P, F
98G
, F98
O, F
98G
, F98
N, F
98M
, F99
O, F
99K
, F99
Q, F
99M
, F00
R, F
00Q
, F00
N, F
00S
, F00
T, F
00K
, F01
U, F
01N
, F01
W, F
01Z,
F01
aA, F
02U
, F02
K, F
02I,
F02
X, F
02V
, F03
T, F
03Y
, F03
X, F
04U
, F04
Q, F
04Y
, F04
aT, F
05aU
, F05
aV, F
05aZ
, F06
aU, F
06aT
, F06
aP, F
06X
, F07
aU, F
07aT
, F07
bA, F
07bF
, F08
aU, F
08bF
, F08
bA, F
08
INSTRUCTOR, TERM
FCI A
VER
AG
E SC
OR
E (%
) +/-
STA
ND
AR
D E
RR
OR
OF
MEA
N
PRE-TEST POST-TESTOLD FCI, 1993-1996 NEW FCI, 1997-2008
CHANGE FROM QUARTERS TO SEMESTERS F1999
94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 0893
• Incoming student scores are slowly rising (better high school preparation)• Our standard course (CGPS) achieves average FCI ~70%• Our “best practices” course achieves average FCI ~80%• Not executing any cooperative group procedures achieves average FCI ~50%
Each letter represents a different professor (37 different ones)
AVERAGE FCI PRE-TEST SCORES BY GENDER & YEARCALCULUS-BASED PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS, FALL TERMS 1997-2007
y = 0.0084x - 16.4
R2 = 0.88
y = 0.0076x - 14.8
R2 = 0.88
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
FALL TERM
AV
ER
AG
E F
CI
PR
E-T
ES
T S
CO
RE
MALES (N=4375) FEMALES (N=1261)
Students are getting better from high school
There is a gender gap in conceptual performance from high school
Males do better.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PRE-TEST POST-TEST
AV
ER
AG
E F
CI
SC
OR
E
MALES (N=4375)
FEMALES (N=1261)
PRE-TEST GENDER GAP 15.3±0.5% POST-TEST GENDER GAP 13.4±0.6%
52.8±0.3%
37.5±0.5%
71.2±0.3%
57.8±0.5%
THE GENDER GAP PERSISTS AFTER INSTRUCTION
Previous physics experience of males and females(Have you taken a physics course before?)
0102030405060708090
100
No Yes, regularhigh school
only
Yes,advancedplacementhigh school
only
Yes, collegeonly
Yes, bothcollege andhigh school
Per
cen
t of
res
pon
den
ts f
or a
cat
egor
y
% Males% Females
About 90% of males and 85% females have had at least high school physics
AVERAGE MATH PRE-TEST & POST-TEST SCORES BY GENDERCALCULUS-BASED PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS, FALL TERMS 2005-2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PRE-TEST POST-TEST
AVER
AGE
MAT
H DI
AGNO
STIC
SCO
RE
MALES (N=845) FEMALES (N=266)
PRE-TEST GENDER GAP -0.7±0.3 (-2.5±1.3%)
POST-TEST GENDER GAP -0.2±0.3 (-0.7±1.1%)
17.0±0.3(63.3±1.1%)
19.0±0.1
(70.3±0.5%)19.2±0.3
(71.0±1.0%)16.3±0.2(60.5±0.6%)
There is a slight gender gap in math skills from high school
Females do slightly better.
AVERAGE FCI PRE-TEST SCORES BY PREVIOUS PHYSICSCALCULUS-BASED PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS, FALL TERMS 1997-2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No Previous Physics Regular high schoolonly
Advancedplacement high
school only
College only Both college andhigh school
AV
ER
AG
E F
CI S
CO
RE
(%)
MALES (N=4215) FEMALES (N=1217)
9% 15% 65% 62% 19% 17% 2% 3% 4% 4%
Gender gap is there no matter what high school physics preparation.
14.20.7 %Gap = 13.01.2 % 17.1 1.4 % 14.5 3.1 % 10.13.6 %
AVERAGE FCI POST-TEST SCORES BY PREVIOUS PHYSICSCALCULUS-BASED PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS, FALL TERMS 1997-2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No Previous Physics Regular high schoolonly
Advancedplacement high
school only
College only Both college andhigh school
AVE
RA
GE
FCI S
CO
RE
(%)
MALES (N=4215) FEMALES (N=1217)
9% 15% 65% 62% 19% 17% 2% 3% 4% 4%
12.60.8 %Gap = 13.01.7 % 13.8 1.5 % 13.3 3.5 % 11.83.4 %
Gender gap persists no matter what high school physics preparation.
FCI PRE-TEST BY QUESTION & GENDERCALCULUS-BASED PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS, FALL TERMS 1997-2007
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
FCI QUESTION NUMBER
PE
RC
EN
T C
OR
RE
CT
MALES (N=4375) FEMALES (N=1261)
#21-24: ROCKET#14: AIRPLANE
#8-11: HOCKEY PUCK
MALE FCI PRE-TEST & POST-TEST SCORESCALCULUS-BASED PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS, FALL TERMS 1997-2007
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
FCI SCORE
FR
EQ
UE
NC
Y (
N=
43
75
)
MALES PRE-TEST MALES POST-TEST
PRE-TEST MEDIAN (AVERAGE):
15 (15.9±0.1)
POST-TEST MEDIAN (AVERAGE):
22 (21.3±0.1)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
FCI SCORE
FR
EQ
UE
NC
Y (
N=
12
61
)
FEMALES PRE-TEST FEMALES POST-TEST
PRE-TEST MEDIAN (AVERAGE):
10 (11.3±0.1)
POST-TEST MEDIAN (AVERAGE):
17 (17.3±0.2)
CEILING EFFECT
FCI ABSOLUTE GAIN BY GENDERCALCULUS-BASED PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS, FALL TERMS 1997-2007
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
ABSOLUTE GAIN = FCI POST SCORE - FCI PRE SCORE
FR
EQ
UE
NC
Y (
NO
RM
AL
IZE
D)
MALES (N=4375) FEMALES (N=1261)
FEMALES MEDIAN (AVERAGE): 6 (6.1±0.2 points, 20.3±0.7%)
MALES MEDIAN (AVERAGE):5 (5.5±0.1 points, 18.3±0.4%)
Males and females gain the same amount from the class.
COURSE GRADES BY GENDERCALCULUS-BASED PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS, FALL TERMS 1997-2007
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100
COURSE GRADE (%)
FRE
QU
EN
CY
(NO
RM
ALI
ZED
)
MALES (N=4375) FEMALES (N=1261)
FEMALES AVERAGE COURSE GRADE: 72.0±0.3%
MALES AVERAGE COURSE GRADE: 73.5±0.2%
A: 83-100%B: 68-82%C: 50-67%D: 40-49%F
Males and females do about as well in the course.
FINAL EXAM GRADES BY GENDERCALCULUS-BASED PHYSICS FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS, FALL TERMS 1997-2007
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
4%
5%
5%
FINAL EXAM GRADE (%)
FREQ
UEN
CY
(NO
RM
ALI
ZED
)
Males (N=4375) Females (N=1261)
FEMALES AVERAGE 57.1±0.5%
MALES AVERAGE 61.0±0.3%
Males do slightly better in the course final exam problems.
Identify Critical Failure Points
1. Inappropriate Tasks
Must engage all group members (not just one who knows how to do it)
2. Inappropriate Grading
Must not penalize those who help others (no grading on the curve)
Must reward for individual learning
3. Poor structure and management of Groups
Fail GracefullyNon-optimal implementation gives some success
Building A Course• Teach Students an Organizational Framework
– Emphasize decisions using physics
– Rule-based mathematics
• Use Problems that Require– An organized framework
– Physics conceptual knowledge
– Connection to existing knowledge
• Use Existing Course Structure– Lectures and “handouts” MODELING
– Discussion Sections COACHING
– Labs COACHING
• Scaffolding to Support Problem Solving
Modeling Coaching
Peer Instructor
Fading
CGPS Propagates Through the Department
Goals:Goals: Biology Majors Course 2003
4.9 Basic principles behind all physics
4.4 General qualitative problem solving skills
4.3 Use biological examples of physical principles
4.2 Overcome misconceptions about physical world
4.1 General quantitative problem solving skills
4.0 Real world application of mathematical concepts and techniques
Goals:Goals: Calculus-based Course (88% engineering majors) 1993
4.5 Basic principles behind all physics
4.5 General qualitative problem solving skills
4.4 General quantitative problem solving skills
4.2 Apply physics topics covered to new situations
4.2 Use with confidence
Upper Division Physics Major Courses 2002Analytic MechanicsElectricity & MagnetismQuantum Mechanics
Graduate Courses 2007Quantum Mechanics
The End
Please visit our websitefor more information:
http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/
The best is the enemy of the good.The best is the enemy of the good.
"le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien"
Voltaire
top related