Upload
rosaline-harmon
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation
in a Physics Department
Steven Pollock,Noah Finkelstein, Katherine Perkins,
Stephanie Chasteen, Michael Dubson, Steven Goldhaber, Chandra Turpen
CU Boulder
For AAPTJuly 2009
AcknowledgementsPhysics faculty:
Michael DubsonNoah FinkelsteinKathy PerkinsSteven PollockCarl Wieman
Postdocs/Scientists: Wendy AdamsStephanie ChasteenSteven GoldhaberLaurel MayhewArchie PaulsonNoah Podolefsky
Ph. D. students:Chandra TurpenLauren KostCharles BailyBen Spike+recently graduated:
4 with PhD, 1 with MSc.
School of Ed collaborators: Valerie Otero Derek Briggs
Kara GrayBud TalbottMay LeeHeidi Iverson
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. REC 0448176, CAREER: Physics Education and Contexts of Student Learning. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF
Outline
• Lower-division course transformation• Upper-division course transformation• Faculty (support and development)
Implementing, sustaining, spreading of educational reforms: What are the critical features? How and where do they arise?
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.08 0.14 0.20 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.50 0.56 0.62 0.68<g>
Fraction of Courses
R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98).
traditional lectureForce concept inventory
interactive engagement
fraction of courses
normalized learning gain
less learning more learning
Lower-division at CU
Transformations at CU
Tutorial Success (at UW)
D.E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, (1981). Am. J. Phys. 49 (3), 242.
0102030405060708090
100
Newton &constraints
Force diagrams Newton's III CombineNewton's laws
UW - Trad UW - Tutorial
Replication (at CU)
0102030405060708090
100
Newton &constraints
Force diagrams Newton's III CombineNewton's laws
UW - Trad UW - Tutorial CU - Tutorial
S.Pollock, PERC 2004.
curriculum matters
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.08 0.14 0.20 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.50 0.56 0.62 0.68<g>
Fraction of Courses
R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98).
traditional lectureBack to the FCI/FMCE
interactive engagement
S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 (2008)
Physics 2: BEMA pre/post
F04 (N=319) Post: 59% S05 (N=232): 59%S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 (2008)
Kohlmeyer et altrad post IE post
pedagogy & faculty matter
Why the variation?
Characterizing Faculty Practice Chandra Turpen
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Leaves Stage Ans. St. Qs Disc. w/ St.
Type of Participation
Percent of the time professor participates as described
Leaves Stage
% o
f ti
me
Ans. St. Q’s Discuss w/st.
institutionalization
How did this happen?
Institutionalsupport
Externalsupport
‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08
Faculty involvement
‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08
PhysTec (APS, AIP,NSF)
CCLI (NSF)
STEM-TP (NSF) LA-TEST (NSF)
Provost
Dean (Arts and Sciences)
Dep’t: Team Teaching
Dep’t: Classroom Space
Dep’t course fees: equipment
4 4 1338
11 145 59
P2
P2 3
6 P1 11103
12 47 8P1
3
P1 P1
P1
Phys I
Phys II
Dissemination (beyond PER):Critical features
(??) • Initiators/proponents
• Materials
• Faculty buy-in and pedagogy
• Institutional support
Upper-division
Why transform upper division?
?
Can our majors learn better from interactive techniques adapted from introductory physics?
Lecture with clickers
Washington Tutorials
CourseMech & Math I
Mech & Math II
EM I
EM II
QM I
QM II
Solid State
Stat Mech
Optics
Grad AMO
Sp04 Sp09
Clickers in Upper-division at CU
12 non-PER and 2 PER faculty
Case study: E&M I:
• Institutional support-
SEI postdoc involvement (KP)
- Learning Assistant
• Faculty collaboration• Explicit learning goals
Students debate a concept test
• Interactive classroom• Concept Tests• Homework• Help Sessions• Tutorials
What Changed? How did this happen?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Trad IE2 IE3
Avera
ge S
core
(%
)
IE1
Assessing transformations: the CUE
IE/transformed courses
Development (PER-1)
Team teaching (PER-2 + 3)
3
CU Trad
CU IE
institutionalization?
How did this happen?
Faculty ownership - Designing goals - Developing materials - Personalizing materials
Faculty buy-in
Departmental culture
- Working groups
- Brown bags
- Faculty meetings
- Rotating faculty and team teaching
Student buy-inQ: How useful for your learning is the addition of clicker questions compared to pure lecture with no clicker questions? Q: How useful for your learning is the addition of clicker questions compared to pure lecture with no clicker questions?
Pure lecturemuch more useful
Pure lecturemore useful
Same
Lecture with clickers more useful
Lecture with clickers much more useful
% of students0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
82% of students
16 courses, 400 student responsesUpper-div courses using clickers:
Critical features??
• Initiators/proponents
• Institutional support.
• Resources (e.g. materials, staff, class space)
• Faculty buy-in– inclusion/further material development– support/team teaching
• Student buy-in
• Dep’t culture
Summary/conclusions Dissemination and sustainability?
• Initiators/proponents
• Institutional support.
• Resources (e.g. materials, staff, class space)
• Faculty buy-in– inclusion/further material development– support/team teaching
• Student buy-in
• Dep’t culture
Summary/conclusions Dissemination and sustainability?
Towards a model/theory of STEM educational change.
Questions?Much more at: per.colorado.edu