Presentation on theme: "When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department Steven Pollock, Noah Finkelstein, Katherine Perkins, Stephanie."— Presentation transcript:
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 AAPT July 2009
Acknowledgements Physics faculty: Michael Dubson Noah Finkelstein Kathy Perkins Steven Pollock Carl Wieman Postdocs/Scientists: Wendy Adams Stephanie Chasteen Steven Goldhaber Laurel Mayhew Archie Paulson Noah Podolefsky Ph. D. students: Chandra Turpen Lauren Kost Charles Baily Ben Spike +recently graduated: 4 with PhD, 1 with MSc. School of Ed collaborators: Valerie Otero Derek Briggs Kara Gray Bud Talbott May Lee Heidi 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?
R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98). traditional lecture Force concept inventory interactive engagement fraction of courses normalized learning gain less learning more learning
R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98). traditional lecture Back 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 al trad post IE post
Why transform upper division? ? Can our majors learn better from interactive techniques adapted from introductory physics? Lecture with clickers Washington Tutorials
Course Mech & Math I Mech & Math II EM I EM II QM I QM II Solid State Stat Mech Optics Grad AMO Sp04Sp09 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 IE2IE3 Average Score (%) IE1 Assessing transformations: the CUE IE/transformed courses Development (PER-1) Team teaching (PER-2 + 3) 3 CU Trad CU IE
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-in Q: How useful for your learning is the addition of clicker questions compared to pure lecture with no clicker questions? Pure lecture much more useful Pure lecture more useful Same Lecture with clickers more useful Lecture with clickers much more useful % of students 0%0%10%20%30%40%50% 82% of students 16 courses, 400 student responses Upper-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.