1. Philip W. Young Dept. of Chemistry & Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin-Platteville, Platteville, WI 53818 Correlation between FCI Gains and Interactive Engagement In Spring 2009 the physics program at the University of Wisconsin – Platteville moved into a new building with three nearly identical studio classrooms (capacity 56). Although the classrooms were designed to allow for more interactive engagement in the introductory physics classes, they are still compatible with lecture instruction, and instructors are free to adopt any teaching style they wish. The transition to studio instruction has been supported by an NSF CCLI grant #0633583 Faculty-Flexible Lecture-Lab Instruction in Physics. Part of the project called for an assessment of the effectiveness of different teaching styles in the studio environment. This poster reports on the results of this assessment in calculus-based Physics I. Assessment Methods and Participation  Force Concept Inventory (FCI) administered in calculus-based Physics I in the first and last weeks of the semester Spring 2008 – Spring 2011  FCI administered on-line through a secure course management system  Participation is voluntary, although students are rewarded for participation  24 of 25 sections taught by 9 instructors participated; 16 sections had >50% participation  633 students took both the pre- and post- tests (~55% of enrollment) Studio Index (SI) The 9 instructors adopted different approaches to teaching their classes. A studio index (SI) was developed to quantify the level of interactive engagement in a class (Table I).  Note: the SI is the same as the Interactive Engagement Index (IEI) in the abstract.  Each section was assigned an SI based on an interview with the instructor.  SI values ranged from 1.5 to 5.5 FCI vs. Studio Index  Normalized gains were calculated for each section using only those students who took both the pre- and post- test.  The correlation between the FCI normalized gain and SI was 0.85 for the 16 sections with >50% participation.  Figure 1 shows the normalized gain versus the studio index for each section  Sections were grouped by studio index to increase statistics (dotted outlines). Each group represents similar levels of activity/interactivity Category 2 (SI = 1.5 – 2.25)162 participating students Category 4 (SI = 3.5 – 4.25)194 Category 3 (SI = 2.5 – 3.25)184 Category 5 (SI = 4.5 – 5.5) 93  Average gains were calculated for all students in each category. These gains are included in Figure 1.  Uncertainties are based on the standard deviations of all pre- and post- scores and the number of students in each category. Figure 1: FCI gain as a function of teaching style. о = sections with >50% participation;  = section with <50% participation;  = group averages. Figure 2: FCI gain as a function of teaching style for different grade levels This project is funded in part by NSF-DUE CCLI #0633583 Conclusions  Normalized gain on the FCI appears to increase with increased interactive engagement, even for incremental increases as reflected in the Studio Index.  Students in all passing grade levels appear to benefit from increased interactive engagement in a studio classroom Table I: Studio Index FactorHow assignedRange Amount of Active Learning % of time students are involved in active learning divided by 20 0 - 5 Laboratory To what degree is the lab an integrated part of the class, contributing to the students’ understanding of physics principles. 0 - 1 ConceptsMeasure of how much the students are actively engaged with physics concepts. Group interaction is taken into account 0 – 1 Group Problem Solving Measure of students’ involvement in group problem solving during class. Group management is taken into account. 0 – 1 Hands-on LearningMeasure of the use of hands-on activities to reinforce physics principles. Students must be actively engaged in the activity, at least making predictions, answering questions, etc. 0 – 1 Class InteractionMeasure of interactive engagement through large group or full-class sharing 0 - 1 Studio Index (SI)0 - 10 FCI vs. SI for each grade level  FCI scores in SI category were also sorted by the students’ grades and average gains were calculated for each letter grade in each category. o F’s were not included because failing students rarely took the post- test. Students must achieve a C to go on to Physics II.  Figure 2 shows the normalized gain as a function of the SI category for each letter grade.