When Top Down Meets Bottom Up Supporting Educational
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 Ph. D. students: Postdocs/Scientists: Wendy Adams Stephanie Chasteen Steven Goldhaber Laurel Mayhew Archie Paulson Noah Podolefsky School of Ed collaborators: Chandra Turpen Lauren Kost Charles Baily Ben Spike +recently graduated: 4 with Ph. D, 1 with MSc. 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 Implementing, sustaining, spreading of educational reforms: What are the critical features? How and where do they arise? • Lower-division course transformation • Upper-division course transformation • Faculty (support and development)
Force concept inventory traditional lecture interactive engagement fraction of courses less learning more learning normalized learning gain R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64 -74 (‘ 98).
Lower-division at CU
Transformations at CU
Tutorial Success (at UW) D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. Mc. Dermott, (1981). Am. J. Phys. 49 (3), 242.
Replication (at CU) S. Pollock, PERC 2004.
curriculum matters
Back to the FCI/FMCE traditional lecture interactive engagement R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64 -74 (‘ 98). S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 (2008)
Physics 2: BEMA pre/post trad post F 04 (N=319) Post: 59% IE post Kohlmeyer et al S 05 (N=232): 59% S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 (2008)
Why the variation? pedagogy & faculty matter
Characterizing Faculty Practice % of time Chandra Turpen Leaves Stage Ans. St. Q’s Discuss w/st.
institutionalization How did this happen?
Phys. Tec (APS, AIP, NSF) External support CCLI (NSF) LA-TEST (NSF) STEM-TP (NSF) ‘ 04 ‘ 06 ‘ 05 ‘ 08 ‘ 07 Provost Dean (Arts and Sciences) Institutional support Dep’t: Team Teaching Dep’t: Classroom Space ‘ 04 P 1 Dep’t course fees: equipment ‘ 06 ‘ 05 P 1 Phys I Faculty involvement ‘ 08 ‘ 07 4 5 8 9 3 5 4 11 13 14 6 7 3 P 1 10 8 P 1 12 11 4 Phys II P 1 P 2 3 3
Dissemination (beyond PER): Critical features (? ? ) • Initiators/proponents • Materials • Faculty buy-in and pedagogy • Institutional support
Upper-division
Why transform upper division? ? Lecture with clickers Can our majors learn better from interactive techniques adapted from introductory physics? Washington Tutorials
Clickers in Upper-division at CU Course Sp 04 Sp 09 Mech & Math II EM II QM II Solid State Stat Mech Optics Grad AMO Ø 12 non-PER and 2 PER faculty
Case study: E&M I: • • • What Changed? Interactive classroom Concept Tests Homework Help Sessions Tutorials How did this happen? • Institutional support - SEI postdoc involvement (KP) - Learning Assistant • Faculty collaboration • Explicit learning goals Students debate a concept test
Assessing transformations: the CUE CU Trad 100 90 CU IE Team teaching (PER-2 + 3) 3 80 Average Score (%) Development (PER-1) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Trad IE 1 IE 2 IE 3 IE/transformed courses
institutionalization? How did this happen?
Faculty buy-in Faculty ownership - Designing goals - Developing materials - Personalizing materials 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? Lecture with clickers much more useful 82% of students Lecture with clickers more useful Same Pure lecture more useful Pure lecture much more useful 0% Upper-div courses using clickers: 16 courses, 400 student responses 10% 20% 30% % of students 40% 50%
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
- Slides: 28