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