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