Henderson Poster - 2009 Physics Education Reserach Conference

Th IImpact The p t off Ph Physics y i Education Ed ti Research R h on th the T Teaching hi off IIntroductory t d t Q Quantitative tit ti Ph Physics i Charles Henderson* Henderson , Melissa H H.

† Dancy y

*Western Michigan University *Western University, † Johnson C. C Smith S University

63.5% 63 5% 56 3 56.3

All Faculty F lty

Peer Instruction Ranking Tasks I t Interactive ti Lecture L t D Demonstrations t ti Cooperative Group Problem Solving Phy l t Physlets Just in Time Teaching Context Rich Problems T t i l in Tutorials i Introductory I t d t y Physics Phy i Real Time Physics Labs Workshop Physics TIPERS TIPERS: T k Tasks I pi d by Inspired by Physics Education Research Activity Based Problem Tutorials A ti Learning Active L i g Problem P bl Sh t Sheets E p i Experiment t Problems P bl SCALE-UP Modeling Video Lab Open Source Physics Socratic Dialog Inducing Labs Overview Case Study Physics Op Source Open S T t i l Tutorials Investigative Science Learning Environment Thi ki g Problems Thinking P bl Workbook for Introductory Physics

49 3 49.3 48.2 47 7 47.7 47 0 47.0 45 4 45.4 43.0 43 0 38 7 38.7 34 5 34.5 34 3 34.3 32 7 32.7 32 4 32.4 30.4 24 7 24.7 21 8 21.8 21 1 21.1 20.9 20.8 20 8 18 8 18.8 18 5 18.5 17 3 17.3 16.3 15 1 15.1

TABLE 2: Ranking of the 24 RBIS according to level of Knowledge ( (percentage t off faculty f lt who h indicate i di t that th t they th are currentt users, former users, users or knowledgeable nonusers of the RBIS). RBIS)

29.2% 29 2% 15 4 15.4 13 9 13.9 13 7 13.7 13.0 13 0 84 8.4 83 8.3 79 7.9 73 7.3 6.7 66 6.6 6.0 6 0 59 5.9 40 4.0 33 3.3 3.2 31 3.1 19 1.9 19 1.9 17 1.7 17 1.7 16 1.6

Response Rate

Useable Responses

# off # off Colleges Faculty

% off faculty

# off # off Colleges Faculty

Two Year College Two-Year

1072

2560

53 7% 53.7%

128

186

Four-Year C College g w/ Physics Bachelor D Degree

511

2700

50 6% 50.6%

128

255

Four-Year F Y C College ll w/ Physics Graduate Degree

252

6300

48 2% 48.2%

89

281

TABLE 11. Overview of population and web survey sample for faculty in each type yp of institution. Population p estimates are from reports p published by the AIP. AIP

POSTER TEMPLATE BY:

www PosterPresentations com www.PosterPresentations.com

All Users U

CGPS (N=96) (N 96)

RTPL (N=47) (N 47)

16 9% 16.9%

33 3% 33.3%

8 3% 8.3%

25 5% 25.5%

35 9 35.9

38 4 38.4

16 7 16.7

53 2 53.2

41 0 41.0

21 2 21.2

47 9 47.9

21 3 21.3

62 6.2

71 7.1

27 1 27.1

00 0.0

100

100

100

100

TABLE 4: Extent of modification identified by self self-reported reported users of all or part of each of four RBIS: Peer Instruction (PI), (PI) Ranking Tasks (RT), Cooperative Group Problem Solving (CGPS), and Real Time Physics Labs (RTPL). (RTPL) The percentages listed are the percentage of users within each of the RBIS categories who answered the question. question

Self-Reported Use of Peer Instruction •Only O ly 6.2% 6 2% off faculty f lty use five fi components p t off Peer P Instruction Results from Cooperative Group Problem Instruction. Solving are similarly small (1.0%).

16 9% 16.9%

53 1% 53.1%

28 1% 28.1%

25 0% 25.0%

50 0% 50.0%

2. I made some 2 relativelyy minor modifications

35.9

47.8

33.3

30.4

40.6

69.6

7.2

14.5

14.5

3. I used some of the ideas, but made significant i ifi t modifications difi ti

41.0

62.0

24.1

27.8

36.7

63.3

6.3

15.2

13.9

4. I am not familiar enough with the developer's description to answer the question

62 6.2

72 7 72.7

18 2 18.2

91 9.1

91 9.1

36 4 36.4

00 0.0

91 9.1

00 0.0

100.0

54.9

27.2

26.7

37.9

63.6

6.2

14.9

13.8

1.1 1 1 09 0.9

TABLE 3: Ranking of the 24 RBIS according to level of Knowledge ( (percentage t off faculty f lt who h indicate i di t that th t they th currently tl use the th RBIS). RBIS)

Knowledge

RT (N=99) (N 99)

Components of Peer Instruction

Use

Table 1 shows the number of institutions and faculty in the population and sample, sample the web survey response rate rate, and th number the b off faculty f lty who h responded p d d to t the th survey. y The Th overall response rate was 50.3% 50 3% resulting in 722 useable responses. Population Estimates

I used it basically as described by the developer. I made d some relatively l ti ly minor modifications I usedd some off th the id ideas, but made significant modifications difi ti I am not familiar enough with the developer developer’ss description p to answer this question

PI (N=195) (N 195)

1. I used it basicallyy as described by developer

All Peer Instruction Users

U s 3 of the Uses t 5 com c mpon nen nts

The survey was administered in Fall 2008 by SRC. SRC Sampling was done d att three th types typ off institutions: i tit ti 1)) two t year y colleges, ll g , 2) four year colleges that offer a physics bachelor bachelor’ss degree as the highest physics degree, degree and 3) four year colleges that offer ff a ggraduate d t ddegree g in i physics. phy i SRC staff t ff randomly d ly selected institutions within each of the three types types. Once selected, SRC staff asked department chairs to identify f lty who faculty h were lik likely ly tto meett th the selection l ti criteria it i ffor th the survey Faculty were eligible for the survey if they had taught survey. an introductory quantitative course in the last two years and were full time or permanent employees (i.e, (i e part time time, temporary faculty were not eligible). eligible)

Peer Instruction Physlets C p ti G Cooperative Group pP Problem bl Solving Workshop Physics J st in Time Teaching Just g Tutorials in Introductory Physics Interactive Lecture Demonstrations Activity Based Problem Tutorials R ki g T Ranking Tasks k SCALE UP SCALE-UP Active Learning Problem Sheets M d li g Modeling Real Time Physics Labs Context Rich Problems O Overview i C Case St Study dy Ph Physics y i Open Source Physics Investigative Science Learning Environment TIPERS: Tasks Inspired by Phy i Education Physics Ed ti R Research h Open Source Tutorials Video Lab W kb k ffor Introductory Workbook I t d t y Ph Physics y i Experiment Problems Socratic Dialog Inducing Labs Thi ki g P Thinking Problems bl

RBIS

U s 4 of the Uses t 5 com c mpon nen nts

A web-based web based survey was developed by the authors in consultation with researchers at the American Institute of Phy i Statistical Physics St ti ti l Research R h Center C t ((SRC). (SRC)) O One part p t off the th web survey asked faculty to rate their level of knowledge and/or use of 24 specific RBIS. RBIS The following five categories were used: d 1)) I currently tly use allll or part p t off it (current ( t user),),) 2)) I have used all or part of it in the past (former user), user) 3) I am familiar with it, but have never used it (knowledgeable non ser)) 4)) I’I’vee heard the name nonuser), name, bbutt do not kno know m much ch else about it (little knowledge), knowledge) 5) I have never heard of it (no knowledge). o edge)

All Faculty F lty

F lty S Faculty Self-Reported lf R p t d M Modifications difi ti

U s alll 5 Uses com c mpon nen nts

M th d Methods

RBIS

F lty Use Faculty U

W ole cclass vo Who oting (m multiple e tim mess every classs) c

This study Thi t d was focused f d on college-level ll l l quantitative tit ti physics. h i By B quantitative physics we are referring to the algebra algebra- or calculus calculus-based based introductory physics classes that often go by the names of “college college pphysics” y or “universityy physics”. p y

F lty K Faculty Knowledge l dg

•RBIS RBIS are not typically used as recommended by the developer developer. •faculty f l y do d not always l y realize li the h extent off modification difi i they have made. made

S dentts so Stud olve e/disscusss qualitative/c q concep ptua al prob p blem m (m multiple times everry classs) e

11. Which RBIS do faculty know about? 2 Which 2. Whi h RBIS ddo ffaculty lty use?? 3 To what extent are RBIS modified during use? 3.

•48.1% •48 1% of faculty say that they use 1 or more RBIS •In In general, general faculty use at B B.A. A institutions is higher than th t att ttwo yyear colleges that ll g or Grad G d institutions. i tit ti

S dentts diiscu Stud uss idea as in small grroup ps (mulltiple e timess ev veryy cla ass))

Research Questions

•87.3% 87 3% of faculty report that they know about 1 or more RBIS RBIS. •50.3% 0 3% % know k about b six i or more. •In general, general faculty knowledge at B B.A. A institutions is higher than that at two year colleges or Grad institutions. institutions

T dition Trad nal Leccture e (fo or nearrly Ever n E ry C Class orr multiple m e tim mes eve ery cclasss)

The last 30 years has seen the development and di dissemination i ti off manyy Research-Based R h B d Instructional I t ti l Strategies (RBIS) for use in introductory college-level college level physics courses. Although substantial time and money has ggone into i t developing d l pi g these th RBIS, RBIS little littl effort ff t has h gone g into i t understanding whether typical physics instructors use or even know about these products. In this poster we describe and present the results of a web survey designed to document the degree to which Physics Education Research ((PER)) hhas iimpacted p t d th the tteaching hi g off iintroductory t d t y physics. phy i

Results: Modifications

Results: Use

C cep Conc ptual qu uestionss (u used on n alll tessts))

Results: Knowledge

All Peer A P r Instru uctiion Users

Problem

68 8% 6.3% 68.8% 6 3% 18.8% 18 8% 18.8% 18 8%

TABLE 5: Instructor use of developer developer-recommended recommended aspects of Peer Instruction. Instruction Table represents all self-described self described users of Peer Instruction. Respondents p are broken into four categories g based on their self-described self described degree of modification of Peer Instruction. Instruction Percentages g reported p are the ppercentage g of respondents p within a particular category. category

Additional Information

FIGURE 2. 2 Percentage of instructors who report using X or more RBIS. RBIS FIGURE 1. 1 Percentage of instructors who report knowing about X or more RBIS.

Conclusions

• Dissemination efforts have impacted the knowledge and practice of many faculty, faculty but there is room for improvement improvement. • Faculty knowledge of RBIS appears to be relatively widespread. widespread • RBIS are typically not used as recommended by the developer and faculty do not always realize the extent of modification they have made. Additional work is needed to understand more about why and how faculty make k th these modifications difi ti and d th the extent t t to t which hi h modifications difi ti are ttypically i ll constructive t ti or destructive. d t ti • Because B off the th high high level l l off modifications, difi ti , change h g agents g t mayy bbe more successful f l if th theyy provide p id flexible fl ibl curricula i l and d substantial b t ti l support pp t and d guidance g id during d i g th the iimplementation pl t ti and d customization t i ti pprocess.

Email:

[email protected] Charles Henderson@wmich edu mhdancy@JCSU EDU [email protected]

Web:

http://homepages wmich edu/~chenders/ http://homepages.wmich.edu/~chenders/

Acknowledgements This poster is based upon work supported by the by th N National ti l Science S i Foundation F d ti under d Grant No. No 0715698. 0715698 We wish to thank Susan White of SRC for her work in d l pi g andd administering developing d i i t i g the th webb survey as well as the physics instructors who took part in the survey.