when top down meets bottom up supporting educational transformation in a physics department n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 87 Views
  • Uploaded on

Steven Pollock , Noah Finkelstein, Katherine Perkins, Stephanie Chasteen, Michael Dubson, Steven Goldhaber, Chandra Turpen CU Boulder For AAPT July 2009. When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department' - benjy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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 BoulderFor AAPT

July 2009

When Top Down Meets Bottom Up: Supporting Educational Transformation in a Physics Department

acknowledgements

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

Acknowledgements

Ph. D. students:

Chandra Turpen

Lauren Kost

Charles Baily

Ben Spike

+recently graduated: 4 with PhD, 1 with MSc.

School of Ed collaborators:Valerie Otero

Derek Briggs

Kara Gray

Bud Talbott

May Lee

Heidi Iverson

Physics faculty:

Michael Dubson

Noah Finkelstein

Kathy Perkins

Steven Pollock

Carl Wieman

Postdocs/Scientists:

Wendy Adams

Stephanie Chasteen

Steven Goldhaber

Laurel Mayhew

Archie Paulson

Noah Podolefsky

outline
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)
slide4

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).

tutorial success at uw
Tutorial Success (at UW)

D.E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, (1981). Am. J. Phys.49 (3), 242.

replication at cu
Replication (at CU)

S.Pollock, PERC 2004.

slide10

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
Physics 2: BEMA pre/post

trad post

IE post

Kohlmeyer et al

F04 (N=319) Post: 59% S05 (N=232): 59%

S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 (2008)

pedagogy faculty matter

pedagogy & faculty matter

Why the variation?

characterizing faculty practice chandra turpen
Characterizing Faculty PracticeChandra Turpen

% of time

Ans. St. Q’s

Leaves Stage

Discuss w/st.

institutionalization

institutionalization

How did this happen?

slide15

PhysTec (APS, AIP,NSF)

External

support

CCLI (NSF)

LA-TEST (NSF)

STEM-TP (NSF)

‘06

‘08

‘04

‘07

‘05

Provost

Dean (Arts and Sciences)

Institutionalsupport

Dep’t: Team Teaching

Dep’t: Classroom Space

Dep’t course fees: equipment

‘06

‘08

‘04

‘07

‘05

P2

9

5

5

14

8

P2

13

4

4

3

11

3

4

8

P1

P1

P1

3

P1

P1

7

12

3

10

11

6

Phys I

Faculty involvement

Phys II

dissemination beyond per critical features

Dissemination (beyond PER):Critical features (??)

Initiators/proponents

Materials

Faculty buy-in and pedagogy

Institutional support

why transform upper division
Why transform upper division?

?

Can our majors learn better from interactive techniques adapted from introductory physics?

Lecture with clickers

Washington Tutorials

slide19

Clickers in Upper-division at CU

  • 12 non-PER and 2 PER faculty

Sp04

Sp09

case study e m i
Case study: E&M I:

Institutional support

- SEI postdoc involvement (KP)

- Learning Assistant

Faculty collaboration

Explicit learning goals

Students debate a concept test

What Changed?

How did this happen?

  • Interactive classroom
  • Concept Tests
  • Homework
  • Help Sessions
  • Tutorials
assessing transformations the cue

Development (PER-1)

Team teaching (PER-2 + 3)

3

CU Trad

CU IE

100

Assessing transformations: the CUE

90

80

70

60

50

Average Score (%)

40

30

20

10

0

IE1

Trad

IE2

IE3

IE/transformed courses

institutionalization1

institutionalization?

How did this happen?

slide23
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 in
Student buy-in

82% of students

Upper-div courses using clickers:

16 courses, 400 student responses

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

% of students

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

Lecture with clickers more useful

Same

Pure lecturemore useful

Pure lecturemuch more useful

critical features

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

Summary/conclusionsDissemination 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 sustainability1

Summary/conclusionsDissemination and sustainability?

Towards a model/theory of STEM educational change.

questions
Questions?

Much more at: per.colorado.edu