Active-engagement in large lecture environments. Dedra Demaree , Assistant Prof. of Physics, OSU (Purple slides: SMED PhD student Sissi Li Dark blue slides: Physics Masters thesis Jennifer Roth) May 20, 2011.
Dedra Demaree, Assistant Prof. of Physics, OSU
(Purple slides: SMED PhD student Sissi Li
Dark blue slides: Physics Masters thesis Jennifer Roth)
May 20, 2011
IntroLit. ReviewMethod Data Analysis ConclusionScience IS Social
IntroLit. ReviewMethod Data Analysis ConclusionScientific Discourse in the Classroom
IntroLit. ReviewMethod Data Analysis ConclusionSpecific Methods Employed:
Physical arrangement of classroom features.
Expose students to risk-free environment
Encourage students to question (not just ‘ask’!)
Construct identities for students as “sensemakers.”
Ask questions to elicit student ideas -> ASK QUESTIONS YOU DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO!
Let students lead class discussions, and answer each other’s questions
Wait between posing question and listening to student reasoning
Curricular model: ISLE (Investigative science learning environment
Pedagogical model: LESS LECTURE AND MORE SCALE-UP (student centered active learning environment for undergraduate programs)
Students participate in social interactions & make meaning of their experiences in class to build a shared repertoire of knowledge
Engage students in physics practices
Development of a classroom community of practice
normalized FCI gain = 0.40
**roughly same before and after implementation of studio – noticeable jump from pre-ISLE
Student buy in to social learning and develop identities of central members of classroom community?
Set meta-goals and write classroom activities aimed at supporting them
Teacher discusses subtleties of open-ended problem solving through lecture
Teacher models discourse via interacting with groups during PI
Students adapt discourse practices within groups
Are goals met? Refine process and scaffold in new meta-goals
Post-class analysis of researcher observations, and student and teacher dialogue
Classroom community can be encouraged during ‘lecture mode’ where students justify reasoning and provide explanations without direct prompting
Can you explain that more?
What is your understanding so far?
The student then explained their reasoning, and a second student immediately understood their viewpoint, and chimed in with a great explanation for the first student. The second student had held the same view a few minutes prior and had just come to understand my explanation and had made sense of it himself using that ‘if then’ reasoning.
In lecture, a student interrupted with a question. Instead of launching into another explanation, teacher asked for his existing knowledge. Teacher is acting in the role of the broker, helping the student practice dialoging in a scientific fashion.
Which of the following explanations were consistent with our observation experiments?
Prompt: “think about it in terms of 211 ideas” (applying mechanics ideas from fall term to the winter term course). Voting Question: An object hangs motionless from a spring. When the object is pulled down, the sum of the elastic potential energy of the spring and the gravitational potential energy of the object of the Earth
2. stays the same
Based on Newton’s 2nd law, predict what will happen to the reading of the spring scale when the mass is accelerated upward (a>0), then moves at constant velocity, then is accelerated (a<0) to a stop. JUSTIFY YOUR PREDICTION WITH FORCE DIAGRAMS!!http://paer.rutgers.edu/pt3/experiment.php?topicid=3&exptid=172
magnetic field with the plane of the loop
perpendicular to the direction of the field.
If a current is made to flow through the loop
in the sense shown by the arrows, the field
exerts on the loop:
1. a net force.
2. a net torque.
3. a net force and a net torque.
4. neither a net force nor a net torque.
A rectangular loop is placed in a uniform magnetic field with the plane of the loop perpendicular to the direction of the field. (IGNORE the current in the loop – I just re-used the other diagram) Which of the following will NOT increase the amount of magnetic flux through the loop?
2. Increasing the strength of the magnetic field
3. Rotating the loop through an angle of 90 degrees
HOW ON TASK DO WE NEED OUR STUDENTS TO BE??A car goes around an upward curve (like a large speed bump) while maintaining a constant speed. Which of the following is an accurate representation of the VERTICAL forces on the car? (Pay attention to the length of the vectors) g = ground, e = earth, c = car
ACCEPTED that active
engagement is a
necessary but not
sufficient for improving
student learning gains!!
IntroLit. Review Method Data Analysis Conclusion
Intro Lit. Review Method Data Analysis Conclusion(Jennifer’s summary) What can I do to foster meaningful scientific discussions in my classroom?
IntroLit. Review Method Data Analysis ConclusionBibliography for Jen’s lit review
 American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science for All Americans, (1990), <www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm>.
 J. Osborne, Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse, Science 328, 463 (2010).
 R. A. Duschl, Quality Argumentation and Epistemic Criteria, in Argumentation in Science Education (Springer, 2008).
 National Research Council, National Science Educations Standards, (1996), <www.nap.edu/openbook.php.record_id=4962>.
 P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 60(7), 627 (1992).
 R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66(1), 64 (1998).
 E. K. Henriksen, C. Angell, The role of ‘talking physics’ in an undergraduate physics class using an electronic audience response system, Phys. Ed. 45(3), 279 (2010).
 M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. Wieman, J. K. Knight, N. Guild, T. T. Su, Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions, Science 323, 122 (2009).
 K. M. Andre, Cooperative Learning: An Inside Story, Phys. Teach. 37, 356 (1999).
 P. H. Scott, E. R. Mortimer, O. G. Aguiar, The Tension Between Authoritative and Dialogic Discourse: A Fundamental Characteristic of Meaning Making Interactions in High School Science Lessons, Sci. Educ. 90(4), 605 (2006).
 P. Heller, M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60(7), 637 (1992).
C. H. Crouch, J. Watkins, A. P. Fagen, E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Engaging Students One-on-One, All at Once, Reviews in Physics Education Research 1, 1 (2007).
C. S. Kalman, M. Milner-Bolotin, T. Antimirova, Comparison of the effectiveness of collaborative groups and peer instruction in a large introductory physics course for science majors, Can. J. Phys. 88, 325 (2010).
S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, Sustaining educational reforms in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 (2008).
K. S. Meyer, The Integration of Interactive Activities into Lecture in Upper Division Physics Theory Courses, Masters Project Report, Oregon State University, 1998.
M. E. Pieczura, Dare to Disagree as Scientists, Science and Children, 25 (2009).
E. H. van Zee, J. Minstrell, Reflective discourse: developing shared understandings in a physics classroom, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 19(2), 209 (1997).
E. Schiller, J. Joseph, A framework for facilitating equitable discourse in science classrooms, Science Scope, 57 (2010).
C. Turpen, N. D. Finkelstein, Not all interactive enegagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of Peer Instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020101 (2009).
J. A. Bianchini, Where Knowledge Construction, Equity, and Context Intersect: Student Learning of Science in Small Groups, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34(10), 1039 (1997).
S. L. Li, D. Demaree, Studying the Effectiveness of Lecture Hall Design on Group Interactions, presented at AAPT Winter 2009 Meeting, Chicago IL.