Joint AAPT/PERC Session (2:30-4:30)
Alternative Approaches to Assessment in Physics Teaching and Research in Physics Learning
Location: Special Events Ctr., Jordan A
Presider: Dewey Dykstra, Boise State
Univ.
2:30 - Alternative Ways to Develop and Assess Conceptual and Process
Knowledge*
Alan Van Heuvelen, The Ohio State Univ., 614-292-6956, avanh@mps.ohio-state.edu
We will illustrate two different ways of helping to develop and assess student
conceptual and process knowledge. One method involves the use of multiple
representations of processes (words, sketches, diagrams, graphs, bar charts, and
equations). Students are given one representation and are asked to construct the
others. The method helps students link abstract word, graph, and equation
representations to more concrete sketches and diagrams. The method assesses
their ability to read and write using the symbolic language of physics. The
second assessment method involves student design of experiments that can be used
to test a physics concept. Students provide with their design a physics analysis
concerning the expected outcome of the experiment. These design experiments help
students develop higher-level cognitive skills. The student designs reveal
alternative conceptual beliefs and can serve not only as an assessment tool, but
also as a research tool.
*Supported in part by grants from the National Science
Foundation.
3:00pm - Formative and Summative Assessment in a Physics Class: Time to
Change
Eugenia Etkina, Rutgers, The State Univ. of New Jersey, 732-932-7496, ext.
8339, etkina@rci.rutgers.edu
The tests we give students send them explicit messages about what we want them
to learn. Multiple-choice plug-and-chug problems and conceptual questions send
different messages. Are there other messages we should be sending? Can we assess
students’ ability to ask questions, evaluate arguments, pose problems, and
design investigations while assessing their understanding of physics concepts
and laws? Do these nontraditional assessments add to our understanding of
student difficulties with physics? Do they help our students develop
higher-level thinking skills? Are they difficult to use?
This talk focuses on several nontraditional formative and summative assessments
such as Weekly Reports, Convincing questions, What is Wrong? questions and How
Do You Know? questions used in introductory physics courses. Performance on
these questions is correlated with student performance on more traditional types
of questions. Implications for instruction will be discussed.
3:30 - Diagnostic Assessment*
Pamela A. Kraus, Talaria Inc., 206-748-0464, ext. 23, pamkraus@talariainc.com
Jim Minstrell
Abstract: More and more teachers are being asked to make instructional decisions
based on the results of classroom-based assessment. Classroom activities in
support of formative assessment include listening for common student conceptions
and asking questions to elicit known conceptions. These activities require a
deep understanding of the research on student learning, skill at creating and
asking questions, and enough classroom time (or instructors) to interact with
all students. To assist teachers with formative assessment, we are taking
advantage of both a system for cataloging research on student thinking and
recent advances in technology. In this talk, we will describe how we are
designing web-delivered diagnostic assessments based on facets of student
thinking.
*Supported by NSF grants #9906098 and #0129406.
4:00pm - Assessment for Student-Understanding-Driven Instruction
Dewey I. Dykstra, Boise State Univ., 208-426-3105, ddykstra@boisestate.edu
If new student understandings are the desired outcome of instruction, then
students’ understandings and the degree to which students feel these
understandings match the phenomena they are about MUST be the center of
attention for the students and the instructor. While the students are in
possession of their own understandings and can examine them at any time, the
instructor has to rely on communication to construct her understanding of the
students’ understandings. The instructor needs assessment to make decisions
about how to respond and where to direct the students’ attentions, not for the
purpose of grading students. It has to be a natural part of the classroom
process and facilitate the students’ deliberations. Examples of alternative
assessments, including small group posters, written essays, class consensus
documents, and student comments on discussion forums, will be displayed. What
can be drawn about student understanding will be discussed in each case.
Evening Poster Session and Buffet Dinner (included in registration fee)
Time: 4:30-9:30 pm (Buffet 5:30-8:30)
Location: Jordan Ballroom C & E
Plenary Session
Time: 8:30am-10:00am
Location: Jordan Ballroom A & B
8:30 - NSF Support for Physics Education Research and Related Activities at the Undergraduate Level
Duncan E. McBride, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, Virginia 22230. dmcbride@NSF.gov, (703) 292-4630.
I will describe some of the projects NSF is supporting in physics education research. In addition, current opportunities for support will be described and speculations on future directions will be given.
9:00 - Implementing Tutorials in Introductory Physics at an Inner-City University in Chicago* - Mel Sabella, Department of Chemistry and Physics, Chicago State University,Chicago, IL, (773) 995-2172, ms-sabella@csu.edu
Tutorials in Introductory Physics1 are widely used and have proven to be effective for many students in the introductory physics courses. Despite this, there are currently few research results that document their effectiveness at inner-city schools in which students may have weak preparation in mathematics and reading. In the past year we have begun implementing the Tutorials in some of the algebra-based and calculus-based introductory physics classes at Chicago State University (CSU). CSU is a public, comprehensive, urban institution located on Chicago's south side. In this talk, I will discuss some of our preliminary research results regarding the effectiveness of the Tutorials in promoting student learning with this population. The talk will also highlight the importance of utilizing multiple means of assessment in evaluating student understanding. *Supported by an NIH Extramural Associates Research Development Award (1) L.C. McDermott, P.S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, "Tutorials in Introductory Physics," Prentice Hall, First Edition, 2002.
9:30 - Raising the Bar with Physics Education Research
Stamatis Vokos, Seattle Pacific University, 3307 Third Ave. West, Seattle, WA 98119. vokos@spu.edu, (206) 281-2140
"Physics by Inquiry"(1) has been available and used widely for many years. This curriculum is primarily intended for the preparation of pre-service and in-service K-12 teachers in courses ranging from the 100 to 400-levels. It is also appropriate for use with other students, including non-science majors and undergraduates who are inadequately prepared in science. Given this wide range of populations, what should be the standards for performance of pre-service or in-service high school teachers in a 400-level Physics by Inquiry course? Such a course has been taught for many years at the University of Washington. Several decades of physics education research have made it possible to set very high standards and to enable the pre-service and in-service teachers who have participated in these courses to develop a deep understanding of the science content that is typically taught at the pre-college level. On many topics, the performance of students in the 400-level "Physics by Inquiry" course far exceeds that of science (even physics) majors who have had only traditional instruction. (1) L.C. McDermott and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, "Physics by Inquiry: An Introduction to Physics and the Physical Sciences," Volumes I and II, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.
REFRESHMENT BREAK and POSTER SESSIONS (10:00 – 10:45 am)
Location: Jordan Ballroom C & E
BREAKOUT SESSIONS (10:45 am – 12:15 pm)
Breakout Session I – Issues related to quantitative methods and data analysis in PER
Location: Hatch Ballroom C&D
David E. Meltzer, Iowa State University and
Richard R. Hake, Indiana University
A number of issues are always present, implicitly or explicitly, when using quantitative methods to carry out PER. A few of these include: identifying targeted outcome variables as well as possible confounding variables, distinguishing among the criteria measured by different diagnostic instruments, validity and reliability of diagnostic instruments, possible biases in sample selection, statistical significance vs. "practical" significance of observed effects, criteria for assessing magnitude of effect (e.g., normalized gain, effect size, etc.). We will present a short introduction based on our experiences in confronting these issues. We will then invite participants to provide written questions based on issues that have arisen in their own experiences, and these will be presented for open discussion among all participants.
Breakout Session II – Supporting claims about physics thinking and learning using qualitative research methods
Location: Hatch Ballroom B
Andy Johnson, Black Hills State University and
Cody Sandifer, Towson State University
Without the support provided by research-based understandings of students' thinking and learning, PER would make a nearly random walk through a vast space of possible teaching methods. Making progress requires knowing as much as possible about how physics students think, and how they learn. But how do we really know what students are thinking or learning? Qualitative research methods, used in a variety of approaches by many PER groups, give us ways to figure these things out as best we can, and to support our claims convincingly. This session addresses methods to collect data that are as reliable or accurate as possible, and to analyze data with the aim of getting meaningful results.
Breakout Session III – Effective methods for the use, creation, analysis, and interpretation of short-answer student conceptual evaluations and questions concerning their possible limitations for predicting student performance
Location: Barnwell Room
Michael C. Wittmann, University of Maine and
Ronald K. Thornton, Center for Science and Mathematics Teaching, Tufts University.
Carefully constructed short answer or multiple-choice conceptual evaluations can be very valuable as a means to evaluate student learning. They are relatively easy to misuse and very difficult to construct. As a research and a teaching community we must be very sensitive to potential problems associated with the conclusions we might draw from such instruments. We will discuss important considerations when using, creating, analyzing and interpreting such evaluations. Two short case studies will be given as a basis for discussion. One case study will compare the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). In what ways do these two diagnostics differ? The other case study will focus on students who have favorable expectations as indicated in the Maryland Physics Expectations Survey (MPEX) but who do not go on to show correspondingly high normalized gains on the FMCE. Why don’t students with favorable expectations about physics make high normalized gains?
Breakout Session IV – Long-term use of a conceptual diagnostic to compare PER-based instruction with the status quo
Location: Hatch Ballroom A
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr., Boise State University
Some conceptual diagnostics are designed to reveal student conceptions and some are designed to reveal if students know the canonical conceptions. The former type can enable simultaneous measures of multiple conceptions. Such multiple simultaneous measures cast standard measures such as effect size and normalized gain in a new light and make possible new related measures such as negative effect size and normalized loss. Thornton’s conceptual dynamics(1) will be shown along with these results. Graphs of such information by student can be highly revealing and instructive to those devising instruction. Comparisons between the particular PER-based instruction in this study and traditional instruction reveal the mythical or ideological nature of a number of standard assumptions about instruction in physics. A brief introduction to all of the measures will be given with examples. An open-ended discussion/Q&A will follow concerning the nature of the measures and the import of the results on the standard assumptions about physics instruction.
(1) R. K. Thornton, “Conceptual Dynamics: Following Changing Student Views of Force and Motion,” In The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of ICUPE, E. F. Redish & J. S. Rigden (eds) (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 1997) Abstract online at http://ase.tufts.edu/csmt/html/abstracts/icupe_cd.html.
PERC LUNCHEON (12:30 – 2:00 pm)
Location: Jordan Ballroom A & B
The PERC Why? Awards (otherwise known as the PERKY’s)
Tom Foster, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville and Kathy Harper, The Ohio State University
Closing Comments
Dewey Dykstra, Boise State University