Hands-On Physics: A Workshop Style Course for Non-Science

Majors

David P. Jackson

Santa Clara University

A Little Background

• Curriculum Development Project Titled Workshop (Physical) Science

• Development– David P. Jackson and Priscilla W. Laws, 1994– Scott Franklin, 1997– Funding from Dana Foundation, NSF, FIPSE

• Currently Making Final Refinements for Publication with J. Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Motivation

• Very Important Audience!– Teachers, members of congress, business

owners, parents, etc.– Must satisfy lab science requirement

• Do Not Like Science Coming In

• They Like it Even Less Going Out

• Few Curricula Designed for this Audience

Curriculum Model

• Modeled after Workshop Physics– Lectures and labs combined– Students work in small, interactive groups– Inquiry-based, hands-on curriculum– Substantial use of MBL

• Adapted to a Non-Science Major Audience• Guided by Results of Physics Education

Research

Educational Goals

• Positive Attitudes About Science

• Understand the Role of Experiments in Science - “Nature is as Nature Does”

• Theories are Descriptions of Nature

• Comfort with the Process of Science

• Mastery of a Few Topics

• Confidence with Computer Measurement Tools

Topics

• Complete Freedom in Topics• Maintain the Possibility for use in Teacher

Preparation Programs• Current Classroom Tested Units

– Motion, Forces, and Scientific Theories– Heat, Temperature, and Cloud Formation– Light, Sight, and Color– Pressure, Wind, and Weather (under revision)

Course Format

• Design Each Topic into a Modular, Self-Contained Unit for Flexibility

• Designate Approximately Two-Thirds of the Course for “Core Material”

• Allow Approximately One-Third of the Course for Student Projects

Core Material

• Basic Knowledge That All Students Learn Regarding the Topic Under Investigation– Work in 4-person groups through a series of

questions in an activity guide– Make predictions– Carry out small experiments– Discuss results

Student Projects

• A Chance for Students to Take on the Role of a Scientific Investigator– Work in 3-person teams– Write a small proposal– Design and carry out experiments– Analyze data and interpret results– Make a group presentation to class– Write individual project summaries

Specific Student Projects

• River Motion

• The Basics of CD Players

• Design of Airplane Wings

• Temperature of a Flame

• Motion of a Gymnast

• Heat Capacity of Coins

• Terminal Velocity

Implementation at Santa Clara University

• Students are Mostly Upper Middle-Class Coming Directly from High School

• One-Quarter (10 Weeks) Lab Science Req.

• Three 65 Minute Sessions per Week

• Class Limited to 24

• 4 Students per MBL Station

• 6-7 Weeks on Core Material

• 3-4 Weeks on Projects

Room Arrangement

MBL

MBL

MBL MBL

MBL

MBL

Does it Work?

• Yes and No and Yes

• There’s Been Some Great Successes

• There’s Been Some Bitter Disappointments

• Problems Seem to be Under Control

How Well Does it Work?

• Initially, Not All That Well– FMCE gains 0.3– Very dissatisfied students

• At Present, Very Well– FMCE gains > 0.5– Student attitudes extremely positive

FMCE Results - Fall 1999FMCE Fall 1999 Hands-On Physics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1

3

5

7

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

40

42

Qu

esti

on

#

% Correct

Pre-Test

Post-Test

FMCE Results - Fall 1999FMCE - Hands on Physics Fall 1999

22

28

11

17

22

0

10

20

30

40

<0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 0.8+

Fraction of Possible Gain (Avg. 0.49)

% o

f c

las

s

Attitude Survey - Fall 1999Phys 1 Fall 99 Course Evaluations

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

1 2 3Negative - Neutral - Positive

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 5 6 7 8

Specific Attitude Questions

• What Was Your Overall Experience?– 44% Positive, 44% Neutral, 11% Negative

• How do you Think Your Experience Would Have Been Different in a More Traditional Lecture/Lab Course?– 33% Positive, 11% Neutral, 56% Negative

Specific Attitude Questions

• Compared to a More Traditional Lecture/Lab Format, What Did You Think About the Format of this Class?– Enjoyable (72% More 11% Neutral 11% Less)– Difficult (44% More 39% Neutral 17% Less)– Effective (72% More 11% Neutral 11% Less)– Learn (72% More 5.6% Neutral 22% Less)– Remember (67% More 11% Neutral 22% Less)

FMCE Results - Winter 2000FMCE Results Winter 2000 Hands-On Physics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1

3

5

7

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

40

42

Qu

esti

on

#

% Correct

Pre-Test

Post-Test

FMCE Results - Winter 2000FMCE - Hands-on Phys. Winter 2000

13

0

39

2226

0

10

20

30

40

50

0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100

% of possible gain (avg. 60)

% o

f C

las

s

Attitude Survey - Winter 2000Phys 1 Winter 00 Course Evaltuations

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

1 2 3Negative - Neutral - Positive

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 5 6 7 8

Specific Attitude Questions

• What Was Your Overall Experience?– 57% Positive, 30% Neutral, 13% Negative

• How do you Think Your Experience Would Have Been Different in a More Traditional Lecture/Lab Class?– 13% Positive, 9% Neutral, 78% Negative

Specific Attitude Questions

• Compared to a More Traditional Lecture/Lab Format, What Did You Think About the Format of this Class?– Enjoyable (87% More 13% Neutral 0% Less)– Difficult (35% More 30% Neutral 35% Less)– Effective (83% More 13% Neutral 4% Less)– Learn (70% More 22% Neutral 4% Less)– Remember (78% More 22% Neutral 0% Less)

Some Student Comments

– “I would get frustrated sometimes when our group would think, and think, and think and we couldn’t get the answer. But you wouldn’t give it to us either. That was somewhat frustrating to me. But other than that it was all good.”

– “I think the activities and hands on aspect was much better than a lecture. Lectures make me fall asleep and then I don’t know anything.”

– “This class was frustrating because we weren’t given answers but because I had to figure things out for myself I learned a lot more.”

More Student Comments

– “At first I scared by the way the class was structured but once I realized how much I was learning I wish more classes were like this one. I think that this should be stressed more at the beginning so people don’t get discouraged.”

– “I enjoyed the class so much and I felt that Prof. Jackson would make me think of the answers and not just give them to me.”

– “It would be more helpful to summarize what we are supposed to have learned in case our experiments are wrong and we learn wrong information.”

Why is it Working so Well?

• It’s Interactive and Activity-Based– Students discuss specific topics in different

situations many times on many days– They are constantly setting up and analyzing

experiments

• But That’s not Enough!– Activities must be engaging and have relevance– Expectations must not be too high– Classroom dynamics must be appropriate

Why is it Working so Well?

• There are Independent Projects– Students are creative and enjoy the projects– They have control over what happens– They are confident with their understanding

• But That’s not Enough!– Projects must be engaging and have relevance– Expectations must not be too high– Classroom dynamics must be appropriate

Some Potential Problems

• Instructor’s Role is Very Important in this Kind of Course– Resist the urge to simply answer the student’s

questions

– Engage students in a dialogue and lead them into answering their own questions

– Make contact with every group (and student in every session

– Have patience

Some Potential Problems

• Classroom Dynamics– Very different from a traditional class and

students don’t quite know what to make of it• Tell them up front what they’re in for

• Invoke some structure so class doesn’t get too lax, particularly during projects

– Intra-group dynamics can inhibit learning• Mix up work groups a few times

• Assign project groups via High-Middle-Low

Some Potential Problems

• Students Aren’t Sure What’s Expected– Let them know that you are not looking for a

“correct answer”– Praise them when they make good

interpretations of the data– Quiz often - first one early and easy– Be very careful not to show frustration

Some Potential Problems

• Small, Intimate Class Setting can be Ruined by a Few “Bad Seeds”– Disruptive students that have absolutely no

interest in the course can infect an entire class– Nearby students begin feeling self-conscious

about participating fully– Make it known very early that this is not a

blow-off class

Helpful Tricks I’ve Adopted

• Give Them Something Fun on Day One

• Start Tough - This Class Takes Effort!

• Lock the Door Right When Class Starts

• Write the Day’s Plan on Chalkboard

• Begin With Class Questions/Discussion to Review Last Class/Homework (5 min)

• Test Equipment Before Class

• Be Relaxed and Have Fun

Summary

• Workshop-Style Course for Non-Science Majors– Guided inquiry and student-direct projects– Impressive FMCE gains– Very positive student attitudes– Lot’s of fun to teach– More information

• physics.dickinson.edu and surf to Workshop Science• Email: djackson@scu.edu