Introductory Physics Course Reform at UA – Current Status and Lessons

Learned

J.W. Harrell and Stan JonesDepartment of Physics & Astronomy

University of Alabama

Introductory PH and AY Courses at UA

• Algebra-based: PH101/102- Mostly life-science majors

• Calculus-based: PH105/106- Mostly engineering majors (and PH)

• Conceptual Physics: PH115- Mostly elementary education majors

• Total annual intro PH enrollment ~ 1900• Also, AY101 (~1900 students)

NSF Foundation Coalition

• Reform began with NSF-FC program in 1993- One of 8 NSF funded engineering coalitions to improve undergraduate engineering curriculum.

• Active learning, teamwork, curriculum integration.

• New technology enabled classrooms• Pilot sections of physics (separate lecture-lab)

Studio Physics

• Similar to FC, but integrated lecture and lab. (after RPI, NCSU)

• Started in 2002• Full implementation in

2005• Now both Studio and

traditional lecture-lab sections (~50/50)

• 5 contact hours/week(2 + 2 + 1)

• Lecture lite• Labs and other group

activities• Online homework

Studio Physics

• 2 classrooms (54 and 60 students)

• 3 students/group• Instructor, GTA,

UGTA• Computer data

acquisition in labs

Studio vs Non-Studio -preference and attendance

• Attitudinal survey (2002-2003)– Prefer Studio: 53%– Prefer non-Studio: 26%– No preference: 20%

• Attendance (influenced by graded classwork)– Studio: ~ 85%– Non-Studio: ~ 65%

Studio vs Non-Studio- Completion rates

• Median W/F rate– Studio: 16.5%– Non-Studio: 23.5%• Instructor factor?– Most instructors

either teach one format or the other. Cumulative %(x)

= % with W/F ≥ x

Studio vs Non-Studio- Force Concept Inventory

• FCI gains– Studio: 27%– Non-Studio: 17%

• Wide range of gains• Low for interactive

engagement classes• Instructor effect? Cumulative %(x)

= % with gain ≥ x

FCI and BEMA

• Combined results for Studio and Non-Studio– FCI = 27%– BEMA = 20%

(Now using CSEM )

Astronomy Conceptual Gains

• AY conceptual test - developed by UA faculty

• AY gains >> PH gains• Clicker sections > non-

clicker sections• Instructor effect?

Conceptual Physics

• Taken primarily by elementary education majors• Before 2011: Hewitt text, Studio format• 2011: PET curriculum

Inquiry and activity based• Conceptual gains (PET concept test)

Pre-test = 25%, post-test = 65% Gain = 54%• Attitudinal survey – very positive

PET Concept Test – example question1. A soccer goalie is practicing by punting a

ball straight up into the air and then catching it again when it falls back down. Consider a moment just after the ball has been kicked, but is still moving upward (as shown in the picture). Which of the following forces do you think are acting on the soccer ball at this moment?

(Choose all those that you think are

present.)A) A force of gravity pulling

downward.B) A force from the kick pushing

upward.C) A force of gravity pushing upward.D) A force pushing upward due to the

motion of the ball.E) Some other force (describe what

you think it is below)

Lessons Learned

• Studio Physics well received by students and administration

• A significant number of faculty prefer Studio.• Student retention and FCI gains higher than in

lecture-lab format.• Conceptual gains in Studio lower than expected

for interactive engagement courses.• Instructor effect on retention and gains not

known.• Clickers now used in many lecture and Studio

courses, but effect has not been quantified.

Importance of Studio Physics Curriculum

• Curriculum and how it is implemented is critical.

• Little improvement in learning gains in early years of Studio Physics at RPI.

• Gains improved after curriculum changes.

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Cummings_Presentation_Workshop2.pdf

Recommendations

• Better coordination of Studio courses.• Training of new and inexperienced faculty.• Improved GTA and UGTA training.• Revise labs and activities – more inquiry based.• Identify and implement best practices (successful

faculty, PET curriculum, …)