varick
Uploaded by
44 SLIDES
594 VUES
440LIKES

Enhancing Physics Learning: The Impact of Research-Based Tutorials

DESCRIPTION

This document analyzes the effectiveness of tutorials in introductory physics courses, emphasizing their research-based, student-centered approach. Employing strategies such as “elicit-confront-resolve,” these tutorials foster deep understanding through collaborative discussions and consensus-building. We explore their implementation in courses like Phys 1110 and 1120, supported by data on student learning gains and attitudes. Our findings show that tutorials significantly enhance conceptual understanding and exam performance, highlighting the necessity of ongoing support for educational initiatives.

1 / 44

Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing Physics Learning: The Impact of Research-Based Tutorials

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improving on the Recitation Section:Tutorials in Introductory Physics Wed Brown Bag SJP Fa '05

  2. What are Tutorials? • Research-based • Student-centered • “Elicit-confront-resolve” • Process (discussion, consensus) + Sense-making

  3. The Tutorial space (basement, across from Jerry Leigh)

  4. Tutorials at CU • Used in 1110 & 1120, twice each (+ 1120, now) • Part of successful courses => motivation to continue • Today: some data Continue support?

  5. Resources • Space, material, training, personnel Ongoing support necessary. • “Learning Assistants” (LA’s) - undergrad STEM majors (interested in teaching)

  6. Courses studied so far Recitation HomeworkText: • Phys 1110 • Fa 03 Tutorials CAPA HRW • Sp 04 Tutorials CAPA HRW • Fa 04 Knight workbookMP Knight • Sp 05 Trad recitations MP Knight • Phys 1120 • Fa 04 Tutorials CAPA HRW • Sp 05 Tutorials CAPA Knight

  7. pre/post measures • Phys 1110: FMCE • Phys 1120: BEMA • common exam questions • formal + informal survey questions

  8. Phys 1110: Distinguishing features 1: “Tut” (Sp04) Tutorials + CAPA 2: “Workbook” (Fa04) Small groups/Knight (+ Mastering Physics) 3: “(More) Trad” (Sp05) Mostly traditional recit’s (Otherwise much like "2" above) (different instructors, semesters …)

  9. 1110 summary - up front! • Tutorial courses : strongest results on learning gains and attitude surveys • Middle course (“2”) (research-based text and hw, clickers + small-group recitations, not Tutorials): good results. • Last course (like “2” except recitations): gains solid, lowest of three.

  10. Ave Phys 1110 PretestFMCE (Force and Motion concept evaluation)A nationally validated conceptual exam, like the FCI (but harder) Matched, valid data only. (Eliminate pre>93%) Pre ave = 28%(1) / 34%(2) / 28%(3) Spring (2) higher (fall term)

  11. Ave Phys 1110 Posttest Post ave = 74%(1) / 69%(2) / 58%(3)

  12. Phys 1110 normalized gains gain(1)= .66 +/-.02

  13. Phys 1110 normalized gains gain(1)= .66 +/-.02 g(2)= .585 +/-.02 7.5 points lower => (more than half a letter grade)

  14. Phys 1110 normalized gains gain(1)= .66 +/-.02 g(2)= .585 +/-.02g(3)= .45 +/-.02 (trad recit.) => significantly lower gains. (still, double nat’l standards!)

  15. Course (1) (2) (3) Impact on different pretest populations:"low starters" pretest <=12.5% (% of class in this pool)

  16. Course (1) (2) (3) Impact on different pretest populations:"high starters" 50<pre<93% (% of class in this pool)

  17. Beyond the FMCE: Exam comparisons • #2 (Knight workbooks/small groups): 34 common exam q’s • #3 (Trad recitations): 30 common q’s (17 are “tutor. materials”, 9 are “quant/trad”) (12 are “tutor. materials” 6 are “quant/trad”)

  18. Beyond the FMCE: Exam comparisons ( Tutorial score - other course score) All q’ Tut mater. quant/trad (2) Workbook:+6 +7 +6 (3) Trad: +10 +14 +10 (All ± 2) N.B. 12 points is roughly 1 letter grade. Tutorial courses: significantly better exam scores: both conceptual and quantitative/traditional.

  19. Other data • Replication study (compare with UW) • CLASS (attitudes/beliefs) • Surveys (did you like, did it help?) All favorable (or neutral) for tutorials, ask for details!

  20. 1110 Summary • Compare Tut-based with “workbook/small group” • measurable diffs (FMCE, exams, CLASS) • Compare Tut-based with “more trad rec” • significant diffs. • Tutorials only one effect. (Instructors, course structure …!?) • But in 1120, changing instructors + text => no impact

  21. Phys 1120: Tut1 (Fa04) and Tut2 (Sp05) Attempt at replication. Main differences: Tut2 has… • different instructor • different semester • different textbook • follows up 1110 without Tutorials • no long answer on exams

  22. Summary (up front!) • Despite changes in course elements, we replicated Tutorials + basic course structure. • Result: identical (high) learning gains. (Final score matches our juniors. Hard exam!)

  23. 1120 BEMA pre/post BEMA = “Brief E&M Assessment”, F04 (N=319) Pretest ave 26%

  24. 1120 BEMA pre/post F04 (N=319) Pretest: 26% S05 (N=232): 27%

  25. 1120 BEMA pre/post F04 (N=319) 26% -> 59%, S05 (N=232) 27% -> 59% g(ave, F04) = .44+/- .01 g(ave, S05)=.43+/- .01

  26. 1120 E&M pre/post

  27. Other data • Common exam questions (no change) • Replication study (compare with UW) • CLASS (attitudes/beliefs) • Surveys (did you like, did it help?) All results similar for both semesters!

  28. Affect: survey results 1120 (Tut2) followed 1110 using Knight “workbook” small-group recitations. Asked at end: Which is better, Tut or trad rec? 39% vs 40% Which would you enjoy more? 39% vs 39%

  29. 1120 mini-summary Different instructors, text, exam structures, semesters… same Tutorials and Conceptests: no sig diffon BEMA, CLASS, exams. Validated survey scores high. Slight differencesin surveys: ~neutral student satisfaction. No disasters, room to improve

  30. Bottom line Tutorials successful, productive course elements. • Cost:$1500/LA/semester * (6-8 LA’s per course) • Need 1.5 hr/week training session (TA’s too!) • Benefits: Some LA’s => K-12 cert. (+ their learning gains very high) • TA’s exposed to research-based learning.

  31. Recommendation • We should continue implementing Tutorials (and collecting data) • Need support for LA’s, and training infrastructure (=> faculty or experienced grad student assigned to teach the TA’s/LA’s)

  32. Questions, Discussion!

  33. THE END

  34. Replication McDermott et al., AJP 62, 1994

  35. Replication

  36. 1-Tut 2-Workbook 3-Trad “Beliefs” survey: CLASS pre/post

  37. CLASS pre/post (full scale) Tutorial-based course: no shift Two others: small but statistically significant declines

  38. CLASS pre/post Tut2 Tut1 pre- to post shifts (attitudes and beliefs survey). Slightly negative (!), though it’s usually worse.

  39. CLASS pre/post (Shown on full 0-100 scales)

  40. Affect: survey results 1110(Likert scale 1= “no” to 5=“yes”) • Did the Tutorial help you learn Physics in 1110? 3.53 +/- .05 • Did you like the Tutorials? • 2.41 +/- .05 (62% neg, 21% pos) (20% neg, 60% pos)

  41. Affect: survey results 1120Likert scale 1-5: “very bad” to “very good”) • How do you feel about the use of Tutorials in Phys 1120? Tut1: 3.32 +/- .07 Tut2: 2.96 +/- .09 (33% neg, 53% pos) (46% neg, 43% pos) • How much help was the Tutorial? • Tut1: 3.33 +/- .06 • Tut2: 2.90 +/- .08

  42. FCI at CU <g> = post-pre100-pre Fa98 Fa03/Sp04 Force Concept Inventory (FCI) red = trad, blue = interactive engagement R. Hake, ”…A six-thousand-student survey…” AJP 66, 64-74 (‘98).

  43. Beyond the BEMA - exam q’s • 31 common exam q’s (13 explicitly “tutorial material”, rest => other topics) All Tut material only (Fa04-Sp05)-1.9% ± 2% -1.8%

  44. ~75% ~40% * Mazur, E. Peer Instruction, Prentice Hall

More Related