Contributed
Posters
Time to completion of physics problems in web-based tutor
David E. Pritchard & Rasil Warnakulasooriya
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA
Data collected from the Socratic web-based tutor,
MasteringPhysics, allows us to determine the time to completion of
physics problems. The rate of completion curves against logarithmic
time divide into three distinct groups: quick responders, real-time
solvers, and delayed solvers. The quick responder group typically
completes a problem within 2.5 minutes and consists of about 15% of the
students. The real-time solvers take 2.5 minutes to 2.2 hours for
completion and consists of about 65% of the students while the delayed
solvers consists of about 14% and take longer than 2.2 hours for
completion. We believe that the majority of the quick responders are
getting help outside MasteringPhysics – i.e. are engaging in some form
of academic dishonesty. The real-time and the delayed solvers struggle
with the problem by making mistakes and asking for hints. For example,
the number of hints per problem is 0.1 ± 0.1 for quick
responders, while for real-time and delayed solvers they are 1.4
± 0.3 and 2.4 ± 0.4, respectively. Similarly, the
incorrect responses per quick responder is 1.4 ± 0.1 while for
real-time and delayed solvers they are 3.9 ± 0.5 and 5.0
± 0.6, respectively. We show that the fraction of real time
solvers completing a given problem containing hints and wrong answer
responses is a sigmoid curve in logarithmic time (in contrast to
cognitive tasks such as word recognition where the sigmoid curves occur
in linear time) that is well represented by Logistic or Boltzmann
functions. We also demonstrate knowledge transfer between two related
problem pairs (using seven pairs in total across seven different
topics) for real-time solvers where the group that is being prepared by
solving an immediate prior related problem solves a subsequent problem
in 14.6 ± 2.2% less time than the group that did not receive
immediate prior training on that problem, consistent with the general
psychological finding that more skilled individuals can do a particular
task faster.
Investigation of the relationship between conceptual
understanding and quantitative problem-solving in physics.
L. Walsh, R. G. Howard, J. Harvey, B. Bowe.
Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
This poster outlines ongoing research investigating the
relationship between conceptual understanding and quantitative
problem-solving in physics, specifically in the context of the Irish
education system. Much research has been carried out that has shown
that physics students are not developing the conceptual understanding
necessary to become adept problem-solvers. This may be due to the fact
that traditional physics education tends to rely on the assumption that
students will develop an understanding of the conceptual nature of
physics by solving quantitative problems. Research has shown that this
is not the case and students cannot develop as problem-solvers without
first having the conceptual understanding.
This research involves an investigation of student learning
in physics and the impact this has on conceptual understanding and
their ability to solve quantitative and qualitative problems. It builds
on research carried out in the United States in order to obtain a
better understanding of how students learn physics and the difficulties
they have developing an understanding of the conceptual nature of
physics. It aims to develop a systematic way of identifying students’
misconceptions in physics and to assess the affect these have on
student learning and the development of understanding. Although much of
the research involves introductory physics students, the study aims to
trace “students’ intellectual development as they progress through the
undergraduate curriculum.” This research will inform teaching and
assessment practices, not only in physics education but also in other
disciplines so that third level education can produce better
problem-solvers for industry, research and a knowledge-based society.
What Is Entropy? Assessing Advanced Undergraduate
Performance On A Task Involving Ideal Gas Processes
Brandon R. Bucy, John R. Thompson, and Donald B. Mountcastle
The University of Maine, Orono, ME
We are currently conducting a broad investigation of student
understanding of thermodynamics concepts in advanced-level thermal
physics courses. Here we discuss student understanding of the roles of
entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics when comparing isothermal
and free expansions of an ideal gas. Our preliminary investigation has
revealed ways in which students think about these topics both before
and after instruction in advanced thermodynamics. Student difficulties
included basic unfamiliarity with the concept of entropy, confusion
about how to apply the 2nd Law to various processes, and an inability
to apply the state function property of entropy when necessary.
Supported in part by NSF Grant #PHY-0406764
Student Understanding of Partial Differentiation in Thermal
Physics
John R. Thompson, Brandon R. Bucy, and Donald B. Mountcastle
The University of Maine, Orono, ME
We are engaged in a research project to study teaching and
learning in upper-level thermal physics courses. These courses are
taken by third- and fourth-year undergraduate physics majors, and may
include first-year graduate students. We have begun to explore student
functional understanding of mathematical concepts when applied to
thermal physics contexts. We report here on findings associated with
total differentials and the Maxwell relations, which equate mixed
second partial derivatives of various state functions. Our preliminary
results suggest that students are often unable to apply the appropriate
mathematical concepts and operations to the physical situations
encountered in the course, despite having taken the appropriate
prerequisite mathematics courses. Furthermore, many students have
difficulties understanding either the mathematical or physical
significance of the Maxwell relations even after instruction.
Supported in part by NSF Grant #PHY-0406764
Characterization of student response patterns on the
Inventory of Basic Conceptions in Mechanics
Jennifer J. Neakrase and Luanna G. Ortiz
Arizona State University, AZ
The current study investigated student response patterns on
pre- and post-assessment of 261 students enrolled in the calculus-based
introductory physics course at Arizona State University in the spring
2005 semester. The experimental design and analysis procedure included
both factor analysis and concentration analysis. Concentration
analysis, based on an empirical study by Bao & Redish (2001), is a
quantitative method intended to measure the evolution of common
reasoning patterns given by students between a pre- and post-test on a
multiple-choice assessment. Overall, the study found similar
characteristic reasoning patterns as reported by Bao & Redish
(2001). We also found that, on average, students had the most
difficulty in answering items that fell under factors involving
Newton's 2nd Law, and the composition and superposition of forces.
Student response patterns showed that for a majority of items students
held both a correct model and an incorrect model. These items all fell
under factors involving State Laws and Interaction & Force.
Creating activities to help students connect meaning and
mathematics
Dawn Meredith
University of New Hampshire, NH
All too often students fail to connect meaning with
mathematics in physics courses. This is in part because assigned work
and lectures often do not emphasize this connection. To help students
make this connection, we created two activities that were created based
on several theories and previous work: Tuminaro's descriptive epistemic
games and frames; Sfard's process and object stances; Sherin's symbolic
forms; diSessa's p-prims; Kanim and Harrington's work on misconceptions
in electrostatics; Fauconnier and Turner's blends; Elby, Hammer and
Redish resources; and our own research on student's use of integration
in a physics context. The first activity, written for second semester
introductory calculus-based physics, helps students connect an
understanding of the electric field for point charges to the integral
for calculating the electric field for a bar of charge. The second
activity, written for the junior level mechanics students, helps
students understand what it means for inertia to be a tensor. Each
activity is analyzed in detail to show how the theories helped inform
the details of the activity. We discuss the small initial data sets
that we have from student use of these activities.
Impacting mainstream teaching practices: Good ideas
supported by good research are not enough
Melissa Dancy (1) and Charles Henderson (2)
(1) University of North Carolina at Charlotte
(2) Western Michigan University
A large amount of time and money has gone into developing
and disseminating research-based instructional strategies. However the
current level of use of these strategies by typical faculty appears to
be quite low. In this poster, we challenge some common ideas about
impediments to the integration of research results in typical
instruction and offer alternative explanations. These alternative
explanations include communication difficulties and divergent
expectations between traditional faculty and curriculum developers as
well as an educational environment that is generally inhospitable to
research-supported reforms.
Investigating student understanding of oscillatory motion
in one and two dimensions
Bradley S. Ambrose
Grand Valley State University, MI
Ongoing research at Grand Valley State University and the
University of Maine is being conducted to probe the conceptual
understanding and reasoning skills of advanced undergraduates as they
make the transition from a traditional sequence in introductory
calculus-based physics to their first course in upper-level mechanics
[1]. As is often the case in upper division physics courses, we have
found that standard lecture instruction in advanced topics does not
adequately address conceptual and reasoning difficulties with
fundamental topics. This poster presents specific examples of such
difficulties that arise when students cover oscillatory motion in one
or two dimensions. Our results have guided the design and
implementation of a tutorial approach to instruction that is similar in
format and philosophy to those developed at the University of
Washington [2].
[1] Supported by NSF grants DUE-0441426 and DUE-0442388.
[2] L.C. McDermott, P.S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at
the University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics
(Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
Group Problem-Solving, a Manifestation of Vygotsky’s Zone
of Proximal Development?
Eric Brewe
Hawaii Pacific University, HI
Vygotsky described learning as a process, intertwined with
development, which is strongly influenced by social interactions with
others that are at differing developmental stages.[1] These
interactions create a Zone of Proximal Development for each member of
the interaction. Vygotsky’s notion of social constructivism is not only
a theory of learning, but also of development. While teaching
introductory physics in an interactive format, I think I saw
manifestations of Vygotsky’s theory in my classroom. One source of
evidence of this is a paired problem solution. A standard mechanics
problem was solved by students (N = 49) in two classes as a homework
assignment. Students handed in the homework and then solved the same
problem in small groups. The solutions to both the group and individual
problem were assessed by multiple reviewers. In most cases the group
score was the same as the highest individual score in the group, but in
three cases, the group score was higher than any individual score. For
this poster, I will analyze the individual and group scores and focus
on three groups that provide evidence of learning through membership in
a Zone of Proximal Development.
[1] L. Vygotsky Mind and society: The development of
higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
(1978).
Using a Mechanistic Framework to Identify Valuable Aspects
of Incorrect Student Comments during Science Discussions
Rosemary Russ, Rachel E. Scherr, David Hammer
University of Maryland, MD
Recent reforms in science and physics education research
have shown a shift from evaluating the correctness of student answers
to attending to other substantive aspects of student thinking. In
response to this trend, we highlight a discussion among second graders
about why empty juice boxes cave in when you suck on them. During the
conversation, students propose three alternative explanations, only one
of which is correct but all of which demonstrate scientific reasoning
that we would intuitively tend to value. One “good” feature of these
explanations is that they all give mechanistic accounts of observed
phenomena. We have adapted a framework from philosophy of science that
articulates a formal means to identify causal mechanism in student
reasoning. By applying the coding scheme to this classroom data, we
show that although two of the three explanations are incorrect, they
all demonstrate higher-level mechanistic reasoning. The framework
resented here provides us with a robust method to attend to mechanistic
reasoning as distinct from content evaluations.
The Gap Between PER and Mainstream Faculty: The PER
Perspective
Charles Henderson (1) and Tim Stelzer (2)
(1) Western Michigan University
(2) University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
During the summer of 2005 a web survey was distributed to
the Physics Education Research (PER) community. The survey focused on
two areas: (1) gaining respect for PER as a serious research area
within Physics; and (2) getting results of PER known and used by
physics faculty. Thirty-five PER practitioners responded. Respondents
generally agreed that there were important problems in each area. This
poster will present an overview of the survey results focusing on
respondents’ views of the underlying source of these problems and
recommended actions for the PER community.
Teaching modern physics in introductory courses damages
students' epistemologies
Timothy McCaskey, Andrew Elby
University of Maryland, MD
Two PER faculty taught the second-semester introductory
course at the University of Maryland. Though both instructors used
interactive lecture demonstrations, tutorials, and modified labs, one
of them achieved gains on the MPEX2, and the other did not. We
hypothesize that the professor who failed to get gains did so because
he spent significant time on modern physics topics that do
epistemological damage to students. That same professor did get gains
the following year when he reduced his emphasis on modern physics but
otherwise left his course almost exactly the same.
Physics Learning in Museum Settings: Conflicting Goals of
the Science Museum
Leslie Atkins
Dartmouth College
There are numerous science education goals of the science
museum. Among these goals are: museum as rehearsal space for families;
museum as the antidote to school science, involving free-choice
exploration of topics; and museum as a place to enhance understanding
of scientific content. In this poster I will explore the following
question: Are these goals consistent with one another, or must a museum
(or at least an exhibit) choose one goal at the expense of another?
This question and the further questions it raises echo many of the
debates concerning "school" science- with the added challenge of
visitors spending minutes, as opposed to days, exploring the topics
presented in an exhibit.
The disconnect between physical sense and mathematics in
upper level students
Ray Hodges, David Hammer
University of Maryland, MD
This poster will focus on an episode from a study of upper
level students’ solving problems where the students do not connect
their mathematical work to their physical sense. While in general one
might expect this is due to students simply doing rote calculations,
the evidence suggests otherwise. The students do connect meaning to the
mathematics, displayed by the use of symbolic forms[1], but this
meaning is not physically sensible.
[1] Sherin, B.L. (2001). How Students Understand Physics
Equations. Cognition And Instruction, 19(4), 479-541.
Identifying Student Difficulties with Basic Concepts and
Lines of Reasoning: Examples from Control of Variables and Proportions
Andrew Boudreaux (1), Lenore Hernandez (2) and Paula Heron (2)
(1) Western Washington University, WA
(2) University of Washington, WA
Rather than emphasizing declarative knowledge of many
specific topics, national standards for the science learning of K-12
students focus on functional understanding of a smaller set of
connected concepts and skills. These core understandings can be taken
to constitute literacy in science. Many of these standards involve
skills important for mastering the content of college physics courses
at the introductory level and beyond. Examples include the use of
control of variables reasoning in the interpretation of experimental
results and the use of ratio reasoning in problem solving. In this
poster, the responses of college liberal arts physics students on
written questions will be used to document difficulties with reasoning
and skills found in the K-12 standards. The poster is intended to
contribute to and promote discussion about why seemingly basic ideas
(i.e., ideas that middle and high school students are expected to
master) remain so difficult even for college physics students.
Student Ideas about the State-Function Property of Entropy*
Warren M. Christensen, David E. Meltzer, Thomas A. Stroman
Iowa State University, WA
To develop an understanding of the state-function property
of entropy is often a key objective of the introductory physics
curriculum. We have been investigating the development of students'
reasoning regarding this concept in the context of both algebra- and
calculus-based general physics courses, with particular attention to
the possible role played by students' ideas regarding other basic
thermodynamic quantities such as heat, work, and internal energy. We
will present pre- and post-instruction data reflecting student
performance on entropy-related questions in various contexts.
Preliminary analysis suggests superior post-instruction performance on
questions employing P-V diagrams that show diverse processes with
common initial and final states, in comparison to a similar verbal
question involving a cyclic process.
*Supported in part by NSF grants #DUE-9981140 and
#PHY-0406724
A Proposed Qualitative Methodology for Uncovering Concept
Learning Hierarchies
Rebecca Lindell
Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville, IL
Overthe last few years, we have been working on developing a
methodology for discovering if there is a hierarchical nature to
schema, such that certain knowledge must be mastered before additional
knowledge can be mastered. The discovery of the existence of such
learning hierarchies could have a profound impact on how we teach
science. The discovery of these hierarchies is complex and as such
requires the triangulation of both qualitative and quantitative data.
In this poster, we will present a proposed qualitative methodology for
discovery these concept learning hierarchies, as well as preliminary
results. It is our hope to receive feedback from the community on our
methodology, as well as suggestions for improvement.
A Quantitative Methodology for Uncovering Concept Learning
Hierarchies
Joe Beuckman (1), Andrew Heckler (2) and Rebecca Lindell (1)
(1) Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville, IL
(2) The Ohio State University, OH
Over the last few years, we have been working on determining
if there is a hierarchical nature to schema, such that certain
knowledge must be mastered before additional knowledge can be mastered.
Preliminary quantitative work in determining such a concept learning
hierarchy among dimensions of the Lunar Phases Concept Inventory looks
promising. The hierarchy proposed by Lindell, Hines and Heckler (2005
AAPT Winter meeting) was based on prerequisite mastery of each
dimension. Here, we implement Ordering Theory to verify that such a
hierarchy exists and attempt to build a concept hierarchy among
individual correct and incorrect schema within and across the
dimensions of the Lunar Phases Concept Inventory (LPCI). This is
quantitative work using pre- and post-instructional data from the
national field test of the LPCI.
How do students frame tutorials?
Rachel E. Scherr, David Hammer, and Ray Hodges
University of Maryland, College Park, MD
A current project at the University of Maryland involves
observing several semesters of videotapes of tutorials and classifying
TA interactions. To our great surprise, students essentially never call
TAs over for help with physics ideas. The surprise is not so much in
the particulars of what students and TAs actually do in tutorial as in
how little we know of that. Being who we are, we have many hours of
in-person observations; but our perceptions of our teaching are colored
by many factors, as we know well from other physics education research,
and in any case, those only tell our
story of what goes on in tutorial. We know very little of how students perceive the set of
activities that we call “doing a tutorial.” What kind of activity do
they think that is? What are their perceptions of the goals of the
hour, and what methods do they believe will serve them best in reaching
those goals? What do they even do when we’re not at the table with
them? I present a preliminary analysis of students in tutorial based on
linguistic and anthropological research on frames and framing --
structures of expectations that are typically tacit, but are all the
more powerful for their implicitness.
|