hysics I nstruction A cross I nstructors and Institutions Matthew Wilcox 1 Gerald Feldman 2 Joshua Von Korff 3 Noel Klingler 2 Ozden Sengul 3 Jacquelyn J Chini 1 1 ID: 647791
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Characterizing Studio P" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Characterizing Studio Physics Instruction Across Instructors and InstitutionsMatthew Wilcox1, Gerald Feldman2, Joshua Von Korff3, Noel Klingler2, Ozden Sengul3, Jacquelyn J. Chini11University of Central Florida, Department of Physics, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 328162George Washington University, Department of Physics, 725 21st Street NW, Washington, DC, 200523Georgia State University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 25 Park Place, Atlanta, GA, 30303
IntroductionSCALE-UP is flexible in the types of active-learning strategies that may be implemented.Learning gains vary largely in SCALE-UP classes [1,2].How can we know which teaching practices are responsible for student learning?
ReferencesSaul, J.M. and R. Beichner, An Activity-based Curriculum for Large Introductory Physics Classes: The SCALE-UP Project. PERC 2001 Proceedings, 2001.Ridenour, J., et al. Is conceptual understanding compromised by a problem-solving emphasis in an introductory physics course? in 2012 PERC. 2013. AIP Publishing.Hora, M.T. and J.J. Ferrare, Instructional systems of practice: A multidimensional analysis of math and science undergraduate course planning and classroom teaching. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2013. 22(2): p. 212-257.Photo source: https://www.ncsu.edu/per/scaleup.html
Methodology
Performed observations and interviews to characterize SCALE-UP classes on:8 instructors at the University of Central Florida (UCF).6 instructors at the George Washington University (GW).2 introductory classes (Mechanics and E&M) for both algebra and calculus based at UCF and GW. Modified Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) [3]Records actions in two minute intervals.Report the percentage of intervals in which a code was observed.
Inter-Rater
ReliabilityOverall IRR of 0.78 as measured by Krippendorff’s Alpha.Achieved IRR on most but not all codes.Notably Low IRR CodesDemonstration and Student Presentation.Possibly due to their infrequency in the observations.
Conclusions
Within institutions, SCALE-UP classes vary between instructors.
Across these institutions, SCALE-UP classes, on average, are similar.Clickers are used as small group work, almost exclusively.SCALE-UP does provide a large amount of interaction with instructors and TAs.Lecture or Feedback occurs in a large amount of a typical class.
Future WorkImprove coding scheme and training to gain IRR on all codes.Continue observations at other institutions across the country.Analyze which observed practices lead to higher learning gains.
This work was funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. DUE 1347510, 1347515 and 1347527).
LECTURE
FEEDBACK
CLICKER
SMALL
GROUP
Average = 22%
Average = 20%
Average = 23%
Average = 30%
Average = 21%
Average = 11%
Average = 66%
Average = 63%
Results
No statistical difference between institutions in the time spent on the actions below.
Fairly large variation between instructors within institution.
Lecture or Feedback (instructor referring to previous student work) occurred in 49% of all intervals.
Coincident
Codes
Small Group Work was coded in 93% of the intervals in which Clicker was coded.
Interactions with a TA or an instructor occurred in 72% and 62% of intervals in which
Small
Group Work was coded
.