Chicago State University
9501 S. King Drive Chicago , IL 60628
|
|
|
|
Background
Recently, the Physics Program at |
|
|
The physics course at Chicago
State University is now an integrated course in which students are involved in
interactive lectures (some of which use computer presentations and
animation), group problem-solving, web-based homework with online help
sequences, and laboratories that have been developed by physics education
researchers at a number of collaborating universities, including CSU. These course components are integrated in a
way that helps students connect their understanding of challenging concepts
from a variety of different types of active learning environments. |
|
Our population
CSU is located on the far south side of Chicago. The university serves a population that is
90% African-American and 70% female.
These changes in our instructional delivery therefore provide a unique
and important opportunity to affect a large number of students who are
underrepresented in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) disciplines. Successes
Because these instructional materials
are based on research into student learning and stress the underlying
concepts and attempt to connect these concepts to quantitative
problem-solving, we have seen
significant improvement in student understanding of a number of physics
priniciples. Acceleration
in 1-D (A1D) is one example. In one section of the course students were
asked about the direction of the acceleration of the ball as it rolls up a
hill. This question often elicits a
very common incorrect response in which the acceleration is directed parallel
to the velocity (i.e. up the ramp).
After completing traditional instruction at CSU, in the calculus-based
physics class students perform at about the 20% level. (Students at other universities also
perform poorly after traditional instruction.) After students at CSU were engaged in the
modified instructional materials, 60% of the students in the algebra-based
course and 90% of the students in the calculus-based course answered this
question correctly. |
|
|
Another example
involves student understanding of the concept of equilibrium of rigid bodies (ERB). After utilizing instructional materials
from the RBL’s as well as a CSU developed laboratory on balancing we see
students in the algebra and calculus-based course performing better on
related questions than engineering students involved in a statics course at
the University of Washington.[3] There are many
examples of improvments in student understanding throughout the introductory
courses at CSU. One popular tool for
evaluating student understanding of the variety of ideas in the mechanics
portion of the physics course is a diagniostic test called the Force Concept
Inventory (FCI). The FCI is administered at CSU in both the
algebra and the calculus-based courses as a pre and post test. In the calculus-based course, our results
typically fell in the range of scores associated with traditional instruction
(20% gain from pretest to posttest), as described by Hake. [4] Since implementing the new materials we
have observed a significant improvement in how students perform on this
instrument.
|
|
|
After
utilizing the modified instructional materials, our students in the calculus-based
course have achieved gains of 30% and above each semester the diagnostic has
been given (F04 - S06). In the S06
semester we made major changes in the instructional materials implemented in
the algebra-based course and have observed a 20% gain. Before the S06 semester gains have always
been below 13% in the algebra-based course.
The graph at
right shows the idealized distribution of gains on the FCI using thirty-five
classes at seven universities.[5] These classes were involved in a number of
different types of instruction: traditional classes, Tutorials, Group-Problem
Solving, and Workshop Physics. Gains at CSU are indicated by the dotted
lines shown in the graph. We expect that
the gains at CSU will continue to increase as we further refine our
implementation of the new materials. In addition to
these content learning gains, we have seen shifts toward more expert-like
learning strategies on the part of the students. Students at CSU begin discussing and
arguing about science as soon as they start their group work. The class is often very noisy and students
are explaining the physics involved using words in addition to equations. Since implementing these new materials we have
observed improved results on the Maryland Physics Expectations Survey (MPEX) in the agebra-based
course. This instrument compares
student responses, regarding the expectations in the course, to expert
responses. Although our gains are
modest they do not follow the general trend identified by Redish et al. in
which performance on this instrument tends to degrade after one semester of
instruction.[6] |
|
|
Although
students often struggle with the ideas and concepts in the introductory
physics course, our students recognize that the innovative instructional
materials are helping them develop a deeper understanding. Laboratories are consistently rated highly
by students when asked which components of the course were effective in
helping them understand the material.
One student in the algebra-based physics course remarked: “The most
important thing I learned this semester was how to be a constructive learner.
During the labs we did the experiments ourselves and I learned how to … learn
on my own by doing the experiments … watching the results … and putting my
[reasoning] together.” |
Department Effort and Dissemination
This project has the strong support of
the university and the department.
Evidence for this support can be seen by the large scale involvement
of the physics faculty and students at CSU.
Student researchers have been involved in teaching in the classes,
conducting research on the effectivness of the new materials, and in setting
up and building the equipment for the course.
The project has also led to a large number of presentations given by
the faculty and students involved (See below). |
Presentations at Professional Meetings
Faculty
presentations and workshops Improvements in the Introductory Physics Courses
at Chicago State University – Parts I and II, collection of talks presented at
the national meeting of the AAPT, Syracuse, NY July 2006. Implementing and evaluating instructional reform
in the urban physics classroom, invited talk presented at Integrating Science and Mathematics
Education Research into Teaching Conference, U. of Maine, June 2006 Implementing Research Based
Instructional Materials in the Physics Classroom: From the Introductory
Physics Class to a Course for the Professional Development of Teachers,
invited talk presented at Ill. Section of the AAPT, April 2006 Implementing
Research Based Instructional Materials in the Physics Classroom: From the
Introductory Physics Class to a Course for the Professional Development of
Teachers, invited talk at Illinois Section of the AAPT, East Peoria, IL April
2006 Incorporating
PER-based materials at an Inner-city Institution: Successes and Challenges,
presented at National AAPT meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, August 2005 Tutorials
in Introductory Physics Workshop, given at Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science
and Mathematics Symposium, University of Illinois-Chicago, (May 2005). What’s
happening in the Physics Program at CSU?, presented at Chicago State University, Dept. of
Chemistry and Physics Seminar, March 2005 Implementing
New Instructional Approaches in the College Classroom: Local Innovations, presented at Excellence in
Teaching Undergraduate Science and Mathematics Symposium, DePaul University,
(February 2005). Undergraduate
Research Presentation Physics
Education Research at CSU: from the high school to the college physics
classroom, presented at the Chicago Section of the AAPT, Chicago, IL April
2005. Implementing
Innovative Instructional Materials in the Physics Classes at Chicago State
University
presented at 16th annual Illinois Student Research Conference, Oakbrook, IL
April 1-2, 2005. |