Florida International University

 

Contact Us

Florida International University Project Report 2009

Please use the following templates to report all project data to the Project Management Team. This will greatly facilitate our data collection and dissemination efforts.

Content Assessment

The FIU physics department offers introductory physics I in lecture classes with an optional laboratory section. Students enrolling in labs may take either calculus-based (PHY2048) and algebra-based (PHY2053) lecture courses. In Spring 2008, the FIU PhysTEC team implemented reformed labs using the University of Maryland (Scherr and Elby) epistemologically-based tutorials and interactive lecture demonstrations. Lab sections lasted 3 hours, so both the tutorial and interactive lecture demonstrations were combined to form the class activities. TAs were responsible for the labs, and were assisted by one or two LAs. Data results from the Force Concept Inventory taken as pre/post surveys in the lecture sections. No reforms were implemented in the lectures. In Spring 2009, the FIU PhysTEC model for lab reform in the introductory physics course were adopted for all Physics I labs (calculus and non-calculus based physics courses share the same labs).

Spring 2008 Reformed Lab FCI Results - Reform labs were implemented in 6 of 14 lab sections (cap of 24).

Semester	Number of matched students	Pre-test average (%)	Post-test average (%)	Average normalized gain g*	Standard error of g**
PHY 2048L Reform	38	25.8	50.0	0.33	.030
PHY 2048L Traditional	63	24.1	37.0	0.18	.020

Fall 2008 Reformed Lab FCI Results - Reform labs were implemented in 10 of 24 lab sections (cap of 24).

Semester	Number of matched students	Pre-test average (%)	Post-test average (%)	Average normalized gain g*	Standard error of g**
PHY 2048L Reform	83	27.1	50.6	0.33	.025
PHY 2048L Traditional	133	29.8	49.2	0.28	.024

Spring 2009 Lab FCI Results - Reform labs were implemented in 14 of 14 lab sections (cap of 30).

Semester	Number of matched students	Pre-test average (%)	Post-test average (%)	Average normalized gain g*	Standard error of g**
PHY 2048L All Labs Reformed	87	35.04	59.9	0.385	.024

*Average normalized gain g =

**Standard error =

Measures of Disposition

MPEX 2 – Spring 2008 & Fall 2008

In an effort to measure possible attitudinal shifts, the Maryland Physics Expectation Survey 2 (MPEX 2) was administered to reformed lab students [1]. This survey measures students’ attitudes and beliefs about physics and learning physics. Within the survey, clusters of questions characterize three main epistemological beliefs in introductory physics: coherence, concepts, independence [2].

Definitions:

Coherence - The extent to which the student sees physics knowledge as coherent and sensible as opposed to a bunch of disconnected pieces [2].

Concepts - The extent to which students see concepts as the substance of physics -- as opposed to thinking of them as mere cues for which formulas to use [2].

Independence - The extent to which the student sees learning physics as a matter of constructing her own understanding rather than absorbing knowledge from authority [2].

MPEX2 was given as pre- and post- surveys to all students in the introductory physics lab sections that were subject to the FIU PhysTEC reform efforts. In the Spring 2008 semester, there were 73 matched surveys. In Fall 2008, there were 194 matched surveys.

Figures 1 and 2 present percent favorable and unfavorable pre- and post- results for the MPEX 2 coherence, concepts, and independence clusters for each of the two semesters. Also, for each cluster, a favorability score, % favorable - % unfavorable, was calculated for each student. This score accounts for decreases in unfavorable responses as well as increases in favorable responses. Matched t-test analyses of pre and post favorability scores show no significant differences in any of the three main clusters.

Although there were no significant positive changes in favorability scores for any of the three main epistemological characteristics describing student attitudes and beliefs about physics, it is generally accepted that this is a positive result as traditional and even some reform experiences result in negative shifts. The lack of a significant negative shift means that FIU’s reform treatment did not result in students adopting more novice-like, as opposed to expert-like, beliefs.

CLASS Results for Spring 2009-07-20

In Spring 2009, FIU PhysTEC moved from the MPEX 2 to the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS) as a means of measuring student dispositions and attitudes about science and learning science. Physics education researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder built on the work of previous attitude surveys, such as MPEX 2, to include and refine questions about student attitudes and beliefs that have been found to be important in education research [3]. FIU decided to replace the MPEX 2 with the CLASS as our Learning Assistants (LA) program is founded upon and similar to the LA program at Boulder, so this allows us to more readily compare the results of our work.

There were 225 matched surveys for Spring 2009. There were significant shifts in three of the CLASS categories. See Figure 3. A significant positive shift was evident in Conceptual Connection (shift = 4.1, Std Err = 1.9) categories. This is exceptional in the literature. As well, a negative shift in general attitudes toward problem solving (PS General, shift = 2.6, Std Err = 1.2) is interesting as students may feel that “problems” are the formula-based, number-centric items found in typical homework assignments and tests. Given that there was also a considerably larger positive shift in the Conceptual Connection category, it would make sense for students to become more adverse to solving these traditional type “problems.” However, there was also a negative shift in the Sense Making category. There was a loss in the favorable attitudes as well as a gain in the unfavorable. There were no significant shifts in any of the other categories. This, as with the MPEX 2, is considered a positive result as students are not becoming more novice-like in their attitudes.

References.

1. Elby, A. (2001). American Journal of Physics, 69,S54.
2. Hammer, D. (1994). Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151-183.
3. Retrieved from University of Colorado Physics Education Research Group at Colorado website on April 29, 2010. http://www.colorado.edu/sei/class/