Goertzen, Scherr, Elby, PRST-PER, (2009)

Accounting for tutorial teaching assistants' buy-in to reform instruction

Download a copy here.

Renee Michelle Goertzen, Rachel E. Scherr, and Andrew Elby

Accepted to the Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research.

Abstract. Successful implementation of tutorials includes establishing norms for learning in the tutorial classroom. The teaching assistants (TAs) who lead each tutorial section are important arbiters of these norms. TAs who value (buy into) tutorials are more likely to convey their respect for the material and the tutorial process to the students, as well as learning more themselves. We present a case study of a TA who does not buy into certain aspects of the tutorials he teaches and demonstrate how his lack of buy-in affects specific classroom interactions. We would hope to design professional development programs to help TAs appreciate the power of tutorial instruction. However, our research suggests that the typical professional development activities offered to tutorial TAs are not likely to be effective. Instead, it appears that what we call the “social and environmental context” of the tutorials – including classroom, departmental, and institutional levels of implementation – has the potential to strongly affect TA buy-in to tutorials, and probably outweighs the influence of any particular activity that we might prepare for them.

Redish & Gupta, GIREP Conference Presentation (2009)

Making Meaning with Math in Physics

Edward F. Redish and Ayush Gupta

Contributed paper presented at GIREP2009, Leicester, UK, August 20, 2009.

Physics makes powerful use of mathematics, yet how this happens is often poorly understood. Professionals closely integrate their mathematical symbology with physical meaning, resulting in a powerful and productive knowledge structures. But because of the way the cognitive system builds expertise, instructors who are expert physicists may have difficulty in unpacking their well-integrated knowledge in order to understand the difficulties novice students have in learning their subject. Despite the fact that students may have previously been exposed to ideas in math classes, the addition of physical contexts can produce severe barriers to learning and sense-making. In order to better understand student difficulties and to unpack expert knowledge, we adopt and adapt ideas and methods from cognitive semantics, a sub-branch of linguistics devoted to understanding how meaning is associated with language. We illustrate this with examples spanning the physics curriculum.

Redish & Bing, GIREP Conference Poster (2009)

Using Math in Physics: Warrants and Epistemological Frames

Edward F. Redish and Thomas J. Bing

Prepared in conjunction with Symposium, “Mathematization in Physics Lessons: Problems and Perspectives”, R. Karam and G. Pospiech, organizers. GIREP meeting, Leicester, UK, 18. August, 2009.

Abstract: Mathematics is an essential component of university level science, but it is more complex than a straightforward application of rules and calculation. Using math in science critically involves the blending of ancillary information with the math in a way that both changes the way that equations are interpreted and provides metacognitive support for recovery from errors. We have made ethnographic observations of groups of students solving physics problems in classes ranging from introductory algebra based physics to graduate quantum mechanics. These lead us to conjecture that expert problem solving in physics requires the development of the complex skill of mixing different classes of warrants – the ability to blend physical, mathematical, and computational reasons for constructing and believing a result. In order to analyze student behavior along this dimension, we have created analytical tools including epistemic frames and games. These should provide a useful lens on the development of problem solving skills and permit an instructor to recognize the development of sophisticated problem solving behavior even when the student makes mathematical errors.

(List of references)

Redish, Cooke, Dobbins, & Hall, GIREP Conference Poster (2009)

Transforming the Physics Education of Undergraduate Biology Students in Introductory Physics and Biology Courses

Edward F. Redish, Todd J. Cooke, Heather D. Dobbins, and Kristi L. Hall

Poster presented at GIREP2009, Leicester, UK, August 2009.

Abstract: In 2003, the US National Academy of Sciences issued the BIO 2010 report that called for the increased incorporation of mathematics, physics, and chemistry into undergraduate biology curriculum, and for a corresponding increase in the biological relevance of introductory science courses for biologists. This initiative has led to widespread interdisciplinary efforts that are transforming the way mathematics and chemistry is taught to US biology students, but it has not prompted comparable reform in physics. There appear to be a number of reasons for this lag. Many Physics faculty are hesitant about pruning and reorganizing traditional content and may not be familiar with the content that biologists feel is relevant and useful, while many Biology faculty are hesitant about including physics in their biology classes explicitly. At the University of Maryland, a group of physicists and biologists have started working together to better understand the roadblocks to implementing a coordinated revision of our introductory biology and physics courses for biology students. The challenges facing this effort occur at a variety of levels. 1) Introductory physics for biologists is often a “cut-down” version of introductory physics for engineers. As such, it inherits some inappropriate approaches. For example, it introduces the second law of Thermodynamics via heat engines and ignores chemical energy. This approach is inappropriate because organisms cannot convert temperature gradients into useful metabolic energy, whereas other forms of physical and chemical energy are continually being transformed in biological systems. 2) Introductory biology classes typically are “fact-based”, relying on extensive reading and focusing on concept mastery, including introducing the student to many different terms, processes, and relationships, while physics courses are structured to emphasize complex reasoning from a small set of fundamental laws and principles. 3) Physics classes rely heavily on problem-solving and are over the past decade have developed extensive active-engagement learning pedagogy, whereas biology courses still tend to rely heavily on direct lecture and protocol-based laboratories. 4) Biology classes tend to use mathematics to represent qualitative dependences, while physics classes treat math as a fundamental reasoning tool. Our poster presents examples and suggestions for bridging these gaps. Our goal is to initiate a widespread discussion among physicists and biologists regarding the physics challenge in the BIO 2010 initiative.

Redish & Sayre, GIREP Conference Poster (2009)

Resources: A Theoretical Framework for Physics Education

Edward F. Redish and Eleanor C. Sayre

Poster presented at GIREP2009, Leicester, UK, August 2009

Abstract: The Resources Framework (RF) is a structure for creating phenomenological models of high-level thinking. It is based on a combination of core stable results selected from educational research phenomenology, cognitive neuroscience, and behavioral science. As a framework (as opposed to a theory), it provides ontologies -- classes of structural elements and their behaviors -- rather than providing specific structures. These ontologies permit the creation of models that bridge existing models of knowledge and learning, such as the alternative conceptions theory and the knowledge in pieces approach, or cognitive modeling and the socio-cultural approach. Structurally, the RF is an associative network model with control structure and dynamic binding. As a phenomenological and descriptive framework, it does not (yet) create mathematical models from low-level elements. This poster outlines the RF and shows how it gives new ways of looking at traditional issues such as transfer, concepts, ontologies, and epistemology.

(List of references.)

Lippmann-Kung, Am J Phys (2005)

Teaching the Concepts of Measurement: One example of a concept-based laboratory course

R. Lippmann-Kung, American Journal of Physics, 73, p 771-777 (2005).

Abstract: For students to successfully complete an experiment, they must have an understanding of measurement and its related uncertainty.We argue for teaching the concepts of measurement and not only the calculations. An example of a concepts-based laboratory course is given, outlining the concepts presented, the design of the laboratory time, and the laboratory tasks. The concepts are briefly described and two often-overlooked concepts, predictive versus descriptive questions and internal versus external variation, are explained. Our survey results show that the fraction of students using range and not just average when comparing two data sets approximately doubled after instruction.

Lippmann-Kung, AREA Meeting (2002)

Analyzing Students' Use of Metacognition During Laboratory Activities

R. Lippmann-Kung, AREA Meeting, New Orleans, LA (2002). 

Abstract: In this paper we use a discourse analysis tool to investigate student behavior in different types of laboratories, from more traditional to free inquiry labs. We also correlate students’ behavior with their explicit metacognitive statements, which allows us to differentiate between productive and unproductive metacognition.