Redish, Wittmann, Bao & Steinberg, NARST Annual Meeting (1999)

The Influence of Student Understanding of Classical Physics when Learning Quantum Physics

E. F. Redish, M. C. Wittmann, L. Bao & R. N. Steinberg, Research on the Teaching and Learning of Quantum Sciences, NARST Annual Meeting, Boston, MA (1999).

Abstract: Understanding quantum mechanics is of growing importance, not just to future physicists, but to future engineers, chemists, and biologists. Fields in which understanding quantum mechanics is important include photonics, mesoscopic engineering, and medical diagnostics. It is therefore not surprising that quantum is being taught more often to more students starting as early as high school. However, quantum mechanics is difficult and abstract. Furthermore, understanding many classical concepts is prerequisite to a meaningful understanding of quantum systems.

In this paper, we describe research results of two examples of the influence of student understanding of classical concepts when learning quantum mechanics. for each example, we describe difficulties students have in the classical regime and how these difficulties seem to impair student learning of quantum concepts. We briefly discuss how these difficulties can be addressed.

Obviously the examples described in this paper are not intended to be exhaustive. Instead, we have two objectives. The first is to highlight the importance of having a strong conceptual base when learning more advanced topics in physics. The second is to illustrate the importance of continuously and systematically probing student learning by using the tools of physics education research.

Hodari & Hufnagel, Am J Phys Letter (1999)

Diamonds, emeralds, rubies, and sapphires

A. Hodari & B. Hufnagel, Letter to the editor, American Journal of Physics, 67(9), p 753 (September 1999). (html version)

Bao, PhD Dissertation (1999)

Using the Context of Physics Problem Solving to Evaluate the Coherence of Student Knowledge

L. Bao, Ph.D. Dissertation, E. F. Redish (advisor), (1999). (html TOC and abstract)

pdfs: Ch 1, Ch 2, Ch 3, Ch 4, Ch 5, Ch 6, Ch 7, Ch 8, Ch 9

Abstract: A good understanding of how students understand physics is of great importance for developing and delivering effective instructions. This research is an attempt to develop a coherent theoretical and mathematical framework to model the student learning of physics. The theoretical foundation is based on useful ideas from theories in cognitive science, education, and physics education. The emphasis of this research is made on the development of a mathematical representation to model the important mental elements and the dynamics of these elements, and on numerical algorithms that allow quantitative evaluations of conceptual learning in physics.

In part I, a model-based theoretical framework is proposed. Based on the theory, a mathematical representation and a set of data analysis algorithms are developed. This new method is called Model Analysis, which can be used to obtain quantitative evaluations on student models with data from multiple-choice questions. Two specific algorithms are discussed in great detail. The first algorithm is the concentration factor. It measures how student responses on multiple-choice questions are distributed. A significant concentration on certain choices of the questions often implies the existence of common student models that are associated to those choices. The second algorithm is model evaluation which analyzes student responses to form student model vectors and student model density matrix. By studying the density matrix, we can obtain quantitative evaluations of specific models used by students. Application examples with data from FCI, FMCE, and Wave Test are discussed. A number of additional algorithms are introduced to deal with unique aspects of different tests and to make quantitative assessment of various features of the tests. Implications on test design techniques are also discussed with the results from the examples.

Based n the theory and algorithms developed in part I, research is conducted to investigate student understandings of quantum mechanics. Common student models on classical prerequisites and important quantum concepts are identified. For exampled, many students interpret the quantum wavefunction as the representation of the energy of a particle. Based on the research results, multiple-choice instruments are developed to probe student models analysis algorithms. A set of quantum tutorials are also developed and implemented instruction. Results from exams and student interviews indicate that the quantum tutorials are effective.

Sabella, PhD Dissertation (1999)

Using the context of physics problem solving to evaluate the coherence of student knowledge

M. S. Sabella, Ph.D. Dissertation, E. F. Redish (advisor), (1999). (html TOC and abstract)

pdfs: Intro, Ch 1, Ch 2, Ch 3, Ch 4, Ch 5, Ch 6, Ch 7, Ch 8, Ch 9

Abstract: We use the context of problem solving to show that students exhibit a local coherence but not global coherence in their physics knowledge. When presented with a problem-solving task, students often activate a coherent set of knowledge called a schema to solve the problem. This schema of strongly related knowledge and procedures. Although the schemas students develop in the physics course are usually sufficient in the class, they are often insufficient for solving complex problems. Complex problems require that students have a deep understanding where they have integrated their qualitative knowledge with their quantitative knowledge and have integrated related physics topics. We show that our students activate schemas consisting of small amounts of knowledge and these schemas are often isolated from other schemas.

Physics Education Research (PER) has shown that students in introductory physics lack a deep understanding of physics principles and concepts. Through research-based curricula, conceptual understanding can be improved. In addition PER has shown that these students can be taught problem solving skills through a modified curriculum. Despite these improvements, students still have difficulty developing a coherent knowledge of physics. In particular, students often have difficulty connecting related physics concepts. In addition, they view quantitative problems and qualitative questions as distinct types of tasks, possessing different types of knowledge and different sets of rules for responding.

We discuss some possible methods that physics instructors and physics education researchers can use to examine coherence in student knowledge. Using these methods, we provide evidence for the local coherence in student physics knowledge by identifying distinct schemas for qualitative and quantitative knowledge. After identifying some of these difficulties in student understanding, we look at how students are connecting their qualitative knowledge to quantitative knowledge after going through concept-based curriculum. The research benefits as well as shortcomings in the concept-based curriculum and talk about possible modifications that may foster coherence. In addition, we compare performance on quantitative questions between a physics class using the traditional problem-solving recitation and a class using Tutorials in Introductory Physics on quantitative problems.

Elby, Amer J of Physics (1999)

Another reason that physics students learn by rote

A. Elby, American Journal of Physics, Physics Education Research Supplement, 67(7), S52-S57 (1999).

Abstract: Using written questionnaires, I surveyed introductory physics students about how they study and about how they would advise a hypothetical student to study if she were trying to learn physics deeply with no grade pressure. The survey teases apart students’ “epistemological” beliefs about learning and understanding physics from their more coursespecific beliefs about how to earn high grades. The results indicate that students perceive “trying to understand physics well” to be a significantly different activity from “trying to do well in the course.”

Hammer, Science Education (1999)

Physics for first-graders?

D. Hammer, Science Education, 83(6), p 797-799. (html preprint) 

Abstract: Last year, browsing current journals, I came across an article in Kappan titled "Physics for First Graders" (Hagerott, 1997). I'm a big fan of the idea that young children can, do, and should learn physics, even children as young as the first grade. But this article was misguided, and it troubled me that Kappan, which bills itself as "The Professional Journal for Education," would publish it. I held off writing a response — I had plenty to do, and I assumed there would be a barrage of criticism. Still, I watched Kappan, and when several months went by without any sign of that criticism, I phoned the editors to learn that none had been submitted.

Was everyone expecting someone else to write? More worrisome was the possibility that the piece fit with Kappan readers' expectations of science education. I drafted a somewhat longer essay than I'd originally considered, backing up a little to explain my concerns about the scientific substance and pedagogy.

Kappan declined to publish my response. The editors felt I was "eminently unfair" to the author. Moreover, they noted, no one but me seemed to have any problem with the article: "As an enrichment activity that will give kids more exposure to some of the basic concepts of physics than they are likely to get otherwise — unless they have an exceptional first-grade teacher — we see nothing wrong with [the author's] approach." I don't think I was unfair, and the fact that the editors and readership might see nothing wrong with "Physics for First Graders" was, in the end, what motivated me to write. It is also what motivates me to publish my essay here, and I am grateful to Science Education for providing a venue.

What follows is the essay I submitted to Kappan. Readers of Science Education may make their own judgments, and I would be happy to hear them.

Redish, International Conf of Phys Teachers & Educators (1999)

Diagnosing Student Problems Using the Results and Methods of Physics Education Research

E. F. Redish, International Conference of Physics Teachers and Educators: Guilin, People's Republic of China (19 August, 1999). 

McDermott & Redish, Am J Phys (1999)

Resource Letter PER-1: Physics Education Research

L. C. McDermott & E. F. Redish, Am J Phys, 67, p 755-767 (Sept 1999). (html version)

Abstract: The purpose of this Resource Letter is to provide an overview of research on the learning and teaching of physics. The references have been selected to meet the needs of two groups of physicists engaged in physics education. The first is the growing number whose field of scholarly inquiry is (or might become) physics education research. The second is the much larger community of physics instructors whose primary interest is in using the results from research as a guide for improving instruction.

Redish, Am J Phys (1999)

Millikan Award Lecture (1998): Building a Science of Teaching Physics

E. F. Redish, Am J Phys, 67, p 755-767 (September, 1999). (html version)

Abstract: Individual teachers of college level physics sometimes develop deep insights into how their students learn and what elements of classroom instruction are valuable in facilitating the learning process. Yet these insights rarely persist beyond the individual instructor. Educational methods seem to cycle from one fad to another, rarely cumulating increasingly powerful knowledge in the way scientists expect understanding to grow. In this paper I explore the character of our understanding of the physical world and of teaching about it. The critical factor is using "the culture of science" — the set of processes that allow us to build a community consensus knowledge base. Elements of the beginning of a base for our educational knowledge are discussed and examples given from discipline-based physics education research.

Redish & Steinberg, Physics Today (1999)

Teaching physics: Figuring out what works

E. F. Redish & R. N. Steinberg, Physics Today, 52, p 24-30 (Jan 1999). (html version)

Wittmann, Steinberg & Redish, Am J Phys (1999)

Making Sense of How Students Make Sense of Mechanical Waves

M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg & E. F. Redish, The Physics Teacher, 37, p 15-21 (Jan 1999).

Abstract: In our classroom experiences as teachers, we are
often baffled when students correctly answer questions in one setting and then can’t answer seemingly identical questions in another. Obviously, their understanding of the material is not as strong as we would like. But are we asking the relevant questions when we come to this conclusion? Do the students
fundamentally not know the material? Do they know it but not recognize appropriate circumstances in which to use it? And how should our instruction
and evaluation of their knowledge depend on the answers to these questions?

We have begun to address these questions at the University of Maryland using the methods and tools of physics education research.(1) Our approach combines the study of student difficulties with physics with the design of instructional materials and environments that help students improve their understanding. This approach can lead to educational environments
that help students overcome their difficulties. (2)

We report here on our study of student understanding of the physics of mechanical waves. Understanding wave physics is important for making sense of physical optics, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetic radiation. Previous research has shown that students have fundamental difficulties with some of the basic concepts of wave physics.