J. M. Saul, D. S. Abbott, G. W. Parker & R. J. Beichner, American Journal of Physics, Physics Education Research Supplement, 68(S1), S60-S61 (2000). (link to journal article)
Showing posts with label Saul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saul. Show all posts
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Saul, PhD Dissertation (1998)
Beyond problem solving: Evaluating introductory physics courses through the hidden curriculum
J. M. Saul, Ph.D. Dissertation, E. F. Redish (advisor), (1998). (html TOC and abstract)
Abstract: A large number of innovative approaches have been developed based on Physics Education Research (PER) to address student difficulties introductory physics instruction. Yet, there are currently few widely accepted assessment methods for determining the effectiveness of these methods. This dissertation compares the effectiveness of traditional calculus-based instruction with University of Washington's Tutorials, University of Minnesota's Group Problem Solving & Problem Solving Labs, and Dickinson College's Workshop Physics. Implementation of these curricula were studied at ten undergraduate institutions. The research methods used include the Force Concept Inventory (FCI), the Maryland Physics Expectation (MPEX) survey, specially designed exam problems, and interviews with student volunteers. The MPEX survey is a new diagnostic instrument developed specifically for this study.
Instructors often have learning goals for their students that go beyond having them demonstrate mastery of physics through typical end-of-chapter problems on exams and homeworks. Because these goals are often not stated explicitly nor adequatelyreinforced through grading and testing, we refer to this kind of learning goal as part of the course's ìhidden curriculum.î In this study, we evaluate two aspects of student learning from this hidden curriculum in the introductory physics sequence: conceptual understanding and expectations (cognitive beliefs that affect how students think about and learn physics).
We find two main results. First, the exam problems and the pre/post FCI results on students conceptual understanding showed that the three research-based curricula were more effective than traditional instruction for helping students learn velocity graphs, Newtonian concepts of force and motion, harmonic oscillator motion, and interference. Second, although the distribution of students' expectations vary for different student populations, the overall distributions differ considerably from what expert physics instructors would like them to have and differ even more by the end of the first year. Only students from two of the research-based sequences showed any improvement in their expectations.
Instructors often have learning goals for their students that go beyond having them demonstrate mastery of physics through typical end-of-chapter problems on exams and homeworks. Because these goals are often not stated explicitly nor adequatelyreinforced through grading and testing, we refer to this kind of learning goal as part of the course's ìhidden curriculum.î In this study, we evaluate two aspects of student learning from this hidden curriculum in the introductory physics sequence: conceptual understanding and expectations (cognitive beliefs that affect how students think about and learn physics).
We find two main results. First, the exam problems and the pre/post FCI results on students conceptual understanding showed that the three research-based curricula were more effective than traditional instruction for helping students learn velocity graphs, Newtonian concepts of force and motion, harmonic oscillator motion, and interference. Second, although the distribution of students' expectations vary for different student populations, the overall distributions differ considerably from what expert physics instructors would like them to have and differ even more by the end of the first year. Only students from two of the research-based sequences showed any improvement in their expectations.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Redish, Saul & Steinberg, Am J Phys (1998)
Student Expectations in Introductory Physics
E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul & R. N. Steinberg, Am J Phys, 66, p 212-224 (1998). (html version)
Abstract: Students' understanding of what science is about and how it is done and their expectations as to what goes on in a science course, can play a powerful role in what they get out of introductory college physics. In this paper, we describe the Maryland Physics Expectations (MPEX) Survey; a 34-item Likert-scale (agree-disagree) survey that probes student attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions about physics. We report on the results of pre- and post-instruction delivery of this survey to 1500 students in introductory calculus-based physics at six colleges and universities. We note a large gap between the expectations of experts and novices and observe a tendency for student expectations to deteriorate rather than improve as a result of the first term of introductory calculus-based physics.
Redish, Steinberg & Saul, ICUPE AIP (1996)
The Distribution and Change of Student Expectations in Introductory Physics
E. F. Redish, R. N. Steinberg & J. M. Saul, Invited poster, presented at The International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education (ICUPE), College Park, MD (July 31 - Aug 3, 1996). Proceedings to be published by the American Institute of Physics, E. Redish & J. Rigden (Eds). (html version)
Abstract: Students not only bring their prior understanding of physics concepts into the classroom, they also bring to their physics class a set of attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions about the nature of physics knowledge, what the students are to learn, what skills will be required of them, and what they need to do to succeed. These "expectations" can affect not only how students interpret class activities, but also from which of these activities the students build their understanding and the type of understanding they build. We report here on the development of the Maryland Physics Expectations (MPEX) Survey, a Likert-scale survey to probe these expectations. Observations of more than 1000 students at 5 institutions in first semester physics classes show that many students have expectation misconceptions about the nature of physics and what they should be doing to learn it. Furthermore, the effect of the first semester class is to deteriorate rather than improve these expectations.
Redish, Saul & Steinberg, Am J Phys (1997)
On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories
E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul & R. N. Steinberg, Am J Phys, 65, p 45-54 (Jan 1997). (html version)
Abstract: One hour active-engagement tutorials using microcomputer based laboratory (MBL) equipment were substituted for traditional problem-solving recitations in introductory calculus-based mechanics classes for engineering students at the University of Maryland. The results of two specific tutorials, one on the concept of instantaneous velocity and one on Newton's third law were probed by using standard multiple-choice questions and a free-response final exam question. A comparison of the results of eleven lecture classes taught by six different teachers with and without tutorials shows that the MBL tutorials resulted in a significant improvement compared to the traditional recitations when measured by carefuly designed multiple choice problems. The free-response question showed that, although the tutorial students did somewhat better in recognizing and applying the concepts, there is still room for improvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)