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.

Conlin, Gupta, Scherr & Hammer, AIP Conf Proceedings (2007)

The Dynamics of Students' Behaviors and Reasoning During Collaborative Physics Tutorial Sessions

L. Conlin, A. Gupta, R. Scherr & D. Hammer, AIP Conference Proceedings 951, Physics Education Research Conference, p 69-72 (2007). (html version)

Abstract: We investigate the dynamics of student behaviors (posture, gesture, vocal register, visual focus) and the substance of their reasoning during collaborative work on inquiry-based physics tutorials. Scherr has characterized student activity during tutorials as observable clusters of behaviors separated by sharp transitions, and has argued that these behavioral modes reflect students' epistemological framing of what they are doing, i.e., their sense of what is taking place with respect to knowledge. We analyze students' verbal reasoning during several tutorial sessions using the framework of Russ, and find a strong correlation between certain behavioral modes and the scientific quality of students' explanations. We suggest that this is due to a dynamic coupling of how students behave, how they frame an activity, and how they reason during that activity. This analysis supports the earlier claims of a dynamic between behavior and epistemology. We discuss implications for research and instruction.

Scherr & Hammer, Cognition and Instruction (2009)

Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics

R. E. Scherr & D. Hammer, Cognition and Instruction, to be published (April 2009)

Abstract: Questions of participant understanding of the nature of an activity have been addressed in anthropology and sociolinguistics with the concepts of frames and framing. For example, a student may frame a learning activity as an opportunity for sensemaking or as an assignment to fill out a worksheet. The student’s understanding of the nature of the activity affects what she notices, what knowledge she accesses, and how she thinks to act. Previous analyses have found evidence of framing primarily in linguistic markers associated with speech acts. In this paper, we show that there is useful evidence of framing in easily observed features of students’ behavior. We apply this observational methodology to explore dynamics among behavior, framing, and the conceptual substance of student reasoning in the context of collaborative active-learning activities in an introductory university physics course.

Goertzen, Scherr & Elby, AIP Conf Proceedings (2008)

Indicators of understanding: What TAs listen for in student responses

R. M. Goertzen, R. E. Scherr & A. Elby, in AIP Conference Proceedings 1064, 2008 Physics Education Research Conference, C. Henderson, M. Sabella & L. Hsu (Eds.), p 119-122 (2008). (link to journal article)

Abstract: Before we can develop effective, research-based professional development programs for graduate student physics TAs, we must first identify their current classroom practices and why they engage in these practices. Framing, a theoretical framework developed in sociology and linguistics, provides an analytical toolbox for examining the expectations that guide the actions and attention of individuals while teaching. We use framing to develop fine-grained analyses of two episodes of TAs teaching tutorials. Despite the differences in their behaviors, the two TAs are in a sense both doing the same thing; they organize their interactions with students around ``searching for indicators'' that the students understand the targeted ideas.

Scherr, Am J Phys (2007)

Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity

R. E. Scherr, American Journal of Physics, 70(3), p 272-280 (2007).

Abstract: Our understanding of the nature of student ideas informs our instructional and research agendas. In this paper, I characterize student ideas in terms of five observable properties determinacy, coherence, context-dependence, variability, and malleability and describe how those observable properties correspond to the “misconceptions” and “pieces” models of student reasoning. I then analyze instructional materials and student thinking in a particular topic area special relativity in terms of each of those two models. I show that specific instructional strategies reflect specific theoretical orientations, and explore the extent to which observed student behavior corresponds to predictions made by the theoretical models. The analysis suggests that while both the misconceptions and pieces models are flexible enough to accommodate all of the data, some aspects of student thinking seem best described in terms of pieces, and others seem better characterized as misconceptions. The purpose of the analysis is to illustrate the effect of theoretical orientation on instruction, instructional research, and curriculum development.

Scherr & Elby, AIP Conference Proceedings (2006)

Enabling informed adaptation: Open-source physics worksheets integrated with implementation resources

R. E. Scherr & A. Elby, in AIP Conference Proceedings 883, Physics Education Research Conference, P. R. Heron, L. McCullough & J. Marx (Eds.), p 46-49 (2006).

Abstract: Instructors inevitably need to adapt even the best reform materials to suit their local circumstances. We offer a package of research-based, open-source, epistemologically-focused mechanics tutorials, along with the detailed information instructors need to make effective modifications and offer professional development to teaching assistants. In particular, our tutorials are hyperlinked to instructor's guides that include the rationale behind the various questions, advice from experienced instructors, and video clips of students working on the materials. Our materials thus facilitate their own implementation and develop instructor expertise with PER-based instructional materials.

Scherr, Russ, Bing & Hodges, Phys Rev Special Topics: PER (2006)

Initiation of student-TA interactions in tutorials

R. E. Scherr, R. S. Russ, T. J. Bing & R. A. Hodges, Phys. Rev. - Special Topics: Physics Education Research 2, 020108-020116 (2006). (html link to journal article)

Abstract: At the University of Maryland we videotaped several semesters of tutorials as part of a large research project. A particular research task required us to locate examples of students calling the teaching assistants TAs over for assistance with a physics question. To our surprise, examples of this kind of interaction were difficult to find. We undertook a systematic study of TA-student interactions in tutorial: In particular, how are the interactions initiated? Do the students call the TA over for help with a particular issue, does the TA stop by spontaneously, or does the worksheet require a discussion with the TA at that point? The initiation of the interaction is of particular interest because it provides evidence of the motivation for and purpose of the interaction. This paper presents the results of that systematic investigation. We discovered that the majority of student-TA interactions in tutorial are initiated by teaching assistants, confirmed our initial observation that relatively few interactions are initiated by students, and found, further, that even fewer interactions are worksheet initiated. Perhaps most importantly, we found that our sense of who initiates tutorial interactions—based on extensive but informal observations—is not necessarily accurate. We need systematic investigations to uncover the reality of our classroom experiences.

Wittmann, Heron & Scherr, APS Forum on Education Newsletter (2005)

Overview of the Foundations and Frontiers in Physics Education Research Conference

M. C. Wittmann, P. R. L. Heron & R. E. Scherr, APS Forum on Education Newsletter (Fall 2005). (pdf of APS Newsletter)

Scherr, The Physics Teacher (2003)

An implementation of Physics by Inquiry in a large-enrollment class

R. E. Scherr, The Physics Teacher, 41(2), p 113-118 (2003). 

Abstract: As physics instructors, we enjoy access to a variety of powerful instructional materials. Among them are classroom-tested inquiry-based laboratory curricula such as Physics by Inquiry [1] and Workshop Physics.[2] Unfortunately, such materials are often tested in conditions unattainable in introductory physics courses. In particular, the recommended instructor-student ratio tends to be larger than we can afford. This article describes a implementation of Physics by Inquiry in a liberal-arts physics class with 70 students and one instructor. I discuss the choices I made with the materials under these circumstances, describe the challenges that arose, and offer evidence that the course was fairly successful. Examples such as this one show that proven instructional materials can be put to good use even in circumstances that fall outside the tested conditions.

Scherr, AIP Conf Proceedings (2003)

Gestures as evidence of student thinking in physics

R. E. Scherr, in AIP Conference Proceedings 720, 2003 Physics Education Research Conference, J. Marx, K. Cummings & S. Franklin (Eds.), p 61-64 (2003)

Abstract: Student gestures are part of how students articulate their ideas, and can be of use to us in diagnosing student thinking and forming effective pedagogical responses. This paper presents examples of gestures that occur in a conversation between students and a TA about a mechanics homework problem, and analyzes one gesture that was particularly significant to the conversation.

Scherr, Shaffer & Vokos, Am J Phys (2002)

The challenge of changing deeply-held student beliefs about the relativity of simultaneity

R. E. Scherr, P. S. Shaffer & S. Vokos, American Journal of Physics, 70(12), p 1238-1248 (2002). (html version)

Abstract:  Previous research indicates that after standard instruction students at all academic levels often construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity co-exist. This article describes the development and assessment of instructional materials intended to improve student understanding of the concept of time in special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity, and the role of observers in inertial reference frames. Results from pretests and post-tests are presented to demonstrate the effect of the curriculum in helping students deepen their understanding of these topics. Excerpts from taped interviews and classroom interactions help illustrate the intense cognitive conflict that students encounter as they are led to confront the incompatibility of their deeply-held beliefs about simultaneity with the results of special relativity.

Scherr & Wittmann, PER Conference Proceedings (2002)

The challenge of listening: The effect of researcher agenda on data collection and interpretation

R. E. Scherr & M. C. Wittmann, in Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, S. Franklin, K. Cummings & J. Marx (Eds.), (2002). (frame html version)

Abstract: A researcher's interests dictate which student statements in a clinical interview are considered to constitute data. To the extent that our research agendas are unexamined, they may control our attention inappropriately, limiting the effectiveness of both data collection and data interpretation. We describe an interview in which the interviewer paid nearly exclusive attention to the student's conceptual understanding of charge flow, thereby missing information about her epistemological stance that might have made the interview itself more productive. We also present our initial collaborative analysis of the same interview, in which we judged a particular interview excerpt to contain relatively little information, and show that our judgment reveals more about our implicit research agenda than about the quality of the interview data itself. The data presented in this talk is analyzed from two other perspectives in the other two talks in this session.

Wittmann & Scherr, PER Conference Proceedings (2002)

Student epistemological stance constraining researcher access to student thinking: An example from an interview on charge flow

M. C. Wittmann & R. E. Scherr, in Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, S. Franklin, K. Cummings & J. Marx (Eds.), (2002).

Abstract: A student's guiding epistemological mode (be it knowledge as memorized information, knowledge from authority, or knowledge as fabricated stuff) may constrain that student from reasoning in productive ways while also shaping the inferences a researcher can make about how that student reasons about a particular phenomenon. We discuss both cases in the context of an individual student interview on charge flow in wires. In the first part of the interview, her focus on memorized knowledge prevents the researcher from learning about her detailed reasoning about current. In the second part of the interview, her focus on constructed knowledge provides the researcher with a picture of her reasoning about the physical mechanisms of charge flow.

Scherr, Shaffer & Vokos, Am J Phys PER Suppl (2001)

Student understanding of time in special relativity: Simultaneity and reference frames

R. E. Scherr, P. S. Shaffer & S. Vokos, American Journal of Physics, Physics Education Research Supplement, 69, S24-S35 (2001). (link to journal article)

Abstract: This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

Scherr & Elby, Proceedings of 2006 PER Conference (2007)

Enabling informed adaptation: Open-source physics worksheets integrated with implementation resources

R. E. Scherr & A. Elby, in Proceedings of the 2006 Physics Education Research Conference, P. R. Heron, L. McCollough & J. Marx (Eds.), Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics (2007).

Abstract: Instructors inevitably need to adapt even the best reform materials to suit their local circumstances. We offer a package of research-based, open-source, epistemologically-focused mechanics tutorials, along with the detailed information instructors need to make effective modifications and offer professional development to teaching assistants. In particular, our tutorials are hyperlinked to instructor's guides that include the rationale behind the various questions, advice from experienced instructors, and video clips of students working on the materials. Our materials thus facilitate their own implementation and develop instructor expertise with PER-based instructional materials.

Russ, Scherr, Hammer & Mikeska, Science Education (2008)

Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science

R. S. Russ, R. E. Scherr, D. Hammer & J. Mikeska, Science Education, 92(3), p 499-525 (2008). (link to journal article)

Abstract: Science education reform has long focused on assessing student inquiry, and there has been progress in developing tools specifically with respect to experimentation and argumentation. We suggest the need for attention to another aspect of inquiry, namely mechanistic reasoning. Scientific inquiry focuses largely on understanding causal mechanisms that underlie natural phenomena. We have adapted an account of mechanism from philosophy of science studies in professional science [Machamer, P., Darden, D., & Craver, C. F., (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1-25] to develop a framework for discourse analysis that aids in identifying and analyzing students' mechanistic reasoning. We analyze a discussion among first-grade students about falling objects (1) to illustrate the generativity of the framework, (2) to demonstrate that mechanistic reasoning is abundantly present even in these young students, and (3) to show that mechanistic reasoning is episodic in their discourse.

Hammer, Russ, Mikeska & Scherr, Establishing a Consensus Agenda for K-12 Science Inquiry (2008)

Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students' abilities

D. Hammer, R. Russ, J. Mikeska & R. Scherr, in Establishing a Consensus Agenda for K-12 Science Inquiry, R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers (2008).

Redish, Scherr & Tuminaro, The Physics Teacher (2006)

Reverse Engineering the Solution of a "Simple" Physics Problem: Why learning physics is harder than it looks

E. F. Redish, R. E. Scherr & J. Tuminaro, published in a slightly abbreviated version in The Physics Teacher, 44, p 293 (May 2006).

Abstract:  Problem solving is the heart and soul of most college physics and many high school physics courses. The “big idea” is that physics tells you more about a physical situation than you thought you knew — and you can quantify it if you use fundamental physical principles expressed in mathematical form. Often, the results of your problem solving can lead you to understand and rethink your intuitions about the physical world in new and more productive ways. As a result, physics is a great place (some of us would claim the best place) to learn how to use mathematics effectively in science.

As physics teachers, we often stress the importance of problem solving in learning physics. Unfortunately, many of our students appear to find problem solving very difficult. Sometimes they generate ridiculous answers and seem satisfied with them. Sometimes they can do the calculations but not interpret the implications of the results. Sometimes, despite apparent success in problem solving, they seem to have a poor understanding of the physics that went into the problems.1 We give them explicit instructions on how to solve problems (“draw a picture,” “find the right equation,” …) but it doesn’t seem to help.

We might respond that they need to take more math prerequisite classes, but in the algebra-based physics class at the University of Maryland, almost all of the students have taken calculus and earned an A or a B. Many of them have been successful in classes such as organic chemistry, cellular biology, and genetics. Why do they have so much trouble with the math in an introductory physics class?

As part of a research project to study learning in algebra-based physics,2 the Physics Education Research Group at the University of Maryland videotaped students working together on physics problems. Analyzing these tapes gives us new insights into the problems they have in using math in the context of physics. One problem is that they have inappropriate expectations as to how to solve problems in physics (some of it learned, perhaps, in math classes). This is discussed elsewhere.3 A second problem seems to lie with the instructors. As instructors, we may have misconceptions about how people think and learn, and this has important implications about how we interpret what our students are doing.

In this paper, we want to consider one example of students working on a physics problem that showed us in a dramatic fashion that we had failed to understand the work the students needed to do in order to solve an apparently “simple” problem in electrostatics. Our critical misunderstanding was failing to realize the level of complexity that we had built into our own “obvious" knowledge about physics.

Scherr & Redish, The Physics Teacher (2005)

Newton's zeroth law: Learning from listening to our students

R. E. Scherr & E. F. Redish, The Physics Teacher, 43, p 41-45 (2005).

Abstract: Introductory physics students have difficulty with free-body diagrams. A principle we call “Newton’s Zeroth Law” articulates important (but usually tacit) ideas underlying them. In this paper we explain our use of Newton’s Zeroth Law in the introductory algebra-based course at the University of Maryland. We also discuss how one student’s “misconception” led us to see that an alternative formulation of Newton’s laws is possible, one that we had not previously considered, even after many years of teaching the subject.

Hammer, Elby, Scherr & Redish, Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives (2004)

Resources, framing, and transfer

D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr & E. F. Redish, in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, J. Mestre (Ed.) Information Age Publishing: Greenwich, CT (2005), pp. 89-119.

Abstract: As researchers studying student reasoning in introductory physics, and as instructors teaching courses, we often focus on whether and how students apply what they know in one context to their reasoning in another. But we do not speak in terms of “transfer.” The term connotes to us a unitary view of knowledge as a thing that is acquired in one context and carried (or not) to another. We speak, rather, in terms of activating resources, a language with an explicitly manifold view of cognitive structure. In this chapter, we describe this view and argue that it provides a more firm and generative basis for research.

In particular, our resources-based perspective accounts for why it is difficult, and perhaps unnecessary, to draw a boundary around the notion of “transfer”; provides an analytical framework for exploring the differences between active transfer involving metacognition and passive transfer that “just happens”; helps to explain many results in the transfer literature, such as the rarity of certain kinds of transfer and the ubiquity of others; and provides an ontological underpinning for new views of transfer such as Bransford, Schwartz, and Sears’ (this issue) “preparation for future learning.”