Bulletin of the American Physical Society
APS April Meeting 2019
Volume 64, Number 3
Saturday–Tuesday, April 13–16, 2019; Denver, Colorado
Session J13: Physics Education Research: Learning in Introductory Courses, Advanced Courses, and Informal Settings |
Hide Abstracts |
Sponsoring Units: GPER Chair: Paula Heron, University of Washington Room: Sheraton Plaza Court 2 |
Sunday, April 14, 2019 1:30PM - 1:42PM |
J13.00001: Investigating students’ implementation of and preference for the methods of solving for expectation values in quantum mechanics Benjamin Schermerhorn, Gina Passante, Homeyra R Sadaghiani, Steven J Pollock A common activity in undergraduate quantum mechanics involves calculating expectation values. Analysis of written exam data given at three universities, using a spins-first curriculum, showed students had a tendency to use matrix or integral calculation in situations where it is simpler to use the summation method. To investigate students’ use of and preferences for the various methods, interviews were conducted at two of the universities in the middle and end of the semester. Adapting Gire and Price’s framework for categorizing structural features of different quantum mechanical notation, we analyze student responses to expectation value problems to highlight specific areas of difficulty and features of the methods which led to students’ choices of one method over another. |
Sunday, April 14, 2019 1:42PM - 1:54PM |
J13.00002: Investigating the dynamics of ontological reasoning in quantum physics Jessica R. Hoehn, Julian D. Gifford, Noah D. Finkelstein The ontologies students use—how they reason about what kind of a thing a given entity is—impact the way they learn physics. We investigate students’ capacities for flexible use of ontologies in a modern physics context, focusing on reasoning around photons and electrons for three canonical topics in introductory quantum physics (double slit experiment, Mach-Zehnder interferometer, quantum tunneling). We present a description of a framework that identifies three possible ontological structures: unitary (applying a single stable ontology), parallel (switching back and forth between multiple ontologies), and blended (constructing a novel ontology by blending multiple input ontologies). We demonstrate the utility of the framework by coding individual homework, exam, and survey responses from a representative sample of a modern physics course. We demonstrate that students use a variety of ontologies and ontological structures across entities and topic areas, even when not explicitly prompted to do so. Additionally, we find that the wording and framing of the questions impact students’ use of ontologies, and present examples to demonstrate how the wording, framing, and content of prompts can intersect to impact students’ ontology use. |
Sunday, April 14, 2019 1:54PM - 2:06PM |
J13.00003: PIQL: A new assessment of mathematical reasoning development in physics instruction Suzanne White Brahmia, Alexis Olsho, Andrew Boudreaux, Trevor I. Smith Mathematical reasoning flexibility across physics contexts is a desirable learning outcome of introductory physics, where the “math world” and “physical world” meet. Physics Quantitative Literacy (PQL) is a set of interconnected skills and habits of mind that support quantitative reasoning about the physical world. We present the PIQL, Physics Inventory of Quantitative Literacy, which is currently under development in a multi-institution collaboration. PIQL assesses students’ proportional reasoning, co-variational reasoning, and reasoning with signed quantities as they are used in physics. Unlike concept inventories, which assess conceptual mastery of specific physics ideas, PIQL is a reasoning inventory that can provide snapshots of student ideas that are continuously developing. Item distractors are constructed based on the different established natures of the mathematical objects in physics contexts (e.g. the negative sign as a descriptor of charge type and the negative sign as indicator of opposition in Hooke’s law). An analysis of student responses on PIQL will allow for assessment of hierarchical reasoning patterns, and thereby potentially map the emergence of mathematical reasoning flexibility throughout the introductory sequence. |
Sunday, April 14, 2019 2:06PM - 2:18PM |
J13.00004: The Impact of the DATA Lab Course Transformation on Student Epistemological Beliefs about Experimental Physics Rachel Henderson, Kelsey Funkhouser, Marcos D. Caballero In response to the national call from the PER community to focus on student engagement within the physics laboratory, the Michigan State University physics department has recently transformed its algebra-based, introductory physics laboratory curriculum. This newly transformed course, Design, Analysis, Tools, and Apprenticeship (DATA) Lab, emphasizes the development of experimental skills and laboratory practices and provides students with an authentic physics laboratory experience. In this presentation, we will discuss the differences in how students perceive experimental physics between the context of the traditional laboratory course and the newly developed DATA Lab. In both courses, data was collected pre- and post-instruction via the Colorado Learning Attitudes and Science Survey for Experimental Physics (E-CLASS). Results showed a significant difference in post-test scores between the traditional laboratory and the transformed DATA Lab with the transformed course having a higher percentage of expert-like responses. Item-level statistics were also analyzed and results showed the largest post-test difference between the two courses for the E-CLASS items that were directly aligned with the DATA Lab learning goals. |
Sunday, April 14, 2019 2:18PM - 2:30PM |
J13.00005: Characterizing Active Learning Environments in Physics: Preliminary Results Kelley A Commeford, Eric Brewe, Adrienne L Traxler There is broad evidence that active learning leads to improved student outcomes as compared with traditional lecture. Relatively little work has been done to distinguish outcomes from different types of active learning. We have looked at six different active learning curricula in physics, using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS), as well as self-reported student social network data. Together, these data will show how classroom activities drive student social network development for each curriculum. In this talk, we will discuss preliminary findings. |
Sunday, April 14, 2019 2:30PM - 2:42PM |
J13.00006: Impact of Exam Retakes on Introductory Physics Courses Tim J Stelzer Introductory physics is a roadblock for many aspiring engineers at the University of Illinois. The overall attrition rate in our introductory mechanics and E&M courses is approximately 15%, however that rate doubles for some under-represented populations. Students who do poorly on the first midterm often chalk it up to “a bad day". Offering a retake gives students a chance to see if it really was a bad day, or if they need to make a change in how they are studying. This talk will show the impact that offering the retake exams has had on students in our calculus based introductory physics courses. |
Sunday, April 14, 2019 2:42PM - 2:54PM |
J13.00007: The Learning About STEM Student Outcomes (LASSO) Platform for assessment and research Jayson M Nissen, Ben Van Dusen How effective is my teaching? For over thirty years, instructors have used concept inventories and attitudes surveys to help answer this question. Unfortunately, no large-scale datasets have existed to inform their answers. Instead, instructors have relied upon rough rules of thumb and intuition. LASSO is an online platform designed to help instructors answer this question. The platform administers, aggregates, and scores pre/post, research-based assessments for instructors. Instructors receive a report on their students’ outcomes and can download all the data from their students. The platform also anonymizes the data and makes it available to researchers. To support educators and researchers in assessing instruction, the LASSO development team is working on integrating normative, national-level data into the assessment reports. We will present an analysis of concept inventory and attitudes surveys from over 300 introductory physics courses. Our discussion will cover how we intend to integrate these results into the LASSO platform to help researchers and instructors in assessing student outcomes. |
Sunday, April 14, 2019 2:54PM - 3:06PM |
J13.00008: Is participation in public engagement programs an integral part of shaping physics students' identity? Claudia E Fracchiolla, Kathleen A Hinko, Brean Prefontaine, Manuel Vasquez In a time when the line between facts and opinion is blurring, public engagement from physics departments has become an important task. In the last few years, funding agencies are highlighting the importance of engaging the public's interest in physics and reaching out to diverse populations through the support of programs and public campaigns to attract students to physics. However, these recruitment strategies will not suffice if the culture of physics departments does not become more inclusive. Informal physics programs are often designed to address issues of representation, by providing opportunities and spaces to build participants' physics identity. In university settings, we are seeing an increase of physics students choosing to participate in public engagement activities. However, the impact of participation, in these programs, has on the facilitators (university students) is largely understudied. In this study, we seek to understand university students' negotiation of their physics identity after participation in informal physics programs. |
Sunday, April 14, 2019 3:06PM - 3:18PM |
J13.00009: What Factors Influence Pedagogical Methods in Informal Learning Spaces? Michael B Bennett, Noah D. Finkelstein Informal STEM education programs, such as the University of Colorado Boulder-sponsored Partnerships for Informal Science Education in the Community (PISEC) outreach program, present unique opportunities to study pedagogical methods; student participation is largely voluntary and programs are often designed toward affect goals rather that content. Previously, it has been observed that PISEC university educators (UEs) tend to employ three broad pedagogical “modes” as they engage with students (Hinko, PRPER 2016). To determine the factors that influence their choices to engage in one or more modes, we surveyed UEs before and after training in these pedagogical modes, recorded and analyzed in-situ video of their teaching, and performed semi-structured interviews that included stimulated recall of their teaching. We will here discuss our methodology and findings, including factors that affect discrepancies between UEs’ stated and enacted pedagogical preferences, and implications for improving teacher preparation in the informal sector as well as potentially in the classroom. |
Follow Us |
Engage
Become an APS Member |
My APS
Renew Membership |
Information for |
About APSThe American Physical Society (APS) is a non-profit membership organization working to advance the knowledge of physics. |
© 2024 American Physical Society
| All rights reserved | Terms of Use
| Contact Us
Headquarters
1 Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3844
(301) 209-3200
Editorial Office
100 Motor Pkwy, Suite 110, Hauppauge, NY 11788
(631) 591-4000
Office of Public Affairs
529 14th St NW, Suite 1050, Washington, D.C. 20045-2001
(202) 662-8700