APS April Meeting 2010
Volume 55, Number 1
Saturday–Tuesday, February 13–16, 2010;
Washington, DC
Session S6: 2010 Excellence In Physics Education Award Presentations
3:30 PM–5:18 PM,
Monday, February 15, 2010
Room: Washington 5
Sponsoring
Unit:
FEd
Chair: Richard Peterson, Bethel University
Abstract ID: BAPS.2010.APR.S6.1
Abstract: S6.00001 : Excellence in Physics Education Award Talk: The Role of Physics Education Research in the Design and Assessment of Active Learning Curricula and Tools
3:30 PM–4:06 PM
Preview Abstract
Abstract
Author:
Ronald Thornton
(Tufts University)
For the Activity Based Physics Group (APB), research in student
learning has been a cornerstone, for the past 22 years, of the
development of activity-based curricula supported by real-time
data collection, analysis, and modeling. This presentation, the
first of three related talks, will focus on student learning,
Priscilla Laws will describe the curriculum and tools developed,
and David Sokoloff will describe dissemination efforts. One of
the earliest examples of seminal research, done as part of the
early MBL development for middle school at TERC, showed that
delaying the display of a position-time graph by 10 seconds
instead of displaying it in real-time resulted in a substantial
learning decrease. This result assured the use of real-time data
collection in our curricula. As we developed our early kinematics
and dynamics curricula for college and high school, we
interviewed many students before and after instruction, to
understand where they started and what they had learned. We used
the results of these interviews and written student explanations
of their thinking to develop robust multiple-choice evaluations
that were easy to give and allowed us to understand student
thinking using both ``right and wrong'' responses. Work such as
this resulted in Questions on Linear Motion, Force and Motion
Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE), Heat and Temperature Conceptual
Evaluation (HTCE), Electrical Circuit Conceptual Evaluation
(ECCE), Light and Optics Conceptual Evaluation (LOCE) and others
which guided our curriculum development and convinced many that
standard instruction in physics did not result in substantial
conceptual learning. Other evaluations measured mathematical
understandings.evaluations also allowed us to look at a
progression of student ideas as they learned (``Conceptual
Dynamics''), study the behavior of students who did and did
not learn conceptually (``Uncommon Knowledge''), study the
efficacy of peer groups, and finally identify some of factors
that led to conceptual learning for both women and men. (e.g.
increases in spatial ability).
To cite this abstract, use the following reference: http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2010.APR.S6.1