Th IImpact

The p t off Ph Physics

y i Education
Ed ti Research
R h
on th
the T
Teaching
hi off IIntroductory
t d t Q
Quantitative
tit ti Ph
Physics
i
Charles Henderson*
Henderson , Melissa H
H. Dancy
y †
University, † Johnson C.
*Western Michigan University
*Western C Smith
S University

Problem Results: Knowledge Results: Use Results: Modifications

The last 30 years has seen the development and 87 3% of faculty report that they know about 1 or more
•87.3% 1% of faculty say that they use 1 or more RBIS
•48.1%
•48 RBIS are not typically used as recommended by the
•RBIS
di
dissemination
i ti off manyy Research-Based
R h B d Instructional
I t ti l RBIS
RBIS. In general,
•In general faculty use at B B.A.
A institutions is higher than developer
developer.
Strategies (RBIS) for use in introductory college-level
college level 0 3%
% know
•50.3% k about
b six i or more. th t att ttwo yyear colleges
that ll g or Grad
G d institutions.
i tit ti f l y do
•faculty d not always
l y realize
li the
h extent off modification
difi i
physics courses. Although substantial time and money has •In general,
general faculty knowledge at B B.A.
A institutions is higher they have made.
made
ggone into
i t developing
d l pi g these
th RBIS,
RBIS little
littl effort
ff t has
h gone
g into
i t than that at two year colleges or Grad institutions.
institutions
understanding whether typical physics instructors use or
even know about these products. In this poster we describe F lty K
Faculty Knowledge
l dg F lty Use
Faculty U F lty S
Faculty Self-Reported
lf R p t d MModifications
difi ti
and present the results of a web survey designed to
RBIS All Faculty
F lty RBIS All Faculty
F lty PI RT CGPS RTPL
document the degree to which Physics Education Research
Peer Instruction 63.5%
63 5% Peer Instruction 29.2%
29 2% (N=195)
(N 195) (N=99)
(N 99) (N=96)
(N 96) (N=47)
(N 47)
((PER)) hhas iimpacted
p t d th
the tteaching
hi g off iintroductory
t d t y physics.
phy i
Physlets 56 3
56.3 I used it basically as
Ranking Tasks 15 4
15.4 16 9%
16.9% 33 3%
33.3% 8 3%
8.3% 25 5%
25.5%
Research Questions described by the developer.
C p ti G
Cooperative Group pP
Problem
bl I t
Interactive
ti Lecture
L t D
Demonstrations
t ti 13 9
13.9
49 3
49.3 I made
d some relatively
l ti ly
Solving Cooperative Group Problem 13 7
13.7 35 9
35.9 38 4
38.4 16 7
16.7 53 2
53.2
11. Which RBIS do faculty know about? minor modifications
Workshop Physics 48.2 Solving
2 Which
2. Whi h RBIS ddo ffaculty
lty use?? I usedd some off th
the id
ideas,
J st in Time Teaching
Just g 47 7
47.7 Phy l t
Physlets 13.0
13 0 but made significant 41 0
41.0 21 2
21.2 47 9
47.9 21 3
21.3
3 To what extent are RBIS modified during use?
3.
Tutorials in Introductory Physics 47 0
47.0 Just in Time Teaching 84
8.4 modifications
difi ti
This study
Thi t d was focused
f d on college-level
ll l l quantitative
tit ti physics.
h i By
B
Interactive Lecture Context Rich Problems 83
8.3 I am not familiar enough
45 4
45.4
quantitative physics we are referring to the algebra
algebra- or calculus
calculus-based
based Demonstrations T t i l in
Tutorials i Introductory
I t d t y Physics
Phy i 79
7.9 with the developer
developer’ss
62
6.2 71
7.1 27 1
27.1 00
0.0
introductory physics classes that often go by the names of “college
college Activity Based Problem Tutorials 43.0
43 0 Real Time Physics Labs 73
7.3 description
p to answer this
pphysics”
y or “universityy physics”.
p y R ki g T
Ranking Tasks
k 38 7
38.7 question
Workshop Physics 6.7
SCALE UP
SCALE-UP 34 5
34.5 TIPERS
TIPERS: T k
Tasks I pi d by
Inspired by 66
6.6 All Users
U 100 100 100 100
M th d
Methods Active Learning Problem Sheets 34 3
34.3 Physics Education Research
TABLE 4: Extent of modification identified by self
self-reported
reported users of
M d li g
Modeling 32 7
32.7 Activity Based Problem Tutorials 6.0
6 0
A web-based
web based survey was developed by the authors in all or part of each of four RBIS: Peer Instruction (PI),
(PI) Ranking
Real Time Physics Labs 32 4
32.4 A ti Learning
Active L i g Problem
P bl Sh t
Sheets 59
5.9 Tasks (RT), Cooperative Group Problem Solving (CGPS), and Real
consultation with researchers at the American Institute of
Context Rich Problems 30.4 Time Physics Labs (RTPL).
(RTPL) The percentages listed are the
Phy i Statistical
Physics St ti ti l Research
R h Center
C t ((SRC).
(SRC)) O One part
p t off the
th E p i
Experiment t Problems
P bl 40
4.0
O
Overview
i C
Case StStudy
dy Ph
Physics
y i 24 7
24.7 percentage of users within each of the RBIS categories who
web survey asked faculty to rate their level of knowledge SCALE-UP 33
3.3
Open Source Physics 21 8
21.8 answered the question.
question
and/or use of 24 specific RBIS.
RBIS The following five categories Modeling 3.2
Investigative Science Learning
were used: d 1)) I currently
tly use allll or part
p t off it (current
( t user),),) 2)) 21 1
21.1 Video Lab 31
3.1
Self-Reported Use of Peer Instruction
Environment
I have used all or part of it in the past (former user), user) 3) I am Open Source Physics 19
1.9
TIPERS: Tasks Inspired by
familiar with it, but have never used it (knowledgeable 20.9
Phy i Education
Physics Ed ti RResearch h Socratic Dialog Inducing Labs 19
1.9 O ly 6.2%
•Only 6 2% off faculty
f lty use five
fi components
p t off Peer
P
non ser)) 4)) I’I’vee heard the name
nonuser), name, bbutt do not kno know mmuchch else
Open Source Tutorials 20.8
20 8 Overview Case Study Physics 17
1.7 Instruction Results from Cooperative Group Problem
Instruction.
about it (little knowledge),
knowledge) 5) I have never heard of it (no
Video Lab 18 8
18.8 Op Source
Open S T t i l
Tutorials 17
1.7 Solving are similarly small (1.0%).
knowledge).
o edge) Investigative Science Learning 16
1.6
W kb k ffor Introductory
Workbook I t d t y Ph Physics
y i 18 5
18.5
Experiment Problems 17 3
17.3 Environment Components of Peer Instruction

uctiion Users
The survey was administered in Fall 2008 by SRC. SRC Sampling

ery cclasss)
as in
Socratic Dialog Inducing Labs 16.3 Thi ki g Problems
Thinking P bl 1.1
1 1

multiple times
e/disscusss
or
was done
d att three
th types
typ off institutions:
i tit ti 1)) two
t year
y colleges,
ll g ,

uss idea
e
ps (mulltiple
e (fo

al

uestionss
Class orr

ptua

mess every
oting
nal Leccture
Thi ki g P
Thinking Problems
bl 15 1
15.1 Workbook for Introductory Physics 09
0.9

ass))

concep
mes eve

n alll tessts))
2) four year colleges that offer a physics bachelor
bachelor’ss degree

t 5

t 5
P r Instru

W ole cclass vo
veryy cla
S dentts diiscu

olve
E ry C

ptual qu

U s 4 of the

U s 3 of the
nts

nts

nts
e tim
everry classs)
qualitative/c
S dentts so
small grroup

m (m
nearrly Ever
e tim

nen

nen

nen
as the highest physics degree,
degree and 3) four year colleges that TABLE 2: Ranking of the 24 RBIS according to level of Knowledge TABLE 3: Ranking of the 24 RBIS according to level of Knowledge

U s alll 5
used on

mpon

mpon

mpon
T dition

multiple
All Peer

timess ev

blem
multiple

C cep
(
(percentage
t off faculty
f lt whoh indicate
i di t that
th t they
th currently
tl use the
th RBIS).
RBIS)

classs)
offer
ff a ggraduate
d t ddegree g in i physics.
phy i SRC staff t ff randomly
d ly (
(percentage
t off faculty
f lt whoh indicate
i di t that
th t they
th are currentt users,

Uses

Uses

Uses
Conc
Stud

Stud

Who

com

com

com
Trad

prob

(m

(u
m
A

q
p
e

c
c
selected institutions within each of the three types types. Once former users,
users or knowledgeable nonusers of the RBIS).
RBIS)
1. I used it basicallyy as
16 9%
16.9% 53 1%
53.1% 28 1%
28.1% 25 0%
25.0% 50 0%
50.0% 68 8% 6.3%
68.8% 6 3% 18.8%
18 8% 18.8%
18 8%
selected, SRC staff asked department chairs to identify Knowledge Use
described by developer

f lty who
faculty h were lik likely
ly tto meett th
the selection
l ti criteria
it i ffor th
the 2. I made some
2
relativelyy minor 35.9 47.8 33.3 30.4 40.6 69.6 7.2 14.5 14.5

survey Faculty were eligible for the survey if they had taught
survey. modifications
3. I used some of the
an introductory quantitative course in the last two years and ideas, but made
significant
i ifi t modifications
difi ti
41.0 62.0 24.1 27.8 36.7 63.3 6.3 15.2 13.9

were full time or permanent employees (i.e, (i e part time

time, 4. I am not familiar

temporary faculty were not eligible).

eligible) enough with the
developer's description
62
6.2 72 7
72.7 18 2
18.2 91
9.1 91
9.1 36 4
36.4 00
0.0 91
9.1 00
0.0
to answer the question

Table 1 shows the number of institutions and faculty in the All Peer Instruction
Users
100.0 54.9 27.2 26.7 37.9 63.6 6.2 14.9 13.8

population and sample,

sample the web survey response rate
rate, and
th number
the b off faculty
f lty who
h responded
p d d to t the
th survey.
y The
Th TABLE 5: Instructor use of developer
developer-recommended
recommended aspects of
overall response rate was 50.3%
50 3% resulting in 722 useable Peer Instruction.
Instruction Table represents all self-described
self described users of Peer
responses. Instruction. Respondents
p are broken into four categories
g based
on their self-described
self described degree of modification of Peer Instruction.
Instruction
Percentages
g reported
p are the ppercentage
g of respondents
p within a
Population Response Useable particular category.
category
Estimates Rate Responses
# off # off % off # off # off FIGURE 2.
2 Percentage of instructors who report using X or more RBIS.
RBIS Additional Information
Colleges Faculty faculty Colleges Faculty
FIGURE 1.
1 Percentage of instructors who report knowing about X or Email: Charles.Henderson@wmich.edu
Charles Henderson@wmich edu
Two Year College
Two-Year 1072 2560 53 7%
53.7% 128 186 more RBIS. mhdancy@JCSU EDU
mhdancy@JCSU.EDU
Four-Year C
College
g
w/ Physics Bachelor 511 2700 50 6%
50.6% 128 255
Conclusions
Web: http://homepages wmich edu/~chenders/
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~chenders/
D
Degree
Four-Year
F Y C College
ll • Dissemination efforts have impacted the knowledge and practice of many faculty,
faculty but there is room for Acknowledgements
w/ Physics Graduate 252 6300 48 2%
48.2% 89 281 improvement
improvement.
Degree
• Faculty knowledge of RBIS appears to be relatively widespread.
widespread This poster is based upon work supported
TABLE 11. Overview of population and web survey sample for faculty • RBIS are typically not used as recommended by the developer and faculty do not always realize the extent by the
by th NNational
ti l Science
S i Foundation
F d ti under d
in each type
yp of institution. Population
p estimates are from reports
p of modification they have made. Additional work is needed to understand more about why and how faculty Grant No.
No 0715698.
0715698 We wish to thank
published by the AIP.
AIP Susan White of SRC for her work in
make
k th
these modifications
difi ti and
d th
the extent
t t to
t which
hi h modifications
difi ti are ttypically
i ll constructive
t ti or destructive.
d t ti d l pi g andd administering
developing d i i t i g the
th webb
• Because
B off the
th high
high level
l l off modifications,
difi ti , change
h g agents
g t mayy bbe more successful f l if th
theyy provide
p id flexible
fl ibl survey as well as the physics instructors
curricula
i l and d substantial
b t ti l support
pp t and d guidance
g id during
d i g th
the iimplementation
pl t ti and d customization
t i ti pprocess. who took part in the survey.

POSTER TEMPLATE BY:

www PosterPresentations com

www.PosterPresentations.com