Changes In The Teaching of
Freshman Physics at MIT
2001-2006
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Outline of Presentation
•Pedagogy
•The Classrooms
•Experiments, In Class
Questions, Visualizations
•Student Reaction
•Assessment
•Prognosis for Lasting Change
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
The Pedagogy
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Why The Change in Format?
Large freshman physics courses have
inherent problems
• Lecture/recitations are passive (and not
well attended at MIT)
• No labs since 1970 in the mainline course
leads to lack of physical intuition
• Math is abstract, hard to visualize (esp.
E&M)
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Some Background on TEAL Origins
• Prof Belcher lectured the 700 student 8.02 (E&M)
from 1991-1994, successfully as measured by the
student Course Evaluation Guide (CEG)
• CEG Evaluation 8.02 Spring 1994: [Lecturer]
Professor John Belcher is highly praised by most
of his 8.02 students. "He was one of the best
professors I have had here -- interesting, relevant,
and a good teacher. He is funny too!"
• Three students claim: "Everything about him is
effective." Over half the class remarks on his
"awesome board technique," noting especially
his excellent use of colored chalk to keep
diagrams clear, and respondents refer to his inclass experiments as "awesome demos."
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
• Belcher also receives high marks for his ability to
explain concepts clearly, for the outlines he uses
in lectures, and for his reviews of previous
lectures. Most class members praise his attitude
toward teaching and toward his students: "He
definitely knows how to teach," and "He cares
about his students."
• One individual states that Belcher is
"phenomenal in his organization." Another
student writes: "Belcher obviously prepares his
lectures ahead of time and is the best professor I
have had yet. He makes it a point to be structured
and organized. “
• CEG “lecturer” rank 6.6/7.0, Department
Buechner Teaching Prize, MacVicar Fellow.
• What is the problem?
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
• The CEG comments above were based on 175
responses to a questionnaire in class in the last
week of the term
• There were 700 students in the class
• 175/700 = 0.25 (average attendance was ~40%)
• Belcher’s sense was that the students were not
learning very much, certainly not enough to
justify the enormous effort I put in.
• No labs. E&M is a very mathematical subject.
The lack of experiments that the students actually
do to explore the phenomena is a major failing.
• So in 1994 he decided he would never do this
again.
• But…..
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Overview of TEAL/Studio
Funded by the d’Arbeloff Fund and iCampus
Finished the Fifth Year of a 5 year Development Plan in 2005
Follows RPI’s Studio Physics & NCSU’s Scale-Up and Mazur’s
(Harvard) Peer Instruction
Collaborative learning
Students in 12 groups of 9 students each
Groups work collaboratively
Desktop experiments
Networked laptops with data acquisition links
between laptop and experiments
Three students per laptop
Media-rich interactive software for simulations
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
What Facilitated This Change?
1. Department Head Marc Kastner and
Associate Department Head Tom Greytak
are strong supporters
2. Upper administration at MIT strong
supporters, in particular the Provost Bob
Brown and the Dean for Undergraduate
Education Bob Redwine
3. Many members of the Department were
strong supporters and put in a lot of effort.
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Chronology
1. 8.02(E&M) taught in TEAL format 4 times
to 500 students, 6 times to 150 students.
Mature, improvements at the margins
2. 8.01 (Mechanics) taught in this format for
the second time fall 2004, to 150 students.
3. Went to 8.01 (Mechanics) “full-scale” 500
students Fall 2005. 8.01 developers:
Peter Dourmashkin, David Litster, David
Pritchard, Bernd Surrow.
4. To TEAL format except for 8.012 and 8.022
(and 8.01L) in AY 2005-2006.
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
The Classroom
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Modeled after NCSU’s Scale-Up Classroom
Second classroom online Fall 2005
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Experiments, In Class
Questions,
Visualizations
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
8.02 Experiments
Electrostatic Charge with Faraday Ice Pail
Electrostatic Force (from 8.02X) Compares
electrostatic attraction to gravitational attraction
Circuits: RL, RC, RLC, driven and undriven
Field of Magnet (with dual-axis Hall Probe)
Levitating Coil (using a magnet with a surface field
of 6 KG)
Magnetic Force (from 8.02X) Compares
magnetostatic repulsion to gravitational attraction
Faraday’s Law
Microwave Generator
Total of 13 desktop experiments, about one a week
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Faraday’s Law

dB

dt
Magnetic Flux
Move
down
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Faraday’s Law
Move
down
Magnetic Flux
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Student Reaction
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Student Reaction
1. Reaction to first two prototype 8.02 courses Fall 2001 and
Fall 2002 with 180 students each was favorable
2. Reaction to first on-term course in Spring 2003 with 500
students was mixed to very negative—numerous critical
articles in the student newspaper and a petition signed by
150 students
3. Reaction to Spring 2004/2005 8.02 with 500 students was
more positive—many start-up bugs corrected:
 More training for teaching staff in IE methods
 More faculty experienced in teaching in this format and
more teaching staff on the floor (more undergrad TAs)
 Heterogeneous grouping as opposed to random
Materials
fewer
Slides
about
TEAL projectbetter
courtesy organized,
of Prof. John Belcher,
MIT,experiments
2007
Student Reaction (continued)
4. Fall 2005 TEAL 802 was very popular (5.6/7.0 for Hudson
as lecturer, 5.7/7.0 for the course overall).
5. Spring 2006 8.02 dropped in popularity, again articles in
the student newspaper criticizing the format.
6. Department is seriously considering whether to offer a
traditional lecture/recitation format for 8.02 in addition to
the TEAL format.
7. This is a direct result of student unhappiness with the
format. Buzz on the street: “TEAL sucks”
8. This unhappiness has permeated to the Physics
Department Visiting Committee; the last Visiting
Committee report was critical of the format based on
student complaints to the Committee.
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Why are CEG scores lower for
TEAL?
Students say they don’t like
Experiments
Group work
Pre-lab work
Set up of the TEAL room
Too much like high school
Powerpoint ….
What they don’t say is that they do not like
coming to class, but it is probably the major
reason the course is less popular
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Student Evaluation
Student Popularity Ratings
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Ave. Lecturer
Course
TEAL
5.7
5.3
5.6
4.5
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Student Evaluation
Is Sampling a Larger Population a Factor In Decrease In
Popularity?
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Lecturers
Ave. Lecturer
Course
5.7
5.3
Percent Response
1998
5.6
4.5
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
90
80
76%
70
60
rd
50 47%
40
30
1998project
1999courtesy
2000 of
2001
2003 2004
2005 2006
Slides about TEAL
Prof.2002
John Belcher,
MIT, 2007
1/3 of respondents
not previously present
Year
Assessment
Assessment led by Professor Judy Dori of the Department
of Education in Technology and Science at the Technion.
Professor Dori is an internationally known educator whose
expertise is the assessment of learning strategies in
science and technology education
We used a variety of assessment techniques, including the
traditional in-class exams, focus groups, questionnaires (in
addition to MIT’s CEG questionnaire), and pre and post
testing. Requires COUHES approval (Committee On the
Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects)
Assessment results have been published in the Journal of
The Learning Sciences, Dori and Belcher, 14(2), 2004
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Pre/Post Conceptual Test Scores
N students = 176
N students = 121
83
100
100
Pre
90
90
Post
64
80
Post
61
80
60
70
Pre
56
70
60
56
57
50
60
50
40
50
40
40
40
30
30
22
10
Post
0
High
25
20
20
Pre
10
Post
0
Pre
High
Intermediate
Intermediate
Low
Low
Experimental group - Fall 2001
Control group - Spring 2002
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Pre/Post Conceptual Test Scores
g 
%Correct posttest  %Correct pretest
100  %Correct pretest
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Study Limitations
1. Attendance monitored In Experimental Group, not in
Control Group. At end of term, 50% in Control, 80% in
Experimental.
2. Demographics of Control and Experimental Groups
different (not true in Spring 2003 comparison)
3. Experimental Group used a mix of both analytic and
conceptual problems in class, Control primarily analytic.
4. Control Group pre- and post-tests volunteer basis;
Experimental Group tests counted toward course grade.
5. “Teach To Test” in Experimental Group? Hawthorne
Effect?
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
What Impeded These
Changes?
1. A few prominent faculty members who
actively campaign against it, and
encourage student criticism of the
format.
2. Student reaction.
3. There is a student culture at MIT of not
going to class. In TEAL if you do not
go to class you cannot get an A.
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
Prognosis for Lasting
Change
1. This mode of teaching requires more effort
on the part of the faculty.
2. Continued lack of enthusiasm from students
and some who are actively hostile is a major
problem, even in the face of evidence that
they learn considerably more.
3. An alternate lecture format with no labs and
attendance not required will draw the
majority of the students, and kill TEAL, or at
least relegate it to minor status.
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007
For more information
http://jlearn.mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visua
lizations/resources/resources.htm
http://web.mit.edu/viz/soft/
Slides about TEAL project courtesy of Prof. John Belcher, MIT, 2007