Active-engagement in large
lecture environments
Dedra Demaree, Assistant Prof. of Physics, OSU
(Purple slides: SMED PhD student Sissi Li
Dark blue slides: Physics Masters thesis Jennifer Roth)
May 20, 2011
Intro
Lit. Review
Method
Data
Analysis
Conclusion
Science IS Social
Scientists must be capable of forming and defending arguments
– SUPPORTING CLAIMS WITH EVIDENCE.
The argumentation strategies used in an informal peer
discussions assist in development of more formal analytical
arguments.
Support students to use the opportunity to participate in the
following scientific practices:
*Discuss, justify, and debate reasoning with peers
*Evaluate problem solutions
*Interact with physicist (instructor as ‘discourse model’)
*Identify themselves as sources of solutions
*Comfort to communicate in a public arena
Intro
Lit. Review
Method
Data
Analysis
Conclusion
Scientific Discourse in the Classroom
Students can arrive at the correct answer to a problem through the
process of peer discussion, even when no student in the group
originally knows the correct answer.
Peer Discussion (AND active engagement) are NECESSARY but NOT
SUFFICIENT for improving students’ conceptual understanding of
science. NEED:
* Sophisticated Instructor PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge)
AND teaching orientation
*Careful setting of classroom norms, CONSISTANT prompting for
students
*Well designed activities and curriculum
Intro
Lit. Review
Method
Data
Analysis
Conclusion
Specific Methods Employed:
1. Physical arrangement of classroom features.
2. Expose students to risk-free environment
3. Encourage students to question (not just ‘ask’!)
4. Construct identities for students as “sensemakers.”
5. Ask questions to elicit student ideas -> ASK QUESTIONS YOU
DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO!
6. Let students lead class discussions, and answer each other’s
questions
7. Wait between posing question and listening to student
reasoning
8. …
How does this look in practice???
• Well… IT DEPENDS!!!
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
What are your course goals?
What is the content?
What are the meta-goals?
Which things do you want students to master vs. just be
exposed to?
How do you want to scaffold and build up skills?
What space do you have to work with?
What student population and background knowledge?
(MIT, Dickinson, NCState, UCDavis…)
• This is all context dependent! So here’s MY context…
Introductory calculusbased physics
• Three term sequence with three 1hour lectures per week
• 200 students per lecture section,
heavily incorporating activeengagement
6
Research-based reform models: (Visited successful supported by data - reform at many institutions)
Curricular model: ISLE
(Investigative science learning
environment
Pedagogical model: LESS
LECTURE AND MORE SCALEUP (student centered active
learning environment for
undergraduate programs)
Example ISLE cycle in Intro physics:
Induction
• Observe:
– Watch instructor move a magnet within a coil and see the induced
current
– ASK students what else they’d like to see me do (move it faster, move
the coil instead…)
• Explain/Model:
– Do NOT explain the phenomenon – but have students brainstorm a
quasi-mathematical statement for inducing current
• Test:
– Try with different coils, alignments…
• Refine models then apply: problem solving,
generators…
• Falsification: No induction if flux isn’t changing!
ISLE-based curricular materials
•
•
•
•
ISLE cycles in lecture
Studio uses ISLE cycles and activities
Homework rubrics
Labs with rubrics and write-ups
• ISLE goals: Building Scientific Abilities Representing
information, conducting experiments, thinking divergently,
collecting and analyzing data, constructing, modifying and
applying relationships and explanations, being able to
coordinate these abilities
Reform to facilitate learning
Engage students in
physics practices
Development of a
classroom community of
practice
normalized FCI gain = 0.40
**roughly same before and
after implementation of
studio – noticeable jump
from pre-ISLE
Students participate in
social interactions & make
meaning of their
experiences in class to
build a shared repertoire
of knowledge
Student buy in to social
learning and develop
identities of central
members of classroom
community?
Set meta-goals and write classroom activities aimed at supporting them
Teacher discusses subtleties of open-ended
problem solving through lecture
Teacher models
discourse via whole
class conversations
Teacher models
discourse via interacting
with groups during PI
Students adapt discourse
practices within groups
Post-class analysis of
researcher observations, and
student and teacher dialogue
Are goals met? Refine process and scaffold in
new meta-goals
Two rooms, two terms, two stages
of remodel
Fall 2008,
1st term
Traditional
Lecture Hall
Remodeled
lecture hall
BOTH rooms
Winter 2009,
2nd term
Close packed fixed seats
2 rows per tier
Addition of
instructor
swivel chairs
circulation
FCI gain = 0.40, Surveys,
Audio/video data
Sample data: May 27, 2008
•
Camcorders record
audio and visual data in
class
•
Data from orange
camera (approx 70% of
students)
•
Coded group sizes and
interaction type
Classroom community can be encouraged during
‘lecture mode’ where students justify reasoning and
provide explanations without direct prompting
Can you
explain that
more?
What is your
understanding so far?
In lecture, a student interrupted with a
question. Instead of launching into
another explanation, teacher asked for
his existing knowledge. Teacher is
acting in the role of the broker, helping
the student practice dialoging in a
scientific fashion.
The student then explained their reasoning,
and a second student immediately
understood their viewpoint, and chimed in
with a great explanation for the first student.
The second student had held the same view
a few minutes prior and had just come to
understand my explanation and had made
sense of it himself using that ‘if then’
reasoning.
14
Challenge student expectations to alter
classroom norms with open-ended, or
multiple answer voting questions:
15
PI Questions to model reasoning and to
validate ideas brought up by students
Which of the following explanations were consistent with
our observation experiments?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The motion is the vector sum of all interactions
The force of the hand on the ball is greater than the force of the
earth on the ball, therefore the ball doesn’t move
The force of the hand on the ball is equal to the force of the
earth on the ball, therefore the ball doesn’t move
If there is more force in one direction, the object will have a
change in motion in that direction
Interactions have the ability to cause motion if they are
unbalanced
16
Encourage students to rely on their prior community
developed knowledge to address completely new situations
Prompt: “think about it in terms of 211 ideas”
(applying mechanics ideas from fall term to the
winter term course). Voting Question: An object
hangs motionless from a spring. When the object
is pulled down, the sum of the elastic potential
energy of the spring and the gravitational
potential energy of the object of the Earth
1. increase
Based on Newton’s 2nd law, predict what will happen to the
reading of the spring scale when the mass is accelerated
2. stays the same
upward (a>0), then moves at constant velocity, then is
accelerated (a<0) to a stop. JUSTIFY YOUR PREDICTION
3. decreases
WITH FORCE DIAGRAMS!!
http://paer.rutgers.edu/pt3/experiment.php?topicid=3&exptid=172
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The reading will be the same at all times
The reading will increase, stay steady above the ‘at rest’
reading, then decrease back to the ‘at rest’ reading once the
object has come to rest
The reading will increase, go back to the ‘at rest’ reading
then decrease before the object comes to a full stop
The reading will decrease, stay steady below the ‘at rest’
reading, then increase back to the ‘at rest’ reading once the
object has come to rest
The reading will decrease, go back to the ‘at rest’ reading
then increase before the object comes to a full stop 17
How does this play out in the
classroom?
• Sometimes students don’t use the tools given
• Sometimes students don’t see multiple choices
• BUT – with persistence (and specific
prompts/techniques discussed later) – it can
work
• SPECIFIC EXAMPLE FROM PH213
A rectangular loop is placed in a uniform
magnetic field with the plane of the loop
perpendicular to the direction of the field.
If a current is made to flow through the loop
in the sense shown by the arrows, the field
exerts on the loop:
1. a net force.
2. a net torque.
3. a net force and a net torque.
4. neither a net force nor a net torque.
A rectangular loop is placed in a uniform magnetic field
with the plane of the loop perpendicular to the direction of
the field. (IGNORE the current in the loop – I just re-used
the other diagram) Which of the following will NOT
increase the amount of magnetic flux through the loop?
1. Increasing the size of the loop (area)
2. Increasing the strength of the magnetic field
3. Rotating the loop through an angle of 90 degrees
Video Clip, March 1st, 2011 (PH213)
• Start: 7:00 Stop: 8:00
• Start: 10:00 Stop: 13:00
• What do you notice?
– What YOU notice (just as with our students) will
depend on what you are TRAINED to notice and
what your ‘orientation’ toward the task is!!!
Video Clip, Oct 24, 2008
• Testing experiment: penny on track – what
happens to the penny when the cart hits the
bumper? ASK FOR PREDICTION BASED ON
EXPLANATIONS WITH AN IF/THEN STATEMENT
(Also do with the doll) – students should have
an If/Then statement: If a force is required to
change the motion of the object, then the
penny will continue moving forward if no
forces act on it (the cart is hit, not the penny)
HOW ON TASK DO WE NEED OUR STUDENTS TO BE??
A car goes around an upward curve (like a large speed
bump) while maintaining a constant speed. Which of
the following is an accurate representation of the
VERTICAL forces on the car? (Pay attention to the
length of the vectors) g = ground, e = earth, c = car
Fgc
A.
B.
Fec
Fgc
Fgc
C.
Fec
Fec
Standard Assessments
• FCI (Force Concept Inventory)
• CSEM (Conceptual survey in electricity and
magnetism)
ACCEPTED that active
engagement is a
necessary but not
sufficient for improving
student learning gains!!
FCI GAINS in 211 (red are Dedra’s courses)
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Moving further at OSU: Studio room
• “Modified” SCALE-UP (hours are 2/2/2)
• Short activities in lecture, medium in studio,
long in lab – all tie together
What about the CSEM?
• This test is a bit harder to see change on…
• Red is the only group to have had 213 in the
studio environment!
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
What about traditional problem solving?
• (49 points) Box 1 (which starts at rest) is pushed along the ceiling, by a
force acting from under it at an angle of θ=30 degrees with the ceiling.
After a distance of 75 cm, it hits and sticks to Box 2. The force stops
acting right before the hit. The two boxes then fall to the floor, still stuck
together. See the figure. The height of the ceiling is 3m; the coefficient of
friction between the box and the ceiling is μ=0.2; the mass of Box 1 is
0.5kg, and the mass of Box 2 is 2kg. The magnitude of the applied force
is 20N.
– (15 points) Determine the work done on Box 1 by: the applied force, friction,
gravity, and the normal force, up to the moment it hits Box 2.
– (12 points) With what speed does the Box 1 hit Box 2, and with what speed
do they move immediately afterwards? Do these results make sense?
Explain briefly.
– (10 points) What fraction of the kinetic energy is converted to other forms of
energy during the collision (fractional energy loss is on your equation
sheet)? What is the primary reason for this? Discuss your result briefly.
– (12 points) How far (horizontally) from the point of collision do the stucktogether boxes land? With what velocity do they hit the floor?
All measures show success:
• PLUS: Lower drop-out and higher success/retention
of women and minorities
• Is all this success surprising?? NO, This is to be
expected:
• We’re just replicating results seen at places with
successful reform
– North Carolina (SCALE-UP)
– MIT (blend)
– Rutgers (ISLE)
• BUT what about all the “OTHER” baggage that needs
to be carried along to make this work???.....
Holistic view of learning and learning assessment -> this is complex!
Intro
Lit. Review
Method
Analysis
Factors that correlate
with and/orData
occur for activities
with:
Conclusion
High Participation
Low Participation
Interaction Time > 2 min.
Interaction Time < 2 min.
Teacher-Student discussion during voting
Drawing attention away from problem during
voting
Instructor explicit request that students talk to peers
(convince your neighbor!)
---
Instructor implies or states that student/student
interactions benefit learning
---
Instructor rates problem “hard” or “important”
Instructor rates problem “easy”
---
Mention of time constraint, particularly near end
of class period.
Referring to activity as chance for students to take an
active role in their own learning
Referring to activity as item on a checklist
Voicing the expectation that students will perform well
on an activity
---
Higher population density
Lower population density, room feels more
empty
Intro
Lit. Review
Method
Data
Analysis
(Jennifer’s summary) What can I do to
foster meaningful scientific discussions in
my classroom?
•Ask students to sit near one another.
•Select activities that are well-suited to
peer discussion.
•Consistently ask students to talk with
their neighbors. (Perhaps ask them
to “convince” neighbors)
•Walk around room, interact with
groups during discussion time.
•Listen to student reasoning during
whole-class discussions.
Conclusion
My ‘take-home’: It matters…
• HOW you model discourse (insert my rant about ‘Socratic
Dialogue’ here)
• HOW you value student input and class community
• ATTENDING to student ‘comfort’/’frustration’
• WHAT issues attend to in the classroom (and what you let
drop)
• HOW you scaffold their learning opportunities
• TEACHING students to attend to observations and
distinguishing them from explanations
• TEACHING students to distinguish between a hypothesis and a
prediction
• EXPLICITLY setting up, demonstrating, and enforcing norms
• HOW you ask questions and LETTING students answer!
Intro
Lit. Review
Method
Data
Analysis
Conclusion
Bibliography for Jen’s lit review
[1] American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science for All Americans, (1990),
<www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm>.
[2] J. Osborne, Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse, Science 328, 463 (2010).
[3] R. A. Duschl, Quality Argumentation and Epistemic Criteria, in Argumentation in Science Education (Springer, 2008).
[4] National Research Council, National Science Educations Standards, (1996), <www.nap.edu/openbook.php.record_id=4962>.
[5] P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving,
Am. J. Phys. 60(7), 627 (1992).
[6] R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics
courses, Am. J. Phys. 66(1), 64 (1998).
[7] E. K. Henriksen, C. Angell, The role of ‘talking physics’ in an undergraduate physics class using an electronic audience response system, Phys. Ed.
45(3), 279 (2010).
[8] M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. Wieman, J. K. Knight, N. Guild, T. T. Su, Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on InClass Concept Questions, Science 323, 122 (2009).
[9] K. M. Andre, Cooperative Learning: An Inside Story, Phys. Teach. 37, 356 (1999).
[10] P. H. Scott, E. R. Mortimer, O. G. Aguiar, The Tension Between Authoritative and Dialogic Discourse: A Fundamental Characteristic of Meaning
Making Interactions in High School Science Lessons, Sci. Educ. 90(4), 605 (2006).
[11] P. Heller, M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J.
Phys. 60(7), 637 (1992).
[12]C. H. Crouch, J. Watkins, A. P. Fagen, E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Engaging Students One-on-One, All at Once, Reviews in Physics Education
Research 1, 1 (2007).
[13]C. S. Kalman, M. Milner-Bolotin, T. Antimirova, Comparison of the effectiveness of collaborative groups and peer instruction in a large
introductory physics course for science majors, Can. J. Phys. 88, 325 (2010).
[14]S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, Sustaining educational reforms in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 (2008).
[15]K. S. Meyer, The Integration of Interactive Activities into Lecture in Upper Division Physics Theory Courses, Masters Project Report, Oregon State
University, 1998.
[16]M. E. Pieczura, Dare to Disagree as Scientists, Science and Children, 25 (2009).
[17]E. H. van Zee, J. Minstrell, Reflective discourse: developing shared understandings in a physics classroom, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 19(2), 209 (1997).
[18]E. Schiller, J. Joseph, A framework for facilitating equitable discourse in science classrooms, Science Scope, 57 (2010).
[19]C. Turpen, N. D. Finkelstein, Not all interactive enegagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of Peer Instruction,
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020101 (2009).
[20]J. A. Bianchini, Where Knowledge Construction, Equity, and Context Intersect: Student Learning of Science in Small Groups, J. Res. Sci. Teach.
34(10), 1039
(1997).
[21]S. L. Li, D. Demaree, Studying the Effectiveness of Lecture Hall Design on Group Interactions, presented at AAPT Winter 2009 Meeting, Chicago
IL.