Carl Wieman, Univ. of Colorado
I) Introduction:
My view of why science education important, goals of
science education, why requires new approach.
II) Scientific approach to science education.
III) Some specific tools that work.
Good benefit/cost ratio.
O) Why science education important today?
Past: ~ 2000 B.C. to 1950 A. D. Train replacements.
+ few decades- filtering of engineers and premeds.
Now.
1. Enlightened self-interest-- people will not fund science
unless understand and appreciate.
2. It’s the economy stupid.
Highly technical economy, needs large
technical workforce to maintain and grow.
3. Survival of world.
Power to really screw things up! Policy decisions made by the
Public. Need a LOT more technically and
scientifically literate to decide wisely.
To fill this need we must:
• Educate large diverse fraction of population.
• Science education effective and relevant.
"Form" not "reform" science education!
Never done any place, any time.
How?
Step 1.
Goal of science education for individual learner?
The primary educational goal.
Transform “novice” attitudes and problem solving
approaches into “expert”.
Think about science like a scientist.
COGNITION AND INSTRUCTION (physics),
David Hammer
Expert
Novice
Beliefs about structure
Coherence
Formulas
Beliefs about content
Concepts
By Authority
Beliefs about learning
Pieces
Independent
(experiment)
Problem-Solving Behavior
Problem-solving independent of concepts.
Manipulates equations.
Backward-looking means-ends techniques.
Spends more time!
Gets much more frustrated!
Conceptual knowledge impacts problem-solving.
Performs qualitative analysis.
Uses forward-looking concept-based strategies.
More time setting up solution, less time total.
More satisfaction.
think about science like a scientist
How to get there?
Use tools of science to
teach science!
Tools of science for science education.
1. Well defined measurable goals (learning), measure
results.
2. Gather unbiased data (on student learning).
Conclusions principles practices using data not hopes
or anecdotes or philosophy.
3. Know initial conditions. Take into account imperfectly
controlled variables. (student variation)
4. Utilize new technology effectively.
5. Learn from past research. Disseminate results rapidly,
duplicate and build on success.
Revealing results from education research.
1. Instructors in science courses usually poor at knowing
what students are (and are not) learning.
2. Very little information transfer in traditional lecture course.
3. Thinking is not a spectator sport. Need to do it to
learn how.
4. If memorization of content and problem-solving recipes
will do well on exam, that is what students will learn.
5. People do not learn something if they see no reason for
learning it. Telling them why later is too late.
6. Most physics courses move students away from
expert toward novice attitudes and problem solving!
Comparison of traditional lecture (red) vs
interactive engagement (green) in intro physics. R. Hake
Fraction of unknown concepts learned (FCI).
14 classes
trad.
48 classes
inter. engagement
Science education today- like science of Galileo’s day.
Radical idea of measurement based science.
•New approach.
•Showed old ideas wrong.
•Led to explosion of progress.
 improved measurement
 technology
 theory
 improved insight
measurement
Vision of science education tomorrow•Research-based approach.
•Every class rigorous measurement of student learning.
•Measurement drives practice-- continual improvement.
•Technology for large scale measurement and feedback.
•Dissemination of results, share, copy, improve.
Enabling developments :
•Research in education-- basic principles & practices learning
and assessment of learning.
(How People Learn, Learning and Understanding (NAS),…)
•Technology-- practical widespread measurement of learning,
feedback, handling lots of data.
Vision of science education tomorrow•Research-based approach.
•Every class rigorous measurement of student learning.
•Measurement drives practice-- continual improvement.
•Technology for large scale measurement and feedback.
•Dissemination of results, share, copy, improve.
Ultimate link between research and teaching.
Using scientific approach to educate
students to think like scientists!
sounds good but …
Implementation still lagging.
•“Development” of R & D needed.
(from learning research to efficient tools for Physics 101).
•Human element (Unscientific scientists.)
A. Common unscientific mistakes in science teaching.
1. Follow tradition-- just superstition as to
what is “best”. Hard to avoid!
(examples here)
2. Conclusions as to effectiveness
based on hopes and anecdotes.
3. Extrapolating to students what worked for them.
Curriculum:
“How Sci.&
can students
Eng.’s “What
learnstudents
this?” should know…”
4. "Cop-out". Students not as prepared or motivated as us.
….
Human factors 2. Remember what it is like--CEW history
Applying research-based approaches to intro classes ~ 6 yrs.
• Group projects, homework, and/or presentations
• interactive lecture demonstrations/experiments
• context reach problems and presentation (“real world”)
• various forms of feedback and assessment
• technology
• learning goals
Lots of work, “limited” indications of success:
“I learned a whole lot in this class, but Prof. Wieman should
be fired and I should get my tuition back. I had to learn it all
myself, he never taught us anything.”
Experience, better understanding of principles, better goals
and measures, more work  improved success (& less whining)
Finally success very evident!
Some examples of stuff that does work.
1. Cheap and non-time-consuming to use.
2. Dramatic quantitative evidence.
1. Individual electronic response system.
2. Interactive simulations.
IR clickers (individual electronic feedback system).
(cost small: ~$2 K, this room + $29 per student)
Impacts:
1. Students engaged.
2. Feedback to instructor.
3. Feedback to students-Much higher retention of ideas & information.
Ways in which we use: many types of questions.
1. Start of class quizzes on reading.
2. Quick surveys on backgrounds, course issues, …
3. Students predict results for all demonstrations.
4. Check understanding of material covered.
5. Reveal prevailing misconception to confront/get attention
leading into coverage of material.
assigned seats and consensus groups
Does it work? 1. Student assessment.
60
Usefulness of lecture to your learning
50
40
30
20
10
0
great deal fair amount
some
a little
none
line--1010 (fall ‘01): lots of demos, colored cards feedback, no
groups
column--1020 (spr ’03): used clickers, assigned seats and groups
2. Measures of retention of information from lecture,
with and without clicker based questions.
Explaining about sound and how a violin works.
I show class a violin and tell them that the strings cannot
move enough air to produce much sound, so actually
the sound comes from the wood in the back. Point inside
violin to show how there is a sound post so strings can
move the bridge and sound post causes back of violin to
move and make sound. 15 minutes later in the lecture
I asked students a question the sound they hear from a
violin is produced by
a. mostly by strings, b. mostly by wood in back,
c. both equally, d. none of the above.
What fraction gave the correct answer?
a. 0%, b. 10 %, c. 30%, d. 70%, e. 90%
b. 10%
lightening rods
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++
+++
Lightening rods
a. attract lightening to tip, prevent from
hitting rest of building.
b. prevent lightening from occurring.
c. make it strike somewhere else.
d. don’t actually do anything, are
superstition.
first asked 10% correct.
2. days later, asked again.
88% correct
(consistent with 100%)
+ + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Cheap (to you!) and effective technology II.
Online interactive simulations.
Physics2000 BEC applets.
Physics dept. colloq. to 4th graders!
Physics Education Technology Project (PhET)
Wide range of topics, extensive testing (in process),
guided discovery units (in process),
Carl Wieman
Noah Finkelstein
Ron LeMaster
Sam Reid
Wendy Adams
Krista Beck
Kathy Perkins
Mike Dubson
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phet/
supported by: The Kavli Institute, NSF, Univ. of Col., and A. Nobel
Summary:
Tools of science can revolutionize education
just as they did science.
Will take time and attention to fact "thinking
scientifically" not natural human activity.
Need good tools, convincing data.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phet/
III. Specific science based approaches that have “worked”
for me.
(~ all adapted from ideas in res. lit.-- ed., psych., advertising)
What data indicates “worked”?
Intro algebra-based physics for nonscientists.
Traditionally unpopular, hard to teach.
With entire package:
•Enrollment x 2-3 (200 first term, 55 second)
•Attendance x ~2
•Time on homework x 1.5-2
•Scores on exam problems up ~ 1sigma (~2 grades)
• Dramatic change in student attitudes about physics
and classroom atmosphere.
Not class specific. Expect similar effects for any intro
courses and many more advanced classes.
Entire package (existence proof, don’t duplicate!)
*1. Specific measurable learning goals.
2. Content: start with phenomena & technology then go to general
physics concepts. Handles relevance, connection with real world.
3. Questionnaires on background and attitudes, before, during, after.
Mostly use SALG free online system.
4. Long, hard, homework sets, connect to real world,
pass “why should anyone care” test, substantial essay part.
5. Facilitate and encourage collaboration on homework. (& listen in)
*6. Interactive Java programs-- visual conceptual models.
*7. In class electronic feedback system. 3 person response groups.
8. Interactive lecture demos, predictions, real data.
9. Required to read text before class.
10. System for ongoing feedback on items of confusion,
interest, help or hinder learning.
11. Powerpoint with fancy graphics- available on web.
12. Extensive class website. Lecture notes, assignments, solutions,
example problems, derivations, …