PURPOSE
- To compare conceptual gains among three levels of students in three
different physics courses, which ranged from greatly reformed to traditional
presentation of
lecture-based courses.
NATURE OF THE REFORMS OF PHS 101
- Developed especially for pre-service elementary teachers
- An integrated lab and lecture course based on PHS 110 at ASU
- Curriculum based on AAPT's Powerful Ideas in Physical Science
- Curriculum aligned to AZ Science Standards, which elementary school
teachers will be teaching to
- Reformed teaching with discourse and interactive engagement (white
boarding) PREDOMINANT
- Real world examples relate to the students' everyday life to develop
strong connections with everyday phenomenon.
NATURE OF OTHER PHYSICS COURSES
- PHY 111 focuses on classical mechanics, heat, and sound and is the
first course in the two-semester, algebra-based, introductory physics
sequence. High school physics is a prerequisite for this class and
it is intended to be taken with the first semester of algebra. This
course FREQUENTLY makes use of seat experiments, white
boards and other
reformed methods.
- PHY 161 focuses on classical mechanics and is the first course in
the three-semester, calculus-based, introductory physics sequence.
High
school physics is a prerequisite for this class and it is intended
to be taken with the first semester of calculus. This is a traditional,
lecture-based course.
STUDENT and CLASS MAKE-UP
|
PHS 101 |
PHY 111 |
PHY 161 |
CURRICULUM |
Physical Science for Elem Teachers, reform & white board dominant |
Algebra/Trig-based classical mechanics, some reforms |
Calculus-based classical mechanics, traditional lecture |
CHARACTERISTICS |
Exreme math anxiety; standard use of coop learning groups |
Some math anxiety; some use of coop learning groups |
Math competent; almost no use of coop learning strategies; passive |
GENDER |
> 75% female |
roughly 50/50 |
>75% male |
CLASS |
Fresh / Soph |
equal among all four years |
Fresh / Soph |
MAJOR |
Elementary Education |
Health Sciences and Biology related |
Engineering |
INSTRUCTOR AVG RTOP SCORE |
79 |
30 |
20-25* |
SIZE |
50 - 75 |
100 + |
100 + |
*Not all PHY 161 instructors chose not to be formally evaluated with
the RTOP instrument.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
- Pre-test/post-test design was carried out in the Fall 2000, Spring
2001, Fall 2001, and Spring 2002 in PHS 101, as well as other physics
courses. Although the tests varied, there are five
mechanics questions that are identical on the PHS 101 test and the
tests administered in PHY 111 / PHY 161.
- All semesters of PHS 101 were taught by teachers who are very familiar
with and use reform methods.
- Fall 2000 and Spring 2001 of PHY 111 were taught by teachers who are
very familiar with and use reform methods.
- Fall 2001 and Spring 2002 of PHY 111 were taught by an instructor
just learning reformed methods so Spring 2002 was more reformed than
Fall 2001, but not as reformed as in previous years.
- All semesters of PHY 161 were taught in a traditional, lecture-based
manner.
- The PHS101 test:
- 30 questions on the test
- 8 items selected from the Lawson Test of Scientific Reasoning
- 12 items selected from the Physics Concept Survey (PCS)
- 6 items from Introductory Astronomy Survey Version 2.0
- 4 items from the instructor
- Covering six subject areas
- Scientific Reasoning - 8 questions
- Mechanics - 6 questions; 5 FROM THE FCI
- Electricity and Magnetism - 4 questions
- Astronomy - 6 questions
- Optics- 5 questions
- Thermodynamics - 1 question
ANALYSIS
- Gains were calculated by subtracting pre-test scores from post-test
scores for each student. The gains were calculated over the test as
a whole as well as for each subject area.
- Normalized gains were calculated by: n = (post - pre) / (#questions
- pre)
- Through the use of Excel and SPSS, correlations were explored between
gender and gain as well as final course grade and gain.
RESULTS
|
N |
POST-TEST |
PRE-TEST |
GAIN |
GAIN SIG |
|
|
AVG |
STD DEV |
AVG |
STD DEV |
AVG |
STD DEV |
|
PHS 101 |
126 |
3.571 |
1.148 |
1.690 |
1.255 |
1.881* |
1.451 |
p < 0.001 |
M |
34 |
3.588 |
1.351 |
2.000 |
1.303 |
1.588* |
1.598 |
p < 0.001 |
F |
92 |
3.565 |
1.073 |
1.576 |
1.225 |
1.989* |
1.387 |
p < 0.001 |
M-F diff |
|
0.023 |
|
0.424* |
|
-0.401* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHY 111 |
147 |
2.912 |
1.140 |
2.122 |
1.204 |
0.789* |
1.420 |
p < 0.001 |
M |
64 |
3.156 |
1.042 |
2.156 |
1.171 |
1.000* |
1.447 |
p < 0.001 |
F |
83 |
2.723 |
1.182 |
2.096 |
1.236 |
0.627* |
1.386 |
p < 0.001 |
M-F diff |
|
0.433* |
|
0.06 |
|
0.373 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHY 161 |
236 |
3.038 |
1.296 |
2.538 |
1.208 |
0.500* |
1.172 |
p < 0.001 |
M |
163 |
3.313 |
1.199 |
2.755 |
1.192 |
0.558* |
1.135 |
p < 0.001 |
F |
73 |
2.425 |
1.301 |
2.055 |
1.104 |
0.370 |
1.260 |
|
M-F diff |
|
0.888* |
|
0.700* |
|
0.188 |
|
|
* p < 0.001
Pre-Test Scores
- Pre-test gender gaps are
- least for PHY 111 (0.06)
- greater for PHS 101 (0.42)
- greatest in PHY 161 (0.70)
Post-Test Scores
- In mechanics, post-test scores are generally
- lowest for PHY 111 (2.91)
- higher for PHY 161 (3.04)
- highest for PHS 101 (3.57)
The difference in post-test scores of PHY 111 and PHY 161 is barely
statistically significant
- Gains and normalized gains, <g>, are
- least for PHY 161 (<g> = 0.20)
- greater for PHY 111 (<g> = 0.27)
- greatest for PHS 101 (<g> = 0.57)
Normalized gains run exactly counter to pre-test scores by course
number.
- Post-test gender gaps are
- least for PHS 101 (0.02)
- greater for PHY 111 (0.43)
- greatest for PHY 161 (0.89)
The post-test score gender gap for PHS 101 is statistically insignificant,
while the PHY 111 and PHY 161 gender gaps are statistically significant.
- The gender gap in PHS 101 reduces from a significant pretest
gap to an insignificant posttest gap.
- The gender gaps for both PHY 111 and PHY 161 grew, with PHY 161 doubling
the gap present in PHY 111.
- No correlations were found between gains and final grades.
TOP
CONCLUSIONS
Our data support the following claims:
- PHS 101 students are least well prepared for conceptually understanding
mechanics, followed by PHY 111 students. PHY 161 are best prepared.
- A gender gap benefitting males exists in the preparation of university
physics students for all course numbers in this study.
- The presence and degree of use of Reformed Teaching methods (i.e.
Constructivist inquiry as scored by RTOP typified by extended student
discourse incooperative groups via use of white boards) is linked to
improved conceptual
post-test scores adn strongly linked to pretest-posttest gains.
- The presence and degree of use of Reformed Teaching methods (i.e.
Constructivist inquiry as scored by RTOP typified by extended student
discourse incooperative groups via use of white boards) is linked to
a reduced or ameliorated gender gap in student's conceptual performance.
Bibliography
Sackey, S., MacIsaac, D.L., Falconer, K.A. & Eastwood, K.D. (2002).
Student Conceptual Gain Analysis for PHS 101: Physical Science for Everyday
Life. American Association of Physics Teachers Announcer, 32(2) 129.
Falconer, K & Eastwood, K. " Astronomy Conceptual Gain Analysis
for PHS 101: Physical Science for Everyday Life." Talk presented
at the summer 2001 AAPT meeting. MacIsaac, D.L., Cole, R.P. & Cole, D.M. (2002). Standardized testing
in physics via the world wide web.
The Electronic Journal of Science Education. 6(3). <http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html>
Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/rtop/RTOP_full/index.htm
MacIsaac, D.L. & Falconer, K.A. (2002). Reform your teaching via
the Reform Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). The Physics Teacher.
40(8), 479-486.
Powerful Ideas in Physical Science, American Association of Physics
Teachers. http://www.psrc-online.org/curriculum/pips/iii.html
Northern Arizona University, PHS 101, PHY 111 and PHY 161 course information:
http://www.phy.nau.edu
Special Thank You to the following for their help in this project:
Kathleen Falconer, Kathleen D. Eastwood, Jim Maxka, Kate Morgan, and
Nathan Marler.
Funding for this project came from Arizona Teacher Excellence Coalition
(AzTEC).
|