ࡱ > w x @ | jbjbܡܡ l 8 $ f P b L Z
$
, A a 4
4
4
@ z @ @ @ 4
p @ r r 4
@ L @ : 0 , p $ Ho
\
f
m @ m @ A much-abbreviated version of this manuscript has been accepted for publication in The Physics Teacher sometime in Fall 2002 (probably November). Please do not cite it until after it has been published.
MANUSCRIPT FOR THE PHYSICS TEACHER
Reform Reform Your Classroom Teaching Instruction via the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP)
Dan MacIsaac
Department of Physics & Astronomy, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ 86011-6010; HYPERLINK mailto:danmac@nau.edu danmac@nau.edu, 520-523-5921 (voice) 520-523-1371 (FAX)
Kathleen Falconer
Department of Physics and & Astronomy, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85203-1504; kathleen.falconer@asu.edu
Please direct correspondence regarding this manuscript to MacIsaac; authors' bios and photos are attached as a separate document.
Abstract:
This article reports recent science education research developments and explains how We report how physics teachers can use these recent science education research developments to reform refine their own teaching and improve their students conceptual achievement gains.
The development of the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) has produced a valuable tool for reflecting upon and improving physics teaching. Instructor RTOP scores have been linked by research to found to strongly correlate with student conceptual gains in introductory science and physics courses. We discuss the background underpinnings of reformed teaching and and content of RTOP, how to use it to score constructively evaluate and critique physics teaching and to guide personal teaching improvement. Suggestions for the development of reform physics lessons are also included.
PACS Numbers: 01.40Ea,b; 0140Ga,b; 01.40H,J,K,R
Introduction: The call for reformReform physics teaching the background from Arizona
Many pProfessional associations of scientists, mathematicians, and science and mathematics educators -- such for example as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the National Research Council (NRC), have called for extensive reform in the teaching of science and mathematics (REFS 1a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,ii,j). These reports critique US science and mathematics curricula as largely incoherent, eexcessively xcessively repetitious repetitive and unfocused a mile wide and an inch deep (REF 1ih, p3). Research associated withI international studies (REF 1j, p 35REF 1h, p4) has have found shown that US grade school science textbooks have many times more topics than are typical in the rest of the world, and that these American books are focused on understanding presenting simple information such as vocabulary, facts and simple equations, -- neglecting complex information synthesis, analysis and relevant application, scientific reasoning, the use of scientific tools, investigation and communication. Researchers have also found that high school physics students whose courses covered less material in greater depth did better in college courses (REF 2a). Finally, tThere here are also those who argue that the very culture of traditional physics lectures (and science lectures in general) alienates a large number of students (REF 2a, 2b) and is overdue for reform. Finally, Physics Education Research (PER) has found (REF 2c) that high school physics students who studied without commercial textbooks and whose courses covered less material in greater depth did better in their following college courses.
In 1995, the National Science Foundation funded a large five-year collaborative project called the Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (ACEPT) at Arizona State University (ASU) (REF3a,b). The project goal was to better prepare K-12 teachers in science and mathematics. ASU faculty collaborated with other Arizona university faculty working on to reform the preparation of science and mathematics teachers, K-20. community colleges statewide, and local K-12 school district. Recognizing that most K-12 teachers and university faculty teach their own students as they were taught, it was ACEPT decided to "break the cycle" by reforming the freshman science and mathematics classes taken by these future pre-service teachers. Freshman science and mathematics courses would be reformed and that is, taught via the kinds of constructivist, inquiry-based methods advocated by the AAAS, NCTM and NRC so that these future teachers would experience reform teaching be taught as they were expected to teach..
In order to assess whether reformed teaching was occurring at the pre-service level (and later at the K-12 level when graduates entered the teaching field), The the ACEPT group charged with assessing the project evaluation team developed a classroom observation instrument called the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) tothat both measures and operationally defines reformed teaching. Appropriately enough, the instrument was called the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. Drawing upon existing observation instruments as well as the literature surrounding reform,, the RTOP was developed, fined, and validated over a period of two years. In its present form, the RTOP is a highly reliable instrument with strong predictive validity (REF 4REF 4, 5). To date, itRTOP has been used in over 400 K-20 science and mathematics classrooms to provide a precise quantitative reading of the degree to which teaching is reformed.research-grade tool, the Reform Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), which incorporated and extended what they felt were the best characteristics of the best of the few available rubrics for assessing science lessons. RTOP was iteratively developed by professional researchers and graduate students with master teacher input by repeatedly scoring a large collection of videotaped classroom teacher and student behaviors, refining the scored items through discussion and statistical analysis. RTOP was designed to study college-level science and mathematics classrooms to characterize ACEPT course reforms and to study the K-12 lessons taught by traditional and ACEPT-prepared teachers to see if their reform preparation led to reform K-12 teaching . By design, RTOP both operationally defines and assesses reformed teaching in the classroom we henceforth explicitly reserve and define the term reformed teaching to mean those classroom practices that result in a high RTOP score reform (REF 4).
Insert Figure 1 about here
Research grade RTOP scores are generated by averaging several observations (at least three) taken by several observers (at least two) who are experts in teaching that subject matter and level.
After As used in In the evaluation of ACEPT, RTOP scores were found to strongly correlate with student conceptual gains (REF 5, Figure 1) showing that reformed teaching is also effective teaching. Because the correlation coefficients between RTOP and student achievement gains were so high (correlation coefficients in the 0.70 - 0.95 range were typical), it occurred to us that the items in the instrument might provide teachers as well as researchers with a window into understanding reformed teaching. Could teachers be guided to build awe use RTOP to help teachers develop a deeper understanding of the reformed nature of rtheir own eformed teaching by observing themselves and others using the RTOP? We We started to use RTOP training sessions as an explicit instructional developmentscience methods activity for pre-service teacher courses and in professional development workshops for inservice teacher professional development workshopss. This correlation is unique while While much time and effort has been poured into reform teaching, there has been a notable lack of research linking student teacher self-knowledge and comprehension and , reform teaching and student achievement (REF 6). A review of the research lead us to believe that RTOP was appropriate for this purpose.
It may be useful, therefore, to look more carefully at the research evidence that speaks to the kind of reformed teaching that leads to strong student achievement. That literature convinced us that the RTOP encapsulates that kind of teaching.
However, there There are two relevant notable sets of research upon classroom behavior that are linked to student achievement the physics education research of Richard Hake, and secondly, the science education research done on cooperative learning. In 1998, physicist Richard Hake (REF 7) published a large scale study of over 6000 introductory mechanics studentss (REF 7). In his study, Hake examined student conceptual gains in a series of curricula he characterized with the label Interactive Engagement:
Interactive Engagement (IE) methods [are] designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through interactive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and or instructors (REF7, p 65; our italics)
Hake found IE strategies produced increases in mechanics course effectiveness student achievement well beyond those produced with traditional methods. Hake indicated that the four most popular nontraditional behaviors in his IE courses studies were: 1) Collaborative Peer Instruction (REF 8a,b,c,e) (present in every IE course he studied; REF 8a,b,c), 2) Microcomputer-Based Labs (REF 8d), 3) ConcepTests (REF 8e) and 4) Modeling Instruction (REF 8f), , amongst others). Hake also repeatedly identifies curricula and methods from PER as critical to the stimulation of IE teaching methods. (REF7, p 65).
The universal role of collaborative peer activities reported by Hake in IE physics courses is itself noteworthy. Collaborative learning in small student groups has a profound number of benefits associated with it by many researchers. A large body of education research (REF 8a) reports that collaborative learning increases retention, on-task behavior, promotes achievement, positive attitudes and self-esteem and produces higher student achievement (on the order of 0.86 standard deviations above control groups across several studies).. The next three IE instructional innovations identified above by Hake all redundantly incorporate collaborative learning. The RTOP instrument is designed to constructively critique details of classroom practices including cooperative learning, interactive engagement and certain classes of PER activities and findings collectively known as Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
Henceforth, we claim that both cooperative learning and Hakes Interactive Engagement methods are a subset of reform teaching practices better articulated and defined by RTOP.
Why and wherefore use What do Teachers get from using RTOP?
R As mentioned earlier, research shows that lesson practices scored via identified by RTOP (REF 5) are strongly correlated with student conceptual gains in introductory high school, community college and university courses in physical science, physics, mathematics, biology and biology teaching methods,. Furthermore, and this RTOP-based link between specific teaching behaviors and student achievement is both unique and compelling. The RTOP rubric is valuable because it can be readily used by physics teachers who are non-researchersneophyte as well asboth new and veteran teachers to not only generate a score their own teaching, but more importantly, to provide and feedback suggesting to acquire insight into their own teaching practices that guides their own instructional improvement and professional teaching development. With RTOP, this process the process of scoring and reflection takes about ninety minutes (assuming no more than one hour spent observing a lesson).Teachers using RTOP must work with a respected and trusted peer. RTOP scoring and initial reflection takes about ninety minutes, including one hour spent observing the lesson scored.
RTOP operationally definesclaims to be an operational definition of what reform means through as specified byspecifies a set of 25 scored, observable and scoreable behavioral itemsteachingclassroom characteristicsbehaviors or items. , and these These items themselves lead tocanItems catalyze teacher development, when each is used as a focus for reflection, discussion and debate upon observed the teaching observed.. and refinement The ensuing Constructively critical ddiscussion and debate overupon what these RTOP characteristics mean and how they manifest in ones ownactual classroom teachingactivity underlies the development of a common language of reformed teaching grounded in personal experiences. We consider the development of a common language describing reformed teaching to be the most fruitful outcome of RTOP use by teachers teachers are unfamiliar with reformed teaching, and all meaningful learning requires the development and refinement of precise conceptual language (REF9). RTOP items address behaviors that lie at the heart of learning science and mathematics in the classroom, unlike broader instructional rubrics such as Madeline Hunters' Elements of Effective Instruction (EEI - REF10). In some cases, these other classroom rubrics are incompatible with inquiry science learning e.g., Hunter's rubrics for direct instruction in the classroom are centered upon teacher-directed behaviors such as "anticipatory sets" and "closure".
leads to a deeper appreciation of upon the significance of language and and the role of prior beliefs in understanding and improving reformed teaching. philosophy of reform as espoused by the RTOP rubric. As physics learning is keyed to student development and refinement of precise conceptual language, so is the learning of how to teach physics (REF9). We believe that the single most fruitful use of RTOP by classroom teachers is the development of a common language of reform teaching grounded in personal experiences. The traditional gap between talking the talk and walking the talk disappears on its own. The RTOP rubric philosophy provides insights into evaluating lessons that are specific to the intellectual process of teaching science and mathematics. Other commonly-used classroom rubrics, such as those based on Madeline Hunters Elements of Effective Instruction (EEI - REF10) focus on instructional organization or classroom management that are not subject specific. In some cases, these other rubrics are largely incompatible with science inquiry teaching e.g., Hunter's rubrics for direct instruction stresses a teacher-led 'anticipatory set' and 'closure'.
T Additionally, teachers Teachers working with us have stated found that the RTOP is useful as a checklist for lesson planning purposes, in the mentoring and professional development of new or student teachers and for their own personal teaching pedagogical growth. Another commonly cited use is as justification for or inin defense of unfamiliar instructional reforms. such as An -- for example would be justifying the modeling method to administrators and parents who may be familiar with traditional instructional methods and require assistance in judging reformed instructionteaching. Many aspects of inquiry teaching challenge traditional practice and teachers tell us that RTOP helps validate and refocus their own teaching practices journey into reform..
An Overview of RTOP
ObtainingGetting your own RTOP score usingvia the Instrument
To obtain an RTOP score of one of your own lessons, 1) download the RTOP Training Manual (REF 4) and print a copy for yourself and a teaching colleague whom you trust and respect, ideally familiar with teaching your subject. 2) You and a colleague should read and discuss the instrument, then 3) arrange for your colleague to visit your class to observe and RTOP an hour lesson. 4) While your colleague observes your class, have a student or aide videotape your lesson. 5) RTOP this videotape yourself, before discussing your colleague's RTOP score of your lesson. 6) Reciprocate -- perform an RTOP observation on your colleague in turn. This will provide more needed classroom observation material for discussion and genuine meaning in this experience for both of you. 7) Meet with your colleague to discuss and attempt to reconcile the scores on each of the twenty-five items. Inevitably, you will disagree with your colleague. Use the differences as a focus for re-examining your own teaching practices.
T
The In addition to collecting information about background and contextual activity descriptors, t he RTOP instrument is divided into five sectionsRTOP instrument items are divided into five sections: the collection of background and contextual activity descriptors, (1) lesson design and implementation information, (2) propositional content knowledge, (prepositional and (3) procedural content knowledge,) and (4) classroom culture (student-student and student-teachercommunicative interactions) and (5) classroom culture (student-teacher relationships). These last three major five sections include the twenty-five scored items. In general, the twenty-five items can be summarized for physics lessons as follows:
observable items scored from 0 - 4 as follows:
the behavior never occurred
the behavior occurred at least once
occurred more than once; very loosely describes the lesson
a frequent behavior or fairly descriptive of the lesson
pervasive or extremely descriptive of the lesson
-- where the exact details of the intermediate scores differ for each of the twenty-five items and have been rigorously defined by researchers. Research grade RTOP scores are generated by averaging several observations (at least three) taken by several observers (at least two) who are experts in teaching that subject matter and level. For your use, when in doubt scoring err on the side of a lower score. If you feel uncomfortable with a five step gradation, try assigning only scores of 0, 2 or 4 (absent, sometimes present, always) for an item. If you didnt directly observe an item it scores as zero (do not make any inferences without training).
When we conduct RTOP teacher workshops scoring video vignettes, teachers usually score lessons artificially high on their first attempts; after more discussion and more video vignettes the scores typically fall quite dramatically, indicating that teachers rapidly become more discerning. The scores you and your colleague generate will not be as accurate as that of a trained observer and thus will not be useful for formal research. However, your informal scores and discussion will generate comments, insights and ideas that you can act upon for your own teaching growth, and this experience will enable you to discuss reform teaching with colleagues. Use of the RTOP in this way is an excellent entry into professional development through action research. It is an example of inquiry-oriented professional development.
Summing the twenty-five item scores results in an RTOP lesson score ranging from 0 100 describing the degree of reform present. For physics lessons we have observed, some typical scores are:
traditional university lecture (passive) < 20
university lecture with demonstrations (some student participation) < 30
traditional high school physics lecture (with student questions) < 45
partial HS reform (some group work; most discourse still with teacher) < 55
medium sized (100 > n > 50) university lectures with Mazur-like group-
work (ConcepTests) and a student Personal Response System 65-75
the authors modified (whiteboards etc) large (170 > n > 75) lectures 70-75
modeling curriculum (varies with amount and quality of discourse) 65-99
These totals are generalized and approximate, and large departures have been observed. Any RTOP score greater than 50 indicates considerable presence of "reformed teaching" in a lesson.
The twenty-five items in the RTOP can be briefly summarized for physics teaching as follows:
III. Lesson Design and Implementation. The creation of physics lessons that: 1) :
respect student preconceptions and knowledge; 2)
foster learning communities; 3)
explore before formal presentation; 4)
seek and recognize alternative approaches; and 5)
include student ideas in classroom direction.
IVII. Content (Propositional Knowledge). Teachers knowing their physics and teaching lessons that: 6) i
involve fundamental concepts of physics; 7) p
promote coherent understanding across topics and situations; 8) d
demonstrate teacher content knowledge (e.g. apparently "'unrelated"' questions); 9) e
encourage appropriate abstraction; and 10)
explore and value interdisciplinary contexts and real world phenomena.
IVIII. Content (Procedural Knowledge). Physics lessons that use scientific reasoning and teachers' understanding of the pedagogy to: 11)
use a variety of representations to represent phenomena; 12)
make and test predictions, hypotheses, estimates or conjectures; 13)
are actively engaging and thought-provoking and include critically assessment; 14)
demonstrate metacognition (critical self-reflection); and 15)
show intellectual dialogue, challenge, debate negotiation, interpretation and discourse.
VIV. Classroom Culture (Communicative Interactions). The use of student discourse to modify the locus of lesson control such that: 16) :
students communicate their own ideas in a variety of methods; 17)
teacher's' questions foster divergent modes of thinking; 18)
lots of student, particularly inter-student talk, is present; 19)
student questions and comments shape discourse -- t(the "'teachable moment" is pursued'); and 20)
there is a climate of respect and expectation for student contributions.
V. Classroom Culture (Student-Teacher Relationships). Lessons interactions where: 21)
students actively participate (minds-on, hands-on) and set agendas; 22)
students take primary and active responsibility for their own learning; 23)
the teacher is patient (plays out student initiatives, and is silent when appropriate); 24)
the teacher acts as a resource and students supply initiative; and 25)
the teacher is a listener.
A fewTwoTwo sample RTOP item scores are described below from physics classes we have observed:: The situations described are necessarily single lesson incidents; similar but repeated events are typically used and provide better reliability for RTOP scoring. These situations are also more focused on teacher behavior than is typical RTOP describes student behaviors as well.
12) Students made predictions, estimations and / or hypotheses and devised means for testing them.
This item does not distinguish among predictions, hypotheses and estimations. All three terms are used so that the RTOP can be descriptive of both mathematical thinking and scientific reasoning. Another word that might be used in this context is conjectures. The idea is that students explicitly state what they think is going to happen before collecting data.
Sample ratings for a lesson on 1-D non-uniform motion with students looking at position and velocity vs. time graphs.
Score Teacher Action
0 Teacher gives the students the formulas for non-uniform motion and the students solve problems based on the graphs and problem sheets.
1 Teacher gives the students the theory and formulas for non-uniform motion, has the students collect, analyze and interpret data using a step-by-step process.
2 Teacher sets up an appropriate experiment, has the students make predictions about what was going to happen, the students do the experiment and analyze the data following the set procedure.
3 Teacher sets up an appropriate experiment, has the students make predictions about what was going to happen, the students do the experiment with some procedural help and then analyze the data to try and understand what relationship they see.
4 Teacher asks the students to look at the graphs and asks them to predict what type of motion gives what graph. Teacher asks students to design and carry out experiments, which would develop the relationships for non-linear motion. The teacher facilitates the experiment as required.
This item reflects student exploration of the complex social activity known as scientific inquiry. The world is understandable through science, and scientific knowledge explains and predicts the world, is revisable, testable, observable, does not rest upon appeal to authority (REF 60a, p13). For the teacher, this item indicts the need for intensive teacher preparation upon the 'touchstone' concepts and situations identified and described by physics education research (Ref 60b, p244-246).
23) In general the teacher was patient with students.
Patience is not the same thing as tolerating unexpected or unwanted student behavior. Rather there is an anticipation that, when given a chance to play itself out, unanticipated behavior can lead to rich learning opportunities. A long wait time is a necessary but not sufficient condition for rating highly on this item.
Sample ratings for an introductory lesson on rotational kinematics when a student asks "So how does this relate to the movement of the planets?"
Score Teacher Action
0 Teacher informs the student "Don't go there, that's for a later lesson" or ignores the student.
1 Teacher gives a short answer to the student's question.
2 Teacher turns the question back to the rest of the class, and awaits students' responses. After a few responses, the teacher gives correct response incorporating some of the students' correct ideas.
3 Teacher turns the question back to the rest of the class. Gauging that students are interested, the teacher asks students to get into their groups and discuss the question.
4 Teacher turns the question back to the rest of the class. Gauging that students are interested, the teacher shows the students data for the earth's orbit around the sun and asks students to get into their groups to try to figure out "How far does the earth travel in a year?" and "What is the earth's angular velocity?"
There is an internal tension between patience and the teachers' pedagogical knowledge. The teacher may be tempted to circumvent the inquiry process by not allowing the student enough time to explore their ideas because the teacher knows where most students will have problems. However, having the students in control of their learning does not imply that the teacher abdicates responsibility for the classroom and learning. Rather, the teacher has to set up the appropriate problems, and know how and when to facilitate student inquiries so that students reach a goal of common understanding. An expert physics teacher readily identifies and aggressively pursues the "teachable moment" in a lesson, whether or not it is the scheduled one. Although teacher expertise is required to score well on this item, the critical idea is to permit students the time to explore apparently incorrect ideas, to wrestle with the language and to negotiate with peers.
Inquiry values the student's right to be explore and negotiate in a supportive environment. It is extraordinarily difficult for teachers to shut up and allow students this freedom, yet teaching via student dialog is a critical lesson for teachers to learn (Ref 60c, p493-494).
The RTOP instrument quantifies twenty-five observable items from 0 - 4 as follows:
the behavior never occurred
the behavior occurred at least once
occurred more than once; very loosely describes the lesson
a frequent behavior or fairly descriptive of the lesson
pervasive or extremely descriptive of the lesson
where the exact details of the intermediate scores differ for each of the twenty-five items and are rigorously defined in inter-rater reliability sessions (see sidebar 1). Research grade RTOP scores are generated by averaging several observations (at least three) taken by several observers (at least two) who are experts in teaching that subject matter and level.
Summing these twenty-five item scores results in an RTOP lesson score ranging from 0 100 describing the degree of reform present. For physics lessons we have observed, some typical scores are:
traditional university lecture (passive) < 20
university lecture with demonstrations (some student participation) < 30
traditional high school physics lecture (with student questions) < 45
partial HS reform (some group work; most discourse still with teacher) < 55
medium sized (n > 50) university lectures with Mazur-like group-
work (ConcepTests) and a student Personal Response System 65-75
the authors modified (whiteboards etc) large (n > 150) lectures 70-75
modeling curriculum (varies with amount and quality of discourse) 65-99
These totals are generalized and approximate, and large departures have been observed. Any RTOP score greater than 50 indicates considerable reform presence in a lesson.
Obtaining your own RTOP score
To obtain an RTOP score of one of your own lessons, you will need to download the RTOP Training Manual (REF 4) and print a copy for yourself and a colleague. Although RTOP is designed for use in many subject areas in science and mathematics, ideally you want a trusted colleague familiar with teaching in your field to observe you if possible. You and a colleague should read and discuss the instrument, then arrange for your colleague to visit your class for an hour lesson. While your colleague observes your class, videotape the lesson as well. You will RTOP the videotape yourself, before discussing your colleague's RTOP score of your lesson. Then meet with your colleague and discuss and attempt to reconcile the scores on each of the twenty-five items. Inevitably, you will disagree with your colleague. Use the difference as a focus for re-examining your understanding of your own teaching. You should offer to reciprocate and perform an RTOP observation on your colleague in turn.
A few caveats: if in doubt when scoring err on the side of a lower score. If you feel uncomfortable with a five step gradation, try assigning only scores of 0, 2 or 4 (absent, maybe present, obvious) for an item. If you didnt directly observe an item it scores as zero (no inferences without training). When we conduct RTOP teacher workshops scoring video vignettes, teachers usually score inappropriately the lesson high on their first attempt; after discussion and more video vignettes the scores typically fall quite dramatically, indicating that teachers rapidly become more discerning.. The score you and your colleague generate will not be as accurate as that of a trained observer and will not immediately be useful for research purposes without inter-rater reliability statistics. However, your informal scores and discussion will generate comments, insights and ideas that you can act upon for your own teaching growth, and this experience will enable you to discuss reform teaching with colleagues. Use of the RTOP in this way is an excellent entry into professional development through action research. It is an example of inquiry-oriented professional development.
When we conduct formal preservice and inservice teacher RTOP training similar to this procedure, except we watch, score, and discuss and debate prepared video excerpts. Next we have teachers self-reflect and write a reaction commenting upon RTOP evaluation of their own instruction. Next, teachers evaluate live instructors teaching them physics lessons, usually from the Modeling Physics Curriculum. Finally, teachers prepare and present lessons for each other while their peers take turns generating RTOP scores for one another, providing constructive criticism intended to foster reformed teaching. We sometimes aid the process by providing teachers with techniques or artifacts intended to foster such reform teaching practices like the modeling method curriculum, seat experiments or sets of whiteboards (see sidebar 2).
RTOP ThemesLessons learned from RTOP
These twenty-five RTOP items lay out a set of nontraditional themes for physics lessons, which in turn suggest particular opportunities for reforming physics teaching. We will examine three themes here: those we feel two of these themes are the most likely worthwhile kinds of professional changes challenges that most physics teachers could attemptshould undertake and manage in their own classrooms.
First, and most important, these are NOT your fathers physics lectures anymore -- RTOP requires a radically new kind of teaching with a radically new role for the teacher. This is a complete change from the traditional culture of physics lectures (Ref 3b, 8d)
Reformed teaching looks quite different from traditional physics lessons; the biggest single change is that the class is no longer focused on the teacher. The classroom is quite noisy, and the instructor works as a group facilitator, which is a quite different skill than lecturing (REF 13a). Reformed classroom management is quite different: considerable time must be found for student talk, usually by sharply reducing course topical breadth and by largely eliminating lecture. The textbook is de-emphasized (or abandoned), as there is insufficient time to present it in class. Rather than introducing content via lecture, exploratory activities are organized and carried out. It is very hard for teachers to allow students to explore and be wrong or incomplete for what seems to be excruciatingly protracted periods of time.
Student talk is far more important than teacher talk -- high RTOP scores require cooperative student learning through extended dialog. Teachers choose activities that foster such dialog, and manage, support and reward dialog. These activities are carefully chosen to fit within time constraints, to be essential to the concept and to be sufficiently challenging that collaboration is necessary. Students discuss, negotiate, reflect upon and evaluate one anothers words and ideas in small groups. Students take time to negotiate meaning, and teachers respect the students right to pursue blind alleys. In large classes, the teacher will not be immediately available to help groups and groups must be prepared with self-help strategies. Groups must exchange and negotiate amongst one another as well as within the group. Lectures are reshaped into classroom learning communities, focused on group learning and student dialog.
Group participation and products are graded, though grading for correctness often is deferred to exams or homework. Reform lesson materials and activities management is considerably more difficult than traditional lecture, and some students will be highly resistant to taking on the additional work and responsibility reformed teaching requires of them. Thankfully, there are benefits greater conceptual learning gains, greater participation and success for traditionally less successful physics students and intrinsic motivation for learning physics.
FirstSecond, there is no "golden road" to physics teaching -- RTOP affirms the importance of specialized preparation, knowledge and professional development knowledge for physics teachers. This Specialized physics teaching knowledge includes skills and content knowledge not required of physicists or of teachers of subjects other than physics, or more generally science and mathematics. This is sometimes called pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in general science education literature (REF 11).
Physics PCK includes those touchstone situations, activities and problems identified by physics education researchPER as having strong impacts upon physics learning. Physics PCK includes student preconceptions research (such as students confuting position and velocity based on automobile riding experiences), topical emphasis issues (e.g. which kinematics concepts are necessary critical to supporting the critical ideas underlying Newtonian 's Lawsmechanics), and appropriate use of physics examples and analogies (e.g. assimilating electrostatics by developing simpler ideas underlying gravitation into generalized fields). Physics PCK is developed through specialized training and experience in physics teaching, and is extended through professional development such as physics curricular workshops, professional physics teaching journals, associations and meetings, and books about physics teaching (REF 12).
More generallly, Sscience education PCK includes knowledge of inquiry teaching and assessment, the nature of science, and how to foster and support classroom dialogue so as to take advantage of those teachable moments you identify using physics PCK. Frequently this means havingPhysics teachers require a thorough enough knowledge of the course content so as to be able to skip about upon topics moveshift the lesson content in line with student thinking, often resulting in a very nontraditional sequences. , i ThisSuch shifts often require expertise inincludes identifying and underscoring real-world relevant examples as they spontaneously arise. There is no golden road to physics teaching.
Second, RTOP requires a radical refocus of the classroom from the teacher to the student. Reform looks quite different from traditional physics lessons; the biggest single change is that the group class is no longer focused on the teacher. The idea is akin to an advanced wait time -- it is very hard for teachers to make this change and allow students to explore and be wrong or incomplete for what seems to be protracted periods of time. The classroom is quite noisy, and the instructor has to works as a group facilitator, which is a quite different skill than lecturing (REF 13a). Reformed classroom management is quite different: considerable time must be found for student talk, usually by sharply reducing course topical breadth and by largely eliminating lecture. Rather than introducing content via lecture, exploratory activities must be are organized and carried out. Group participation and products must beare graded, though grading for correctness can and should be deferred to exams or homework. The textbook is tremendously de-emphasized as there is insufficient time to present it in class., and In any case, traditional texts cover far too much material with inadequate depth. Reform lesson materials and activities management is considerably more difficult than traditional lecture, and some students can be highly resistant to taking on the additional work and responsibility reform requires of them. Thankfully, there are benefits greater conceptual learning gains, greater participation and success for traditionally less successful physics students and intrinsic motivation for learning physics. This is NOT your fathers physics lecture.
Finally, high RTOP scores require teacher facility with and teacher support for cooperative student learning through extended dialog. Teachers must be able to choose activities that foster such dialog, and must manage, support and reward dialog. These activities must beare carefully chosen to fit within time constraints, to be essential to the concept and to be sufficiently challenging that collaboration is necessary. Students must discuss, negotiate, reflect upon and evaluate one anothers words and ideas in small groups. Students must take time to negotiate meaning, and teachers must respect their students right to pursue blind alleys. In large classes, the teacher will not be immediately available to help groups and groups must be prepared with self-help strategies. Groups must exchange and negotiate amongst one another as well as within the group. Lectures are reshaped into classroom learning communities, focused on group learning and student dialog. Student talk is far more important than teacher talk.
There are many teaching techniques and curricula that that foster these the kinds of lessons that score well on the RTOP rubric, and not all lessons can score high on RTOP. One technique that we strongly encourage adopting as part of RTOP self evaluation is whiteboardWhen we host workshops on reform teaching we provide teachers with whiteboards, which are central to the modeling curriculum (Sidebar 2 use). Whiteboards are were developed for use in Hestenes' Modeling Physics Curriculum (Ref 8f), and whiteboardsdesigned to facilitate cooperative group learning by anchoring student dialog in a shared, negotiated and explicit external representation. It is also possible to foster dialog through the use of cooperative techniques such as think-pair-share, Mazurs ConcepTests with group reporting via personal response systems (REF 8e), or by cooperative group completion of touchstone PER identified problems sheets such as ALPS sheets (REF ALPS), Ranking Tasks (REF 14c), and so forth.
Like most all worthwhile endeavors, reform teaching is a challenging, often difficult and richly rewarding adventure. We encourage you to try this approach for your professional growth as a teacher and for the conceptual growth of your students. You'll also learn lots of physics from listening to and reflecting on the ideas of your students.
Acknowledgements:
This The preparation of this manuscript has been supported by the Arizona Teachers Excellence Coalition (AzTEC) project funded by the US Dept of Education Teacher Partnership Grants pProgram, and by the Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in Preparing Teachers (ACEPT) funded through the NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation pProgram.
We would like to thank Professors the following people for their advice and discussion: Apple Bloom, Jeff Bloom, Dwain Desbien, Larry Dukerich, Julie Gess-Newsome, Richard Hake, David Hestenes, and Jennifer Mcfarland, Daiyo Sawada for their discussion and commentary., David Thompson, Sue Wyckoff and Mike Zelick. OTHERS AS FEEDBACK WARRANTS also ask students, teachers, hake and middleton. All errors, omissions or misrepresentations are our own.
References (I know, I used APA Sci Educ reference style but I will translate to APS)
1a. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989). Project 2061: Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Washington, D.C.: AAAS. < HYPERLINK "http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/sfaatoc.htm" http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/sfaatoc.htm>,
1b. AAAS (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.< HYPERLINK "http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.htm" http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.htm>
1c. National Council Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. .
1d. NCTM (1991). Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
1e. NCTM (1995). Assessment Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM .
1f. NCTM (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. <
1g. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press .
1h. NRC (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. .
1i. NRC (1999). Designing mathematics or science curriculum programs: A guide for using mathematics and science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. .
1j. NRC (1999). Global perspectives for local action: Using TIMSS to improve US Mathematics and Science Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. .
2a. E. Seymour, E. (1996). Guest comment: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. American Journal of Physics, 63, 199-202.
2a. Sadler, P.M. & Tai, R.H. (2001). Success in introductory college physics: The role of high school preparation. Science Education, 85(3), 111-137.
2b. Tobias, S. (1990). Theyre not dumb, theyre different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson: The Research Corporation.
2c. Sadler, P.M. & Tai, R.H. (2001). Success in introductory college physics: The role of high school preparation. Science Education, 85(3), 111-137.
3.a. ACEPT is described at < HYPERLINK "http://acept.asu.edu/" http://acept.asu.edu/> and the NSF CETP collaboratives maintain a continuing centralized electronic archive at < HYPERLINK "http://ecept.net" http://ecept.net>. ACEPT goals have been largely supplanted by the more recent and much larger AzTEC, see < HYPERLINK "http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/index.htm" http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/index.htm>, with most ACEPT participants continuing in AzTEC.
3b. Wyckoff, S. (2001). Changing the culture of undergraduate science teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, XXX (6). Describes ACEPT, limited value of lecture in teaching physics, interactive engagement.
4 . Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R., Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). ACEPT IN-003. The RTOP rubric form, training manual and reference manual containing statistical analyses, (and eventually streamed video vignettes of physics teaching practices) are all available from < HYPERLINK "http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/pubs/RTOP/" http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTECpubs/RTOP/>. This site will eventually feature streamed video physics teaching vignettes with associated RTOP analyses.
5. Lawson, A. E., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Carlson, M. P., Falconer, K. F., Hestenes, D. O., Judson, E., Piburn, M. D., Sawada, D., Turley, J., & Wyckoff, S. (2001). Reforming and evaluating college science and mathematics instruction: Reformed teaching improves student achievement. Journal of College Science Teaching, in press. Discusses links between RTOP scores and student achievement gains for six physical science and four university physics classes, amongst many others.
6. Linn, R. L. (2000) Assessments and accountability, Educational Researcher; 29 (2), 4-16.
7. Hake, R.R (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. Also Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses, submitted to the "Physics Education Research Supplement to AJP" (PERS), both available at .
8a. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. : Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co. This includes a review of cooperative learning literature, reporting several benefits including student achievement gains of 0.886 standard deviation across many studies. CL is also described at .
8b. Heller, P., Keith, R. & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping, Part 1: Group vs. individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60, 627-636.
8c. Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M., (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping, Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60, 637-644.
8d. Laws, P. (1995). Workshop physics activity guide. NY: Wiley. The prototypical MBL curriculum, workshop physics eschews lectures. See also Laws, P. (1991). Calculus-based physics without lectures. Physics Today, 44(12) 24-31.
8e. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A users manual. Prentice-Hall series in educational innovation. NJ: Prentice-hall. See also < HYPERLINK "http://www.psrc-online.org/classrooms/papers/mazur.html" http://www.psrc-online.org/classrooms/papers/mazur.html> and Mazurs project Galileo website < HYPERLINK "http://galileo.harvard.edu/home.html" http://galileo.harvard.edu/home.html>.
8f. Wells, M., Hestenes, D. & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 64, 114-119. Available at . The Modeling Curriculum including whiteboard activities is freely downloadable from < HYPERLINK "http://modeling.asu.edu" http://modeling.asu.edu>.
9. Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). (Original Revised and edited, A. Kozulin). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT.
10. Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching: Increasing instructional effectiveness in secondary schools, colleges and universities. El Segundo, CA: TIP Pubs. SeeEEI is also described at and < HYPERLINK "http://www2.bc.edu/~ruedaju/MadelineHunter.html" http://www2.bc.edu/~ruedaju/MadelineHunter.html>.
11. Barnett, J. & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Towards a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education 85(4), 426.
12. Arons, A.B. (1997). Teaching introductory physics. NY: Wiley.
13a. Whiteboard learning strategies are described at . Commercially manufactured whiteboards can be purchased from Playscapes, Inc (800) 248-7529 for under $10 each or you can locally manufacture adequate versions for about $2 each. and . An overview of whiteboard theory and some student reactions are is available at < HYPERLINK "http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/pubs/CETP/" http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/pubs/CETP/>. Commercially manufactured whiteboards can be purchased from Playscapes Inc (800) 248-7529 for under $10 each or you can locally manufacture adequate versions for about $2 each. HYPERLINK "http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/new_seatexp/index/" http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/new_seatexp/index/ contains several for teaching introductory physics.
14a Think Pair share
14b. ALPS
14c. OKuma, T.L., Maloney, D.P. and Heiggelke, C.,J. (1999). Ranking task exercises in physics. Prentice-Hall series in educational innovation. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice-hall.
60a. Layman, J.W., Ochoa, G. & Heikkinen, H. (1996). Inquiry and learning: Realizing science standards in the classroom. NY: The College Board.
60b. Trowbridge, D.E. and McDermott, L.C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 49, 242-253.
60c. Minstrell, J. (2000). Implications for teaching and learning inquiry: A summary. In Minstrell, J and van Zee, E.H. (2000) (Eds). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington DC: AAAS.
Fig 1 (Review Quality):
EMBED Excel.Sheet.8
Fig 2 (Review Quality):
Figure 2: Students using whiteboards in an introductory physics lesson
70a. Commercially manufactured whiteboards can be purchased from Playscapes Inc (800) 248-7529 for under $10 each or you can locally manufacture adequate versions for about $2 each. Whiteboards are briefly described at http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/Aztec/bp_wb. The site
70c. HYPERLINK "http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/new_seatexp/index/" http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/new_seatexp/index/ contains over three dozen whiteboards and seat experiments with solutions for teaching introductory physics. Commercially manufactured whiteboards can be purchased from Playscapes Inc (800) 248-7529 for under $10 each or you can locally manufacture adequate versions for about $2 each.
70d. ZELIKREF. Some other inspirational physics curricula that include short experimental investigations are Chabay, R. & Sherwood, B. (1995). Electric & Magnetic Interactions. NY: Wiley.; Laws, P.W. (1995). Workshop Physics Activity Guide. NY: Wiley.; Sue Wyckoffs Take Home Experiments at , and GAY STEWART"S ACTIVITIES if i can get a reliable website.
*****
Sidebar1 : RTOP Instrument Sample Items with comments
Situations described below are necessarily single lesson incidents; similar but repeated events are typically used and provide better reliability for RTOP scoring. The below situations are also more focused on teacher behavior than is typical for RTOP.
12) Students made predictions, estimations and/or hypotheses and devised means for testing them.
This item does not distinguish among predictions, hypotheses and estimations. All three terms are used so that the RTOP can be descriptive of both mathematical thinking and scientific reasoning. Another word that might be used in this context is conjectures. The idea is that students explicitly state what they think is going to happen before collecting data.
Sample ratings for a lesson on 1-D non-uniform motion with students looking at position and velocity vs. time graphs.
Score Teacher Action
0 Teacher gives the students the formulas for non-uniform motion and the students solve problems based on the graphs and problem sheets.
1 Teacher gives the students the theory and formulas for non-uniform motion, has the students collect, analyze and interpret data using a step-by-step process.
2 Teacher sets up an appropriate experiment, has the students make predictions about what was going to happen, the students do the experiment and analyze the data following the set procedure.
3 Teacher sets up an appropriate experiment, has the students make predictions about what was going to happen, the students do the experiment with some procedural help and then analyze the data to try and understand what relationship they see.
4 Teacher asks the students to look at the graphs and asks them to predict what type of motion gives what graph. Teacher asks students to design and carry out experiments, which would develop the relationships for non-linear motion. The teacher facilities the experimentation as required.
This item reflects student exploration of the complex social activity known as scientific inquiry. The world is understandable through science, and scientific knowledge explains and predicts the world, is revisable, testable, observable, does not rest upon appeal to authority (REF 60a, p13). For the teacher, this item indicts the need for intensive teacher preparation upon the 'touchstone' concepts and situations identified and described by physics education research. For an example of relevant research (Ref 60b, p244-246)
23) In general the teacher was patient with students.
Patience is not the same thing as tolerating unexpected or unwanted student behavior. Rather there is an anticipation that, when given a chance to play itself out, unanticipated behavior can lead to rich learning opportunities. A long wait time is a necessary but not sufficient condition for rating highly on this item.
Sample ratings for an introductory lesson on rotational kinematics when a student asks "So how does this relate to the movement of the planets?"
Score Teacher Action
0 Teacher informs the student 'Don't go there, that's for a later lesson' or ignores the student.
1 Teacher gives a short answer to the student's question.
2 Teacher turns the question back to the rest of the class, and awaits students' responses. After a couple, teacher gives correct response incorporating some of the students' correct ideas.
3 Teacher turns the question back to the rest of the class, gauging the students are interested, the teacher asks the students to get into their groups and discuss the question.
4 Teacher turns the question back to the rest of the class, gauging the students are interested, the teacher shows the students data for the earth's orbit around the sun and asks the students to get into their groups and try to figure out how far does the earth travel in a year and what is its' angular velocity?
There is an internal tension between patience and the teachers' pedagogical knowledge. The teacher may be tempted to circumvent the inquiry process by not allowing the student enough time to explore their ideas because the teacher knows where most students will have problems. However, having the students in control of their learning does not imply that the teacher abdicates responsibility for the classroom and learning. Rather the teacher has to set up the appropriate problems, and know how and when to facilitate the student inquires so that the students reach a goal of common understanding. An expert physics teacher readily identifies and encourages pursuit of the 'teachable moment' in a lesson, whether or not it is the scheduled one. Again, teacher expertise is important to score well on this item, but the critical idea is to permit students the time to explore apparently incorrect ideas, to wrestle with the language and to negotiate with peers.
Inquiry values the student's right to be explore and negotiate in a supportive environment. It is extraordinarily difficult for teachers to shut up and allow students this freedom, yet teaching via student dialog is a critical lesson for teachers to learn. (Ref 60c, p493-494).
Sidebar 2: Two strategies to foster reform learning: whiteboards and seat experiments
Whiteboards are approximately 60 x 80cm sized pieces of tile board written on with dry erase markers by collaborative learning groups. Whiteboards may be commercially purchased or manufactured from bathroom shower board from your local building materials supplier (REF 70a).
Whiteboards were developed by Malcolm Wells as an integral part of the Modeling Physics Curriculum (REF 8f), which eschews formal laboratory reports in favor of whiteboards. Whiteboards are artifacts that elicit student ideas and support the discourse necessary for learning physics. Whiteboards facilitate multiple contributors, ready erasure, multiple visual representations of ideas and the presentation and discussion of ideas to moderate sized groups. Students are focused on their own ideas and the discussion of these ideas, rather than on an instructors lecture presentation reform is built into whiteboard use.
Physics lesson use typically involves either cooperatively working a short problem or reporting on a laboratory style activity. In moderate sized lectures and classrooms, students use their whiteboards to in turn formally present solutions and explanations to their peers, with attendant questioning and comments. In a technique called circle whiteboarding developed by Dwain Desbien, student groups sit in a circle with all boards facing the center of the circle, visible to all. This allows rapid comparison and juxtaposition of different ideas on different whiteboards by the classroom community, reducing redundantly presented material.
Modeling physics teachers have evolved a large number of rubrics for providing grade credit for whiteboard preparation and presentation, but all include generous credit for reasoning, presentation, questioning and completeness -- the correct solution is of less import. Problems can be graded for correctness later, on individually worked quizzes, tests and exams. Some teacher differentiate informal from formal sessions for grading purposes. In large lectures we typically use whiteboards to introduce new phenomena, situations or kinds of problems and reasoning, or to practice problem solving. We find cooperative learning groups can undertake activities so difficult only the brightest can successfully address them individually. A list of grouping strategies and questioning / facilitating strategies that instructors can use to keep fruitful student dialog flowing during whiteboarding is available online (REF 13a).
We have produced several hundred dozen whiteboards for teacher workshops, modeling workshops and for supporting K-12 science and mathematics teachers. Students and instructors who have tried whiteboards have been overwhelmingly supportive of and pleased with classroom whiteboard use.
Seat Experiments
Seat experiments are fifteen to twenty-five minute just-in-time micro-laboratory activities designed to provide hands-on concrete experience with physics phenomena in the classroom. They seem particularly well-suited to learning about subjects such as electricity, magnetism and optics topics where students may not have much experience with the basic phenomena and where traditional instruction involves learning to solve problems about phenomena students cant actually recognize and describe.
We do not combine whiteboards and seat experiments in the large lecture theaters due to space constraints. Seat experiments are chosen such that they involve a descriptive part where students observe properties and discuss perceived patterns or regularities, and try to fit models and general science principles to their findings. Most activities attempt to incorporate crude quantification of variables, and invoke related mathematics. Our particular seat activities were developed to use low-cost or locally available materials such that future teachers enrolled in our college physics courses could replicate them in their own classrooms. We have placed our set of these seat activities online (REF 70c), but anyone can readily develop such activities from the physics teaching literature (we also find childrens science activities are also helpful for suggestions). Our development of seat experiments was inspired by Mike Zelicks work teaching astronomy via in-seat activities amongst others (REF 70d).
TPT Manuscript: MacIsaac & Falconer, Reform Teaching via RTOP p PAGE 11
FILENAME \p web_drive:pubs:TPT:TPTSep02subRTOP.doc DATE \@ "M/dd/yyyy" 8/01/2002 TIME \@ "h:mm AM/PM" 1:21 PM
j k | ~ $ 2 4 Z H L N & ' 2 3 w ʿۿʴ۩ۦ~zۦqh CJ cH dht\[ CJ cH dhd[&6CJ H hs\[CJ CJ cH dhs\[0J CJ j CJ U
j CJ UCJ H hs\[5CJ H ht\[5CJ H h_k[F5CJ 5CJ cH dht\[
56CJ 5CJ H hUh5CJ H hSh5CJ H hRh5CJ ' Z [ i 2 p n n n n n n n n n D C$Eƀ Rh D C$Eƀ Sh $a$ Z [ i 2 & ' 2 3 D
E
$
%
q r O `% T&