Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download aapt_talk_july2010 - Department of Physics
Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
PER-BASED INTRODUCTORY PHYSICS REFORM AT OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY AAPT, JULY 2010 Dedra Demaree, Sissi Li Context Large-scale course reform of calc-based intro physics Huge affordances: departmental norms established through the “Paradigms” upper division course reform (why I wanted to work at OSU – go check it out – session ED tomorrow) Established reform “Community of Practice” “Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” (Wenger) “Regular meetings allow for perspective transformation through discourse. “ (Kember and McKay) Community validation NOT mandates Reform strengthened by varied expertise Valuing faculty input Faculty know the students Faculty research expertise Faculty have ‘meta-goals’ in their teaching Group discourse helps make these explicit PER informs meta-goals (go to PERC!) Committee tasks 3 curricular committees involving ALL faculty members for: lower division, upper division and graduate courses (yes, we have too many meetings…) Set goals Evaluate course content Discuss student achievement and difficulties Assessments and results Suggest improvements Faculty members ‘see’ different pieces based on orientation: simplified diagram of emergent reform model based on curriculum committee meetings Conceptual Understanding Scaffolding/ Math Problem Solving Appreciation/ Curiosity Epistemologies/ Attitudes Each drive the other, each suggests particular assessments Reflective teaching Faculty reflection: Observer in classroom with post-class discussions with instructor Modeled after Paradigms: videotaped, review and document reform Journaling what went well, what needs improvement Structured TA discussions improve implementation And they place high value in reflecting on their teaching practice (more at George DeBeck’s PERC poster) Where we are now Peer Instruction (to some level) in all introductory classrooms ISLE in my classroom, and I’m using the new SCALEUP studio (introduced spring term 2010 – see poster Tues night!) Faculty members have: contributed to activities, observed my class, discussed how activities played-out and whether goals are being met BUT: Most faculty members are not ready to teach this way!! Feeling the need for change “findings highlight the critical role of pedagogical and contextual dissatisfaction in creating a context for fundamental change.” (Gess-Newsome, Southerland, Johnston, Woodbury) Varied (strong) ideas about how to achieve goals Assessments show what methods are more effective (ouch!) Faculty must be open to reflecting upon their own teaching (yep, there’s the rub…) Change is not easy or fast… Faculty member comfort level and buy-in “teaching context, teacher characteristics, teacher thinking, and their interactions [are] influential factors in attempts to implement classroom reform.” (Gess-Newsome, Southerland, Johnston, Woodbury) Community of Practice framework suggests how to achieve buy-in rather than insisting on adaption of specific methods We don’t all think the same!!! BUT… this can be a positive: Need to view reform as constantly evolving – faculty bring new ideas and different implementations (Slow and steady wins the race!) Moving forward “adapting faculty members should choose innovations that genuinely interest them and are aligned with their goals, should experiment with innovations in a gradual way, and should receive support throughout the process.” (Penberthy and Millar) Community of Practice faculty goal setting, giving us a leg-up on this barrier Will start to incorporate peer teaching to help faculty transition into leading reformed courses (recommended by the U of Colorado practice and research literature) Acknowledgements OSUPER (Oregon State University Physics Education Research) Group: Corinne Manogue, Sissi Li, George DeBeck, Jennifer Roth and Sam Settlemeyer Lower-Division Course Committee: Henri Jansen (department chair), Corinne Manogue, David Bannon, Chris Coffin and Jim Ketter, with Zlatko Dimcovic Chandra Turpen, Steven Pollock and Stamatis Vokos for discussions during their visits Committees discuss assessment possibilities, promoting coordination and buy-in for collecting data: Conceptual Understanding FCI, CSEM… Productive attitudes enable more participation and engagement in the community of practice Scaffolding/ Math Committee choices, teacher implementation, student engagement Problem Solving ISLE Rubrics Student feedback, engagement Appreciation/ Curiosity CLASS, qualitative Epistemologies/ studies Attitudes Abstract At Oregon State University, innovative curriculum and pedagogy choices have been in place for more than a decade with the Paradigms in Physics project. The past few years have focused on extending this reform to the lower-division large lecture courses. Our reform has been implemented in phases, starting with changes to the large lecture, then changes to the lab, and most recently, with the incorporation of a studio-based portion of the course in a SCALE-UP room. This talk will discuss our team-based reform model which involves graduate students, a large fraction of our faculty, and all of our full-time course instructors. We find holding regular reform group meetings and post-instructional team meetings to be a highly valuable reform tool for refining the curriculum and building/transferring pedagogical content knowledge. How we use these meeting times will also be discussed.
