103
July 13–17, 2013
Wednesday morning
Lafayette, IN 47907-2036;
Kyle Isch, Ethan Stanley, Rebecca Lindell, Purdue University
Purdue University’s IMPACT program
1
facilitates the transformation of
large enrollment by incorporating interactive engagement methods into a
course. As participants in this program, the researchers reformed Purdue’s
fall 2012 introductory calculus-based mechanics course, Phys 172: Modern
Mechanics, by developing a series of Multimedia Learning Modules
(MLMs) for use with the
Matter and Interaction
text.
2
In addition, the one-
hour weekly recitations were redesigned to enhance students’ problem-
solving skills by utilizing cooperative group problem solving. Finally, the
two-hour weekly labs were partially redesigned to enhance students’ com-
putational modeling skills. To evaluate the effectiveness of this reformed
course, data analysis included student pre-test/ post-test results from
Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning, Primary Trait Analysis
of student exams and student responses to an anonymous survey. The
IMPACT program provided additional data. This poster presents results of
this evaluation, as well as suggestions for improvement for next fall.
1. IMPACT: Instruction Matters: Purdue Academic Course Transformation
2. Ruth Chabay and Bruce Sherwood,
Matter & Interactions: Modern Mechanics,
Third
edition (Wiley).
PST2A13: 8:30-9:15 a.m. Online Homework in a Physics Course
from the Student’s Perspective
Poster – Monica Pierri-Galvao, Marywood University, 2300 Adams Ave.,
Scranton, PA 18509;
An online homework system is a common practice in introductory physics
courses—mainly at institutions where class sizes are large. It greatly re-
duces the difficult task of grading. It also provides an immediate feedback
to the students. There has been a great discussion in the literature about
the effectiveness of these systems, however not so much about the student’s
perception. Therefore, we investigated this issue by adopting an online
homework system in an introductory physics course and conducting sur-
veys to examine the students’ opinion about the experience.
PST2A14: 9:15-10 a.m. Results of Flipping Introductory
Mechanics and E&M College Physics Courses*
Poster – Roberto Ramos, Indiana Wesleyan University, 4201 South Washing-
ton St., Marion, IN 46953;
Jaki Richter, Adam Wroughton, Indiana Wesleyan University
As part of a year-long project to improve physics learning in a liberal arts
college setting, students taking introductory, algebra-based Mechanics
and Electricity & Magnetism classes were assigned to watch online lecture
videos prior to class. Students were motivated using extra credit to watch
five- to 20-minute video bullets prepared by the instructor. Viewing pat-
terns were tracked through Blackboard. Inside the classroom, students
were engaged with research-based physics tutorials and classroom that
enabled peer instruction and active learning. One faculty and at least one
undergraduate TA played the role of “facilitator” in these classes. The re-
sults show significant learning gains, as measured by standardized physics
diagnostic tests. In this presentation, we report on the successes and chal-
lenges encountered in “flipping” College Physics classes. We also compare
experiences in flipping mechanics versus E&M classes, as well as student
feedback, as measured by surveys and online video interviews.
*Web:
PST2A15: 8:30-9:15 a.m. SAIL: Student Assessment of
Instruction and Learning
Poster – Randall D. Knight, California Polytechnic State University, Physics
Department, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407;
Thomas Bensky, California Polytechnic State University
Beginning in fall 2012, the Cal Poly physics department replaced a short,
generic, in-class course evaluation with an online, multi-question survey
designed specifically for introductory physics classes. Questions are
focused on specific aspects of instruction and on what the student thinks
he or she gained from the course rather than on the instructor’s popularity.
Lecture sections and lab sections have different surveys, each with ques-
tions appropriate to that mode of instruction. Student responses to each
question are guided by a rubric, so instructors receive highly specific feed-
back as to what’s working and which aspects of instruction need improve-
ment. In addition, the aggregate data, with instructor names removed, has
provided new insight into how well the department is meeting its teaching
obligations. A variety of interesting results will be presented.
B – Other
PST2B01: 8:30-9:15 a.m. A Physicist Chairing the Curriculum
Committee at a College of Pharmacy?
Poster – Richard P. McCall, St. Louis College of Pharmacy, 4588 Parkview
Place, St. Louis, MO 63110;
St. Louis College of Pharmacy is beginning a new academic program in
the fall of 2014, which will integrate, over a seven-year period, a BS in
Health Sciences with the Doctor of Pharmacy degree. The new curriculum
begins with students taking typical liberal arts and science courses for
the first three years. What better time for a non-pharmacist to chair the
Curriculum Committee. Jumping into this arena has meant learning terms
such as ability outcomes, curriculum mapping, assessment reports, perfor-
mance criteria, DACUM responsibilities, Appendix B content, and ACPE
accreditation. All are common in the pharmacy educator’s vocabulary, but
have been a bit abstract for this physicist. All courses will go through the
approval process, so it will be busy for several years. Two good things: (1)
students will take two semesters of physics, instead of only one, and (2) a
new physics lab is planned.
PST2B02: 9:15-10 a.m. How ‘Make’ Can Change Science
Teaching and Learning
Poster – Jennifer N. Wyld,* Oregon State University, 65 W. 35th Place,
Eugene, OR 97405;
The Maker movement, with its Maker Faires, Maker Spaces, Make Maga-
zine and vibrant Make website, is an exciting community of people of all
ages who are playing, creating, sharing. It is a group of DIYers who are
morphing into DIWO (do it with others) and are actively reaching out to
youth to reinvigorate interest and skills around making. In the process,
they are re-imagining what learning could look like if we gave learners ac-
cess to tools and materials and skills and a safe environment to try and fail
and try again. A new initiative is Maker Ed, started in 2012, to create ways
to share the Make culture and values around education-- learning by do-
ing/learning by making. Schools used to have places and opportunities for
students to do and Make and could again-- and we can create more spaces
for this type of creativity and innovation in our communities.
*Sponsored by Bruce Emerson
PST2B03: 8:30-9:15 a.m. Improving Recruitment and Retention
in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences*
Poster – Jane Flood, Muhlenberg College, Physics Department, Allentown,
PA 18104;
Funded by an NSF S-STEM grant, Muhlenberg College recruited two
cohorts of economically disadvantaged students intending to study
chemistry, computer science, environmental science, mathematics, physi-
cal science, or physics. Our program includes six elements: financial,
academic and psychosocial support, mentoring, professional development
for students, and faculty development. Literature on college grants (Fife
et al., 1976.), recruitment and retention of minority students (Gandara et
al., 1999), and retention of students from all backgrounds in STEM fields
(Seymour et al., 1997) supports the structure of our program. This poster
describes the current status of our project. Supported by NSF S-STEM
Award 0965834
*J.D. Fife and L.L. Leslie,
The College Student Grant Study. Research in Higher Educa-
tion,
317-333 (1976); P. Gandara and J. Maxwell-Joly,
Priming the Pump: Strategies
for Increasing the Achievement of Minority Undergraduates
(The College Board, NY
1999) 129 pp; E, Seymour and N.M. Hewitt,
Talking About Leaving: Why Under-
graduates Leave the Sciences
(Westveiw Press, Boulder CO, 1997) 429 pp.
