117
July 13–17, 2013
Wednesday afternoon
behaviors, in two physics classes. Prominent evaluative structures in
this context consisted of (1) individual and small group reconciliation of
students’ ideas and explanations with available laboratory evidence and (2)
whole class consensus building of explanations that can best explain the ev-
idence collected. Findings suggest that the relocation of evaluative author-
ity over students’ ideas and explanations to laboratory evidence and social
consensus, rather than with teacher and text, can promote more authentic
engagement, enjoyment, and a sense of identification with physics.
FA07:
2:10-2:20 p.m. Using Intersectionality to Investigate
Students’ Affective Reactions to College Mathematics
Contributed – Hilary A. Dwyer,* University of California, Santa Barbara, Ge-
virtz School, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9490;
Danielle Harlow, University of California, Santa Barbara
Many women and students of color leave STEM fields because they do not
feel an affective connection to the culture of these disciplines. These indi-
viduals do not lack cognitive ability; rather they choose not to persist based
on personal responses to factors such as sense of community, interactions
with professors and peers, and stereotypes among professionals in the field.
We used one-on-one interviews and focus groups to provide a safe space
for students to discuss sensitive topics such as being a woman or man of
color among mostly European American students and faculty. Applying
an intersectionality lens to the testimonies of 24 math majors, we analyzed
how gender and ethnicity together could illuminate students’ affective
responses to college mathematics. This project provides important implica-
tions for physics educators as undergraduate physics or engineering majors
may hold similar views as the math students in this study.
*Sponsored by Danielle Harlow
Session FB: PER: Upper-Division
Courses
Location: Pavilion East
Date: Wednesday, July 17
Time: 12:30–2:20 p.m.
Presider: Mila Kryjevskaia
FB01:
12:30-12:40 p.m. Examining Student Understanding of
Diode Circuits*
Contributed – MacKenzie R. Stetzer, University of Maine, 5709 Bennett Hall,
Room 120, Orono, ME 04469-5709;
Christos P. Papanikolaou, University of Athens
David P. Smith, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
As part of an ongoing investigation of student understanding of analog
electronics, we have been examining student learning of canonical topics in
upper-division electronics courses. A major goal of this multi-institutional
investigation has been to probe student thinking in sufficient detail to
guide the development of instructional materials that can help address
underlying conceptual and reasoning difficulties. In this talk, I will focus
on our efforts to probe student understanding of basic diode circuits us-
ing free-response questions and interviews. Specific examples from our
work with both introductory and upper-division students will be used to
highlight some of the implications for instruction that continue to emerge
from this investigation.
*This work has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation under
Grant Nos. DUE-0618185, DUE-0962805, and DUE-1022449.
FB02: 12:40-12:50 p.m. Investigating Student Understanding
of Transistor Circuits
Contributed – Kevin L. Van De Bogart, University of Maine, 111 Bosworth St.,
Old Town, ME 04468;
MacKenzie R. Stetzer, University of Maine
An upper-division laboratory course on analog electronics is a required
component of many undergraduate physics programs and often serves
as a gateway to other advanced laboratory courses and undergraduate
research experiences. Ongoing research in such upper-division electron-
ics courses has revealed persistent student difficulties with foundational
circuits concepts (e.g., Kirchhoff’s junction rule) as well as canonical topics
in analog electronics (e.g., op-amp circuits). We have recently extended our
investigation to examine student understanding of fundamental bipolar-
junction transistor circuits. Specific examples will be used to highlight our
findings and to provide insight into student reasoning about such circuits.
In addition, implications for instruction will be discussed.
FB03:
12:50-1 p.m. Student Understanding of Electric Circuit
Theory as a Tool for Modeling Physical Networks
Contributed – Christian H. Kautz, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH),
Schwarzenbergstr. 95, Hamburg, XX 21073 Germany;
Dion Timmermann, Hamburg University of Technology
Courses on circuit analysis for students in electrical or mechanical engi-
neering often focus on algorithms for solving circuit problems that are
presented in the form of standard circuit diagrams. Research has shown
that many students have difficulty developing a conceptual understanding
of basic concepts such as current and voltage. At Hamburg University of
Technology, we have begun to investigate to what extent students are able
to recognize the model aspects of (linear) circuit theory. In particular, we
probe student understanding of (1) the connection between graphical and
mathematical representations of circuits, (2) the connection between the
elements of circuit theory and their real-world correspondents, (3) the
“syntax” (i.e., set of rules) underlying circuit diagrams, and (4) the limita-
tions of the linear circuit model and its idealized elements. We will present
some initial results, indicate how these relate to previously identified
conceptual difficulties, and show their relevance for instruction.
FB04:
1-1:10 p.m. Assessing Student Learning in Middle-
Division Classical Mechanics/Math Methods
Contributed – Marcos D. Caballero, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2000
Colorado Ave., Boulder, CO 80309;
Steven J. Pollock, University of Colorado, Boulder
Reliable and validated assessments of introductory physics have been
instrumental in driving curricular and pedagogical reforms that lead to
improved student learning. As part of an effort to systematically improve
our sophomore-level Classical Mechanics and Math Methods course (CM)
at CU-Boulder, we are developing a tool to assess student learning of CM
concepts in the upper-division. The Colorado Classical Mechanics/Math
Methods Instrument (CCMI) builds on faculty-consensus learning goals
and systematic observations of student difficulties. The result is a nine-
question open-ended post-test (with two additional, optional questions)
that probes student learning in the first half of a two-semester sequence
that combines classical mechanics with mathematical methods. In this
paper, we describe the design and development of this instrument, its vali-
dation, and measurements made in classes at CU Boulder and elsewhere.
FB05:
1:10-1:20 p.m. In between Multiple Choice and Open
Ended: Large-scale Assessment for Upper-Division
Physics?
Contributed – Bethany R. Wilcox, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2510 Taft
Drive, Unit 213, Boulder, CO 80302;
Steven Pollock, Marcos Caballero, University of Colorado at Boulder
Multiple-choice assessments are a standard tool for achieving reliable
measures of certain aspects of students’ conceptual learning in large intro-
ductory physics courses. However, upper-division physics involves greater
emphasis on assessing students’ reasoning in addition to their conceptual
knowledge. In order to capture elements of student reasoning, the Colo-
rado Upper-division Electrostatics (CUE) diagnostic was designed as an
open-ended assessment. Unfortunately, the training required to score the
CUE accurately limits its scalability. Using our extensive database of CUE
responses to construct distractors, we created a multiple-choice version of
