79
July 13–17, 2013
Tuesday morning
CE07:
8:40-8:50 a.m. EBAPS Correlations: The Importance of
Epistemology
Contributed – Cameron G. Summers,* BYU-Idaho, Department of Physics,
Provo, UT 84604;
Brian A. Pyper, BYU, Idaho
In looking at correlations between subsets of the EBAPS (Epistemological
Beliefs Assessment for Physical Science) and various other measures of stu-
dent abilities and conceptual understanding, we found some surprisingly
strong correlations with some predictable and some unexpected aspects of
the students’ background, attitudes, and conceptual understanding. We’ll
report on these data, as well as implications for instruction.
*Sponsored by Brian Pyper
Session CF: Research in Undergradu-
ate Mathematics Education
Location: Galleria II
Sponsor: Committee on Research in Physics Education
Date: Tuesday, July 16
Time: 7:30–9 a.m.
Presider: Warren Christensen
CF01:
7:30-8 a.m. Analyzing Student Understanding in Linear
Algebra Through Mathematical Activity
Invited – Megan Wawro,* Virginia Tech, Mathematics Department, 460 Mc-
Bryde Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061;
The purpose of this study is to investigate how students conceptualize span
and linear (in)dependence, and to utilize the construct of mathematical
activity to provide insight into these conceptualizations. The data under
consideration are portions of individual interviews with students in an
inquiry-oriented linear algebra course. Through grounded analysis via the
framework of concept image (Tall & Vinner, 1991), the range of student
conceptions of span and linear (in)dependence are organized into four
concept image categories: travel, geometric, vector algebraic, and matrix
algebraic. To further illuminate participants’ conceptions, a framework
was developed to classify engagement in types of mathematical activity:
defining, proving, relating, example generating, and problem solving. The
coordinated analysis of concept image with engagement in mathematical
activity facilitates a nuanced and rich characterization of students’ connec-
tions within and between the concepts of span and linear (in)dependence.
*Sponsored by Warren Christensen
CF02:
8-8:30 a.m. Beliefs and Strategies for Comprehending
Mathematical Arguments
Invited – Keith Weber, Rutgers University, 10 Seminary Place, New Bruns-
wick, NJ 08901;
In the upper-level collegiate mathematics courses taught for mathemat-
ics majors, lectures largely consist of having professors prove theorems
for their students. An important assumption behind this instruction is
that students can learn mathematics from studying the proofs of others.
Unfortunately, both mathematics educators and mathematicians question
whether this assumption is true. In this talk, I present strategies that stu-
dents can use to understand the mathematical arguments that they read as
well as unproductive beliefs that students hold that may inhibit them from
gaining this understanding. These strategies and beliefs were hypothesized
based on qualitative studies in which students were observed reading
proofs and confirmed by a quantitative survey with 83 mathematicians and
175 mathematics majors that demonstrated that mathematicians desired
that their students use strategies that they did not hold and that students
held beliefs that mathematicians found undesirable.
CF03:
8:30-9 a.m. Three Interpretations of the Matrix
Equation Ax=b
Invited – Michelle Zandieh, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85284;
Christine Larson, Florida State University
Over the past years we have come to reflect on the nature of the cognitive
demands that a sophomore or junior level linear algebra course places on
students. Many of the central ideas in introductory linear algebra can be
interpreted through the lens of the matrix equation Ax=b where A is an
mxn matrix, x is a vector, and b is a vector. We describe a framework that
highlights the challenges involved in interpreting Ax=b both symbolically
and graphically as (1) a system of equations, (2) a vector equation, and (3)
as a linear transformation. In particular we note how differently the vector
x must be viewed in each of these interpretations. We present vignettes of
student thinking that illustrate how the framework may be used to make
sense of the ways in which students blend ideas as they begin learning
linear algebra.
Session CG: Assessment of Informal
Science Education
Location: Parlor A/B
Sponsor: Committee on Science Education for the Public
Date: Tuesday, July 16
Time: 7:30–9 a.m.
Presider: Amber Stuver
CG01:
7:30-8 a.m. Practical Approaches to Evaluating
Informal Science Learning
Invited – Scott Pattison,* Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, 1945 SE
Water Ave., Portland, OR 97214;
The opportunities for science learning outside of school are rich and
varied, including visits to museums and science centers, after-school pro-
grams and science clubs, outdoor experiences, conversations with families
and friends, reading, surfing the web, watching educational television
programs, and more. As educators and researchers increasingly recog-
nize, these experiences are a critical part of the nation’s science education
infrastructure. In this session, the speaker will draw upon over a decade of
experience in informal science education to discuss the unique opportu-
nities and challenges associated with evaluating and studying informal
learning and describe a variety of evaluation strategies used at the Oregon
Museum of Science and Industry as part of program and exhibit develop-
ment. He will also introduce a more practical approach for non-evaluation
professionals, called team-based inquiry, designed to empower educators
to incorporate evaluation into their work in order to create more effective
informal science learning experiences.
*Sponsored by Amber Stuver
CG02:
8-8:30 a.m. Little Shop of Physics: It’s Fun, But Is It
Effective?
Invited – Brian Jones, Colorado State University, Physics Department, Fort
Collins, CO 80523;
Michael Lacy, Matthew Aronson, Leonard Albright, Andrea Weinberg, Colo-
rado State University
A glance at the energy and enthusiasm levels of the K-12 students working
with Little Shop of Physics hands-on experiment stations reveals an obvi-
ous fact: They are having fun. But a decade of careful assessment shows
that they are learning science concepts as well. In this talk I’ll share the
progress of our assessment program, from informal early efforts to our lat-
er more formal testing. I will also discuss how assessment of all aspects of
our program has guided our efforts. How much time does a student spend
with one of our experiment stations? What is the best level of engagement
of our undergraduate interns? What is the best way to engage both male
