104
Tuesday afternoon
EC03:
2-2:10 p.m. Matching Our Efforts to Their Needs: Year
One TIR Reflections
Contributed – Kevin Thomas, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL
32816;
The University of Central Florida (UCF) recently became a PhysTEC
comprehensive site, which has enabled us to develop and expand several
programs to support high school physics teaching. The PhysTEC teacher-
in-residence (TIR) has been instrumental in expanding our existing Learn-
ing Assistant (LA) and outreach programs, as well as adding an in-service
Teacher Advisory Group (TAG) and encouraging a community in which
these efforts can flourish. This talk will highlight the results of an online
survey that allowed us to better understand the needs of the local high
school physics teaching community and how those results have informed
our efforts to engage with that community. Specifically, the UCF TIR will
discuss how the results have shaped his interactions with the TAG and
local school districts and led to outreach opportunities for LAs in local
physics classrooms.
EC04:
2:10-2:20 p.m. Second Year PhysTEC Program at
Alabama: An Update
Contributed – Penni H. Wallace, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
35487;
The University of Alabama, in its second year of a PhysTEC grant, contin-
ues to actively recruit physics majors to consider teaching as a career. In
the fall, Alabama was also awarded a NOYCE grant in order to increase the
number of math, chemistry, and physics teachers. This award, combined
with a large pre-existing large NSF-MSP award provides scholarships to
recruit and support pre-service physics teachers. In this talk, the second-
year Teacher-in-Residence will discuss how the presence of two large NSF
grants are being used to recruit students to the physics education track and
provide an update on the program from the first to the second year.
EC05:
2:20-02:30 p.m. TIR Roles & Possibilities
Contributed – John M. Rowe, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45236;
The presenter will discuss the many possibilities that a TIR position brings
to a university. There will also be be a “check the boxes” list of things to
consider when deciding to implement a TIR position.
EC06:
2:30-2:40 p.m. The Part-time TIR and Classroom Teacher
Contributed – Elizabeth Walker, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303;
The Department of Physics & Astronomy at Georgia State University
has begun an effort to increase the quantity and quality of high school
physics teachers with an emphasis on increasing recruitment into teach-
ing of students from under-represented groups. GSU is a large, growing,
urban, research university with a diverse student body. As a new PhysTEC
comprehensive site, our efforts include new recruiting, mentoring, and in-
duction strategies, reform of introductory, calculus-based physics courses,
and the addition of a teacher-in-residence (TIRs). TIRs are professionals
in both physics and education, making them perfectly positioned to bridge
the gap between the two often separate worlds. Ideally the TIR is available
full time to assist with the sustained development of the physics education
program. As a current classroom teacher and part time TIR, I will discuss
challenges encountered during our first year of PhysTEC at Georgia State
University.
Session ED: PER: Diverse
Investigations
Location: STSS 220
Sponsor: AAPT
Date: Tuesday, July 29
Time: 1–3 p.m.
Presider: Beth Lindsey
ED01:
1-1:10 p.m. Effect of Prior Belief on Data Inference
Contributed – Abigail M. Bogdan, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
43210-1168;
Andrew F. Heckler, The Ohio State University
This study builds on past research that explored the effect of prior belief
on students’ ability to draw inferences. Results, indicating an effect of
prior belief, are replicated and compared with statistical reasoning ability.
600 students in a calculus-based mechanics course participated in one of
two conditions. In the first condition, data tables were presented within a
physical context and students were given a short pre-test measuring their
beliefs about the context. In the second, the tables were given within a
generic context. Compared to students given the generic context, students
given the physical context drew valid conclusions more frequently when
the data aligned with their prior beliefs but less frequently when the data
conflicted with their beliefs. Additionally, 270 students were given the
Berlin Numeracy Test to evaluate their statistical numeracy. While results
from previous studies have disagreed, in this case, students’ numeracy was
positively correlated with their correctness.
ED02:
1:10-1:20 p.m. Understanding Student Evaluations of
Others’ Problem Solving
Contributed – Anna Kiefte, Acadia University, Deptartment of Physics,
Wolfville, NS B4P 2R6 Canada;
Geoff Potvin, Florida International University
Prior work has shown that students show a bias against female physics
teachers by the beginning of college, are aware of and respond to societal
stereotypes about their performance, and faculty have been found to
exhibit evaluative biases against female students. However, the effects of
bias between peers has not been studied well, even though it may have a
significant effect on affective experiences and physics learning. To address
this gap, in this preliminary study students were presented with differ-
ent solutions to a typical introductory problem purportedly written by
other pseudonymous students. They were asked to score the solutions
(and provide justification) as well as predict the course grade the “solver”
would receive. We analyze the data for gender bias in two ways: via the
gender of the purported solver, and that of the assessor. We also examine
students’ justifications to understand their perceptions of problem-solving
approaches.
ED03:
1:20-1:30 p.m. Peer Evaluations vs. Instructor
Evaluations of Student Lab Reports
Contributed – Shih-Yin Lin, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
30332-0002;
Scott S. Douglas, John M. Aiken, Edwin F. Greco, Michael F. Schatz, Georgia
Institute of Technology
As part of an introductory physics course offered at Georgia Tech, students
submit video reports on force and motion labs. Peer grading of reports
provides the primary method for evaluating student laboratory work.
During peer grading, students are guided to rate each others’ videos on a
rubric consisting of several likert-scale questions. They are also encour-
aged to provide written feedback explaining their grading for each rubric
item. This paper explores how peer evaluations compare to instructors’
evaluations by examining the likert-scale responses and written responses
provide by both students and instructors. The written responses will be
coded to understand what students and instructors attend to in their
Canceled
