program_wb_i - page 110

Tuesday afternoon
2:10-2:20 p.m. Integration in Electrostatics with a
Computational Perspective
Contributed – David Roundy, Oregon State University, Department of Phys-
ics, Corvallis, OR 97331-8507;
Eric J. Krebs, Jeff B. Schulte, Oregon State University
Many students struggle to understand and use the principles of “chopping
and adding” when integrating over a charge distribution to find the electro-
static potential or electric field. I will introduce a sequence of computation-
al lab activities that help students to better grasp these concepts by writing
python programs to compute these quantities numerically. Thus the
students are literally adding up the potential (or field) due to small chunks
of charge, which provides a perspective on integration in three dimensions
that is complementary to the perspective students bring from their calculus
courses. Theses activities have been developed as part of a laboratory
course that runs parallel to the Paradigms in Physics sequence, and teaches
the same physics content. However, the activities and the course should
require little modification to work alongside a traditional course in electro-
magnetism. This work is funded by the NSF grant DUE-1141330.
Session EG: What Can PER Contrib-
ute to the Design of High Quality
Distance Education?
Location: Tate Lab 166
Sponsor: Committee on Educational Technologies
Co-Sponsor: Committee on Research in Physics Education
Date: Tuesday, July 29
Time: 1–3 p.m.
Presider: Ted Hodapp
1-1:30 p.m. Distance Education and Online Learning:
Critical Lessons from the Conference
Invited – Theodore Hodapp, American Physical Society, One Physics Ellipse,
College Park, MD 20740;
In June 2013, the American Physical Society (APS) in cooperation with
AAPT brought together individuals who have been using and experi-
menting with distance education and online learning environments and
tools. Topics included Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), online
on-campus courses, flipped classrooms, and electronic resources available
to faculty and students. Education researchers discussed topics including
cheating, assessments, simulations, and research agendas. This talk will
provide an overview of broad and specific lessons from the presentations
and discussions during the gathering. We hope to continue the discussions
at this meeting—please bring your thoughts, concerns, and questions.
1:30-2 p.m. MOOC-ing, Flipping and Blending
Introductory Physics Lecture and Lab
Invited – Michael F. Schatz, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Phys-
ics, Atlanta, GA 30332-0430;
We describe an effort to develop and to implement a college-level introduc-
tory physics (mechanics) course and laboratory as both a flipped/blended
experience for on-campus students and, simultaneously, a Massively
Open Online Course (MOOC) for off-campus participants. The course
emphasizes a “Your World is Your Lab” approach whereby students first
examine and capture on video (using cellphones) motion in their immedi-
ate surroundings, and then use free, open-source software both to extract
data from the video and to apply physics principles to build models that
describe, predict, and visualize the observations. Each student reports
findings by creating a video lab report and posting it online; these video lab
reports are then distributed to the rest of the class for peer review. In this
talk, we describe a research-based approach to implementing and testing
peer review methods, including a statistical analysis of student vs. expert
grading and coding of student essay comments on peer work. We will also
discuss the analysis of clickstream data from student interactions with
lecture videos as a tool for improving the delivery of course content.
2-2:30 p.m. If You Don’t Know Where You’re Going, You
Might Wind up Someplace Else
Invited – Mats Selen, University of Illinois, Department of Physics, Urbana, IL
As we ponder the future of education, we know that online components
will play an ever increasing role. We anticipate that 10 years from now
the educational landscape will be quite different than it is today. Indeed,
advances in online educational technology have put us in the interesting
position of having the tools to get there without really knowing where
to go. This is a great opportunity for PER to lead the way, but the stakes
are high and the questions are profound: What are the key outcomes of a
post-secondary STEM education? How can these outcomes be assessed?
Which ones can be achieved online? How do we reward the creation and
dissemination quality online content? We explore these issues and suggest
possible solutions.
2:30-3 p.m. How to Reduce Unproductive and
Undesirable Behavior in Online Courses
Invited – Gerd Kortemeyer, Michigan State University, Holmes Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48825;
One of the most frustrating components of educators’ work is having to
deal with academic integrity issues. These span from “gaming the system”
and unauthorized or unproductive collaborations to plagiarism and plain
cheating: learners are betraying their educators, fellow students, and
eventually themselves. Particularly in online courses, the creation and
maintenance of a culture of academic integrity is seen as a growing and
badly understood challenge. This talk discusses research on student work
and interaction patterns, and presents interventions to foster productive
engagement with course content.
Session EH: Histories Useful for
Teaching Physics
Location: STSS 114
Sponsor: Committee on History and Philosophy in Physics
Date: Tuesday, July 29
Time: 1–2:40 p.m.
Presider: Ruth Howes
1-1:30 p.m. Teaching the Physics of an Early Attempt at
Medical Imaging
Invited – Dean Zollman, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-
Johannes v.d. Wirjawan Widya, Mandala Catholic University at Surabaya,
Sytil Murphy, Shepherd University
Nora Norvelle, Cornell University
President James Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881. Knowledge of location
of a bullet that was lodged deep in President Garfield’s body was needed by
physicians trying to save Garfield’s life. Alexander Graham Bell proposed
that he use his newly invented telephone and an induction balance to
locate the bullet.
Bell’s device was, in effect, the first metal detector and
the first attempt at medical imaging without surgery. His device success-
fully detected metal in carcasses of animals and in Civil War veterans but
the attempt to find the bullet in Garfield was not successful. A combina-
tion of scientific, political, and personal reasons led to Bell’s failure.
scientific aspects provide a good way for students to learn several concepts
in electromagnetism and AC circuits. We have created a set of lessons that
helps students understand both Bell’s ideas and his failure. The lesson may
downloaded at
1...,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109 111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,...170
Powered by FlippingBook