program_wb_i - page 122

Tuesday afternoon
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
grading. Similarities and differences between student grading and expert
grading will be discussed
PST2C36: 5:45-6:30 p.m. Improving Conceptual Understanding
in Physics Class for Non-traditional Students
Poster – Olga A. Stafford, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD
A different teaching approach has to be used in physics class for nontra-
ditional students. Most of them have limited free time to study and little
math preparation for taking the class. In order to improve students’ con-
ceptual understanding of physics concepts a few teaching technics might
be used. They are: studio format teaching style, group work in groups with
traditional students, initiation of discussion during the lecture class, recita-
tion and Lab right after learning material in class, mostly studying in class
with weekly online homework and chapter’s reading quizzes. Students’ gain
in conceptual understanding of physics principles significantly improved
based on results of standard pre- and post- test in comparison with the
national data.
PST2C37: 5-5:45 p.m. Student Journeys for Understanding
Radiation and Radioactivity*
Poster – Andy P. Johnson, Black Hills State University, 1200 University,
CAMSE, unit 9005, Spearfish, SD 57783;
Anna Hafele, Ryan Anderson, BHSU
Radiation literacy is a key component of scientific literacy. However, few
people understand much about radiation. Most people think radiation
can spread to and contaminate objects and organisms, making the victims
radioactive and causing mutations. People tend to use the terms “radiation”
and “radioactivity” interchangeably. These alternate ideas impede learning
and reasoning about radiation and radioactivity. The research presented
in this poster shows that developing understandings of radiation is a slow
process that occurs gradually and that seems to require a well-structured
environment. Thus it appears that teaching radiation will only result in
meaningful understanding when the teaching effort is sustained and
robust. We present evidence for some of the stages in students gradually
progressing to understanding radiation.
*This research, which is part of the Inquiry into Radioactivity (IiR) project, is sup-
ported by NSF DUE grant 0942699.
PST2C38: 5:45-6:30 p.m. Solving the Two Sigma Problem
Poster – Wendy K. Adams, University of Northern Colorado, Department of
Physics and Astronomy, Greeley, CO 80639;
Connor Jordan, University of Northern Colorado
We have developed a course for students with weak backgrounds in physics
that has consistently resulted in an effect size over three for female students
and over two for males on the Force Concept Inventory. This course
demonstrates improved outcomes in three areas that have not been previ-
ously reported in the literature: a) very large effect sizes on a concept tests,
b) reasonable FCI gains (0.57) using interactive engagement with poorly
prepared students, and c) reducing the gender gap. The course is structured
around the theoretical design of engaging students in effortful practice via
a highly structured course with lots of feedback. The structure is provided
to block student short cuts. Groups and activities have been carefully
chosen to provide a safe environment for discussion and practice, and the
idea that effort results in success is constantly reinforced by activities with
reasonable challenges.
PST2C39: 5-5:45 p.m. Student Perspectives and Reflections on
Project-based Pedagogies
Poster – Kristina Ward, Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68178;
Gintaras K. Duda, Creighton University
PST2C32: 5:45-6:30 p.m. Quantum Interactive Learning Tutorial
(QuILT) on Quantum Eraser*
Poster – Emily M. Marshman, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Physics
and Astronomy, Pittsburgh, PA 15260;
Chandralekha Singh, University of Pittsburgh
We are developing and assessing a quantum interactive learning tutorial
(QuILT) on quantum erasure. The quantum eraser apparatus uses a Mach
Zehnder Interferometer with single photons and exposes students to
contemporary applications of quantum mechanics. The QuILT strives to
help students develop the ability to apply quantum principles in physical
situations, explore differences between classical and quantum ideas, and
organize knowledge hierarchically. The QuILTs adapt existing visualization
tools to help students build physical intuition about non-intuitive quantum
phenomena. Details of the development and assessment will be discussed.
*This work is supported by the National Science Foundation.
PST2C33: 5-5:45 p.m. Promoting Self-regulated Learning in
Introductory Mechanics
Poster – Jeffrey A. Phillips, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA
Students who successfully engage in self-regulated learning, are able to
plan their own studying, monitoring their progress and make any neces-
sary adjustments based upon the data and feedback they gather. In order to
promote this type of independent learning, a recent introductory mechan-
ics course was modified such that the homework and tests emphasized the
planning, monitoring and adjusting of self-regulated learning. Students
were able to choose many of their own out-of-class learning activities.
Rather than collecting daily or weekly problem set solutions, assignments
were mostly progress reports where students reported which activities
they had attempted, self-assessment of their progress, and plans for their
next study session. Tests included wrappers where students were asked to
reflect on their mistakes and plans for improvement. While many students
only engaged superficially the independent aspects of the course, some did
demonstrate evidence of self-regulation. Examples of student work will be
PST2C34: 5:45-6:30 p.m. Implementing and Evaluating Peer-
review of Writing for Freshmen Engineers
Poster – Kathleen A. Harper, Engineering Education Innovation Center, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210; harper.217;
One goal of the Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors sequence at The
Ohio State University is to develop strong technical communication skills.
As part of a “cornerstone” design-and-build robotics project for second-
semester engineering majors, teams write a thorough technical report.
During the nearly 20-year history of the program, teams have submit-
ted drafts of each half of the report for feedback. In spite of the heavy
emphasis on technical writing in the prior semester, these drafts have often
been disappointing and time-consuming to grade. Also, it sometimes has
seemed that feedback on the first half draft had little impact on the quality
of the second half draft. To address these weaknesses, teams now draft the
first two sections of their report earlier in the term for a peer review and
feedback exercise. This talk describes the details of the exercise, along with
an assessment of its effectiveness.
PST2C35: 5-5:45 p.m. Peer Evaluations vs. Instructor Evaluations
of Student Lab Reports
Poster – Shih-Yin Lin, 837 State St., Atlanta, GA 30332-0002; hellosilpn@
Scott S. Douglas, John M. Aiken, Edwin F. Greco, Michael F. Schatz, Brian D.
Thoms, Georgia Institute of Technology
Marcos D. Caballero, Michigan State University
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
1...,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121 123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,...170
Powered by FlippingBook