Transforming the Junior Level: Outcomes from Instruction and Research in E&M.

Over the course of four years, we have researched and transformed a key course in the career of an undergraduate physics major—junior-level electricity and magnetism. With the aim of educating our majors based on a more complete understanding of the cognitive and conceptual challenges of upperdivision courses, we used principles of active engagement and learning theory to develop course materials and conceptual assessments. Our research results from student and faculty interviews and observations also informed our approach. We present several measures of the outcomes of this work at the University of Colorado at Boulder and external institutions. Students in the transformed courses achieved higher learning gains compared to those in the traditionally taught courses, particularly in the areas of conceptual understanding and ability to articulate their reasoning about a problem. The course transformations appear to close a gender gap, improving female students’scores on conceptual and traditional assessments so that they are more similar to those of male students. Students enthusiastically support the transformations, and indicate that several course elements provide useful scaffolding in conceptual understanding, as well as physicists’ ‘‘habits of mind’’ such as problem-solving approaches and work habits. Despite these positive outcomes, student conceptual learning gains do not fully meet faculty expectations, suggesting that it is valuable to further investigate how the content and skills indicative of ‘‘thinking like a physicist’’ can be most usefully taught at the upper division.

[1]  Corinne A. Manogue,et al.  Documenting and Interpreting Ways to Engage Students in ‘Thinking Like a Physicist’ , 2010 .

[2]  Edward F. Redish,et al.  Analyzing Problem Solving Using Math in Physics: Epistemic Framing Via Warrants , 2009 .

[3]  Frances Ricks,et al.  Knowing , 2004 .

[4]  Stephanie V. Chasteen Teasing out the effect of tutorials via multiple regression , 2012 .

[5]  Bruce Sherwood,et al.  Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course , 2006 .

[6]  Charles Henderson Promoting instructional change in new faculty: An evaluation of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop , 2008 .

[7]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  Transforming Upper‐Division Quantum Mechanics: Learning Goals and Assessment , 2009 .

[8]  S. Pollock Longitudinal study of student conceptual understanding in electricity and magnetism , 2009, 0907.5597.

[9]  Steven J. Pollock,et al.  A Research‐Based Approach to Assessing Student Learning Issues in Upper‐Division Electricity & Magnetism , 2009 .

[10]  L. McDermott,et al.  Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research , 1999 .

[11]  Ken Heller,et al.  Does PER-based Instruction Help Underrepresented Groups Succeed, and How Can It Do So Better? Gender Differences in both Force Concept Inventory and Introductory Physics Performance , 2008 .

[12]  Lauren E. Kost,et al.  Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics , 2009 .

[13]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics diagnostic: A conceptual assessment for the junior level , 2012 .

[14]  Andrew Elby Helping physics students learn how to learn , 2001 .

[15]  Bruce L Sherin,et al.  How Students Understand Physics Equations , 2001 .

[16]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment , 2006 .

[17]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  The use of concept tests and peer instruction in upper‐division physics , 2010 .

[18]  C. Wieman,et al.  A Thoughtful Approach to Instruction: Course Transformation for the Rest of Us , 2011 .

[19]  Steven J. Pollock,et al.  Tapping into Juniors’ Understanding of E&M: The Colorado Upper‐Division Electrostatics (CUE) Diagnostic , 2009 .

[20]  The mathematical knowledge of physics graduates: Primary data and conclusions , 1992 .

[21]  Our best juniors still struggle with Gauss's Law: Characterizing their difficulties , 2010 .

[22]  Eric Brewe,et al.  Toward equity through participation in Modeling Instruction in introductory university physics , 2010 .

[23]  Catherine H. Crouch,et al.  Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom , 2006 .

[24]  S. Chasteen,et al.  Upper-Division Students' Difficulties with Ampere's Law. , 2010 .

[25]  Lauren E. Kost,et al.  Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement? , 2007 .

[26]  Facilitating faculty conversations: Development of consensus learning goals , 2012 .

[27]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  But Does It Last? Sustaining a Research-Based Curriculum in Upper-Division Electricity & Magnetism , 2012 .

[28]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism , 2012 .

[29]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , 1996 .

[30]  Thomas M. Foster,et al.  Resource Letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving , 2004 .

[31]  A. V. Heuvelen,et al.  Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research‐based instructional strategies , 1991 .

[32]  L. Breslow,et al.  Wrestling with Pedagogical Change: The TEAL Initiative at MIT , 2010 .

[33]  Joan I. Heller,et al.  Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics , 1982 .

[34]  Bat-Sheva Eylon,et al.  From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of electromagnetism , 1997 .

[35]  Bradley S. Ambrose Investigating student understanding in intermediate mechanics: Identifying the need for a tutorial approach to instruction , 2004 .

[36]  Rachel E. Pepper,et al.  Thinking like a physicist: A multi-semester case study of junior-level electricity and magnetism , 2012 .

[37]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  Student Perspectives on Using Clickers in Upper‐division Physics Courses , 2009 .

[38]  A. Schoenfeld Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education , 1987 .

[39]  Steven J. Pollock,et al.  Sustaining Educational Reforms in Introductory Physics. , 2008, 0805.0277.

[40]  E. Mazur,et al.  Erratum: “Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom” [Am. J. Phys. 74 (2), 118–122 (2006)] , 2006 .

[41]  Melissa H. Dancy,et al.  Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty , 2010 .

[42]  Dorothea P. Simon,et al.  Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Science.

[43]  Chandralekha Singh,et al.  Surveying students’ understanding of quantum mechanics in one spatial dimension , 2012, 1602.05440.

[44]  Margaret L. Niess,et al.  Paradigms in Physics: A new upper-division curriculum , 2001 .

[45]  Alan H. Schoenfeld,et al.  Teaching Problem-Solving Skills , 1980 .

[46]  Chandralekha Singh,et al.  Student understanding of symmetry and Gauss's law of electricity , 2006, 1602.07376.

[47]  C. Manogue,et al.  Why is Ampère’s law so hard? A look at middle-division physics , 2006 .

[48]  W. McKeachie,et al.  Helping Students Learn How To Learn. , 2000 .

[49]  Steven J. Pollock,et al.  Transforming Upper‐Division Electricity and Magnetism , 2008 .