Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] Conceptual Physics Course



1. Make the course similar to a typical algebra-based or
calculus-based
course. In other words, cover about the same material in
about the same
order with mechanics being the dominant topic the first semester and
electricity and magnetism being the dominant topic the second
semester.
Use less math than one would in the case of the other two courses. I
think the Hewitt textbook is designed for such a course.
Correlate the
lab with the course and try to make it so that each lab exercise helps
to enhance the understanding of concepts that the students have just
studied in the "in-class" part of the course. I would probably use
Mazur's peer tutoring method if I went this route in that I
already have
a ton of conceptual questions (with some "repeat the information"
questions mixed in) and I am used to it.

This is the most comfortable and easiest method. BUT Mazur's questions are
not designed for lower level students. Some of them may be suitable, but
many of them will not be. There is no evidence that Mazur's method improves
the thinking level. Notice I am not saying that it doesn't improve the
level, but rather there is no evidence for it. To gather evidence you would
have to use the Lawson test and I strongly recommend using the had graded
version for lower level students as the MC version has questions for the
"theoretical leve" and leaves out the sequencing questions which is an
important indication of transfer. Thee is also no evidence that Hewett
improves thinking or physics understanding. Instead of Hewett use "Minds on
Physics" which is a true research based book and has wonderful activities
you can lean on. It also has a teacher's manual 3x the thickness of each
individual volume with complete descriptions of what to expect and how you
might use an individual volume.


2. Do something like 1 above but cut the number of topics in
half. Take
the time to teach the math and have them do the math. Cover
each topic
in more detail then one would have time to in 1 above.


Just covering math will not improve the thinking, and many of these students
are math phobic, so using graphs rather than algebra is the best option.
They probably do not have phobias about graphs. Covering the math will
probably not improve their math skills much. The ADAPT program showed that
it halved the failure rate in a subsequent calculs course compared to a
remedial math program.

3. Make the course a puzzle-solving course in which one applies the
skills gained by solving generic puzzles to physics puzzles and then
puzzles in other fields to check for and work on
transference. Ideally
(I think), I'd have a ton of puzzles, each at a known
learning level and
I would, probably by means of a test, figure out the appropriate level
for each student at the start of the course, and have them working on
puzzles at that level and the next level up so that they are
challenged
but also meet with frequent success. Each time a person masters the
generic puzzles at one level I have them work on the physics
puzzles at
that level and then perhaps some other field-specific puzzles
from some
other field. Everybody would be working at their own pace
but hopefully
there would always be a number of people at any given level
so that they
could work in groups most of the time (but on their own occasionally
too). To try to make the whole course like this would probably be
biting off more than I can chew. The course grade plays such a huge
role in our system of education that it is pretty easy to see
this kind
of course blowing up in my face. What are you going to grade them on,
how far they get? or how far ahead of where they started they wind up?
How much effort they seem to be putting in? This kind of course seems
like it might be a better fit for the way the Swiss undergraduate
university program was when I was there--you took some
ungraded courses
for two years and then you took a test to see if you would be
allowed to
stick around for two more years. Also, how would I ever come up with
all those puzzles and the learning level associated with each one?


This option is somewhat similar to what Feuerstein does. He uses puzzles to
raise student thinking. But he spent years studying the students and
crafting the puzzles and also companion evaluations. You do not have the
necessary time to do this sort of intensive research. His puzzles are not
available without training, and in either case they do not integrate into a
conventional classroom. They are designed to be done as separate training.
Shayer & Adey think that cognitive acceleration needs to be done as a
separate program. So when they do it in science classes their lessons are
explicitly set aside as something that is not part of the science
curriculum, but relates to it. Teachers tell students that there will be no
final tests on the CA lessons. So your evaluation that this is problematic
would most certainly rule this out. Incidentally Beichner does some of this
type of thing, so if you find it attractive contact him.


4. Take Rick Tarara's advice and make the course a themed
course--perhaps "Energy" one semester and "Physics and the
Environment"
the other; or perhaps I could work a unit (or a semester or an entire
course) on the interplay between physics and technology in
there. While
it has been quite a while since we have been able to offer it, the
astronomy course which served most students as nothing but a free
elective was always popular which tells me that yes, at this
institution
using a theme could go a long way in making the course
appealing to the
students.

This is possible, but it won't solve the problem of improving student
thinking. How you pick topics and sequence them is not as important as
people think. It is what you do in class that is important. So some PER
inspired materials do things by topics and others have more conventional
units. Modeling has more conventional units, but Minds on Physics is more
topical. So how you choose the syllabus is not that important. There are
canned curricula available which do this.


5. Implement the "modeling" method. There doesn't seem to be training
available to college professors for that method but there is plenty of
information and there are plenty of modeling materials available on
line--one should be able to figure it out.


Modeling is definitely recommended. The Modeling program accepts all kinds
of teachers from newbies, esperienced, out of field and physics PhDs. You
then use the method. But the Modeling materials look very conventional, so
it is the method which is all important. Some people may be able to figure
out what to do, but that requires reading through the papers on the Modeling
site, and also the published papers in Modeling and other methods. It is
highly recommended that you get training. There is also a remodeling
program designed for advanced courses and college courses. One remodeling
practicioner has gotten 90% normalized gain. But the most you would expect
might be 30% to maybe 40% in a conceptual course. When I took the Modeling
program there were 3 physics PhDs as I recall in the class, including me. I
was a ringer because I had already been using research based methods and had
read gobs of the literature. But it was worthwhile. An alternative is to
take one of Laws et al summer institutes in physics college teaching.


6. Make the whole course a lab course. The MWF periods time could be
used for mini-labs, analysis of data gathered during the lab period,
designing the procedures that one is going to carry out in lab,
simulations, etc. I estimate that about 90% of them will have
laptops so
we can do things requiring every group of 2 students to have a laptop
between them. Also, I wouldn't rule out activities like drawing
spacetime diagrams that wouldn't be considered lab
activities, but we're
talking extreme hands on in this model.

Modeling essentially does this-almost. The labs are integrated with the
problem solving and there is no distinction between them. But if you have a
lab room and a lecture room you are forced to do the "hands on" labs in the
lab room, and the problem solving/white boarding in the lecture room. Labs
do not have to be physical labs, but can also use simulations, or analysis
of drawings.


My questions to you are: What other structures should be
considered and
what are the pros and cons of the ones under consideration? What
structure would you use and why? Also, special insights based on
experience with a particular structure would be most appreciated.

Again the syllabus is not as important as what you do in class. You can fit
in many different types of activities which can be done in a variety of
settings.

To get gain on the Lawson test you should either have set-aside activities
ala Thinking Science, or at least point out that certain types of thinking
are general and can be used in a variety of situations. Having students do
graphical methods do help with proportional reasoning, and Modeling is
strong there.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX