Many calls to improve science education in college and university settings have focused on improving instructor pedagogy. Meanwhile, science education at the K-12 level is undergoing significant changes as a result of the emphasis on scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. This framework of “three-dimensional learning” is based on the literature about how people learn science and how we can help students put their knowledge to use. Recently, similar changes are underway in higher education by incorporating three-dimensional learning into college science courses. As these transformations move forward, it will become important to assess three-dimensional learning both to align assessments with the learning environment, and to assess the extent of the transformations. In this paper we introduce the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (3D-LAP), which is designed to characterize and support the development of assessment tasks in biology, chemistry, and physics that align with transformation efforts. We describe the development process used by our interdisciplinary team, discuss the validity and reliability of the protocol, and provide evidence that the protocol can distinguish between assessments that have the potential to elicit evidence of three-dimensional learning and those that do not.

Focus on core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and scientific practices

An institutional effort to transform gateway science courses is evaluated using a novel approach based on course assessments.

The importance of improving STEM education is of perennial interest, and to this end, the education community needs ways to characterize transformation efforts. Three-dimensional learning (3DL) is one such approach to transformation, in which core ideas of the discipline, scientific practices, and crosscutting concepts are combined to support student development of disciplinary expertise. We have previously reported on an approach to the characterization of assessments, the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (3D-LAP), that can be used to identify whether assessments have the potential to engage students in 3DL. Here we present the development of a companion, the Three-Dimensional Learning Observation Protocol (3D-LOP), an observation protocol that can reliably distinguish between instruction that has potential for engagement with 3DL and instruction that does not. The 3D-LOP goes beyond other observation protocols, because it is intended not only to characterize the pedagogical approaches being used in the instructional environment, but also to identify whether students are being asked to engage with scientific practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. We demonstrate herein that the 3D-LOP can be used reliably to code for the presence of 3DL; further, we present data that show the utility of the 3D-LOP in differentiating between instruction that has the potential to promote 3DL

It is almost universally agreed that more frequent formative assessment (homework, clicker questions, practice tests, etc.) leads to better student performance and generally better course evaluations.1 There is, however, only anecdotal evidence that the same would be true for more frequent summative assessment (exams). There maybe many arguments against giving more exams, including the general “pain” associated with examinations, as well as reduced teaching time, since classroom sessions are dedicated to exams rather than lecturing. We present evidence that increasing the number of exams in fact does lead to better learning success, less cheating and guessing on homework, and better student course evaluations.

We present a new Little Higgs model, motivated by the deconstruction of a fivedimensional gauge-Higgs model. The approximate global symmetry is SO(5) 0 × SO(5) 1 , breaking to SO(5), with a gauged subgroup of [SU (2) 0L × U (1) 0R ] × O(4) 1 , breaking to SU (2) L × U (1) Y . Radiative corrections produce an additional small vacuum misalignment, breaking the electroweak symmetry down to U (1) EM . Novel features of this model are: the only un-eaten pseudo-Goldstone boson in the effective theory is the Higgs boson; the model contains a custodial symmetry, which ensures thatT = 0 at tree-level; and the potential for the Higgs boson is generated entirely through one-loop radiative corrections. A small negative mass-squared in the Higgs potential is obtained by a cancellation between the contribution of two heavy partners of the top quark, which is readily achieved over much of the parameter space. We can then obtain both a vacuum expectation value of v = 246 GeV and a light Higgs boson mass, which is strongly correlated with the masses of the two heavy top quark partners. For a scale of the global symmetry breaking of f = 1 TeV and using a single cutoff for the fermion loops, the Higgs boson mass satisfies 120 GeV M H 150 GeV over much of the range of parameter space. For f raised to 10 TeV, these values increase by about 40 GeV. Effects at the ultraviolet cutoff scale may also raise the predicted values of the Higgs boson mass, but the model still favors M H 200 GeV.

Assessing student learning is a cornerstone of educational practice. Standardized assessments have played a significant role in the development of instruction, curricula, and educational spaces in college physics. However, the use of these assessments to evaluate student learning is only productive if they continue to align with our learning goals. Recently, there have been calls to elevate the process of science ("scientific practices") to the same level of importance and emphasis as the concepts of physics ("core ideas" and "crosscutting concepts"). We use the recently developed Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol to investigate how well the most commonly used standardized assessments in introductory physics (i.e., concept inventories) align with this modern understanding of physics education's learning goals. We find that many of the questions on concept inventories do elicit evidence of student understanding of core ideas, but do not have the potential to elicit evidence of scientific practices or crosscutting concepts. Furthermore, we find that the individual scientific practices and crosscutting concepts that are assessed using these tools are limited to a select few. We discuss the implications that these findings have on designing and testing curricula and instruction both in the past and for the future.

No abstract