We compare the effectiveness of a first implementation of Peer Instruction (PI) in a twoyear college with the first PI implementation at a top-tier four-year research institution. We show how effective PI is for students with less background knowledge and what the impact of PI methodology is on student attrition in the course. Results concerning the effectiveness of PI in the college setting replicate earlier findings: PI-taught students demonstrate better conceptual learning and similar problem-solving abilities than traditionally taught students. However, not previously reported are the following two findings: First, although students with more background knowledge benefit most from either type of instruction, PI students with less background knowledge gain as much as students with more background knowledge in traditional instruction. Second, PI methodology is found to decrease student attrition in introductory physics courses at both four-year and two-year institutions. PACS or OCIS codes
Problem scoping-determining the nature and boundaries of a problem-is an essential aspect of the engineering design process. Some studies from engineering education suggest that beginning students tend to skip problem scoping or oversimplify a problem. However, the ways these studies often characterize students' problem scoping often do not reflect the complexity found in experts' designing and rely on the number of criteria a student mentions or the time spent problem scoping. In this paper, we argue for methodological approaches that take into account not just what students name as criteria, but also how they weigh, balance, and choose between criteria and reflect on these decisions during complex tasks. Furthermore, we discuss that these problem-scoping actions should not be considered in isolation, but also how they are connected to the pursuit of a design solution. Using data from an elementary school classroom, we show how these ways of characterizing problem-scoping can capture rich beginnings of students' engineering.
Not understanding is central to scientific work: what scientists do is learn about the natural world, which involves seeking out what they do not know. In classrooms, however, the position of not‐understanding is generally a liability; confusion is an unfortunate condition to resolve as quickly as possible, or to conceal. In this article, we argue that students' public displays of uncertainty or confusion can be pivotal contributions to the classroom dynamics in initiating and sustaining a class's science inquiry. We present this as a central finding from a cross‐case analysis of eight episodes of students' scientific engagement, drawing on literature on framing to show how participants positioned themselves as not‐understanding and how that was consequential for the class's scientific engagement. We show how participants enacted this positioning by asking questions or expressing uncertainty around a phenomenon or model. We then analyze how participants' displays of not‐understanding shaped the conceptual, epistemic, and social aspects of classroom activity. We present two cases in detail: one in which a student's positioning helped initiate the class's scientific engagement and another in which it helped sustain it. We argue that this work motivates considering how to help students learn to embrace and value the role of expressing one's confusion in science.
The work of physics learners at all levels revolves around problems. Physics education research has inspired attention to the forms of these problems, whether conceptual or algorithmic, closed or open response, well or ill structured. Meanwhile, it has been the work of curriculum developers and instructors to develop these problems. Physics education research has supported these efforts with studies of students problem solving and the effects of different kinds of problems on learning. In this article we argue, first, that developing problems is central to the discipline of physics. It involves noticing a gap of understanding, identifying and articulating its precise nature, and motivating a community of its existence and significance. We refer to this activity as problematizing, and we show its importance by drawing from writings in physics and philosophy of science. Second, we argue that students, from elementary age to adults, can problematize as part of their engaging in scientific inquiry. We present four cases, drawing from episodes vetted by a panel of collaborating faculty in science departments as clear instances of students doing science. Although neither we nor the scientists had problematizing in mind when screening cases, we found it across the episodes. We close with implications for instruction, including the value of helping students recognize and manage the situation of being confused but not yet having a clear question, and implications for research, including the need to build problematizing into our models of learning.
Educators and policy makers have advocated for reform of undergraduate biology education, calling for greater integration of mathematics and physics in the biology curriculum. While these calls reflect the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of biology research, crossing disciplinary boundaries in the classroom carries epistemological challenges for both instructors and students. In this paper we expand on the construct of authenticity to better describe and understand disciplinary practices, in particular, to examine those used in undergraduate physics and biology courses. We then apply these ideas to examine an introductory biology course that incorporates physics and mathematics. We characterize how instructors asked students to use interdisciplinary tools in this biology course and contrast them with the typical uses of these tools in physics courses. Finally, we examine student responses to the use of mathematics and physics in this course, to better understand the challenges and consequences of using interdisciplinary tools in introductory courses. We link these results to the reform initiatives of introductory physics courses for life-science students.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.