Who Is Responsible for Preparing Science Teachers?

Abstract.Prior research has shown, at our institution: 1) males outperform females on conceptual assessments (a gender gap), 2) the gender gap persists despite the use of research-based reforms, and 3) the gender gap is correlated with students' physics and mathematics background and prior attitudes and beliefs [Kost, et. al. PRST-PER, 5, 010101]. Our follow-up work begins to explore how males and females experience the introductory course differently and how these differences relate to the gender gap. We gave a survey to students in the introductory course in which we investigated students' physics identity and self-efficacy. We find there are significant gender differences in each of these three areas, and further find that these measures are weakly correlated with student conceptual performance, and moderately correlated with course grade.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking Gender Differences in Students’ Perceived Experiences in Introductory Physics

Kost

Pollock

Finkelstein

et al. 2009

“…The course was team taught, with the lead instructor (SJP) a member of the Physics Education Research group. We characterize this as a reformed, large-scale course, with ConcepTests and peer instruction [8] during three 50-minute lectures per week, online homework [9] and one 50-minute per week Tutorial using Washington Tutorials [10] with trained graduate TAs and undergraduate Learning Assistants [11] There is a staffed help-room available for students. The introductory lab is decoupled from (although typically concurrent with) this course.…”

Section: Course Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing student learning with multiple research-based conceptual surveys: CSEM and BEMA.

Pollock¹

2008

Abstract. We present results demonstrating similar distributions of student scores, and statistically indistinguishable gains on two popular research-based assessment tools: the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment (BEMA) and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism(CSEM). To deepen our understanding of student learning in our course environment and of these assessment tools as measures of student learning, we identify systematic trends and differences in results from these two instruments. We investigate correlations of both pre-and post-conceptual scores with other measures including traditional exam scores and course grades, student background (earlier grades), gender, a pretest of scientific reasoning, and tests of attitudes and beliefs about science and learning science. Overall, for practical purposes, we find the BEMA and CSEM are roughly equivalently useful instruments for measuring student learning in our course.

“…Each hour-long session is facilitated by the course instructor and a learning assistant. [5] A few of the tutorials were developed by the authors with the majority coming from the University of Washington. [3,6] • Homework problems were augmented to include more justification of reasoning, estimation, and tasks requiring students to make connections between mathematical representations, physical meaning and other representations (e.g., graphical).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming Upper-Division Quantum Mechanics: Learning Goals and Assessment

Goldhaber¹,

Pollock²,

Dubson³

et al. 2009

Self Cite

Abstract. In order to help students overcome documented difficulties learning quantum mechanics (QM) concepts, we have transformed our upper-division QM I course using principles of learning theory and active engagement. Key components of this process include establishing learning goals and developing a valid, reliable conceptual assessment tool to measure the extent to which students achieve these learning goals. The course learning goals were developed with broad faculty input, and serve as the basis for the design of the course assessment tool. The development of the assessment tool has included significant faculty input and feedback, twenty-one student interviews, a review of PER literature, and administration of the survey to two semesters of QM I students as well as to a cohort of graduate students. Here, we discuss this ongoing development process and present initial findings from our QM class for the past two semesters.