Development of quantum perspectives in modern physics
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010106 (2009)
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010106
Charles Baily and Noah D. Finkelstein
Introductory undergraduate courses in classical physics stress a perspective that can be characterized as realist; from this perspective, all physical properties of a classical system can be simultaneously specified and thus determined at all future times. Such a perspective can be problematic for introductory quantum physics students, who must develop new perspectives in order to properly interpret what it means to have knowledge of quantum systems. We document this evolution in student thinking in part through pre- and post-instruction evaluations using the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. We further characterize variations in student epistemic and ontological commitments by examining responses to two essay questions, coupled with responses to supplemental quantum attitude statements. We find that, after instruction in modern physics, many students are still exhibiting a realist perspective in contexts where a quantum-mechanical perspective is needed. We further find that this effect can be significantly influenced by instruction, where we observe variations for courses with differing learning goals. We also note that students generally do not employ either a realist or a quantum perspective in a consistent manner.
Showing posts with label Finkelstein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Finkelstein. Show all posts
2009-03-24
2009-01-15
Kost Pollock Finkelstein - PRST-PER 2009
Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010101 (2009) [14 pages]
Lauren E. Kost, Steven J. Pollock, and Noah D. Finkelstein
Previous research [S. J. Pollock et al., Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 1 (2007)] showed that despite the use of interactive engagement techniques, the gap in performance between males and females on a conceptual learning survey persisted from pretest to post-test at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Such findings were counter to previously published work [M. Lorenzo et al., Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006)]. This study begins by identifying a variety of other gender differences. There is a small but significant difference in the course grades of males and females. Males and females have significantly different prior understandings of physics and mathematics. Females are less likely to take high school physics than males, although they are equally likely to take high school calculus. Males and females also differ in their incoming attitudes and beliefs about physics. This collection of background factors is analyzed to determine the extent to which each factor correlates with performance on a conceptual post-test and with gender. Binned by quintiles, we observe that males and females with similar pretest scores do not have significantly different post-test scores (p>0.2) . The post-test data are then modeled using two regression models (multiple regression and logistic regression) to estimate the gender gap in post-test scores after controlling for these important prior factors. These prior factors account for about 70% of the observed gender gap. The results indicate that the gender gap exists in interactive physics classes at our institution but is largely associated with differences in previous physics and math knowledge and incoming attitudes and beliefs.
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010101 (2009) [14 pages]
Lauren E. Kost, Steven J. Pollock, and Noah D. Finkelstein
Previous research [S. J. Pollock et al., Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 1 (2007)] showed that despite the use of interactive engagement techniques, the gap in performance between males and females on a conceptual learning survey persisted from pretest to post-test at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Such findings were counter to previously published work [M. Lorenzo et al., Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006)]. This study begins by identifying a variety of other gender differences. There is a small but significant difference in the course grades of males and females. Males and females have significantly different prior understandings of physics and mathematics. Females are less likely to take high school physics than males, although they are equally likely to take high school calculus. Males and females also differ in their incoming attitudes and beliefs about physics. This collection of background factors is analyzed to determine the extent to which each factor correlates with performance on a conceptual post-test and with gender. Binned by quintiles, we observe that males and females with similar pretest scores do not have significantly different post-test scores (p>0.2) . The post-test data are then modeled using two regression models (multiple regression and logistic regression) to estimate the gender gap in post-test scores after controlling for these important prior factors. These prior factors account for about 70% of the observed gender gap. The results indicate that the gender gap exists in interactive physics classes at our institution but is largely associated with differences in previous physics and math knowledge and incoming attitudes and beliefs.
2008-06-19
Kohl Finkelstein - PRST-PER 2008
Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010111 (2008)
Patrick B. Kohl and Noah D. Finkelstein
It is generally believed that students should use multiple representations in solving certain physics problems, and earlier work in PER has begun to outline how experts and novices differ in their use of multiple representations. In this study, we build on this foundation by interviewing expert and novice physicists as they solve two types of multiple representation problems: those in which multiple representations are provided for them and those in which the students must construct their own representations. We analyze in detail the types of representations subjects use and the order and manner in which they are used. Expert and novice representation use is surprisingly similar in some ways, especially in that both experts and novices make significant use of multiple representations. Some significant differences also emerge. Experts are more flexible in terms of starting point and move between the available representations more quickly, and novices tend to move between more representations in total. In addition, we find that an examination of how often and when multiple representations are used is inadequate to fully characterize a problem-solving episode; one must also consider the purpose behind the use of the available representations. This analysis of how experts and novices use representations sharpens the differences between the two groups, demonstrates analysis techniques that may be useful in future work, and suggests possible paths for instruction.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010111
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010111 (2008)
Patrick B. Kohl and Noah D. Finkelstein
It is generally believed that students should use multiple representations in solving certain physics problems, and earlier work in PER has begun to outline how experts and novices differ in their use of multiple representations. In this study, we build on this foundation by interviewing expert and novice physicists as they solve two types of multiple representation problems: those in which multiple representations are provided for them and those in which the students must construct their own representations. We analyze in detail the types of representations subjects use and the order and manner in which they are used. Expert and novice representation use is surprisingly similar in some ways, especially in that both experts and novices make significant use of multiple representations. Some significant differences also emerge. Experts are more flexible in terms of starting point and move between the available representations more quickly, and novices tend to move between more representations in total. In addition, we find that an examination of how often and when multiple representations are used is inadequate to fully characterize a problem-solving episode; one must also consider the purpose behind the use of the available representations. This analysis of how experts and novices use representations sharpens the differences between the two groups, demonstrates analysis techniques that may be useful in future work, and suggests possible paths for instruction.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010111
2008-06-11
Price Finkelstein - AJP 2008
Preparing physics graduate students to be educators
American Journal of Physics -- July 2008 -- Volume 76, Issue 7, pp. 684-690
Edward Price, Noah Finkelstein
We discuss two efforts that support the preparation of graduate students for their roles as professional physicists, particularly in the areas of teaching and education research. The Preparing Future Physicists program and the Teaching and Learning Physics course are mutually supportive, address broader graduate roles, and support the development of physics education research. Students' participation in these activities increases their mastery of physics, develops their interest in education and teaching, and engages them in research projects in physics education. We describe these efforts and identify critical features of their successes.
American Journal of Physics -- July 2008 -- Volume 76, Issue 7, pp. 684-690
Edward Price, Noah Finkelstein
We discuss two efforts that support the preparation of graduate students for their roles as professional physicists, particularly in the areas of teaching and education research. The Preparing Future Physicists program and the Teaching and Learning Physics course are mutually supportive, address broader graduate roles, and support the development of physics education research. Students' participation in these activities increases their mastery of physics, develops their interest in education and teaching, and engages them in research projects in physics education. We describe these efforts and identify critical features of their successes.
2008-05-05
Pollock Finkelstein - arxiv.org 2008
Sustaining Educational Reforms in Introductory Physics
arxiv.org
Steven J. Pollock and Noah D. Finkelstein
While it is well known which curricular practices can improve student performance on measures of conceptual understanding, the sustaining of these practices and the role of faculty members in implementing these practices are less well understood. We present a study of the hand-off of Tutorials in Introductory Physics from initial adopters to other instructors at the University of Colorado, including traditional faculty not involved in physics education research. The study examines the impact of implementation of Tutorials on student conceptual learning across eight first-semester, and seven second-semester courses, for fifteen faculty over twelve semesters, and includes roughly 4000 students. It is possible to demonstrate consistently high, and statistically indistinguishable, student learning gains for different faculty members; however, such results are not the norm, and appear to rely on a variety of factors. Student performance varies by faculty background - faculty involved in, or informed by physics education research, consistently post higher student learning gains than less-informed faculty. Student performance in these courses also varies by curricula used - all semesters in which the research-based Tutorials and Learning Assistants are used have higher student learning gains than those semesters that rely on non-research based materials and do not employ Learning Assistants.
arxiv.org
Steven J. Pollock and Noah D. Finkelstein
While it is well known which curricular practices can improve student performance on measures of conceptual understanding, the sustaining of these practices and the role of faculty members in implementing these practices are less well understood. We present a study of the hand-off of Tutorials in Introductory Physics from initial adopters to other instructors at the University of Colorado, including traditional faculty not involved in physics education research. The study examines the impact of implementation of Tutorials on student conceptual learning across eight first-semester, and seven second-semester courses, for fifteen faculty over twelve semesters, and includes roughly 4000 students. It is possible to demonstrate consistently high, and statistically indistinguishable, student learning gains for different faculty members; however, such results are not the norm, and appear to rely on a variety of factors. Student performance varies by faculty background - faculty involved in, or informed by physics education research, consistently post higher student learning gains than less-informed faculty. Student performance in these courses also varies by curricula used - all semesters in which the research-based Tutorials and Learning Assistants are used have higher student learning gains than those semesters that rely on non-research based materials and do not employ Learning Assistants.
2007-10-30
Podolefsky Finkelstein - Phys Rev 2007
Noah and Noah in the Physics Review - Special Topics PER
Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: Empirical studies
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020104
Noah S. Podolefsky and Noah D. Finkelstein
Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
Received 12 March 2007; published 14 September 2007
Previously, we proposed a model of student reasoning which combines the roles of representation, analogy, and layering of meaning—analogical scaffolding [Podolefsky and Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010109 (2007)]. The present empirical studies build on this model to examine its utility and demonstrate the vital intertwining of representation, analogy, and conceptual learning in physics. In two studies of student reasoning using analogy, we show that representations couple to students’ existing prior knowledge and also lead to the dynamic formation of new knowledge. Students presented with abstract, concrete, or blended (both abstract and concrete) representations produced markedly different response patterns. In the first study, using analogies to scaffold understanding of electromagnetic (EM) waves, students in the blend group were more likely to reason productively about EM waves than students in the abstract group by as much as a factor of 3 (73% vs 24% correct, p=0.002 ). In the second study, examining representation use within one domain (sound waves), the blend group was more likely to reason productively about sound waves than the abstract group by as much as a factor of 2 (48% vs 23% correct, p=0.002 ). Using the analogical scaffolding model we examine when and why students succeed and fail to use analogies and interpret representations appropriately.
URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRSTPER/v3/e020104
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020104
PACS: 01.40.Fk
Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: Empirical studies
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020104
Noah S. Podolefsky and Noah D. Finkelstein
Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
Received 12 March 2007; published 14 September 2007
Previously, we proposed a model of student reasoning which combines the roles of representation, analogy, and layering of meaning—analogical scaffolding [Podolefsky and Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010109 (2007)]. The present empirical studies build on this model to examine its utility and demonstrate the vital intertwining of representation, analogy, and conceptual learning in physics. In two studies of student reasoning using analogy, we show that representations couple to students’ existing prior knowledge and also lead to the dynamic formation of new knowledge. Students presented with abstract, concrete, or blended (both abstract and concrete) representations produced markedly different response patterns. In the first study, using analogies to scaffold understanding of electromagnetic (EM) waves, students in the blend group were more likely to reason productively about EM waves than students in the abstract group by as much as a factor of 3 (73% vs 24% correct, p=0.002 ). In the second study, examining representation use within one domain (sound waves), the blend group was more likely to reason productively about sound waves than the abstract group by as much as a factor of 2 (48% vs 23% correct, p=0.002 ). Using the analogical scaffolding model we examine when and why students succeed and fail to use analogies and interpret representations appropriately.
URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRSTPER/v3/e020104
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020104
PACS: 01.40.Fk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)