The main project goal is to develop a one-semester conceptual physics curriculum suitable for large enrollment classes that is guided by research on learning, and is especially appropriate for prospective elementary teachers and other non-science majors. The new curriculum (referred to as Large Enrollment Physics, or LEP) builds on three previous NSF-supported curricula: Physics and Everyday Thinking (PET), Physical Science and Everyday Thinking (PSET), and Learning Physical Science (LEPS). PET and PSET were designed for small enrollment settings. LEPS was designed for large enrollment classes, but focuses on physical science (physics and chemistry), and many physics departments do not offer such a course for non-science majors. The proposed project includes curriculum development, pilot testing, and evaluation. Instructor materials consist of a set of PowerPoint slides to guide whole-class inquiry, including clicker questions and embedded movies to show demonstrations, experiments, and simulations. Student materials include in-class lesson sheets to record answers to clicker questions, data from the classroom videos, and making sense questions, as well as on-line homework activities, some including hands-on explorations and some involving the construction and evaluation of explanations. In addition to focusing on fundamental concepts in physics, LEP also includes specific activities that focus on the nature of science and the nature of learning. There will be four pilot tests and assessments of student impacts.
Intellectual Merit The curriculum developed in this project (1) meets the need for a large enrollment general education physics course focused on fundamental content and nature of science/nature of learning themes, (2) uses recent research on science learning, (3) is based on a very successful curriculum (PET), and (4) is developed using the approach that successfully adapted PSET to LEPS. Pedagogical strategies shown to be successful in a small class environment are being adapted for the large class setting. New and existing technological tools are being incorporated in class and homework. Pre/post project assessments are providing data about the impact on students' conceptual understanding of physics and on their beliefs and attitudes about physics, the nature of science (NOS), and the nature of learning (NOL). The project team is experienced with all components of the project, including curriculum development, NOS and NOL instruction, educational technology, and using video in education.
Broader Impacts This project directly impacts about 550 students at three institutions. The pilot test sites include large populations of underrepresented groups. LEP facilitates development of scientific thinking so that these non-science students can become more scientifically literate. A subset of the students are prospective elementary teachers, and the curriculum's focus on fundamental conceptual themes in science, the nature of science and the nature of learning should help them become more effective teachers. At the project's end, the LEP curriculum will be ready for further field testing, leading to publication. Publication and continued dissemination will impact many more students after the funding period. Through the development and assessment process, this project continues to explore new ways to teach large enrollment classes in an inquiry mode and with an explicit NOS and NOL component. This project completes a suite of curricula treating physics and physical science in large and small enrollment settings, thereby allowing an extensive comparison of the large and small enrollment versions.
The major outcome of this project was the development and preliminary evaluation of a one-semester physics course (Learning Physics or LEP) for large class, lecture-style settings, that can be used as both a general education science course and a foundation science course for students who want to become elementary teachers. LEP was adapted from an existing curriculum, Physics and Everyday Thinking, which was developed for small class environments, where the students spend class time performing experiments and discussing ideas. LEP was designed to align with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which emphasizes the integration of science core ideas, practices and crosscutting concepts. Figure 1 shows the topical outline of LEP, indicating how the individual units align with core physical science ideas of the NGSS. The curriculum also included specific activities focusing on the nature of science and the nature of learning (by both adults and children). The incorporation of the practices of science (especially modeling and experimentation, explanations, and argumentation) in a meaningful way for the large, lecture-style class turned out to be an implementation challenge. We addressed the practice challenge in the following ways. To engage students in the practices of modeling and experimentation we incorporated a combination of both hands-on experiments (where students used simple materials distributed in a plastic bag), and videos. Figures 2, 3 and 4 show examples. When both performing their own experiments and observing videos of experiments, students made observations, analyzed data and drew conclusions. To enable students to write their own explanations and evaluate the explanations of their classmates we used the web-based Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) system developed at UCLA. For example, in the unit on magnetism, students were asked to explain why hammering a magnetized nail causes it to loose its magnetism. Figure 5 shows an example of a diagram and written explanation uploaded by a student to the CPR system. To promote student engagement and classroom argumentation (supporting claims with evidence and indicating why other claims might not be appropriate), each lesson in the curriculum includes several multiple-choice questions that the instructor presents to the class. Individual students use hand-held devices to indicate their responses. Figure 6 shows one example of such a question, along with a graph showing distribution of responses within the class. In cases like this, where there is no obvious single answer that the class agrees on, the instructor asks students to explain the reasoning behind their own their choices and to indicate why the other choices would not be appropriate. The project evaluator collected data on the impact of the new curriculum on students’ conceptual understanding of core ideas and on their attitudes and beliefs about science and the learning of science. Comparing data collected at the beginning and end of the semester in classes at three universities, results show a significant growth in students’ conceptual understanding and a significant positive shift in their attitudes and beliefs. We also did an analysis of the CPR system to see if the scores that students were assigning to other students as part of their peer evaluation were similar to what an instructor or other expert would have assigned. In fact, we found that peer-assigned scores on students’ explanations with the CPR system were equivalent to independent scores from experts.
