Innovations in University Physics Teaching: There is no silver bullet Helen Georgiou 1 , Manjula Sharma, 1 1 School of Physics, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Abstract At a time where University lectures are facing unprecedented pressure from stakeholders to embrace innovative teaching and technologies, it is important to refer to and conduct educational research to ensure these innovations have the best chance at success. This poster presents findings from the second of two iterations of a trial involving one type of innovation- an Active Learning technique known as the Interactive Lecture Demonstration- that was implemented in the same thermodynamics module of a large first year physics cohort but by two different lectures. A comprehensive assessment of the trial and a comparison between the two implementations tool place and included comparisons of learning outcomes as measured by a Thermal Concepts Survey (TCS) and student engagement as measured by a newly developed tools known as the Lecture Activity and Student Engagement (LASE) tool. Results showed that each lecturer delivered the program in measurably different ways and that this had an effect on students learning outcomes, student attitudes towards the course, and their views on their own achievement. That the outcome of the two implementations varied in this way has consequences for almost all educational levels and highlights the role of academic educational research in lecture support and development Results- Student Attitudes Methods  Thermal Concepts Survey was a 16 question multiple choice test on thermal physics concepts [2] Gains were measured using normalized gain measurement: <g> = [Post – Pre ]฀ [100- Pre] - Equation 1 Sample involved first year students in the ‘Regular’ course who had completed physics at High School and performed well Students in Stream 1 were predominantly Bachelor of Science students while Stream 2 students were predominantly Bachelor of Engineering students Students in both streams had identical pre-test and high school scores The number for the gain measurement was lower because only regular attendee’s were counted (must have attended more than 75% of course Project Outline and Results Conclusions There are several unresolved issues surrounding the implementation of innovative teaching techniques in tertiary physics The ILD program resulted in significantly higher learning gains in one stream only The ILD program was implemented differently in the two streams. Stream 1 spent more time on class discussion and implemented other Active Learning techniques such as clicker questions. Stream 2 spent less time on class discussion and did not implement Active Learning techniques outside of the ILD program. This resulted in less time for ‘Interactivity’ in Stream 2 compared to Stream 1 Students in Stream 1 and Stream 2 reported different experiences with the ILD program, with Stream 2 students confirming they had less time for discussion with peers and the instructor. Stream 2 students consistently reported less satisfaction with respect to understanding the individual ILDs and with concept comprehension overall, including awareness of alternative conceptions References [1] Sokoloff, D. R., & Thornton, R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. In E. F. Redish (Ed.), Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities - Proceedings of International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, Pts 1 and 2 (pp. 1061-1074). [2] Wattanakasiwich, P., Talaeb, P., Sharma, M., & Johnston, I. (In press). Construction and Implementation of a Conceptual Survey in Thermodynamics. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education [3] Pornrat Wattanakasiwich, Chang Mai University [4] Cox, M. F., & Cordray, D. S. (2008). Assessing Pedagogy in Bioengineering Classrooms: Quantifying Elements of the "How People Learn" Model Using the VaNTH Observation System (VOS). Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 413-431. [5] Granger, E. M., Bevis, T. H., Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., & Tate, R. L. (2012). The Efficacy of Student-Centered Instruction in Supporting Science Learning. Science, 338, 105-108. [6] Wieman, C. (2009). Galvanizing Science Departments. Science, 325, 1181-1181. [7] Farrington, I. (1991). Student‐Centred Learning: Rhetoric and Reality? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 15(3), 16-21. [8] Georgiou, H., Sharma, M. (2012). Why it is important to publish ‘null’ results: A project involving no change in learning gains from Interactive Lecture Demonstrations in first year thermal physics. Paper presented at the World Conference on Physics Education, Istanbul. [9] Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86. [10] Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231. Questions for discussion regarding teaching Innovations First year physics- Semester 1, 2012 Interactive Lecture Demonstrations Stream 1- Staff A N=68 Stream 2- Staff B N=112 Mechanics Thermal Physics Waves Pre-test Lecture Coding-10 x 1 hour lectures Post-test Stream N Pre-test /16 Post- test /16 Gains Gains Mean St. Dev Mean St. Dev 1 34 9.59 3.53 12.17 2.18 0.40 ± 0.06 0.35 2 60 8.72 3.41 11.21 2.20 0.34 ± 0.04 Stream 2 Stream 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Gain Pre-test score Figure 1. Lecture activities as a proportion of total lecture time for each stream Table 1. Pre- and post-test scores on Thermal Concepts Survey and gains for each stream Figure 2. Hake plot (Gain vs. Pre-test scores) Results Lecture activity: Stream 1 exhibited most interactivity during lecture course (Figure 1) Gains: Stream 1 achieved highest gains (Table 1; Figure 2) An Interactive Lecture Demonstration (ILD) program was introduced in two streams in a thermal physics module in first year physics to determine whether superior learning gains could be achieved. The ILDs were from [1] and newly constructed. Learning gains were measured using normalized gain measurement (Equation 1) on a Thermal Concepts Survey [2]. Lectures were coded to determine level of fidelity to the ILD program and overall ‘Interactivity’. The effectiveness of the ILD program was determined through evaluation surveys and interviews with students. Figure 5. Interactive Lecture Demonstration worksheets. Students make their predictions on the ‘hand-in’ sheet which is collected at the end of the lecture and record their final observations on their ‘keep’ sheet which they retain Figure 4. One of the ILDs from ‘fog in a bottle’ [3] and an image of the ILD implementation in the lecture theatre Student attitudes towards the ILDs were gathered via a survey administered at the end of the thermal physics module and through student interviews. Student responses from Stream 1 and Stream 2 indicated differences in delivery of the respective ILD programs, supporting findings from Figure 1. Students in Stream 1 reported having more time for discussion with the Instructor and with each other. This resulted in students from Stream 1 reporting a higher level of understanding of many of the ILDs and an overall better understanding of the concepts and awareness of alternative conceptions. Figure 3. Responses from evaluation survey for ILDs. Bars represent % selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Opportunity to discuss with peers Opportunity to discuss with instructor Clear and Well put Heat & Temperature Specific Heat Capacity Expansion and Ideal gas Moveable Syringe Fog in the bottle Heat Engines Help me realise Alternative Conceptions Understand thermal physics concepts Stream 1 Stream 2 Transmission-Style Interactivity Demonstrations Other Fidelity Q: How important is it to measure whether a teaching implementation occurred as planned? →Some tools exist to measure fidelity but these are not yet mainstream [4,5]. Persistence and support Q: How many ‘innovations’ remain functioning after the initial promotion and how successful are they over the long term? →Research indicates that ‘Innovations’ only succeed if pedagogical researchers are involved and if there is a particular individual or committee providing sustained support. Often, they do not last more than one or two applications [6] Research and reporting Q: Is there a need for research to provide further clarity on Innovative teaching methods, such as Active Learning? →Active Learning’ is still not clearly defined in the literature. This has been problematic with ‘student centred learning’ and ‘discovery learning’. Often, ‘null’ results are not reported, overstating the success of one particular technique and much of the reporting occurs in calculus-based first year US physics cohorts. More diversity in results is necessary for fuller understanding [7-10] Fads and funding Q: How should newer innovations be approached? →Newer Innovations, such as ‘MOOCs’ and ‘Flipped lectures’ are still under-researched but seem to be attracting substantial funding. In the meantime, more’ traditional’ innovations, such as those used in lectures are falling out of fashion.