Creating a New Physics Education Learning Environment at Joliet Junior College
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Creating a New Physics Education Learning Environment at Joliet Junior College Presented by The Institute on Learning Technology part of the Susan Millar ([email protected]), Ph.D., William Clifton ([email protected]), Ph.D., and Andrew Beversdorf ([email protected]) Fall 1999 This case study also is available from the Learning Through Technology web site, www.wcer.wisc.edu/nise/cl1/ilt. Acknowledgements: The authors thank the JJC faculty, staff, and students who participated in this study. These individuals very graciously responded to our requests for their time and attention. This case study is based on a collaborative analysis and planning process undertaken by the NISE's Learning Through Technology "Fellows" group: Jean-Pierre Bayard, Stephen Erhmann, John Jungck, Flora McMartin, Susan Millar, and Marco Molinaro. The Fellows, in turn, benefited substantially from members of the College Level One Team: Andrew Beversdorf, Mark Connolly, Susan Daffinrud, Art Ellis, Kate Loftus-Fahl, and Robert Mathieu. Table of Contents READER’S GUIDE .............................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................ii I. THE SETTING ................................................................................................................. 1 II. LEARNING PROBLEMS AND GOALS.......................................................................... 4 A. Problems Motivating JJC Faculty to Try Computer-Dependent Learning Strategies ........... 4 B. Learning Goals the JJC Faculty Seek to Achieve .................................................................. 6 III. CREATING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT............................................................ 7 A. Computer-Dependent Learning Activities............................................................................. 8 B. Computer-Independent Learning Activities......................................................................... 10 IV. SUMMATIVE OUTCOMES DATA.............................................................................. 14 V. IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................... 19 A. Resources ............................................................................................................................. 19 B. Processes for Getting Going: How Not to Reinvent the Wheel .......................................... 22 C. Managing the Dissolution of the “Atlas Complex” ............................................................. 24 VI. SUMMING UP – YOU HAVE TO BE AN INDEPENDENT LEARNER...................... 27 DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................................................. 28 1. Getting Students to Make the Connections: A Discussion of Curt’s Teaching Goals........ 29 2. We can do things with a computer that years ago took hours to do: Faculty Discuss Computer-Dependent Learning Activities................................................................................ 31 3. The labs are incredible, absolutely incredible: Students Discuss Computer-Dependent Learning Activities.................................................................................................................... 36 4. We have to know where students’ problems are and not where we think they will be: Curt Discusses Formative Assessment Activities............................................................................. 41 5. Once you do the task, you learn it: Curt’s Students Discuss Formative Assessment Activities................................................................................................................................... 43 6. The JJC Faculty Discuss External Resources ...................................................................... 46 7. This networking thing can be critical: More Reflections on Networking.......................... 51 RESOURCES ................................................................................................................... 55 A. What is a “Learning Environment”?.................................................................................... 56 B. Brief Description of Joliet Junior College............................................................................ 60 C. Syllabi for Selected Courses Featured in This Case Study .................................................. 61 D. Pre- and Post-tests Used by Curt for Formative Assessment............................................... 96 E. Curt’s Tasks Inspired by Physics Education Research (TIPERs) ........................................ 98 F. Finkel and Monk’s “Atlas Complex” ................................................................................. 102 G. Methods used to Produce the Case Study .......................................................................... 104 GLOSSARY: SPECIAL TERMS USED IN THE LT2 WEBSITE................................... 105 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 107 ENDNOTES .................................................................................................................... 111 Reader’s Guide Special terms appear in the Glossary. The first time one of these terms occurs in a major section, it appears double-underlined and the definition is available in a mouse-over box. (In the print version, these definitions appear as lettered footnotes.) All citations to which the case study refers are listed in the References. Technical asides are indicated by a numbered footnote marker and available to the reader in a mouse-over box. (In the print version, these asides can be found in the Endnotes.) Lengthy quotes from participants that illustrate a point often are available in mouse-over boxes (lettered footnotes in the print version), for the benefit of the reader who prefers to read the participants’ own words. Various topics introduced in the study are developed at greater length in Discussions (specified by number in the print version) to which the reader is referred via links at relevant points. The reader is referred via links at relevant points to various other Resources (specified by letter in the print version). Among these is a short description of the Methods Used to Produce this Case Study (Resource G in the print version). We use pseudonyms for the students who appear in the quoted material. To help avoid confusion, the researchers are identified as “interviewer” the first time their voice appears an interview segment. Lengthier quotes appear in italics. The instructors and administrators who are identified in the case study read the document and gave us permission to use the quotes we attribute to them. These Joliet readers also affirmed that this case study conveys the essence of what they were doing in the fall of 1999. i Introduction “We’re serving these students by teaching them physics. But more than that, we’re teaching them how to think, developing their ability to analyze complex sets of data, and developing the unique skill of separating the irrelevant from the relevant. We’re teaching in context—in a context where they try to do physics.” Dr. Curt Hieggelke Who is Curt Hieggelke? Dr. Curt Hieggelke teaches physics at Joliet Junior College in Joliet, Illinois. He is a national leader in the development, use and dissemination of innovative computer-enhanced introductory physics teaching methods. In the last ten years, he has received nine NSF grants to pursue his work in this area. His current projects include “Two-Year College Physics Workshops for the 21st Century" (see http://tycphysics.org) and "Tools for Learning and Assessment.” What’s he done? A “tekkie” from way back, physicist Curt Hieggelke has transformed his introductory physics courses at Joliet Junior College into meaningful and exciting learning experiences for his students—whether they are aspiring engineers, scientists, health professionals, or non-science majors. Key to his success is the use of computer-based labs that actively engage his students through real-time acquisition and analysis of data, connections to real-world events, visualization and simulation. ii Why? For some time, Curt had been aware—and concerned—that despite the care he took to present material to his students, they were just not grasping the concepts and ideas he was trying to teach. First, he tried refining his lectures—to no avail. Gradually he came to realize that “lecture doesn’t necessarily transmit any information.” …I became convinced that no matter how much I told them the right answer, they still didn’t pick it up; that becoming a better lecturer doesn’t have a better impact on them. What his students needed, Curt decided, was a more active learning environment, one that encouraged—no, demanded—student participation in the learning process. Teaching in a lecture format simply was not accomplishing this. So, what would? Well, for years Curt had been using computers in the classroom to aid in the analysis of data. In the late 1980s, however, it dawned on him that he might go 1. Predict—Students are given a situation or problem and are asked to beyond using computers merely for analysis and instead use predict what will happen when them to transform the way his students learn physics. In something is done to change that situation.