Moving toward change: Institutionalizing reform through implementation of the Learning Assistant model and Open Source Tutorials

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2011, Pages

  Goertzen, Renee Michelle ^a   Brewe, Eric ^a   Kramer, Laird H ^a   Wells, Leanne ^a   Jones, David ^a  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053898290     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.020105     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. R.R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.18809
2. E.F. Redish and R.N. Steinberg, Teaching physics: Figuring out what works, Phys. Today 52, No. 1, 24 (1999). PHTOAD 0031-9228 10.1063/1.882568
3. J. Braxton, M. Eimers, and A. Bayer, The implications of teaching norms for the improvement of undergraduate education, J. Higher Educ. JHSBA5 0022-1546 67, 603 (1996). 10.2307/2943814
4. C. Henderson and M. Dancy, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. PRSTCR 1554-9178 3, 020102 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020102
5. P. Knight and P. Trowler, Department-level cultures and the improvement of learning and teaching, Stud. Higher Educ. 1470-174X 25, 69 (2000). 10.1080/030750700116028
6. P. Ramsden, University teachers' experiences of academic leadership and their approaches to teaching, Learn. Instr. 17, 140 (2007). LEAIE9 0959-4752 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.004
7. P. Aubusson, An ecology of science education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 27 (2002). ISEDEB 0950-0693 10.1080/09500690110066511
8. R.J. Beichner, Student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project, Research-based reform of university physics 1, 2 (2007), http://www.per-central.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4517.
9. Y.J. Dori and J. Belcher, How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts?, J. Learn. Sci. JLSBE3 1050-8406 14, 243 (2005). 10.1207/s15327809jls1402-3 (Pubitemid 40551446)
10. V. Otero, S. Pollock, and N. Finkelstein, A physics department's role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1218 (2010). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.3471291
11. A. Elby, Open Source Tutorials in Physics Sensemaking, Suite 2, http://www.spu.edu/depts/physics/tcp/tadevelopment.asp.
12. A. Elby, Open Source Tutorials in Physics Sensemaking, Suite 1, http://www.spu.edu/depts/physics/tcp/tadevelopment.asp.
13. M.A. Cooper, Hispanic degree earners, Hispanic Outlook Higher Educ. 1054-2337 20, 19 (2010).
14. Florida International University, Miami, FL, 2009 Fact Book, http://w3.fiu.edu/irdata/-Fact%20Book/Headcount/enrollment.pdf, 2009,.
15. V. Otero, Who is responsible for preparing science teachers?, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 313, 445 (2006). 10.1126/science.1129648 (Pubitemid 44148436)
16. Physics Teacher Education Coalition, www.phystec.org.
17. L. McDermott and P. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
18. C.H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.1374249 (Pubitemid 33325047)
19. K. Cummings, Evaluating innovation in studio physics, Am. J. Phys. 67, S38 (1999). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.19078
20. D. Sokoloff and R. Thornton, in Interactive Lecture Demonstrations, edited by, David R. Sokoloff, and, Ronald K. Thornton, (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2004), p. 374.
21. M. Prosser and K. Trigwell, Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2044-8279 67, 25 (1997). 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01224.x
22. E. Dokter, in Proceedings of the 2006 Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco (unpublished).
23. C. Henderson and M. Dancy, Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations, Am. J. Phys. 76, 79 (2008). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.2800352
24. A. Elby, Helping physics students learn how to learn, Am. J. Phys. 69, S54 (2001). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.1377283
25. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2003). JLSBE3 1050-8406 10.1207/ S15327809JLS1201-3
26. E.F. Redish, J.M. Saul, and R.N. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66, 212 (1998). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.18847
27. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.17118
28. P. Shaffer and L. McDermott, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II: Design of an instructional strategy, Am. J. Phys. 60, 1003 (1992). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.16979
29. E. Brewe, Modeling theory applied: Modeling Instruction in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 76, 1155 (2008). 10.1119/1.2983148
30. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 74, 979 (2006). 10.1119/1.2238885 (Pubitemid 44784252)
31. E. Brewe, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. PRSTCR 1554-9178 6, 010106 (2010). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.010106
32. V.P. Coletta and J.A. Phillips, Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability, Am. J. Phys. 73, 1172 (2005). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.2117109 (Pubitemid 43059155)
33. I. Rodriguez, E. Brewe, and L. Kramer, " Equity perspectives affect interpretations of FCI results " (to be published).
34. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC 2009), 6th ed.
35. S. Nakagawa and I. Cuthill, Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists, Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. BRCPAH 1469-185X 82, 591 (2007). 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x (Pubitemid 47609922)
36. M. Smithson, Confidence Intervals. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002), Vol. 104.
37. B. Thompson, What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes, Educ. Researcher 31, 25 (2002). EDURAE 0013-189X 10.3102/0013189X031003025
38. J. Cohen, A power primer, Psychol. Bull. 112, 155 (1992). PSBUAI 0033-2909 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
39. R. Goertzen, R. Scherr, and A. Elby, Accounting for tutorial teaching assistants' buy-in to reform instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. PRSTCR 1554-9178 5, 20109 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020109
40. Science & Mathematics Teacher Imperative Annual Report (Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Washington, DC, 2009).
41. S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Sustaining educational reforms in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. PRSTCR 1554-9178 4, 010110 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010110
42. C. Turpen and N.D. Finkelstein, Institutionalizing reform in introductory physics, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference, Alberta, Canada, 2008 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2008).