Analia Barrantes

Modeling applied to problem solving

We describe a modeling approach to help students learn expert problem solving. Models are used to present and hierarchically organize the syllabus content and apply it to problem solving, but students do not develop and validate their own Models through guided discovery. Instead, students classify problems under the appropriate instructor‐generated Model by selecting a system to consider and describing the interactions that are relevant to that system. We believe that this explicit System, Interactions and Model (S.I.M.) problem modeling strategy represents a key simplification and clarification of the widely disseminated modeling approach originated by Hestenes and collaborators. Our narrower focus allows modeling physics to be integrated into (as opposed to replacing) a typical introductory college mechanics course, while preserving the emphasis on understanding systems and interactions that is the essence of modeling. We have employed the approach in a three‐week review course for MIT freshmen who rece...

Toward an Integrated Online Learning Environment

We are building in LON‐CAPA an integrated learning environment that will enable the development, dissemination and evaluation of PER‐based material. This environment features a collection of multi‐level research‐based homework sets organized by topic and cognitive complexity. These sets are associated with learning modules that contain very short exposition of the content supplemented by integrated open‐access videos, worked examples, simulations, and tutorials (some from ANDES). To assess students’ performance accurately with respect to a system‐wide standard, we plan to implement Item Response Theory. Together with other PER assessments and purposeful solicitation of student feedback, this will allow us to measure and improve the efficacy of various research‐based materials, while getting insights into teaching and learning.

What Else (Besides the Syllabus) Should Students Learn in Introductory Physics

We have surveyed what various groups of instructors and students think students should learn in introductory physics. We started with a Delphi Study based on interviews with experts, then developed orthogonal responses to “what should we teach non‐physics majors besides the current syllabus topics?” AAPT attendees, atomic researchers, and PERC08 attendees were asked for their selections. All instructors rated “sense‐making of the answer” very highly and expert problem solving highly. PERers favored epistemology over problem solving, and atomic researchers “physics comes from a few principles.” Students at three colleges had preferences anti‐aligned with their teachers, preferring more modern topics, and the relationship of physics to everyday life and also to society (the only choice with instructor agreement), but not problem solving or sense‐making. Conclusion ♯1: we must show students how old physics is relevant to their world. Conclusion ♯2: significant course reform must start by reaching consensus o...

Improved Student Performance In Electricity And Magnetism Following Prior MAPS Instruction In Mechanics

We examine the performance of a group of students in Introductory Electricity and Magnetism following a ReView course in Introductory Mechanics focusing on problem solving employing the Modeling Applied to Problem Solving (MAPS) pedagogy[1]. The group consists of students who received a D in the fall Mechanics course (8.01) and were given the chance to attend the ReView course and take a final retest. Improvement to a passing grade was qualification for the Electricity and Magnetism course (8.02) in the spring. The ReView course was conducted twice—during January 2009 and January 2010. As a control, we took a group of students with similar z‐scores in 8.01 in Fall 2007 that were not offered the ReView course. We show that the ReView students perform ∼0.7 standard deviations better than the control group (p∼0.002) and ∼0.5 standard deviations better than what is expected based on their performance in 8.01(p ∼0.001).

Development of a mechanics reasoning inventory

Strategic knowledge is required to appropriately organize procedures and concepts to solve problems. We are developing a standardized instrument assessing strategic knowledge in the domain of introductory mechanics. This instrument is inspired in part by Lawsons Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning and Van Domelens Problem Decomposition Diagnostic. The predictive validity of the instrument has been suggested by preliminary studies showing significant correlation with performance on final exams administered in introductory mechanics courses at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Georgia Institute of Technology. In order to study the validity of the content from the students perspective, we have administered the instrument in free-response format to 40 students enrolled in calculus-based introductory mechanics at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville. This procedure has the additional advantage of improving the construct validity of the inventory, since student responses suggest effecti...

What do Seniors Remember from Freshman Physics

We have given a group of 56 MIT seniors who took mechanics as freshmen a written test similar to the final exam they took in their freshman course, plus the Mechanics Baseline Test (MBT) and Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (C-LASS) standard instruments. Students in majors unrelated to physics scored 60% lower on the written analytic part of the final than they did as freshmen. The mean score of all students on conceptual multiple choice questions included on the final declined by approximately 50% relative to the scores of freshmen. The mean score of all participants on the MBT was insignificantly changed from the posttest taken as freshmen. More specifically, however, the students’ performance on 9 of the 26 MBT items (with 6 of the 9 involving graphical kinematics) represents a gain over their freshman pretest score (a normalized gain of about 70%, double the gain achieved in the freshman course alone), while their performance on the remaining 17 questions is best characterized as a loss of approximately 50% of the material learned in the freshman course. Attitudinal survey results indicate that almost half the seniors feel the specific mechanics course content is unlikely to be useful to them, a significant majority (75−85%) feel that physics does teach valuable skills, and an overwhelming majority believe that mechanics should remain a required course at MIT.