[back]
A continuing effort is underway to improve the calculus-based introductory physics sequence at Syracuse University. This program has two major components: the introduction and trial of new educational methods and the assessment of student learning. A successful educational technique is one that leads to a strong positive impact on student learning.
Attention has focused, in particular, on the course Physics 211. This course is titled General Physics I and is a required "gateway" course taken by all engineering and most science majors. It is also a standard course for pre-medical and pre-health students at SU. The Physics Department teaches this course in both the fall and spring semesters. The total number of students who enroll in the course per academic year is approximately 450.
In the fall of 1998, the course was taught by Professor Don Marolf. As one of the assessment tools, he used the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) to assess the students' understanding of the underpinnings of the subject matter. The FCI is a test of knowledge of the basic conceptual ideas of mechanics. Over the past few years, it has become the standard method of assessment of conceptual understanding in basic concepts in introductory physics.
A number of methods were employed in the Fall, 1998 course which encouraged interactive engagement of the students with the subject matter. To ascertain their effect, the students were given the FCI test during the first week of the semester (Pre-test), and then were again given the FCI during the last week of the semester (Post-test).
The results for student progress can be compared to those at other educational institutions in the country, and also with earlier results at Syracuse University for the same course. For this purpose, the accepted figure that measures student progress (denoted g) is the change in average score (post-test minus pre-test) divided by the maximum possible change in average score. For the Fall/1998 course, the value of g is 0.35.
A recent article by Richard Hake (American Journal of Physics, Volume 66, page 64, 1998) tabulates g values compiled for this same course, taught at 14 institutions in the country. All of these institutions used traditional teaching methods. The average of these 14 values is 0.23, with a standard deviation of 0.04. Values of g for the course at Syracuse University, taught earlier than Fall/1998, were similar to this average.
The value of g obtained in Professor Marolf's Physics 211 class for the Fall of 1998 is three standard deviations above the average value for the 14 courses taught via traditional methods. This indicates that the strenuous efforts to improve physics instruction in this course have produced very positive results.
Other assessment methods include the study of correlation between FCI data and scores on regular course exams given throughout the semester. This is useful, as exam scores themselves tend to fluctuate from year to year, even when teaching methods remain the same. However, one might expect correlation between exams scores and FCI scores to be more constant. As a result, it would be expected that the combination of FCI scores and exam scores should give a more accurate picture of the effects of the new methods than would exam scores by themselves.
A strong correlation (correlation coefficient of 0.6) was found between FCI Post-test scores and scores on the Final Exam in the course. This indicates that, while the material addressed on the exams may seem rather different, knowledge and understanding of one is in fact closely linked to knowledge and understanding of the other. In addition, it was found that the correlation between course exam scores and the FCI Pre-test decreased in Fall, 1998 relative to earlier years. Thus, the extent of pre-course knowledge of the subject has become less of a factor for success in the course.
Further, the correlation between exam scores and the FCI post-test increased. Together with the dramatic increase in the gain in FCI scores over the semester in Fall/1998 (relative to earlier years), this supports the idea that interactive engagement techniques lead to improved student performance on the Final Exam, as well as increased performance on the FCI Post-test.
Both the trial of new educational methods and the assessment will continue in the future. Attention to conceptual understanding will continue, but assessment will expand to include mathematical, analytical, and application skills as well. Together, these studies will provide a more complete picture of student learning in PHY211.