WONDER QUESTIONS: ENGAGING, MOTIVATING AND ILLUMINATING STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

“Write a Wonder Question for this topic. (A Wonder Question is anything you wonder about after having done the pre-work. It should be related to the lecture topic but does not have to be directly covered by it.)” I have taught introductory physics courses using a Flipped Classroom design since 2012, and this question is always the last question on the pre-lecture quiz my students have to complete before each lectureand it is by far the highest return-on-investment pedagogical tool I use. Wonder Questions are valuable in three ways: they force students to connect the new material with previous knowledge; they give me an insight into what students are interested in learning so I can make my lectures more motivating; and they offer me an opportunity to reorganize the course material I choose to present in class in order to answer student Wonder Questions. In this talk, I will explain how I integrate Wonder Questions in my courses, give several examples of Wonder Questions, and show how I use them to presentand have students work withcourse material in a new light during class

Multi-, Cross-, Inter-, Transdisciplinarity – Fact or Fiction? Does Archaeology Need a Hand Blender?

The concepts multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity (crossdisciplinarity), and transdisciplinarity are defined, and examples are given. Whether interdisciplinarity is a novel development, a “new buzzword”, or a “new status quo” is discussed. The examples contrast ideals versus realities, and also show what obstacles interdisciplinary research may meet, particularly regarding publication. Interdisciplinarity is described as a continuum with minimum and maximum ends. Examples of archaeological research, from both ends of this continuum, are offered. It is claimed that, in other sciences (specifically, medicine and psychology), “interdisciplinarity” is neither a buzzword nor a new concept and research strategy. It is, rather, “business as usual”, and “status quo”, and actually, is the case also in much archaeological research. The backdrop for the conflicts regarding interdisciplinary research is described as deriving from conflicts within philosophy of science. Yet, new positive and promising theoretical developments exist, along with new corresponding methodological developments. The conclusion is that various fields, theoretical positions, and methodologies need not compete, but may complement each other in problem-focused research.publishedVersio

Teaching physics novices at university: A case for stronger scaffolding

In 2006 a new type of tutorial, called Map Meeting, was successfully trialled with novice first year physics students at the University of Sydney, Australia. Subsequently, in first semester 2007 a large-scale experiment was carried out with 262 students who were allocated either to the strongly scaffolding Map Meetings or to the less scaffolding Workshop Tutorials, which have been run at the University of Sydney since 1995. In this paper we describe what makes Map Meetings more scaffolding than Workshop Tutorials—where the level of scaffolding represents the main difference between the two tutorial types. Using a mixed methods approach to triangulate results, we compare the success of the two with respect to both student tutorial preference and examination performance. In summary, Map Meetings had a higher retention rate and received more positive feedback from students—students liked the strongly scaffolding environment and felt that it better helped them understand physics. A comparison of final examination performances of students who had attended at least 10 out of 12 tutorials revealed that only 11% of Map Meeting students received less than 30 out of 90 marks compared to 21% of Workshop Tutorial students, whereas there were no differences amongst high-achieving students. Map Meetings was therefore particularly successful in helping low-achieving novices learn physics

Question-Solution-Reflection: A framework for encouraging reflection through linear multimedia

It is agreed upon in the literature that reflection is a vital part of learning, yet it is seldom explicitly studied in physics education research (PER) (Boyd & Fales, 1983). Relatedly, while the study of effective multimedia learning is an active area of research within PER, there is a lack of research on promoting reflective thinking using multimedia treatments (Moreno & Mayer, 2005). In this presentation I will summarise three studies which make up my thesis on reflective thinking and linear physics multimedia. These studies were conducted in 2017, 2018 and 2019, with over 3000 respondents. The first of these studies was conducted with members of the “general public” in the online, social-media education context. The second and the third study were conducted with first year students at The University of Sydney. The three multimedia treatments mirrored the phases of reflection as outlined by Dewey (1933) and Rogers (2002): A perplexing experience A spontaneous interpretation of that experience The articulation of the problem or question that arises out of the experience The generation of possible explanations The explanations need to be examined and tested In the first video, an experience was shown, time was given for the students to interpret that experience. Then a question was asked. The students wrote down their answers to the question, reported their confidence on a Likert-like scale. Students then watched the second video, which contained the solutions. Then they were prompted to write down if they changed their answers, and the reasons for doing or not doing so. The data were analysed with a mixed-methods approach. The qualitative data were inductively coded, and student responses were placed in these codes. The students’ reflection matched closely with the ideas of Jack Mezirow (1998), ranging from deep inner reflection on the student’s thoughts, ideas, and assumptions, to more surface reflections on the external information presented. The data from the three studies suggest that this framework, which we dubbed the “questions-solution-reflection” framework, is an effective way of promoting reflective thinking in students via linear multimedia. REFERENCES Boyd, E. M., & Fales, A. W. (1983). Reflective learning: Key to learning from experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23(2), 99-117. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Courier Corporation. Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 185-198. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866

LEARNING FROM THE PANDEMIC: APPROVALS AND PROTOCOLS FOR RESEARCH OUTPUT

The current crisis offers a unique opportunity to look at the effects of changes to physics teaching and the physics student experience with the sudden move to online teaching. In this workshop, we will cover tips on getting ethics approval to conduct education experiments and gather data in courses, suitable tools to measure physics student engagement and outcomes, and how to ensure your data collection and analysis are valid (e.g., sample sizes). This will be followed by discussion about what data people are, or plan on, collecting and how to best utilise this going forwards. The Australian Institute of Physics (AIP) Physics Education Group (PEG) meeting will follow this, including the election of a new executive team

Research-based Instructional Strategies in second-year Physics: A case study

Research-Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS) have proven advantageous in improving students’ learning in physics (Hake, 1998) and in STEM more generally (Freeman et al., 2014) in higher education, with most work having focused on the first-year university level. Despite the advantages of RBIS over traditional teaching methods, the uptake in higher education has been slow (Henderson et al., 2012). Factors found to impact the uptake of RBIS include time (Dancy & Henderson, 2010) and faculty workload and incentives (Walczyk et al., 2007). Therefore, further study is called for to figure out how these factors interact with educational culture and structure affecting the effort to increase the uptake of RBIS in higher-year physics courses. CONTEXT AND AIMS In 2021, RBIS was implemented in half of the second-year Quantum Physics course at University of New South Wales (UNSW), while the other half retained the use of traditional teaching methods. This occurred due to a co-teaching format used in higher-year physics courses where each lecturer independently chooses their preferred teaching method. Several extensive changes since 2019 impacted lecturers’ decisions on course design and teaching methods: a shift from semesters to terms (UNSW 3+), online emergency mode during COVID-19, and hybrid mode in returning to normalcy. I will present a case study on how different factors such as external events, time, workload, and incentives, along with a unique education system, affect the choice and employment of RBIS and the perception of both lecturers and students in the Quantum Physics course. The study explores (i) how and why the course structure changed in the period 2019–2023, with particular emphasis on the shift to using RBIS, (ii) how students perceive the teaching methods used in the course, and (iii) how lecturers navigate their workload, time and incentives to teaching the course and what impact this has on the sustainability of using RBIS. METHODS & RESULTS Data were collected through the Quantum Physics course evaluation surveys from 2019–2023, a questionnaire exploring students’ perception of teaching methods employed in the Quantum Physics course in 2023, and interviews with course lecturers in 2023. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the qualitative and quantitative data respectively. Preliminary results reveal that several RBIS were incorporated by the lecturers, including flipped classrooms, Just-In-Time Teaching, and peer discussion. Student perception scores of the course structure from the course evaluation surveys show a steady increase each year from 4.4 in 2019 to 4.9 in 2023. Lecturers discussed a variety of benefits and challenges of using RBIS, which implicated a range of other factors such as established working patterns and available support. RBIS exhibited a promising quality improvement of instruction in higher-year courses but is unlikely to be sustained unless the complex nature of higher education is taken into consideration. REFERENCES Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses*. Physics Education Research, 74, 64–74. Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 8(2). Walczyk, J. J., Ramsey, L. L., & Zha, P. (2007). Obstacles to instructional innovation according to college science and mathematics faculty. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 85–106

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE "QUESTION-SOLUTION-REFLECTION" FRAMEWORK

It is agreed upon in the literature that reflection is a vital part of learning, yet it is seldom focused on in the physics education context. This presentation will summarise three studies into reflective thinking in the physics education multimedia context, and the development of the “question-solution-reflection” framework. According to Dewey (1933) and Rogers (2002), reflection can be thought of containing phases - • An experience, and the spontaneous interpretation of that experience • The articulation of the problem or question that arises out of the experience • The generation of possible explanations for the question • The explanations need to be examined and tested The videos used, and developed for the present studies, followed these phases. In the first video, an experience was shown, and a question was asked. The students wrote down their answers to the question, and then watched the second video, which contained the solutions. The students were prompted to write down if they changed their answers, and the reasons for doing or not doing so. Over 3000 responses to this format have been received as part of the three studies, and we argue that the results show that this framework is effective at promoting reflective thinking. REFERENCES Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Courier Corporation. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866

Development of a Physics Goal Orientation Survey

A key question in learning and teaching is: What motivates students to learn? In the second half of the 20th century achievement goal theory emerged as a key feature of the motivation literature. This theory focuses on what motivates students toward actions that will result in learning; students have particular goals and beliefs that orient them to select particular strategies and ways of learning and planning their success. Although motivation and goal orientations influence student learning outcomes, there appear to be no studies on goal orientations in university physics. This study focused on developing a goal orientation survey specific to university physics studies. A pilot study was undertaken in 2006 (Lindstrøm & Sharma, 2008). This paper describes the continuation and conclusion of the study in 2007 and 2008 spanning five administrations, each with sample sizes between 162 and 360 students

Self-Efficacy of First Year University Physics Students: Do Gender and Prior Formal Instruction in Physics Matter?

Self-efficacy represents a person’s belief that he or she can perform a particular task. It has been found to correlate with academic achievement and people’s choice of subjects and career. While relatively widely studied, self-efficacy has not received much attention in tertiary physics. Therefore, we adapted and validated a short Physics Self-Efficacy Questionnaire before administering it four times in one year to the first-year physics cohort at *Institution* (N between 122 and 281). Investigating whether gender and prior formal physics instruction mattered to students’ physics self-efficacy, we found that both showed a significant effect. Females consistently reported lower self-efficacy than males, and males with no prior formal physics instruction showed the highest self-efficacy of any subgroup, suggesting a ‘male overconfidence syndrome’. Investigating correlations between students’ physics self-efficacy and end-of-semester physics examination scores, these only seemed to develop after a relatively long time of physics study (of the order of a year or more); females developed such a correlation faster than males. Our findings conclude that gender and prior formal instruction in physics do matter when studying physics self-efficacy, which may have important consequences both for the study of self-efficacy itself, and for the way tertiary physics is taught

BACK TO BASICS: PROBING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF ASTRONOMICAL ANATOMY

There is an enduring problem in astronomy education of students knowing far less than lecturers expect about the nature of astronomical objects. In previous work of ours, using the Introductory Astronomy Questionnaire (IAQ), we have looked at students’ knowledge of relative scale of astronomical objects—essentially what is bigger or further away than something else. We have previously identified, for example, that among 922 Norwegian middle school students, 41% believed planets were bigger than stars, and for 211 undergraduate students at the University of New Mexico, 29% of students had the same misconception before commencing an introductory astronomy course. To explore the origins of these misconceptions, we also asked students at the University of New Mexico to provide basic definitions of a planet, star, galaxy, universe and solar system. Responses were coded for categories informed by object definitions as used by astrophysicists, such as knowing that planets orbit stars. In this presentation, I will discuss our coding, analysis and results. For example, only 30% of students identified that planets orbit a star in their definition of planets before taking the course. This research has elucidated that basic knowledge of astronomical anatomy cannot be assumed of students entering the tertiary education sector