Research-based assessment affordances and constraints: Perceptions of physics faculty

To help faculty use research-based materials in a more significant way, we learn about their perceived needs and desires and use this information to suggest ways for the Physics Education Research community to address these needs. When research-based resources are well aligned with the perceived needs of faculty, faculty members will more readily take them up. We used phenomenographic interviews of ordinary physics faculty and department chairs to identify four families of issues that faculty have around research-based assessments (RBA). First, many faculty are interested in using RBAs but have practical needs around how to do so: how to find them, which ones there are, and how to administer them. They want help addressing these needs. Second, at the same time, many faculty think that RBAs are limited and don't measure many of the things they care about, or aren't applicable in their classes. They want assessments to measure skills, perceptions, and specific concepts. Third, many faculty want to turn to communities of other faculty and experts to help them interpret their assessment results and suggest other ways to do assessment. They want to norm their assessment results by comparing to others and interacting with faculty from other schools to learn about how they do assessment. Fourth, many faculty consider their courses in the broader contexts of accountability and their departments. They want help with assessment in these broader contexts. We also discuss how faculty members role in their department and type of institution influence their perceived wants and needs around assessment.Comment: submitted to Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Researc

Transitions in students’ epistemic framing along two axes

We use epistemological framing to interpret participants’ behavior during group problem-solving sessions in an intermediate mechanics course. We are interested in how students frame discussion and in how the groups shift discussion framings. Our analysis includes two framing axes, expansive vs narrow and serious vs silly, which together incorporate and extend prior work on how students frame discussions in physics education research. We present markers for where discussion falls on these axes. We support our conclusions with both microanalytic excerpts of discussion and overall analysis of 75 hours of video-based data. We find that the group spends most of its time in more serious framings, and slightly more than half of its time in more narrow ones. The teaching assistant is the participant who initiates the largest number of frame shifts, and her shifts include bids to all quadrants in the expansive or narrow and serious or silly plane