- 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

Physics instructors’ knowledge and use of active learning has increased over the last decade but most still lecture too much

Melissa Dancy

Charles Henderson

Naneh Apkarian

Estrella Johnson

Marilyne Stains

Jeffrey R. Raker

Alexandra Lau

  • The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008, USA

  • Dept. of Physics and Mallinson Institute for Science Ed., Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008, USA

  • School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85004, USA

  • Department of Mathematics, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Virginia 25061, USA

  • Department of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, USA

  • Department of Chemistry, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, USA

  • American Physical Society, College Park, Maryland 20740, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010119 – Published 2 April, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010119

Abstract

A survey of 722 physics faculty conducted in 2008 found that many physics instructors had knowledge of research-based instructional strategies (RBISs), were interested in using more, but often discontinued use after trying. Considerable effort has been made during the decade following 2008 to develop and disseminate RBISs in physics as well as change the culture within the physics community to value RBIS use and other forms of student-centered instruction. This paper uses data from a 2019 survey of 1176 physics instructors to understand the current state of RBIS use in college-level introductory physics, thus allowing us to better understand some of the impacts of these efforts on physics instruction. Results show that self-reported knowledge and use of RBISs has increased considerably and discontinuation is now relatively low. However, although the percentage of time lecturing is less than 10 years ago, many instructors still engage in substantial lecturing (i.e., more than one-third of class time). Relatedly, we find that the majority of RBIS use centers on pedagogies designed to supplement a primarily lecture-based classroom rather than pedagogies designed to support a primarily active learning classroom. This suggests that the physics education research community and beyond has done well promoting knowledge about RBISs and inspiring instructors to try RBISs in their courses. But, there is still room to improve. Based on available evidence about effective instructional practices, we recommend that change agents focus on supporting instructors to increase the percent of class time in active learning and to implement higher impact strategies.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (41)

  1. C. Henderson and M. Dancy, The impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020107 (2009).
  2. M. Dancy and C. Henderson, Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1056 (2010).
  3. C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, The use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 (2012).
  4. K. Foote, Research-based reform efforts in physics and astronomy: A critical analysis, in Levers for Change: An Assessment of Progress on Changing STEM Instruction, edited by S. L. Laursen (American Association of the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, 2019), pp. 123–149. Available at https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/levers-for-change-WEB100_2019.pdf.
  5. https://www.physport.org/FTI/.
  6. S. V. Chasteen and R. Chattergoon, Insights from the Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop: How do new physics faculty teach?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020164 (2020).
  7. M. Dancy, A. C. Lau, A. Rundquist, and C. Henderson, Faculty online learning communities: A model for sustained teaching transformation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020147 (2019).
  8. A. Lau, M. Dancy, J. Corbo, C. Henderson, and A. Rundquist, An analysis of community formation in faculty online learning communities, presented at PER Conf. 2017, Cincinnati, OH, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.053; M. Dancy, A. Lau, J. Corbo, C. Henderson, and A. Rundquist, Participants’ perceptions of the faculty online learning community (FOLC) experience, presented at PER Conf. 2017, Cincinnati, OH, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.020.
  9. J. C. Corbo, A. Rundquist, C. Henderson, and M. H. Dancy, Using asynchronous communication to support virtual faculty learning communities, presented at PER Conf. 2016, Sacramento, CA, 10.1119/perc.2016.pr.016.
  10. A. Rundquist, J. Corbo, S. Martinuk, S. Chasteen, C. Henderson, and M. Dancy, Faculty online learning communities to support physics teaching, presented at PER Conf. 2015, College Park, MD, 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.065.
  11. E. Price, A. C. Lau, F. Goldberg, C. Turpen, P. S. Smith, M. Dancy, and S. Robinson, Analyzing a faculty online learning community as a mechanism for supporting faculty implementation of a guided-inquiry curriculum, Int. J. STEM Educ. 8, 1 (2021).
  12. A. Corrales, F. Goldberg, E. Price, and C. Turpen, Faculty persistence with research-based instructional strategies: A case study of participation in a faculty online learning community, Int. J. STEM Educ. 7, 1 (2020).
  13. M. Dancy, A. C. Lau, A. Rundquist, and C. Henderson, Faculty online learning communities: A model for sustained teaching transformation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020147 (2019).
  14. C. Wieman, L. Deslauriers, and B. Gilley, Use of research-based instructional strategies: How to avoid faculty quitting, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 023102 (2013).
  15. C. Wieman, K. Perkins, and S. Gilbert, Transforming science education at large research Universities: A case study in progress, Change 42, 6 (2010).
  16. A. F. Greenhoot, C. Aslan, S. V. Chasteen, W. Code, and S. B. Sherman, Variations on embedded expert models: Implementing change initiatives that support departments from within, in Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education, edited by K. White et al. (2020), http://openbooks.library.umass.edu/ascnti2020/.
  17. S. V. Chasteen, C. E. Wieman, K. K. Perkins, and W. Code, The science education initiative: An experiment in scaling up educational improvements in a research university, in Transforming Institutions (Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN, 2015).
  18. S. V. Chasteen and W. J. Code, The Science Education Initiative Handbook (Cent. STEM Learn. Fac. Contrib., 2018).
  19. S. Laursen, T. Andrews, M. Stains, C. J. Finelli, M. Borrego, D. McConnell, and K. Foote, Levers for Change: An Assessment of Progress on Changing STEM Instruction, edited by D. Smith (AAAS, Washington, DC, 2019), https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/levers-for-change-WEB100_2019.pdf.
  20. Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education, edited by K. White, A. Beach, N. Finkelstein, C. Henderson, S. Simkins, L. Slakey, M. Stains, G. Weaver, and L. Whitehead (Pressbooks, 2020), http://openbooks.library.umass.edu/ascnti2020/.
  21. A Guide to Effective Practices for Physics Programs (EP3), edited by S. McKagan, D. A. Craig, M. Jackson, and T. Hodapp, Version 1 (American Physical Society, College Park, MD, 2021).
  22. E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. (Free Press, New York, 1995).
  23. N. Apkarian, C. Henderson, M. Stains, J. Raker, E. Johnson, and M. Dancy, What really impacts the use of active learning in undergraduate STEM education? Results from a national survey of chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors, PLoS One 16, e0247544 (2021).
  24. B. J. Yik, J. R. Raker, N. Apkarian, M. Stains, C. Henderson, M. H. Dancy, and E. Johnson, Evaluating the impact of malleable factors on percent time lecturing in gateway chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses, Int J. STEM Educ. 9, 1 (2022).
  25. 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, e1600193 (2017).
  26. E. J. Theobald et al., Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 6476 (2020).
  27. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  28. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  29. C. Hoellwarth. M. Moelter, and R. Knight, A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms, Am. J. Phys. 73, 459 (2005).
  30. J. Von Korff, B. Archibeque, K. A. Gomez, T. Heckendorf, S. B. McKagan, E. C. Sayre, E. W. Schenk, C. Shepherd, and L. Sorell, Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study, Am. J. Phys. 84, 969 (2016).
  31. L. E. Keiner and T. E. Burns, Interactive engagement: How much is enough?, Phys. Teach. 48, 108 (2010).
  32. E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite (Wiley, New York, 2004).
  33. M. Rogers, L. D. Keller, A. Crouse, and M. F. Price, Implementing comprehensive reform of introductory physics at a primarily undergraduate institution: A longitudinal case study, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 44, 82 (2015), http://www.jstor.org/stable/43631943.
  34. R. E. Landrum, K. Viskupic, S. E. Shadle, and D. Bullock, Assessing the STEM landscape: The current instructional climate survey and the evidence-based instructional practices adoption scale, Int J. STEM Educ. 4, 1 (2017).
  35. D. Ebert-May, T. L. Derting, J. Hodder, J. L. Momsen, T. M. Long, and S. E. Jardeleza, What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs, BioScience 61, 550 (2011).
  36. M. Dancy, C. Henderson, and C. Turpen, How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010110 (2016).
  37. M. Vishnubhotla, A. Chowdhury, N. Apkarian, E. Johnson, M. Dancy, C. Henderson, A. C. Lau, J. R. Raker, and M. Stains, “I use IBL in this course” may say more about an instructor’s beliefs than about their teaching, Int J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 1 (2022).
  38. M. K. Smith, E. L. Vinson, J. A. Smith, J. D. Lewin, and M. R. Stetzer, A campus-wide study of STEM courses: New perspectives on teaching practices and perceptions, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 624 (2014).
  39. L. E. Strubbe, A. M. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Beyond teaching methods: Highlighting physics faculty’s strengths and agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020105 (2020).
  40. T. C. Andrews and P. P. Lemons, It’s personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 14, 1 (2015).
  41. K. Cummings, A developmental history of physics education research, in Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research (2011). Available at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Cummings_October_Paper.Pdf.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010119– Published 2 April, 2024
  • Received 23 November 2022
  • Accepted 5 January 2024
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