- 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 3.0 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

Do they see it coming? Using expectancy violation to gauge the success of pedagogical reforms

Jon D. H. Gaffney1, Amy L. Housley Gaffney2, and Robert J. Beichner1

  • 1Department of Physics, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8202, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA
  • 2Department of Communication, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8104, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010102 – Published 5 February, 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.010102

Abstract

We present a measure, which we have named the Pedagogical Expectancy Violation Assessment (PEVA), for instructors to gauge one aspect of the success of their implementation of pedagogical reform by assessing the expectations and experiences of the students in the classroom. We implemented the PEVA in four physics classes at three institutions that used the Student Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) pedagogy in order to gain an understanding of students’ initial expectations, how those expectations are shifted during early classes, and what students report experiencing at the end of the semester. The results indicate appropriate shifts in student expectations during orientation, but some gaps between student expectations and experiences persisted. Students rated the communication aspects of SCALE-UP as desirable and indicated an overall positive affect toward the pedagogy, indicating that violations of their initial expectations were largely positive. By studying the patterns of the shifts in students’ expectations and gaps between those expectations and their experiences, we gain insight for improving both the orientation of the students and the implementation of the course.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (37)

  1. J. D. H. Gaffney, E. Richards, M. B. Kustusch, L. Ding, and R. J. Beichner, Scaling up education reform, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 37, 48 (2008).
  2. R. J. Beichner, J. M. Saul, D. S. Abbott, J. J. Morse, D. L. Deardorff, R. J. Allain, S. W. Bonham, M. H. Dancy, and J. S. Risley, The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project, in Research-based reform of university physics (2007), Vol. 1, WWW Document, (http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4517&DocID=183)
  3. J. K. Burgoon, A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test, Human Communication Research 4, 129 (1978).
  4. J. K. Burgoon, in Intercultural Communication Theory, edited by R. L. Wiseman (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995), pp. 194–214.
  5. 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).
  6. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys.you. 60, 627 (1992).
  7. A. Van Heuvelen, Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research based instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 59, 898 (1991).
  8. C. Henderson, A. Beach, N. Finkelstein, and R. S. Larson, Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM: Initial results from an interdisciplinary literature review, PER Conference (unpublished), http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=8094&DocID=727
  9. J. M. Saul, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1998.
  10. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66, 212 (1998).
  11. I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Interpreting VASS dimensions and profiles for physics students, Sci. Educ. 7, 553 (1998).
  12. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010101 (2006).
  13. See, for example, D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. Scherr, and E. Redish, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2005), pp. 89–120.
  14. J. K. Burgoon and J. L. Hale, Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors, Commun. Monogr. 55, 58 (1988).
  15. A. B. Frymier and B. Weser, The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behavior, Communication Education 50, 314 (2001).
  16. e.g., J. B. Dusek, Teacher Expectancies (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1985).
  17. Seiffert & Wheeless, 1990 as reported in C. D. Koermer & J. L. Petelle, Expectancy violation and student rating of instruction, Commun. Q. 39, 331 (1991).
  18. M. B. McPherson, P. Kearney, and T. Plax, The dark side of instruction: Teacher anger as classroom norm violations, J. Appl. Commun. Res. 31, 76 (2003).
  19. C. Deboer, Predicting continued participation in college chemistry for men and women, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 24, 527 (1987).
  20. C. D. Koermer and W. J. Seiler, The Relationship between Student Communication Expectations and Evaluations of Teacher Performance, Eastern Communication Association Conference (unpublished).
  21. R. J. Gigliotti, Are they getting what they expect? Teaching Sociology 15, 365 (1987).
  22. M. L. Houser, We don’t need the same things! Recognizing differential expectations of instructor communication behavior for nontraditional and traditional students, J. of Continuing Higher Education 52, 11 (2004).
  23. M. L. Houser, Are we violating their expectations? Instructor communication expectations of traditional and nontraditional students, Commun. Q. 53, 213 (2005).
  24. A. L. Housley Gaffney, A Qualitative Investigation of Communication Purposes in the SCALE-UP Classroom, Southern States Communication Association Conference (unpublished).
  25. A. Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited (Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco, 1993).
  26. J. D. H. Gaffney, A. L. Housley Gaffney, and R. J. Beichner, Do They See It Coming? Expectancy Violations in Reformed Classrooms, American Association of Physics Teacher Conference (unpublished).
  27. More information about SCALE-UP is located on the World Wide Web at http://scaleup.ncsu.edu
  28. D. P. Maloney and M. F. Masters, Learning the game of formulating and testing hypotheses and theories, Phys. Teach.48, 22 (2010).
  29. T. P. Mottet, J. Parker-Raley, S. A. Beebe, and C. Cunningham, Instructors who resist “college lite:” The neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on students’ course-workload violations and perceptions of instructor credibility and affective learning, Commun. Educ. 56, 145 (2007).
  30. L. J. Cronbach, Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika 16, 297 (1951).
  31. R. W. Chabay and B. A. Sherwood, Matter & Interactions, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, 2007).
  32. K. Cummings, P. W. Laws, E. F. Redish, and P. J. Cooney, Understanding Physics, 1st ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, 2004).
  33. M. Hollander and D. A. Wolfe, Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 2nd ed. (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1999).
  34. R. Perry, P. Abrami, L. Leventhal, and J. Check, Instructor reputation: An expectancy relationship involving student ratings and achievement, J. Educ. Psychol. 71, 776 (1979).
  35. M. B. McPherson and Y. Liang, Students’ reactions to teachers’ management of compulsive communicators, Commun. Educ. 56, 18 (2007).
  36. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  37. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Biechner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010102– Published 5 February, 2010
  • Received 9 July 2009
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation