- 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

Toward equity through participation in Modeling Instruction in introductory university physics

Eric Brewe1,2,*, Vashti Sawtelle2, Laird H. Kramer2, George E. O’Brien1, Idaykis Rodriguez2, and Priscilla Pamelá2

  • 1Department of Teaching & Learning, Florida International University, Miami, Florida 33199, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, Florida International University, Miami, Florida 33199, USA

  • *eric.brewe@fiu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010106 – Published 20 May, 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.010106

Abstract

We report the results of a five year evaluation of the reform of introductory calculus-based physics by implementation of Modeling Instruction (MI) at Florida International University (FIU), a Hispanic-serving institution. MI is described in the context of FIU’s overall effort to enhance student participation in physics and science broadly. Our analysis of MI from a “participationist” perspective on learning identifies aspects of MI including conceptually based instruction, culturally sensitive instruction, and cooperative group learning, which are consistent with research on supporting equitable learning and participation by students historically under-represented in physics (i.e., Black, Hispanic, women). This study uses markers of conceptual understanding as measured by the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) and odds of success as measured by the ratio of students completing introductory physics and earning a passing grade (i.e., C− or better) by students historically under-represented in physics to reflect equity and participation in introductory physics. FCI pre and post scores for students in MI are compared with lecture-format taught students. Modeling Instruction students outperform students taught in lecture-format classes on post instruction FCI (61.9% vs 47.9%, p<0.001), where these benefits are seen across both ethnic and gender comparisons. In addition, we report that the odds of success in MI are 6.73 times greater than in lecture instruction. Both odds of success and FCI scores within Modeling Instruction are further disaggregated by ethnicity and by gender to address the question of equity within the treatment. The results of this disaggregation indicate that although ethnically under-represented students enter with lower overall conceptual understanding scores, the gap is not widened during introductory physics but instead is maintained, and the odds of success for under-represented students is not different from majority students. Women, similarly enter with scores indicating lower conceptual understanding, and over the course of MI this understanding gap increases, yet we do not find differences in the odds of success between men and women. Contrasting these results with the participationist view on learning indicates a movement toward greater equity in introductory physics but also indicates that the instructional environment can be improved.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (59)

  1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111–5, 111th Cong., 1st. session. (February 17, 2009).
  2. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics., Detailed Statistical Tables NSF 08–321, in Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966–2006. (Arlington, VA, 2008). Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08321/
  3. J. Gainen, Barriers to success in quantitative gatekeeper courses, N. Dir. Teach. Learn. 1995, 5.
  4. P. J. Mulvey and S. Nicholson, Enrollments and Degrees Report, 2006, R-151.43, (2008).
  5. B. Obama, “Remarks at National Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting” National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, (April 27, 2009).
  6. H. Mehan and L. Hubbard, “Tracking ‘untracking’: Evaluating the effectiveness of an educational innovation,” Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence Research Brief #3, (1999).
  7. M. M. Atwater, in Handbook of Research in Science Teaching and Learning, edited by D. L. Gabel (Macmillan, New York, NY, 1994), pp. 558–576.
  8. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  9. M. Lederman, Gender/InEquity in science education: A response, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 604 (2003).
  10. P. M. Sadler and R. H. Tai, Success in introductory college physics: The role of high school preparation, Sci. Educ. 85, 111 (2001).
  11. D. R. Baker, in International Handbook of Science Education, edited by K. G. Tobin and B. J. Fraser (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1998).
  12. H. C. Waxman, Y. N. Padron, and A. Garcia, in Narrowing the achievement gap: Strategies for educating Latino, Black, and Asian students, edited by S. J. Paik and H. J. Walberg (Springer, 2007).
  13. J. Handelsman, D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S. M. Tilghman, and W. B. Wood, Scientific teaching, Science 304, 521 (2004).
  14. R. H. Barba and K. E. Reynolds, in International Handbook of Science Education, edited by K. G. Tobin and B. J. Fraser (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1998).
  15. N. Finkelstein, Learning Physics in Context: A study of student learning about electricity and magnetism, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 1187 (2005).
  16. A. F. Cabrera, J. L. Crissman, E. M. Bernal, A. Nora, P. T. Terenzini, and E. T. Pascarella, Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students' development and diversity, J. Coll. Student Dev. 43, 20 (2002).
  17. M. B. Baxter Magolda, Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1992).
  18. M. F. Belenky, B. M. Clinchy, N. Goldberger, and J. M. Tarule, Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind (Basic Books, New York, 1986).
  19. M. A. Lundeberg and S. D. Moch, Influence of social interaction on cognition: Connected learning in science, J. Higher Educ. 66, 312 (1995).
  20. A. Martinez-Aleman, Understanding and investigating female friendship's educative value, J. Higher Educ. 68, 119 (1997).
  21. D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, and K. A. Smith, “Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity” (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4) Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. (1991).
  22. V. Tinto, Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence, J. Higher Educ. 68, 599 (1997).
  23. J. Kulik and C. L. Kulik, in “College teaching,” in Research on teaching: Concepts findings and implications, edited by P. Peterson and H. Walberg (McCutcheon, Berkeley, CA, 1979).
  24. S. J. Lynch, Equity and Science Education Reform (Earlbaum, New Jersey, 2000).
  25. O. Lee and A. Luykx, in Handbook of Research in Science Education, edited by S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2007), pp. 171–197.
  26. Z. Hazari, R. Tai, and P. Sadler, Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factor, Sci. Educ. 91, 847 (2007).
  27. G. J. Kelly, in Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2007), pp. 443–469.
  28. A. Sfard, On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educ. Res. 27, 4 (1998).
  29. A. Sfard, Moving between discourses: From learning-as-acquisition to learning-as-participation, in 2009 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by M. Sabella, C. Henderson, and C. Singh, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 1179 (AIP, New York, 2009), p. 55.
  30. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991).
  31. B. Rogoff, E. Matusov, and C. White, in “Models of Teaching and Learning: Participation in a Community of Learners,” in The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching, and Schooling, edited by D. R. Olson and N. Torrance (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, MA, 1996), pp. 388–414.
  32. E. Wenger, Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1998).
  33. A. Sfard, When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint, J. Learn. Sci. 16, 565 (2007).
  34. D. Hestenes and J. Jackson, ASU Modeling Workshop Project Report Reference, 2000.
  35. D. Hestenes, Toward a modeling theory of instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55, 440 (1987).
  36. E. Brewe, Modeling theory applied: Modeling instruction in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1155 (2008).
  37. D. M. Desbien, Ph.D. Unpublished Dissertation, Arizona State University, 2002.
  38. Hispanic Outlook Magazine, May 5, 2009.
  39. FIU Office of Planning and Institutional Effectiveness, Florida International University institutional research Factbook, 2008.
  40. M. Lorenzo, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006).
  41. 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).
  42. D. Sawada, M. D. Piburn, E. Judson, J. Turley et al., Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol, Sch. Sci. Math. 102, 245 (2002).
  43. L. Kost, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010101 (2009).
  44. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (Erlbaum, New York, 1988).
  45. E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. O’Brien, Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with CLASS, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 013102 (2009).
  46. R. Gutierrez, A “gap gazing” fetish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on the achievement gap, J. Res. Math. Educ. 39, 357 (2008).
  47. A. J. Rodriguez, From gap gazing to promising: Moving toward equity in urban education reform, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38, 1115 (2001).
  48. J. S. Eccles, Gender-roles and Women’s achievement, Educ. Res. 15, 15 (1986).
  49. A. Kelly, Issues of equity in physics access and enrollment in New York City public high schools (A), J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 2986 (2007).
  50. A. Kelly and K. Sheppard, Secondary school physics availability in an urban setting: Issues related to academic achievement and course offerings, Am. J. Phys. 77, 902 (2009).
  51. L. McCullough, Gender, context, and physics assessment, J. Int. Women’s Stud. 5, 20 (2004).
  52. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychol. Rev. 84, 191 (1977).
  53. N. E. Betz and G. Hackett, The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men, J. Couns. Psychol. 28, 399 (1981).
  54. N. E. Betz and K. K. Voyten, Efficacy and outcome expectations influence career exploration and decidedness, Career Dev. Q. 46, 179 (1997).
  55. R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and K. C. Larkin, Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic performance and perceived career options, J. Couns. Psychol. 33, 265 (1986).
  56. R. W. Lent, Comparison of three theoretically derived variables in predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy, interest congruence, and consequence thinking, J. Couns. Psychol. 34, 293 (1987).
  57. G. Hackett and R. W. Lent, in Handbook of Counseling Psychology, 3rd ed., edited by S. D. Brown and R. W. Lent (Wiley, New York, NY, 1992), pp. 419–452.
  58. R. T. Lapan, P. Shaughnessy, and K. Boggs, Efficacy expectations and vocational interests as mediators between sex and choice of math/science college majors: A longitudinal study, J. Vocat Behav. 49, 277 (1996).
  59. H. Fencl and K. Scheel, Engaging students: An examination of the effects of teaching strategies on self-efficacy and course climate in a nonmajors physics course, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 35, 20 (2005).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010106– Published 20 May, 2010
  • Received 9 October 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