- 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

Education majors’ expectations and reported experiences with inquiry-based physics: Implications for student affect

Jon D. H. Gaffney*

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, Eastern Kentucky University, 521 Lancaster Avenue, Richmond, Kentucky 40475, USA

  • *jon.gaffney@eku.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010112 – Published 5 April, 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010112

Abstract

To address a perennial need to provide K-8 teachers with a solid foundation in science, there are many physics content courses throughout the United States. One such course is Physics and Astronomy for Teachers (PAT), which relies heavily on active-learning strategies. Although PAT is successful in teaching physics content, students sometimes report dissatisfaction with the course. Such instances of poor affect are worrisome because they may influence how teachers present science in their own classrooms. Therefore, this study investigates students’ affect in terms of their pedagogical expectations and potential personal learning outcomes with respect to PAT. Two sections of PAT, each containing approximately 40 students, were observed. Students in those sections were surveyed, and a sample were interviewed (N=10). An analysis of the data in terms of an expectancy violation framework shows that while students’ expectations regarding the hands-on and interactive components of PAT were met, they received substantially fewer lectures, class discussions, and opportunities to make class presentations than they had expected, even after they had been presented with the course syllabus and informed about the specific nature of the course. Additionally, students expected PAT to be more directly linked with their future teaching careers and therefore expected more opportunities to practice teaching science than they reported receiving. This investigation serves as a case study to provide insight into why students are sometimes frustrated and confused when first encountering active-learning classes, and it implies that instructors should be cognizant of those feelings and devote resources toward explicit orientation that emphasizes the purpose of the course and reasons behind their pedagogical choices.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (42)

  1. National Research Council, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007).
  2. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996).
  3. For example, see Kentucky Senate Bill 1, http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/09RS/SB1.htm.
  4. Council on Postsecondary Education STEM Task Force, Kentucky’s STEM Imperative: Competing in the Global Economy, 2007.
  5. National Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics, National Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics: Report Synopsis, 2010.
  6. National Research Council, How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2005).
  7. When released, the standards will be available at http://www.nextgenscience.org.
  8. Lillian C McDermott, Physics by Inquiry (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1996).
  9. Fred Goldberg, Steve Robinson, and Valerie Otero, Physics and Everyday Thinking (It’s About Time, Armonk, NY, 2008).
  10. Priscilla W. Laws, Calculus-based physics without lectures, Phys. Today 44, No. 12, 24 (1991).
  11. Information about the Appalachian Math and Science Partnership can be found at http://appalachian.mspnet.org/.
  12. Kathy Cabe Trundle, Ronald K. Atwood, and John E. Christopher, A longitudinal study of conceptual change: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 303 (2007).
  13. Ronald K. Atwood, John E. Christopher, and Rebecca McNall, Elementary teachers’ understanding of standards-based light concepts before and after instruction, in Proceedings of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX, 2005 [http://appalachian.mspnet.org/index.cfm/14108].
  14. Charles Henderson, Melissa Dancy, and Magdalena Niewiadomska-Bugaj, 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).
  15. J. W. Belcher, Improving student understanding with TEAL, MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XVI, No. 2 (2003) [http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/fnlEditedLinks.pdf].
  16. R. J. Beichner et al., The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project, in Research-based Reform of University Physics, Reviews in PER Vol. 1, edited by E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007).
  17. David Hammer, Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics, Cognit. Instr. 12, 151 (1994).
  18. A. Elby, Another reason that physics students learn by rote, Am. J. Phys. 67, S52 (1999).
  19. E. F. Redish and D. Hammer, Reinventing college physics for biologists: Explicating an epistemological curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 77, 629 (2009).
  20. Edward F. Redish, Jeffery M. Saul, and Richard N. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66, 212 (1998).
  21. A. Elby, J. Fredriksen, C. Schwartz, and B. White, Epistemological beliefs assessment for physical science [http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/EBAPS/home.htm]
  22. 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).
  23. K. Otero and K. E. Gray, Attitudinal gains across multiple universities using the Physics and Everyday Thinking curriculum, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020104 (2008).
  24. 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).
  25. Beth A. Lindsey, Leonardo Hsu, Homeyra Sadaghiani, Jack W. Taylor, and Karen Cummings, Positive attitudinal shifts with the Physics by Inquiry curriculum across multiple implementations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010102 (2012).
  26. N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
  27. J. K. Burgoon, A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test, Hum. Commun. Res. 4, 129 (1978).
  28. J. K. Burgoon, Intercultural Communication Theory (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995), pp. 194–214.
  29. J. K. Burgoon and J. L. Hale, Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors, Commun. Monogr. 55, 58 (1988).
  30. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2005), pp. 89–120.
  31. A. B. Frymier and B. Weser, The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behavior, Commun. Educ. 50, 314 (2001).
  32. J. B. Dusek, Teacher Expectancies (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1985).
  33. 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).
  34. R. L. Oliver, A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions, J. Market. Res. 17, 460 (1980).
  35. M. J. Bitner and A. R. Hubbert, Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994), pp. 72–94.
  36. Sara L. Appleton-Knapp and Kathleen A. Krentler, Measuring student expectations and their effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations, J. Market. Educ. 28, 254 (2006).
  37. J. Charlene Davis and Scott T. Swanson, Navigating satisfactory and dissatisfactory classroom incidents, J. Educ. Bus. 76, 245 (2001).
  38. Jon D. H. Gaffney, Amy L. Housley Gaffney, and Robert J. Beichner, Do they see it coming? Using expectancy violation to gauge the success of pedagogical reforms, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010102 (2010).
  39. Joseph P. Straley, University of Kentucky: Online Physics for Teachers, 2004, http://www.pa.uky.edu/sciworks/intro.htm.
  40. In the fall of 2010, all lead and assistant instructors of PAT were male.
  41. M. Hollander and D. A. Wolfe, Nonparametric Statistical Methods (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1999), 2nd ed.
  42. J. Romano, J. D. Kromrey, J. Coraggio, and J. Skowronek, Appropriate statistics for ordinal level data: Should we really be using t-test and Cohen’s d for evaluating group differences on the NSSE and other surveys?, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Florida Association of Institutional Research, Cocoa Beach, FL, 2006, http://www.florida-air.org/romano06.pdf.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010112– Published 5 April, 2013
  • Received 20 September 2012
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.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation