Eric Brewe

Various active learning methods have been developed for introductory physics, and these methods are increasingly being adopted by instructors. However, instructors often do not implement these methods exactly as was originally intended by the developers, as they may face issues related to funding and institutional support for active learning and/or have different instructional contexts (e.g., student populations) and environments (e.g., physical classroom layouts) than the developers. Existing research does not sufficiently capture the range of variation in instructor implementation of established active learning methods, especially in comparison to high-fidelity implementations. In this study, we first identify the critical components (i.e., components without which the active learning method cannot be said to have been implemented) of three named active learning methods: SCALE-UP, ISLE, and Tutorials. We then evaluate the fidelity with which 18 different introductory physics instructors implement these methods by analyzing classroom observations and comparing the extent to which these broader implementations use each critical component in their classroom to high-fidelity implementations. We find across all three active learning methods that broader implementations spend similar amounts of class time on the critical components as high-fidelity implementations. At the same time, we observe substantial variation in the specific styles that broader implementers operationalize these critical components (e.g., doing a few long activities versus many short activities). Finally, we find no clear relationship between fidelity of implementation and student conceptual learning gains for our study's sample of instructors, providing preliminary evidence that different ways of implementing the critical components of active learning method may all effectively improve student understanding.

A growing number of introductory physics instructors are implementing active learning methods in their classrooms, and they are modifying the methods to fit their local instructional contexts. However, we lack a detailed framework for describing the range of what these instructor adaptations of active learning methods look like in practice. Existing studies apply structured protocols to classroom observations and report descriptive statistics, but this approach overlooks the complex nature of instruction. In this study, we apply network analysis to classroom observations to define a typology of active learning that considers the temporal and interactional nature of instructional practices. We use video data from 30 instructors at 27 institutions who implemented one of the following named active learning methods in their introductory physics or astronomy course: Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE), Peer Instruction, Tutorials, and Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies (SCALE-UP). We identify five types of active learning instruction: clicker lecture, dialogic clicker lecture, dialogic lecture with short groupwork activities, short groupwork activities, and long groupwork activities. We find no significant relationship between these instruction types and the named active learning methods; instead, implementations of each of the four methods are spread across different instruction types. This result prompts a shift in the way we think and talk about active learning: the names of developed active learning methods may not actually reflect the specific activities that happen during instruction. We also find that student conceptual learning does not vary across the identified instruction types, suggesting that instructors may be flexible when modifying these methods without sacrificing effectiveness.

Introductory university physics courses often face the dual challenge of introducing students to new physics concepts while also addressing their preconceived notions that conflict with scientific principles. Active learning pedagogical approaches, which employ constructivist principles and emphasize active participation in the learning process, have been shown to be effective in teaching complex physics concepts. However, while the behavioral effects of constructivist methodologies are largely understood, the neurobiological underpinnings that facilitate this process remain unclear. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we assessed students enrolled in either an active learning or lecture-based physics course before and after a 15-week semester of learning and examined changes in hippocampal whole-brain connectivity. We focused on the hippocampus given its critical role in learning and memory. Our findings revealed that hippocampal connectivity with brain regions in the frontal and parietal lobes decreased over time, regardless of instructional approach. Results also indicated that active learning students exhibited increased hippocampal connectivity with parietal, cerebellar, and frontal regions, reflecting experiential learning based on constructivist principles, whereas lecture-based students exhibited increased hippocampal connectivity with the fusiform gyrus, suggesting learning through passive observation. Our findings demonstrate that while some aspects of hippocampal functional connectivity may decrease over time, active vs. passive learning may preferentially enhance hippocampal connectivity during physics learning.

Substantial research indicates that active learning methods improve student learning more than traditional lecturing. Accordingly, current studies aim to characterize and evaluate different instructors' implementations of active learning methods. Peer Instruction is one of the most commonly used active learning methods in undergraduate physics instruction and typically involves the use of classroom response systems (e.g., clickers) where instructors pose conceptual questions that students answer individually and/or in collaboration with nearby peers. Several research studies have identified that different instructors vary in the ways they implement Peer Instruction (e.g., the time they give students to answer a question and the time they spend explaining the correct answer); however, these studies only take place at a single institution and do not relate the implementation of Peer Instruction to student learning. In this study, we analyze variation in both the implementation and impacts of Peer Instruction. We use classroom video observations and conceptual inventory data from seven introductory physics instructors across six U.S. institutions. We characterize implementation using the Framework for Interactive Learning in Lectures (FILL+), which classifies classroom activities as interactive (e.g., clicker questions), vicarious interactive (e.g., individual students asking a question), or non-interactive (e.g., instructor lecturing). Our preliminary results suggest that instructors who use both interactive and vicarious interactive strategies may exhibit larger student learning gains than instructors who predominantly use only one of the two strategies.

An increasing number of studies in physics education research use social network analysis to quantify interactions among students. These studies typically gather data through online surveys using one of two different survey formats: recognition, where students select peers' names from a provided course roster, and recall, where students type their peers' names from memory as an open response. These survey formats, however, may be subject to two possible systematic errors. First, students may report more peers' names on a recognition survey than a recall survey because the course roster facilitates their memory of their interactions, whereas they may only remember a subset of their interactions on the recall format. Second, recognition surveys may be subject to name order effects, where students are more likely to select peers' names that appear early on in the roster than those that appear later on (e.g., due to survey fatigue). Here we report the results of two methodological studies of these possible errors in the context of introductory physics courses: one directly comparing 65 student responses to recognition and recall versions of the same network survey prompt, and the other measuring name order effects on 54 recognition surveys from 27 different courses. We find that students may report more peer interactions on a recognition survey than a recall survey and that most recognition surveys are not subject to significant name order effects. These results help to inform survey design for future network studies in physics education research.

Extensive research has demonstrated that active learning methods are more
effective than traditional lecturing at improving student conceptual
understanding and reducing failure rates in undergraduate physics courses.
Researchers have developed several distinct active learning methods that are
now widely implemented in introductory physics; however, the relative benefits
of these methods remain unknown. Here we present the first multi-institutional
comparison of the impacts of four well-established active learning methods
(ISLE, Peer Instruction, Tutorials, and SCALE-UP) on conceptual learning. We
also investigate student development of peer networks and the activities that
take place during instruction to explain differences in these impacts. Data
include student concept inventory scores, peer network surveys, and classroom
video recordings from 31 introductory physics and astronomy courses at 28
different institutions in the United States containing a total of 2,855
students. We find measurable increases in student conceptual learning in all
four active learning methods (ranging from 2.09-sigma to 6.22-sigma differences
from a null effect), and significantly larger conceptual learning gains in
SCALE-UP than in both ISLE (2.25-sigma difference) and Peer Instruction
(2.54-sigma difference). Conceptual learning gains in Tutorials are not
significantly different from those in the other three methods. Despite the
hypothesized benefits of student interactions, student development of peer
networks is similar across the four methods. Instead, we observe differences in
classroom activities; in many of the observed ISLE and Peer Instruction
courses, instructors lecture for a large fraction of class time. In Tutorials
and SCALE-UP courses, instructors dedicate most in-class time to
student-centered activities such as worksheets and laboratory work.

Computational thinking in physics has many different forms, definitions, and implementations depending on the level of physics, or the institution it is presented in. In order to better integrate computational thinking in introductory physics, we need to understand what physicists find important about computational thinking in introductory physics. We present a qualitative analysis of twenty-six interviews asking academic (N=18) and industrial (N=8) physicists about the teaching and learning of computational thinking in introductory physics courses. These interviews are part of a longer-term project towards developing an assessment protocol for computational thinking in introductory physics. We find that academic and industrial physicists value students' ability to read code and that Python (or VPython) and spreadsheets were the preferred computational language or environment used. Additionally, the interviewees mentioned that identifying the core physics concepts within a program, explaining code to others, and good program hygiene (i.e., commenting and using meaningful variable names) are important skills for introductory students to acquire. We also find that while a handful of interviewees note that the experience and skills gained from computation are quite useful for student's future careers, they also describe multiple limiting factors of teaching computation in introductory physics, such as curricular overhaul, not having "space" for computation, and student rejection. The interviews show that while adding computational thinking to physics students repertoire is important, the importance really comes from using computational thinking to learn and understand physics better. This informs us that the assessment we develop should only include the basics of computational thinking needed to assess introductory physics knowledge.

Community-based professional development initiatives have been shown to support physics faculty in their adoption of research-based instructional strategies. Hoping to better understand these initiatives' mechanisms of success, we analyze the results of two surveys administered to a faculty online learning community teaching a common physics curriculum designed primarily for pre-service elementary teachers. We use social network analysis to represent the faculty network and compare members' centrality, a family of measures that capture the prominence of individuals within a network, to their reported experience in the community. We use a principal component analysis of different centrality measures to show that closeness, a measure of how closely connected a person is with every other person in their network, is the most appropriate centrality measure for our network. We then compare regression models according to Bayes factors to find relationships between participants' closeness and their survey responses. We find that participants' self-efficacy, as well as their sense of improvement to their teaching and sense of benefitting from the community, are predictors of their closeness with other participants and thus their breadth and depth of participation in the community. Our results are consistent with other studies that have highlighted interactions among faculty as key components of successful professional development initiatives. They may also be useful for designers of similar communities as they decide how to prioritize time and resources to meet specific goals.

This study uses social network analysis and the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) to characterize six research-based introductory physics curricula. Peer Instruction, Modeling Instruction, ISLE, SCALE-UP, Context-Rich Problems, and Tutorials in Introductory Physics were investigated. Students in each curriculum were given a survey at the beginning and end of term, asking them to self-identify peers with whom they had meaningful interactions in class. Every curriculum showed an increase in the average number of student connections from the beginning of term to the end of term, with the largest increase occurring in Modeling Instruction, SCALE-UP, and Context-Rich Problems. Modeling Instruction was the only curriculum with a drastic change in how tightly connected the student network was. Transitivity increased for all curricula except Peer Instruction. We also spent one week per research site in the middle of the term observing courses using COPUS. From these observations, the student COPUS profiles look nearly the same for Tutorials, ISLE recitations, and Context-Rich Problems discussion sections. This is likely due to the large resolution of activities that can be coded as "other group activity", suggesting the need for a more detailed observation instrument.

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020124 (2016) The Modeling Instruction (MI) approach to introductory physics manifests significant increases in student conceptual understanding and attitudes toward physics. In light of these findings, we investigated changes in student self-efficacy while considering the construct's contribution to the career-decision making process. Students in the Fall 2014 and 2015 MI courses at Florida International University exhibited a decrease on each of the sources of self-efficacy and overall self-efficacy (N = 147) as measured by the Sources of Self-Efficacy in Science Courses-Physics (SOSESC-P) survey. This held true regardless of student gender or ethnic group. Given the highly interactive nature of the MI course and the drops observed on the SOSESC-P, we chose to further explore students' changes in self-efficacy as a function of three centrality measures (i.e., relational positions in the classroom social network): inDegree, outDegree, and PageRank. We collected social network data by periodically asking students to list the names of peers with whom they had meaningful interactions. While controlling for PRE scores on the SOSESC-P, bootstrapped linear regressions revealed post-self-efficacy scores to be predicted by PageRank centrality. When disaggregated by the sources of self-efficacy, PageRank centrality was shown to be directly related to students' sense of mastery experiences. InDegree was associated with verbal persuasion experiences, and outDegree with both verbal persuasion and vicarious learning experiences. We posit that analysis of social networks in active learning classrooms helps to reveal nuances in self-efficacy development.