Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userPersonalized instructor responses to guided student reflections: Analysis of two instructors perspectives and practices
99
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Dimitri Dounas-Frazer
Publication date
2017
fields
Physics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
One way to foster a supportive culture in physics departments is for instructors to provide students with personal attention regarding their academic difficulties. To this end, we have developed the Guided Reflection Form (GRF), an online tool that facilitates student reflections and personalized instructor responses. In the present work, we report on the experiences and practices of two instructors who used the GRF in an introductory physics lab course. Our analysis draws on two sources of data: (i) post-semester interviews with both instructors and (ii) the instructors written responses to 134 student reflections. Interviews focused on the instructors perceptions about the goals and framing of the GRF activity, and characteristics of good or bad feedback. Their GRF responses were analyzed for the presence of up to six types of statement: encouraging statements, normalizing statements, empathizing statements, strategy suggestions, resource suggestions, and feedback to the student on the structure of their reflection. We find that both instructors used all six response types, in alignment with their perceptions of what counts as good feedback. This exploratory qualitative investigation demonstrates that the GRF can serve as a mechanism for instructors to pay personal attention to their students. In addition, it opens the door to future work about the impact of the GRF on student-teacher interactions.
rate research
Read More
Although developing proficiency with modeling is a nationally endorsed learning outcome for upper-division undergraduate physics lab courses, no corresponding research-based assessments exist. Our longterm goal is to develop assessments of students modeling ability that are relevant across multiple upper-division lab contexts. To this end, we interviewed 19 instructors from 16 institutions about optics lab activities that incorporate photodiodes. Interviews focused on how those activities were designed to engage students in some aspects of modeling. We find that, according to many interviewees, iteration is an important aspect of modeling. In addition, interviewees described four distinct types of iteration: revising apparatuses, revising models, revising data-taking procedures, and repeating data collection using existing apparatuses and procedures. We provide examples of each type of iteration, and discuss implications for the development of future modeling assessments.
Traditional methods of reporting changes in student responses have focused on class-wide averages. Such models hide information about the switches in responses by individual students over the course of a semester. We extend unpublished work by Steven Kanim on escalator diagrams which show changes in student responses from correct to incorrect (and vice versa) while representing pre- and post-instruction results on questions. Our extension consists of consistency plots in which we represent three forms of data: method of solution and correctness of solution both before and after instruction. Our data are from an intermediate mechanics class, and come from (nearly) identical midterm and final examination questions.
In this exploratory qualitative study, we describe instructors self-reported practices for teaching and assessing students ability to troubleshoot in electronics lab courses. We collected audio data from interviews with 20 electronics instructors from 18 institutions that varied by size, selectivity, and other factors. In addition to describing participants instructional practices, we characterize their perceptions about the role of troubleshooting in electronics, the importance of the ability to troubleshoot more generally, and what it means for students to be competent troubleshooters. One major finding of this work is that, while almost all instructors in our study said that troubleshooting is an important learning outcome for students in electronics lab courses, only half of instructors said they directly assessed students ability to troubleshoot. Based on our findings, we argue that there is a need for research-based instructional materials that attend to both cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of troubleshooting proficiency. We also identify several areas for future investigation related to troubleshooting instruction in electronics lab courses.
The ability to develop, use, and refine models of experimental systems is a nationally recognized learning outcome for undergraduate physics lab courses. However, no assessments of students model-based reasoning exist for upper-division labs. This study is the first step toward development of modeling assessments for optics and electronics labs. In order to identify test objectives that are likely relevant across many institutional contexts, we interviewed 35 lab instructors about the ways they incorporate modeling in their course learning goals and activities. The study design was informed by the Modeling Framework for Experimental Physics. This framework conceptualizes modeling as consisting of multiple subtasks: making measurements, constructing system models, comparing data to predictions, proposing causes for discrepancies, and enacting revisions to models or apparatus. We found that each modeling subtask was identified by multiple instructors as an important learning outcome for their course. Based on these results, we argue that test objectives should include probing students competence with most modeling subtasks, and test items should be designed to elicit students justifications for choosing particular modeling pathways. In addition to discussing these and other implications for assessment, we also identify future areas of research related to the role of modeling in optics and electronics labs.
The fortieth anniversary of the original construction of Supergravity provides an opportunity to combine some reminiscences of its early days with an assessment of its impact on the quest for a quantum theory of gravity.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
