DSCC | Physics 11A | Morris Eliza | Physics 11A | Alignment • Teamwork • Buy-In
PHYS11A: General Physics, Mechanics | Alignment, Teamwork, Buy-In
Reflection on Instructional Change:
I have had learning outcomes (LOs) for PHYS11A for many years. However, during this PLC, as I reviewed my LOs, I realized they were a content list of what students are expected to know. As part of the ACUE microcredential, I went ahead and carefully analyzed the context focused LOs that I was previously using. For each LO, I looked for ways to make them more about what the students would be able to do, not what information should be stuffed into their brains! I quickly realized that to be able to determine what the students are able to do, the LOs needed to focus on what the students should be able to show me. The original LOs that I had in place, just weren't going to work. They could not properly complete the triangle you see at the upper left hand corner of this page. They could not tie together the activities and assessments the students would complete. In order to do that I would need to make them more actionable. In order to make the more tied to those actionable tasks the students would perform, I would need to break some of them into multiple, smaller, more specific LOs.
One of my original LOs was “Understanding how things move”. In order to make it actionable, I took that large, overarching LO, and created smaller, more specific pieces. Do to this I starting thinking about the steps students would need to take to develop this overarching understanding of “how things move”. One of these new LOs is now “students will be able to transform information from problem statements to kinematic equations”. That learning objective, instead of simply describing what the students would learn, talks about a specific skill they would develop through their practice on on in class activity and then later demonstrate on our assessment.
Students were better able to connect with the material when the expectation was clearly presented at the start of the module. This was demonstrated by the quickness with which they were able to complete activities, comparable to those given in the class. Here is what one of the Peer Leaders in the class reported, "The class did relatively well and did not need much assistance for this week’s worksheet... There were small confusions with some groups, but many of the questions were minor." Additional details on chapter specific observations followed, but overall the alignment of the activity with the thoughtfully restructured LO seemed to be a success.
This was a fantastic FLC, with lots of actionable items for us to incorporate into our classes! I used most of the materials, but especially the implementation resources. The observe and analyze session was also very valuable in terms of double checking to see that the students were "getting" what I thought they were. One of my colleagues pointed out that the student on his phone appeared to be accessing that day's worksheet on his phone. That was definitely an "aha moment" for me. By providing the students with more detailed and actionable LOs they were able to work together more cooperatively on their tasks and team cohesion increased and teams with higher team cohesion tended to perform better.
|
Students in team 14 (blue smiley faces) work in foreground. Students in team 16 (orange smiley faces) work in background near instructor (walking toward right). Team 14 demonstrated moderate performance and at the time lower cohesion than the high performing, high cohesion team 16. This video was reviewed in the observe and analyze described above. |
Lower cohesion, moderate performance, team 14 student work (shown above) High cohesion and high performance, team 16 students work (shown above) Student work from an extremely high cohesion, moderate performance team.
|
"Even though we aren't the smartest team, I really like the relationships between the members of my team. Even though I don't really look forward to the class itself too much because it is difficult, I always look forward to seeing my team members and checking in on how they are doing." "As of now, I have enjoyed the time that I have spent with my group. Out of us four, I would likely say that my knowledge of Physics is on the weaker side in terms of applying concepts to solve problems but my teammates are there to lend a helping hand where I may not fully understand something (on the worksheets or lab assignments)." |
|---|
Changes in Course Syllabus and Schedules:
Pre FLC - Syllabus and Schedule Download Pre FLC - Syllabus and Schedule
Post FLC - Syllabus and Schedule A Download Post FLC - Syllabus and Schedule A
Post FLC - Syllabus and Schedule B Download Post FLC - Syllabus and Schedule B
| Eliza Morris is an assistant professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. She earned her PhD in applied physics from Harvard University in the area of soft condensed matter physics and her Bachelor of Science degree in physics from CSU Sacramento. While at Harvard University, she began work in pedagogical development at the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. As a postdoctoral fellow at UC Davis, Eliza expanded her research further into biophysics, an area she works in today with students in her squishy physics lab at Sac State. In addition to her research in biophysics and soft condensed matter physics, Eliza is an active researcher in the area of physics education research, for which she was recently awarded an NSF DHR:IUSE grant. Eliza brings a decade of experience in inclusive teaching training, at Harvard, UC Davis, and now at Sac State, but first and foremost she is a practitioner and is always eager to apply research-based teaching practices in her classroom. |
|---|
|
This work was supported by: National Science Foundation Hispanic Serving Institution Project STEM Zone DUE 1832335 US Department of Education Hispanic Serving Institution Project Degree with a Purpose P031S210061 US Department of Education Hispanic Serving Institution Project STEM4Equity P031C210012 *Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the US Department of Education. |