Opportunities for implementing effective teaching strategies
in senior physics

by

Terry Freeman
Senior Lecturer in Physics
Macquarie University

The opportunities

Macquarie University has taught physics since its inception in 1969; the number of physics students has not altered significantly over that period. Because of its original charter, Macquarie University cannot offer engineering or medical degrees. This has meant that the physics department has survived without providing any large first year service courses. As things stand, the Macquarie physics department would rate as medium in size, for Australia (Jennings De Laeter and Putt 1996). Although there is now an international decline in the number of physics students (McCabe 1999), this trend is not as noticeable in Australia, perhaps because local physics departments have used innovative strategies to maintain their numbers. In 1990, the Macquarie physics department moved to introduce a new high technology component of optoelectronics along with a new Bachelor of Technology degree.

In introducing the B. Tech. five new units were created, the design of these units reflects their applied technical nature. As an example, one unit is conducted entirely on computers and assessed on written reports alone. Another unit is an industrial project and this is assessed by a written report, along with reports from supervisors. These applied courses have given the physics teaching staff experience in assessment without a formal examination.

In 1995, a seminal paper on physics instruction appeared in the Am. J. Phys., this was, Self-directed learning: A heretical experiment in teaching physics by Silverman (1995). As Silverman recounts in a later book (Silverman 1998), this article attracted an unprecedented amount of favourable response from physicists all over the globe. In essence, this paper reported the presentation of a physics course that was entirely assessed by portfolio, at the same time students were given specific opportunities for original and reflective learning. By contrast a traditional physics course will use assessment fractions of about one-third for practical work in the laboratory and two-thirds for a formal exam. A small percentage of assessment is often offered for regular assignments. These traditional courses invariably use normative assessment and considerable tension occurs between the required results and the desired learning objectives. Silverman's paper presented the seed idea, that collaborative learning and teaching is possible as individual portfolios are not easily copied.

It is frequently implied that academics are not free to set more enlightened assessment objectives and procedures, because if they did, they would run the risk of censure from the 'higher authorities' of their institution. The physics department at Macquarie has faced this issue with courses that discuss the philosophical and historical dimensions of science. For these courses the assessment criteria were clearly laid out and students were thus able to gain high marks by meeting these criteria. In every case these results were discussed and approved at departmental level and then passed to the university senate where they were approved without question. It is our expectation that if the developments outlined in this paper become successful, then the improved learning and grades will be readily accepted.

 

PHYS220 Scientific Modelling

This is a new course replacing an older course in Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics. Thermodynamics was originally taught jointly by both chemists and physicists but once this cooperation was discontinued, the separate strands both faded. Scientific modelling was chosen as a course that would continue to serve the needs of science students from other departments. The outline of the course can be found on the web http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/units/phys220/ .

This new course naturally centres on computing; half the teaching time (3 hours per week) is spent in the computer laboratory. These lab. sessions have proved to be much different in nature to the usual physics lab. sessions. Three different forms of programmable systems were used: Matlab, Simulink and Excel. No staff member was familiar with all these systems so all had to master new skills. This meant a different approach from supervising staff who found it necessary to ask new questions. What are you doing? How are you doing this? Why are you doing it? The higher level generic skills of staff usually enabled them to contribute to the problem solving, however in other cases students became the willing teachers.

For the students, collaborative learning became the order of the day. They were able to download their instructions when they were ready and at their own pace, this gave time to move between computers, and consult others. For the last four weeks students worked on their own projects, as these were distinct topics cooperation was actively encouraged. During the course it was found desirable to allow the students unrestricted access to the computing laboratory, this enabled them to work on their regular assigned work as well as the final reports. Although there were some difficulties with open-access the privilege was never abused and we have since continued with this policy outside of formal teaching sessions. Computational skills from this course have started to appear in the assignments for other physics units. We look forward to the day when all physics students will be able to include computing in their programs as a matter of course.

The open collaborative nature of the learning also influenced the regular assigned work. As students and staff had longer periods of informal contact, deadlines for solutions were easily negotiated and indeed, if the work had problems it was immediately returned with suggestions for re-submission. Although the students worked closely together, there was little evidence of copying in place of effective learning. In cases where reports had been done jointly, all the students concerned simply put their names to one common report.

Although the lectures followed the traditional format, they were again much freer in nature as the class found it easier to enter discussion and offer comments. Thus, they were able to ask for particular topics, revision and clarification of previous problems as well as solutions. This change of lecture format wasn't planned, it just happened as a consequence of the informal laboratory contact. The final exam proceeded quite well, except it didn't quite seem in keeping with the rest of the course. For the next year we will be using a take home exam, this is a more suitable way for participants show their modelling skills.

Although only eleven students took the initial offering of the unit, the survey showed they were quite happy with the course except for some teething problems in organisation. It might be also appropriate to point out that the most successful student has not shown the same application in his other physics courses.

 

PHYS360 Optical Physics

This unit is a third year, undergraduate physics course modified to meet the needs of optoelectronic engineers. The course draws heavily on material covered in second year physics units. This course was chosen to trial Silverman's portfolio assessment scheme. As this method of assessment represented a radical departure from our usual procedures, we are also taking the opportunity to clearly define course content and set out the assessment criteria. As Silverman had not given his assessment criteria, we started from the SOLO taxonomy of Biggs (1999). We had to modify our criteria, partly because we cannot expect undergraduate students to come up with original ideas or concepts in a subject as mature as optical physics

. In the first lecture of the unit, the students were presented with the concept of keeping a portfolio and the proposed assessment criteria were discussed. They were asked to choose their course assessment from the range: 100% portfolio assessment, to 30% portfolio assessment and 70% formal examination. This last extreme is close to the previous practise, except that laboratory reports were collected and marked separately. In the event, the class decided to accept a 2-hour exam for 40% assessment and 60% of assessment by portfolios. The portfolio mark was further broken up as 25% for lecture notes and reflective summaries, 25% for laboratory reports, 5% for initial marks from assignments (handed in on time) along with a further 5% for complete solutions following tutorial discussion.

The assessment criteria were debated and modified for several weeks, the final version now reads:

A

Good summaries of lecture notes, including filling in gaps, extension of theories and applications and an appropriate selection of references and sources. Good assignment solutions have become complete solutions. Candidates should also show a clear understanding of all aspects of their laboratory reports.

B

Good summaries of lecture notes, including filling in gaps, as well as evidence of the ability to apply theory to problems not specified, suitable references should be cited. All assignments attempted with the solutions complete in all respects. All aspects of the laboratory report are covered.

C

Summaries of lecture notes including references. Complete assignment solutions. A complete laboratory report must be included.

CQ

Lecture summaries will show deficiencies. Complete assignment solutions. The laboratory reports will show remaining difficulties. General work inadequate but salvageable.

 

As this unit is still running, it is premature to reach significant conclusions. At this stage we are concerned that students will leave completing of their portfolios to the last minute. The rewriting of lecture notes is supposed to act as a reflective diary and so we are actively monitoring the portfolios and will discourage last minute reflections. According to our assessment criteria, a C level pass can be obtained by merely doing the unit and keeping to the requirements. The laboratory reports will be assessed as a whole at the end of the course, this allows students to seek assistance from other students and wait until relevant topics have been covered in lectures. The portfolios are being inspected about every two weeks.

The nature of the lecture sessions has already changed considerably. Details are now often deliberately left to the students to finish. Although apparently presenting less, we are refraining from adding extra material. More of the lecture time is spent in discussion of problems, with suggestions how these might be tackled.

With the new informal approach it is becoming clear, just how easy it is to overestimate what the students actually understand from previous courses; just because we thought we taught it, doesn't mean that students actually learned it. Far more time is now being spent on revision. After all, if they don't understand the basics why continue with the advanced theory? One of the reasons why we changed this course was the nagging suspicion that the students don't seem to learn what they should. At last we have the means to really confront our effectiveness as teachers and devise more effective learning schemes.

 

References

Biggs J. (1999). What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 57.

Jennings P., De Laeter J. & Putt J. (1996). Physics enrolments in Australian and New Zealand Universities 1991-1996, Aust. & N. Z. Physicist 33, 292, 297.

McCabe H. (1999). Physicists unite to combat a crisis of falling numbers, Nature 40, 102.

Silverman M. P., (1995). Self-directed learning: A heretical experiment in teaching physics, Am. J. Phys., 63, 495-508.

Silverman M. P., (1998). Waves and Grains: Reflections on Light and Learning. Princeton University Press. 1998.

 

Teaching and Educational Development Institute,
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland 4072 Australia
    Phone: +61 (7) 3365 2788
Authorised by: ACE Group, Teaching and Educational Development Institute
Modified: 8 March 2002
© 2002 The University of Queensland