A Study of the Development of the Paradigms in Physics Program

Monitoring student learning and morale by using active engagement strategies in one's own courses.

Faculty members teaching the revised curriculum had been monitoring student learning and morale in their usual ways during their courses. They gained insights into student progress and morale from conversations with students during class activities and office hours as well as through student performance on homework and exams. The active engagement pedagogy typical of paradigms in physics courses created an environment in which students could feel comfortable in expressing their thoughts about how as well as what they were learning.

Hearing multiple perspectives during planning meetings with graduate teaching assistants (TAs), undergraduate learning assistants (LAs), and others.

The redesigned junior-level paradigms in physics courses had met as usual every day, but for five weeks rather than three, for one hour on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and for two hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Reflecting upon what had happened in class and planning for up-coming sessions occurred during regular meetings facilitated by the faculty member teaching the course. Participants included graduate teaching assistants (TAs), undergraduate learning assistants (LAs), and others interested or involved such as postdocs, graduate student researchers, and new faculty “shadowing” in preparation for teaching the course during a later term. Hearing from participants with so many different perspectives enhanced the faculty member's awareness of emerging issues needing attention.

Participating in Upper Division Curriculum Committee meetings.

Informal monitoring also had occurred during Upper Division Curriculum Committee meetings when faculty teaching junior or senior level courses met every third week during each term. These sessions had included reports by individual faculty about the changes they had made in order to implement the re-envisioned curriculum, challenges they had encountered in doing so, and recommendations they proposed for the next versions of their courses. Of particular importance were conversations about whether, when, and how particular concepts were being taught as the faculty implemented the re-envisioned curriculum.

Interacting informally with faculty and students while redesigning the associated series of computational physics labs around topics taught in the junior-level paradigms in physics courses.

During the previous decade, a faculty member had designed and taught a series of one-credit computational physics labs that utilized physics contexts relevant to topics taught in the associated junior-level paradigms in physics courses. In seeking to coordinate instructional contexts in this way, this faculty member had collaborated informally with faculty teaching the various paradigms in physics courses. While reflecting upon implementing the approved major changes in instruction, this faculty member noted that the reordering of those courses had prompted monitoring what was happening:

The other changes were moving to five-week courses and reordering (some courses). The reordering I interacted with via the computational class, both in terms of having to re-order my own content and then wanting to be aware of what was currently being covered (in the other courses) for the purpose of that class.

This faculty member also monitored what was happening in (teaching one of the) paradigms in physics courses and in conversations with the Math Bits instructor and two faculty members teaching other paradigms in physics courses:

And of course the one paradigm I taught, obviously I monitored it while I was teaching it…and I did meet with (other faculty members) on multiple occasions to discuss the coordination between Math Bits and paradigms content in their courses; in both cases they were courses I had taught previously at some point in the past and both of (these faculty members) were pretty new to teaching those courses, at different levels.

Through such informal collaborative interactions, the faculty member had become more familiar with dependencies across courses. Such dependencies included ways that a topic taught in one paradigms in physics course built upon and/or prepared for other courses. This broader knowledge of the paradigms in physics curriculum helped this faculty member become aware of emerging difficulties with the instructional changes being implemented.

The current instructor of one of the paradigms in physics courses, for example, had chosen to omit a particular concept taught previously. This minor change was a surprise but prompted the faculty member teaching the computational lab to articulate the importance of continuing to include teaching this concept in the paradigms in physics course: a project required students to read and present a research paper where knowing such basic terminology would greatly expand the number of papers the students could read and understand.

Interacting directly with faculty and students while integrating just-in-time mathematics instruction in all of the junior-level paradigms in physics courses.

The PI was responsible for designing and teaching the new Math Bits curriculum, with just-in-time mathematics techniques integrated into all of the redesigned junior-level paradigms in physics courses. This provided an on-going context within which the PI interacted directly with all of the students as well as with all of the faculty teaching junior-level paradigms in physics courses. The PI noted that such opportunities for monitoring what was happening had already occurred earlier in paradigms in physics courses that previously had included a one-week prelude with math instruction:

Being the Math Bits person both required and allowed me to work with each of the other paradigms faculty members to talk about their content and where the Math Bits could appropriately fit in. One of the reasons I was eager to do Math Bits to begin with was because the times we had had this extra math week, I had found that having that collaborative window into what was going on in another course enabled me to have a window into what the faculty members were thinking about the courses, what they were struggling with, what it was that I might add, in particular where I thought they might be pitching content too high so I could put some transitional content into the Math Bits.

By teaching Math Bits in every junior-level course, the PI also could model active engagement strategies for faculty less familiar with this instructional approach:

(This) gave me an opportunity to at least attempt to insist that the faculty members might come and watch me teach so that the faculty members might see some other possibilities for active engagement.

Such modeling could provide opportunities for newer faculty members to initiate discussions about active engagement strategies with less anxiety than during a formal observation of their own teaching practices.

This on-going Math Bits teaching assignment throughout the academic year also made possible checking in with students, both in class and during office hours:

(This also gave me) a chance to check in with the students to see how things were going, which I do both by asking the class as a whole when I go in (to teach the Math Bits), which gives me global information, but also by asking more pointed questions of students who come to my office hours.

Teaching Math Bits in every junior-level paradigms in physics course also provided a global overview of the whole curriculum, which could prompt needed negotiations either directly with individuals or during an upper division curriculum committee meeting:

That sort of global overview of the whole paradigms curriculum also allows me to see some potential tension points where we need negotiation about which course will be responsible for which content, for which I can either talk individually with the two faculty members involved or, if it's a bigger problem, I can bring to the upper division meeting.

While away on sabbatical during the second year, the PI had mentored a postdoc undertaking this unusual teaching assignment of briefly teaching mathematical techniques integrated within junior-level physics courses taught by other faculty throughout the academic year. This provided an opportunity to see what happened when a younger person was responsible for teaching such a collaborative innovation:

It was particularly interesting to see what it is that the faculty pushed back about when they had a more junior person teaching Math Bits; (this) gave me insights that I didn't expect to get out of that experience. (Faculty were) pushing back about particular content in the Math Bits, pushing back that they felt the Math Bits were too low a level, which is mostly push back that they gave to me, but not as dramatically, so that gave me a window into how strong they felt about particular things.

During the third year, the PI resumed teaching Math Bits in all the junior-level paradigms in physics courses and was in the midst of rethinking the goals and best ways of enacting this instructional innovation.

Communicating with faculty elsewhere who were using some of the paradigms in physics curricular materials.

Becoming aware of problems within the curriculum also occurred through communication with faculty elsewhere who were using some of the paradigms in physics curricular materials. The PI noted:

In (another course), we added some content…and about that time that we approved that, we also heard from (faculty elsewhere), both of whom have adopted (our) approach, that they were having trouble with (one aspect), and they were able to see the problem because they were teaching those things themselves in the same course, and in our change, we for the first time, put them both into the same course and (the faculty member teaching the course) is able to see the difficulties of that transition so I think that this new course arrangement will allow us (to be) developing (new) materials; that will be a major focus.

Conducting research on student learning, developing associated curricular materials, and participating in the world-wide physics education research community enhanced awareness of such issues emerging in the re-envisioned curriculum.