From Phys.org: Study shows many physics professors adopting reform teaching pedagogies quit because of lack of support

From “Physics faculty try innovative teaching methods“:

…Why is college science instruction so slow to change when we know that there are better methods? Focused research and development has resulted in a variety of effective strategies for teaching science. These techniques typically actively engage students through discussions with classmates, posing and answering questions, and making sense of science concepts. Physics, among all the sciences, has been noted for leading the way in developing such research-based teaching strategies. For example, in one such technique called Peer Instruction the teacher poses challenging questions to students. Students discuss the question with their neighbors, use an electronic device called a “clicker” to vote on the answer, and then the instructor facilitates a whole-class discussion about the question using the real-time feedback from the students’ electronic votes.

However, education reformers know very little about just how teaching techniques like Peer Instruction are being used by instructors. A recently released study sheds new light on this critical area. The study, authored by Charles Henderson and Magdalena Niewiadomska-Bugaj of Western Michigan University and Melissa Dancy of the University of Colorado at Boulder, was published in Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research on July 31…

…But the clincher came when the researchers looked at discontinuation– about 1/3 of faculty who try one of these strategies stop using it.

“Most faculty actually know about these things, a lot of people try these things,” said Henderson, “but the biggest loss is this discontinuation after trying. That’s an important finding.”

Myles Boylan, program officer at the National Science Foundation, agrees. Boylan says that this discontinuation is probably “the most dismaying” part of the study. “It is, however, largely reflected in the experiences that other groups have had around the country,” he said. “There are even examples in the past of whole departments trying out new teaching practices for an introductory course and the whole department backing off when the students complain.” While dropping the use of a teaching technique, for whatever reason, is well-known in various science disciplines, the detailed data in the current study is unprecedented, said Boylan.

The researchers then used a statistical model that allowed them to examine the effects of any one aspect of instructors’ backgrounds on their use of teaching techniques, while controlling for the effects of other background variables.

They found that if an instructor attended a particular set of national workshops for new faculty in physics, they were more likely to know about and try a research-based method. However, these faculty were no more likely to continue to use that method over time. The same was true of other ways that faculty used to gather information, such as attending talks or workshops or reading about teaching. Workshops and articles create motivation and awareness, but do not support faculty in continued use of a technique.

“I’m not surprised that about a third of the faculty have tried one of these methods and then dropped out from using it,” said Boylan, “because they probably experienced some real bumps along the road and didn’t know how to deal with that.”

Additionally, many assumptions about what might keep faculty from using educational innovations were not borne out by this study. A common idea is that older faculty are less innovative and, if we wait for older faculty to retire, then educational change will naturally follow. However, age (as measured by rank and years of teaching experience) was not correlated with use of instructional techniques, and it also didn’t matter if an instructor was in a teaching-oriented job, what type of institution he/she taught at, the size of the classes they teach, or if they were highly productive researchers. So, one can’t assume that more senior faculty, those more engaged in research, or those teaching large classes can’t or won’t use research-based teaching techniques.

“It’s contrary to common thinking,” said co-author Melissa Dancy. “The common thinking is that faculty are to blame, they don’t know about the reforms, they’re too old to change, they have big classrooms that make it hard for them to do things, that this is where the problem is. So we’re not addressing where the problem actually is right now.”

However, some of these variables did come into play when considering whether faculty used more than 3 such research-based teaching techniques. Such “high” users tended to publish fewer research articles and teach smaller classes. Female faculty were also more likely to know about, and be high users of, research-based strategies.

These results suggest that, instead of focusing so much effort on getting instructors to try a teaching technique for the first time it may be more productive to work on helping instructors use such techniques effectively over the longer term.

“Our model of how to bring about [educational] reform is flawed,” says Dancy. “Faculty aren’t uncaring research-focused people who don’t want to try things or don’t want to change… they do, but they need more help and support to do it and more acknowledgement that it’s not that easy. So to me the biggest lesson in that is that we need to be providing more ongoing support during the implementation phase, because that’s where we’re losing people.”

No college student should major in biology

I used to give that advice to the students in FSU’s Honors Program when I was Director of the program years ago.  I also gave this advice to a group of middle school students and parents I met with near the end of the last school year.  One parent actually gasped when I said it.

Why do I say it?  People who are going to make a living in the life sciences in the future are going to be working at the microscopic level.  Majoring in biochemistry provides a student with the tools to do this.  A student who wants to be a marine biologist should major in biochemistry.  All aspiring physicians should do so as well (unless they have the sense to major in physics or biomedical engineering, the majors that have the highest average scores on the Medical College Admissions Test).

Those stories you hear about STEM Ph.D. grads who can’t find jobs?  They are often about biologists (the unemployment rate among physics Ph.D.’s continues to hover around 2% according to the AIP).  Starting salary data for new bachelor’s degree recipients in biology are dismal.  The data the local biology department provided in response to last year’s data request from the Governor’s Office was broadcast to the entire College of Arts and Sciences faculty by the Dean’s Office.  That report, too, was dismal.

It’s also worth noting that the local biology teacher education program (associated with FSU-Teach) doesn’t meet the standards for biology teacher education set by the National Science Teacher Association (NSTA).  The FSU program doesn’t require a second semester of physics, which is when students learn about the electricity and magnetism that is both prescribed by the NSTA standards and at the core of modern molecular biology (it’s the electromagnetic force that holds biological molecules together).

Breakthrough! Florida rises from 50th to 49th on the ACT Science section

The 2012 ACT state results are here.

[Editor's note:  We apologize for not posting a sarcasm alert.]

Orlando Sentinel coverage here.

Update:

Commissioner Robinson has released a statement on the ACT results.  Here it is:

Statement from Education Commissioner Gerard Robinson – Florida’s 2012 ACT Report

“Florida’s 2012 ACT scores released today show that students in our public schools have improved performance in every subject area – while the national average in each area is at a standstill, showing no improvement. For the fifth year in a row, Florida has expanded participation and continued to see performance growth on the ACT. Florida’s minority students also improved their scores across all subject areas. There is still work to be done and room to grow; however, I am pleased to share this good news and applaud our students and teachers for their hard work. As we move forward with Common Core Standards, our state will be in the best position to ensure that every student is ready to excel in college and careers.”

Highlights of the 2012 ACT Condition of College & Career Readiness report are below.

• Keeping with the trend over the last five years, Florida increased the number of graduates taking the ACT while also increasing average scores in all subject areas of the test. While national scores either slightly decreased or remained unchanged, Florida saw small increases in every subject area and the overall composite score.
• Florida students made gains toward the national average in each subject area in 2012. Average ACT scores nationwide were mostly unchanged from 2011 to 2012, with the only change in English, where average scores decreased by one-tenth of a point.
• Florida has a larger proportion of minority students taking the ACT than in the nation. Florida’s minority students also experienced an increase in average ACT scores across all subject areas.
  • Approximately 56.4% of Florida’s ACT test takers are minority students, compared to 35.9% nationwide.
  • Florida has considerably larger percentages of African American and Hispanic students taking the ACT than the nation. In 2012, African American students represented 24% of Florida test takers, compared to 13.3% for the nation. Hispanic students represented 26.2% of Florida test takers, compared to 14.1% for the nation.
  • Over the past five years, Florida has experienced substantial growth in the number of minority students taking the ACT. African American test takers have increased by 26%, Hispanics by 45%, American Indians by 8%, and Asians by 15%.
  • Florida’s minority students experienced increases in average ACT composite scores from 2011 to 2012. African American composite scores increased from 16.3 to 16.5 and Hispanic students from 18.3 to 18.6.

PARCC this: Florida going backward in science

With the release earlier this week of Governor Scott’s statement on the implementation of the Common Core Standards in Florida and the development of the PARCC testing program, the state is now looking forward to the retirement of the FCAT programs in math and English language arts in 2014-2015.  The only remaining FCAT-branded tests will be those in science at the 5th and 8th grade levels.  And with the reluctance of Florida’s educational leaders to join the effort to develop the Next Generation Science Standards, there will likely not be a jump to PARCC-equivalent assessments in science.

But even the 8th grade science FCAT is becoming less relevant.  Some middle schools are now teaching the first high school biology class, Biology 1, to their strongest 8th graders and administering the Biology end-of-course exam to them.  These students don’t take the 8th grade science FCAT and so they are never assessed on their knowledge of physical science.  Hence, the middle school physical science standards have been rendered moot, just as the high school physical science standards have been ever since they were first written.

Here’s the brief letter I wrote to Governor Scott this morning:

Dear Governor Scott,

The Common Core Standards and the PARCC testing consortium have one very important flaw – they don’t include science.  You understand that the most economically viable careers of the future will involve science, and I’m sure you believe that our schools and universities should be increasing their emphasis on science.  However, by focusing our schools on the Common Core and PARCC, we will be reducing their emphasis on science.  There is a Common Core equivalent being developed by Achieve for science called the “Next Generation Science Standards”.  While 26 states have joined the effort to develop these standards as “lead state partners”, Florida has declined to do so.  Indeed, the FDOE leadership has invested considerable effort in patching the state standards, which were panned in a recent review by the Fordham Institute.  If we are to take science seriously in Florida, we must become an active participant in the Next Generation Science Standards project and plan to adopt the standards when they become available early next year.

Florida K-12 schools preparing to compete at the national level (but not in science)

An article in this morning’s Florida Times-Union reminds us that our state is preparing to raise its game so that it can compete nationally via the PARCC assessment program, which will be based on the Common Core Standards in math and English language arts.  The PARCC exams, which will be composed and administered by a consortium of states, will be fully implemented in Spring 2014.  Florida is one of the lead states in the PARCC consortium.

The article also notes that those who might worry that the Florida-based FCAT brand name might be lost have nothing to fear:  “The FCAT isn’t going away completely. Many Florida school districts will likely continue using FCAT to test students in science.”  That is, Florida’s students will be competing at the national level in math and English language arts, but we’ll continue to insulate our students from national competition in science.

 

Politics of K-12 physics subject of FSU Physics Colloquium on September 6

My talk title on Thursday, September 6 will be “‘But you’re just a physics booster!’  Why K-12 physical science matters and what we in Florida should do about it.”  The talk begins at 3:45 pm in UPL 101.  Refreshments will be served at 3:15 pm.

BTW, I’m not JUST a physics booster.

More on the UK’s school physics explosion from The Guardian: financial incentives for new physics teachers taking hold

From The Guardian’s science blog “Notes and Theories“:

Physics A-level is another interesting subject to look at. Last year’s Royal Society report (“Science and mathematics education: the transition to higher education”) noted that the provision of physics A-level in schools across the UK appeared to be patchy, with an overall figure across the UK of 22% of schools not entering a single candidate; this also seems to tie in with a shortage of specialist teachers. As the number of students taking A-levels grows, and the newly introduced Bursary Scheme for Initial Teacher Training kicks in, we must hope in the years to come the shortage of specialist physics teachers is overcome leading to a virtuous circle and a continuing increase. Again time will tell if this optimistic scenario pans out.

BBC: Is UK focus on teacher professional development in math and physics driving explosion in A-levels in those subjects?

From the BBC:

…figures out today show that the total number of students entered for physics A-level has increased by 5%, from 32,860 in 2011 to 34,509 in 2012.

For mathematics, the story has been even more spectacular. Today’s results show continued increases in both maths and further maths, taking the numbers to the best in the 20 years since records have been kept – a total of 98,947 A-levels awarded.

Since 2003, A-level maths numbers have increased by 69% and A-level further maths by 149%.

So how has this turnaround occurred?

There is evidence that two teacher support schemes funded by the Department for Education and run by the Institute of Physics and Mathematics in Education and Industry are beginning to make a big difference.

The IOP runs a network in England designed to help science teachers teach physics, called the Stimulating Physics Network. The MEI has a similar scheme called the Further Mathematics Support Programme. There is compelling evidence that much of the rise in the numbers of A-level students comes from schools participating in the scheme.

So why is it that after all these years women are still only 20% of the 1st year graduate students in physics??

See the latest report on 1st year graduate students in physics from the American Institute of Physics here:

AIP report on 1st year graduate students in physics

Orlando Sentinel commentator and dad argues pushing college-bound students to take “advanced mathematics” is “just not worth it”; here’s my response

Leslie Postal at School Zone yesterday posted on two commentaries appearing in the Orlando Sentinel.  One was my argument for more end-of-course exams in high school math and science courses.  The other was by a Winter Park dad, an engineer by trade, who talked about his daughters and argued that since they are oriented towards the arts that they should not be pressured to take “advanced mathematics” courses – presumably anything beyond Algebra 2 (although he didn’t specifically say).  Here’s my response:

Dear Mr. Shallcross,

Congratulations on having two such terrific daughters who are doing well in school and heading for college.  I have two daughters   who are a little farther along but have been successful in school as well, and a son who is a few years away from college and who is also doing well.  As a college professor who gets paid to work with 20-year-olds and an observer of society at large, I am constantly reminded about how many things can go wrong in the lives of our children.  We are indeed fortunate that we haven’t encountered those difficulties.

But it’s important to keep in mind that our children will be graduating into a world much different from the one you and I entered when we finished college (I earned my bachelor’s degree in 1982).  In our time, anybody earning a college degree pretty much had it made.  This is no longer the case.  The combined rate of unemployment or underemployment among recent college grads is about 50%, and more than half of new college grads now move back in with their parents.

And the differences in incomes between different career tracks have become quite stark.  According to a recent Georgetown University study, students who major in the arts are near the bottom of the pile in career earnings potential.  That’s a concern for parents of college studio art majors – like me.  My middle child has been assured by the professors at her well-regarded liberal arts college that she has excellent design ability.  But what’s a student who is strong in design skills to do?  Well, because she has been working hard at math and physics all the way through high school, taking the same two Advanced Placement calculus courses you did (but probably not doing quite as well as you did) and taking Honors Physics and AP Physics, she has been able to complete college courses in multivariable calculus and physics and turn herself into a strong prospect for graduate school in architecture.

Architecture isn’t the only design field in which number sense and comfort with technology is important.  A colleague of mine in FSU’s Art Department says that she advises every student in her field to focus on work that uses technology, since that’s what hot and where the employment prospects are.

In fact, yet another Georgetown report says that scientific and technological disciplines have “become the common currency in the labor market”.  In other words, science and math are not just important in science and math careers, but in all fields.

If Florida’s universities are indeed refocusing on preparing students for economically viable career paths, then they will change their admissions requirements to include Precalculus and Biology-Chemistry-Physics (yep, all three).  In the new world, even studio art majors should have this background in high school.

Sincerely,

Paul