Search

Computational thinking has been a recent focus of education research within the sciences. However, there is a dearth of scholarly literature on how best to teach and to assess this topic, especially in disciplinary science courses. Physics classes with computation integrated into the curriculum are a fitting setting for investigating computational thinking. In this paper, we lay the foundation for exploring computational thinking in introductory physics courses. First, we review relevant literature to synthesize a set of potential learning goals that students could engage in when working with computation. The computational thinking framework that we have developed features 14 practices contained within 6 different categories. We use in-class video data as existence proofs of the computational thinking practices proposed in our framework. In doing this work, we hope to provide ways for teachers to assess their students' development of computational thinking, while also giving physics education researchers some guidance on how to study this topic in greater depth., Comment: 46 pages; 9 figures; 17 tables; work supported by the National Science Foundation (DRL-1741575)

Across the field of education research there has been an increased focus on the development, critique, and evaluation of statistical methods and data usage due to recently created, very large data sets and machine learning techniques. In physics education research (PER), this increased focus has recently been shown through the 2019 Physical Review PER Focused Collection examining quantitative methods in PER. Quantitative PER has provided strong arguments for reforming courses by including interactive engagement, demonstrated that students often move away from scientist-like views due to science education, and has injected robust assessment into the physics classroom via concept inventories. The work presented here examines the impact that machine learning may have on physics education research, presents a framework for the entire process including data management, model evaluation, and results communication, and demonstrates the utility of this framework through the analysis of two types of survey data.

Among all of the first-year graduate students enrolled in doctoral-granting physics departments, the percentage of female and racial minority students has remained unchanged for the past 20 years. The current graduate program admissions process can create challenges for achieving diversity goals in physics. In this paper, we will investigate how the various aspects of a prospective student's application to a physics doctoral program affect the likelihood the applicant will be admitted. Admissions data was collected from a large, Midwestern public research university that has a decentralized admissions process and included applicants' undergraduate GPAs and institutions, research interests, and GRE scores. Because the collected data varied in scale, we used supervised machine learning algorithms to create models that predict who was admitted into the PhD program. We find that using only the applicant's undergraduate GPA and physics GRE score, we are able to predict with 75% accuracy who will be admitted to the program., 6 pages, 2 figures, submitted to the 2019 PERC proceedings

Assessing student learning is a cornerstone of educational practice. Standardized assessments have played a significant role in the development of instruction, curricula, and educational spaces in college physics. However, the use of these assessments to evaluate student learning is only productive if they continue to align with our learning goals. Recently, there have been calls to elevate the process of science ("scientific practices") to the same level of importance and emphasis as the concepts of physics ("core ideas" and "crosscutting concepts"). We use the recently developed 3D-LAP to investigate how well the most commonly used standardized assessments in introductory physics (i.e. concept inventories) align with this modern understanding of physics education's learning goals. We find that many of the questions on concept inventories do elicit evidence of student understanding of core ideas, but do not have the potential to elicit evidence of scientific practices or crosscutting concepts. Furthermore, we find that the individual scientific practices and crosscutting concepts that are assessed using these tools are limited to a select few. We discuss the implications that these findings have on designing and testing curricula and instruction both in the past and for the future.

In their study of physics beyond the first year of University -- termed upper-division in the US, many of students' primary learning opportunities come from working long, complex back-of-the-book style problems, and from trying to develop an understanding of the underlying physics through solving such problems. Some of the research at the upper-division focuses on how students use mathematics in these problems, and what challenges students encounter along the way. There are a number of different and diverse research studies on students' use of mathematics in the upper-division. These typically utilize one of two broad approaches, with some researchers primarily seeking out and addressing challenges students face, and others working chiefly to unpack students' in-the-moment reasoning. In this paper, we present and discuss both approaches, and then review research efforts that strive to connect these two approaches in order to make sense of students' use of mathematics as well as to uncover particular challenges that students encounter. These recent efforts represent a small step towards synthesizing the two approaches, which we argue is necessary to more meaningfully impact student learning at the upper-division. We close our review and discussion with suggested refinements for future research questions for the physics education research community to consider while it works to understand how students use math in upper-division courses., Comment: 28 pages, 1 figure, accepted to Eur. J. Phys

Students taking introductory physics are rarely exposed to computational modeling. In a one-semester large lecture introductory calculus-based mechanics course at Georgia Tech, students learned to solve physics problems using the VPython programming environment. During the term 1357 students in this course solved a suite of fourteen computational modeling homework questions delivered using an online commercial course management system. Their proficiency with computational modeling was evaluated in a proctored environment using a novel central force problem. The majority of students (60.4%) successfully completed the evaluation. Analysis of erroneous student-submitted programs indicated that a small set of student errors explained why most programs failed. We discuss the design and implementation of the computational modeling homework and evaluation, the results from the evaluation and the implications for instruction in computational modeling in introductory STEM courses., Comment: 4 pages, 1 figure, Accepted to Proceedings of the 2011 Physics Education Research Conference

Physics curricula across the US fail to prepare students adequately to solve problems, especially novel problems. A new curriculum, Matter and Interactions (M&I), was designed to improve student learning by organizing concepts around fundamental principles. Despite this, students taught in traditional classes continue to outperform M&I students on force concept questions. This study aimed to determine the underlying issues related to the performance differential. Students from both courses solved questions from the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) while verbally describing their reasoning. Analysis of the transcripts revealed that M&I students failed to employ the fundamental principles, and traditional students used simple physics facts to help identify the correct answers. Neither of these methods would be sufficient for solving more complex problems., 4 pages, 2 figures, 2011 AERA Conference Proceedings