Curriculum development in studio-style university physics and implications for dissemination of research-based reforms

Abstract

Over the past few decades, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that students learn best in engaging, interactive, collaborative, and inquiry-based environments. However, most college science classes are still taught with traditional methods suggesting the existing selection of research-based instructional materials has not widely transformed undergraduate education. SCALE-UP is a renovated pedagogy and classroom environment that has achieved a greater impact than most, used extensively throughout the United States and abroad. SCALE-UP is not a simple collection of lesson plans or a textbook that can be easily adopted, and instead instructors are encouraged to customize main pedagogical principles to their unique instructional situation. This flexibility along with promotion of instructor autonomy may have assisted its spread. This paper uses case studies of five successful secondary implementations in the United States to examine how instructors gather information about reform, create a curriculum, and achieve sustained use. Many people learned about research-based resources that formed the composite of their curricula through interpersonal connections. Time constraints and misunderstandings between developers and instructors limited which resources were chosen and how they were used. Once instructors created a "working form" of the curriculum, three out of five instructors did not make significant changes. This could lead to the preservation of a more conservative curriculum. Implications include that disseminators should articulate core principles of the reform that should be retained to uphold the integrity of the reform as well as the areas where adopters have flexibility to innovate. Strategically involving other secondary users in the dissemination process could facilitate important interpersonal exchanges that could provide an additional layer of support for faculty.

Differences between the SCALE-UP model and instructors' perceptions of implementation

“…This has been attributed to instructors' preferred beliefs of what content should be covered to effectively develop conceptual understanding. Misunderstandings when transferring content from one instructor to the next also lead to differences in activities [8]. Such challenges were evident when Bobby went a different route with activities because he was unable to make sense of the CD provided.…”

Change as a Scientific Enterprise: Practical Suggestions about Using Change Theory

“…The full theory articulates stages of adoption that an individual experiences, characteristics of an innovation that influence adoption, prior conditions that influence adoption, and types of knowledge that support effective adoption among adoptees ( Rogers, 2010 ). This change theory has been tested repeatedly across contexts, including in STEM higher education, and has explanatory power regarding individual change (e.g., Rogers, 2010 ; Foote, 2016 ).…”

Exploring student learning profiles in algebra-based studio physics: A person-centered approach

“…Along the same lines, Lasry et al [8] found that an instructor's teaching methods are more important than the format of their room, such that teacher-centered pedagogies enacted in student-centered classrooms may have negative effects on students who have low physics knowledge prior to taking the course [8]. Furthermore, a recent study by Foote [9] found that even when the instructors adopting SCALE-UP have an interest in physics education research (PER) and are motivated to make the reform, difficulties in implementation of the researchbased instructional material designed for SCALE-UP can lead to instructors creating their own materials which have the possibility of not being grounded in PER outcomes and thus may not fully support the SCALE-UP reforms. Ultimately, an increasing body of evidence supports the conclusion that building a studio-mode physics classroom and conducting class within it is not sufficient to make the implementation successful; there are nuances of studio-mode physics adoption and implementation that greatly affect the impact of such a learning space.…”