Comparing the Results from National Studies on the Teaching and Learning of Astronomy and Physics: What is generalizable and what is domain specific?
Over the last 20 years research in physics and astronomy have been conducting systematic investigations to diagnose what conceptual and reasoning difficulties students have with core topics. This work has been used to inform the development of curriculum designed to intellectually engage students thinking and significantly increase their learning. As part of this research assessment instruments have been created and used to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different instructional approaches around the country. The first, and perhaps most influential, study of this type done in physics was conducted by Richard Hake using the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). Until recently no such study had been done in the field of Astronomy Education Research. Researchers with the Center for Astronomy Education (CAE) at the University of Arizona, in cooperation with college faculty from around the country as part of the NSF funded Collaboration of Astronomy Teaching Scholars (CATS) research program, have recently completed a national study on the teaching and learning of astronomy taught in general education, non-science major, introductory astronomy courses (Astro 101) using the Light and Spectroscopy Concept Inventory (LSCI). Nearly 4000 students enrolled in 69 sections of Astro 101 taught at 30 institutions around the United States completed (pre- and post-instruction) the Light and Spectroscopy Concept Inventory (LSCI) from Fall 2006 to Fall 2007. Results of this study using the LSCI will be provided along with interesting comparisons to the results from the earlier study in physics conducted by Hake using the FCI.
Pre-instruction LSCI scores were clustered around ~25% (24±2%), independent of class size and institution type; however, the normalized gains for these classes varied from about (-)0.07-0.50. These two results suggest that the differences in gain were due to instruction in the classroom, not the size of class or type of institution. Interactivity Assessment Scores (IAS’s) ranged from 0%-50%, showing that our IAI was able to distinguish between classes with higher and lower levels of interactive instruction. A comparison of class-averaged gain score to IAS showed that higher interactivity classes (IAS > 25%) were the only instructional environments capable of reaching the highest gains (
We acknowledge the NSF for funding under Award No. 0715517, a CCLI Phase III Grant for the Collaboration of Astronomy Teaching Scholars (CATS) Program.
