Many upper‐division courses at the University of Colorado now regularly use peer instruction in the form of clicker questions during lectures. Particular attention has been paid to developing and implementing clicker questions in junior‐level E&M and Quantum mechanics. These transformed classes largely follow traditional local norms of syllabus and content coverage, but are designed to address broader learning goals (e.g developing math‐physics connections) that our faculty expect from physics majors in these courses. Concept‐tests are designed to align with these goals, and have altered the dynamic of our classes. Coupled with other course transformations, we find measurable improvement in student performance on targeted conceptual post‐tests. Here, we discuss classroom logistics of upper‐division clickers, purposes of clicker questions, aspects of student engagement facilitated by concept‐tests, and observations of and challenges to sustainability of this activity.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
24 October 2010
2010 PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE
21–22 July 2010
Portland, (Oregon)
Research Article|
October 24 2010
The use of concept tests and peer instruction in upper‐division physics
Steven J. Pollock;
Steven J. Pollock
Department of Physics and Science Education Initiative, University of Colorado, Boulder
Search for other works by this author on:
Stephanie V. Chasteen;
Stephanie V. Chasteen
Department of Physics and Science Education Initiative, University of Colorado, Boulder
Search for other works by this author on:
Michael Dubson;
Michael Dubson
Department of Physics and Science Education Initiative, University of Colorado, Boulder
Search for other works by this author on:
Katherine K. Perkins
Katherine K. Perkins
Department of Physics and Science Education Initiative, University of Colorado, Boulder
Search for other works by this author on:
AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 261–264 (2010)
Citation
Steven J. Pollock, Stephanie V. Chasteen, Michael Dubson, Katherine K. Perkins; The use of concept tests and peer instruction in upper‐division physics. AIP Conf. Proc. 24 October 2010; 1289 (1): 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3515218
Download citation file:
Pay-Per-View Access
$40.00
Sign In
You could not be signed in. Please check your credentials and make sure you have an active account and try again.
Citing articles via
Inkjet- and flextrail-printing of silicon polymer-based inks for local passivating contacts
Zohreh Kiaee, Andreas Lösel, et al.
Effect of coupling agent type on the self-cleaning and anti-reflective behaviour of advance nanocoating for PV panels application
Taha Tareq Mohammed, Hadia Kadhim Judran, et al.
Students’ mathematical conceptual understanding: What happens to proficient students?
Dian Putri Novita Ningrum, Budi Usodo, et al.
Related Content
Socratic dialogs and clicker use in an upper-division mechanics course
AIP Conference Proceedings (February 2012)
Student Perspectives on Using Clickers in Upper‐division Physics Courses
AIP Conference Proceedings (November 2009)
Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: What you have not heard might surprise you!
American Journal of Physics (January 2011)
Single-Concept Clicker Question Sequences
Phys. Teach. (September 2011)
Teasing out the effect of tutorials via multiple regression
AIP Conference Proceedings (February 2012)