Source author record

Carl Wieman

Carl Wieman appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

physics.ed-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

1topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

Absence of a COVID-induced academic drop in high-school physics learning

At the start of the COVID 19 pandemic, the majority of secondary instruction in the United States transitioned to an online environment. In many parts of the country, online schooling continued for upwards of two years. Many experts have hypothesized an "academic slide" (a reduction in student learning) following this period of online instruction. We investigated the change in student preparation for introductory college physics in incoming Stanford university students between the Fall term of 2019 to the Fall term of 2021. We did this by looking at the performance on a validated physics diagnostic exam that all Stanford students intending to take a physics course took before enrolling in an introductory physics course. We found no statistically or educationally significant change in scores. Despite many anecdotal faculty reports, at least for this population, the level of student preparation in physics and related math appears to be unchanged.

preprint2021arXiv

A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering; Guidance for Teaching and Assessment

A primary goal of science and engineering (S & E) education is to produce good problem solvers, but how to best teach and measure the quality of problem-solving remains unclear. The process is complex, multifaceted, and not fully characterized. Here we present a theoretical framework of the S & E problem-solving process as a set of specific interlinked decisions. This theory is empirically grounded and describes the entire process. To develop this theory, we interviewed 52 successful scientists and engineers (experts) spanning different disciplines, including biology and medicine. They described how they solved a typical but important problem in their work, and we analyzed the interviews in terms of decisions made. Surprisingly, we found that across all experts and fields, the solution process was framed around making a set of just twenty-nine specific decisions. We also found that the process of making those discipline-general decisions (selecting between alternative actions) relied heavily on domain-specific predictive models that embodied the relevant disciplinary knowledge. This set of decisions provides a guide for the detailed measurement and teaching of S & E problem-solving. This decision framework also provides a more specific, complete, and empirically based theory describing the practices of science.

preprint2015arXiv

Measuring the Impact of Introductory Physics Labs on Learning

Our recent study showed that two lab courses, whose goals were exclusively to reinforce material developed in the lecture courses, do not have any impact on exam performance at the 1% level. In this study, we replicated this analysis with a modified version of one of these lab courses whose goals also included modeling, designing experiments, and analyzing and visualizing data. This modified course used the same sets of apparatus as the previous version, but changed the pre-lab and in-lab activities to focus on developing and testing models with data. The study evaluated the impact of these additional goals and activities. We found that they did not affect students' performance on the final exam.

preprint2013arXiv

Use of research-based instructional strategies: how to avoid faculty quitting

We have examined the teaching practices of faculty members who adopted research-based instructional strategies as part of the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) at the University of British Columbia. Of the 70 that adopted such strategies with the support of the CWSEI program, only one subsequently stopped using these strategies. This is a tiny fraction of the 33% stopping rate for physics faculty in general [Henderson, Dancy, and Niewiadomska-Bugaj, PRST-PER, 8, 020104 (2012)]. Nearly all of these UBC faculty members who had an opportunity to subsequently use RBIS in other courses (without CWSEI support) did so. We offer possible explanations for the difference in quitting rates. The direct support of the faculty member by a trained science education specialist in the discipline during the initial implementation of the new strategies may be the most important factor.