Self-Efficacy in the Active learning Physics Classroom

The specific classroom elements that contribute to changes in student self-efficacy have not been fully understood. Previous studies have shown that the nature of the physics classroom matters when it comes to self-efficacy formation. Physics instructors that employ alternative teaching strategies (e.g., discussion, inquiry-lab exercises, conceptual problem assignments) instead of traditional strategies (e.g., lecture, directed lab exercises, demonstrations) will likely find students who report higher scores on a survey of self-efficacy and its sources (Fencl and Scheel, 2005). In fact, Fencl and Scheel (2004) found that when comparing all the teaching strategies they examined, collaborative learning had the highest correlation with end-of-semester physics self-efficacy.

With regard to the development of self-efficacy, Sawtelle et al. (2010) showed that students taking introductory physics courses at a large Hispanic Serving Institution reported having lower self-efficacy at the end of the semester when compared to the start of term if the instructor had used traditional, lecture- based teaching methods. Students whose instructors implemented Modeling Instruction--an active learning introductory physics curriculum--did not report any significant changes in their self-efficacy from pre to post, which is commendable given the often-seen drop in physics self-efficacy found in introductory courses that results from students adjusting their overconfidence (Boekaerts and Rozendaal, 2010; Mann and Golubski, 2013; Multon, Brown, and Lent, 1991; Pajares and Kranzler, 1995). This beneficial interaction between pedagogy and self-efficacy may have some limitations. For example, Sawtelle et al. (2010) saw no change in student self-efficacy in Modeling Instruction courses that had a capacity of 30 students. In larger sections implementing the same curriculum, students’ self-efficacy decreased over the course of the semester, albeit not as much as the self-efficacy of those in lecture-based sections (Dou et al., 2016).

3.5.1. The Modeling Instruction Curriculum

The progression of physics education research has led to the

development of curricula, particularly in introductory courses, that shy away from lecture-based teaching styles (e.g., Etkina and Van Heuvelen, 2001; Finklestein and Pollock, 2005). Of these, Modeling Instruction (MI) has been examined at both the high school and undergraduate level and exhibited various positive results (Hestenes, 1987; Brewe, 2008). Research into MI has shown that college

students taking Introductory Physics with Calculus not only pass at greater rates than students taking the equivalent lecture-based courses, but also score higher on well-established concept inventories (Brewe et al., 2010b). This outcome aligns with the strong consensus that active learning strategies, even when broadly defined, help students achieve higher scores on exams and concept inventories (Freeman et al., 2014). Yet, these positive academic outcomes stand contrary to decreases in student self-efficacy exhibited by students in classrooms of 70+ peers, as described in Dou et al. (2016). In Dou et al., the overall

decrease in self-efficacy was observed regardless of student gender or ethnicity, and suggests the presence of structures generated by this active learning

curricula that may negatively impact the factors that motivate students to pursue careers in STEM. These structures may include, among many, students’ social interactions in the classroom as those who received attention from academically popular peers (i.e., perceived by others as meaningful academic resources) were more likely to see increases in their individual self-efficacy scores. In other

words, both the kinds of classroom interactions that took place, as well as the type of persons with whom those interactions took place in terms of academic influence, were associated with students’ self-efficacy development.

For context, MI Introductory Physics I with Calculus courses (referred to as MI from here on out) follow patterns expected of curricula designed with a sociocultural, interactive framework in mind. Created by Hestenes (1987) and further developed for college-level introductory physics by Desbien (2002) and Brewe (2008), the most salient characteristic of the curriculum is the application

of student discourse as a tool for knowledge construction, particularly around a few, key disciplinary concepts. Students work in small and large groups on carefully designed, inquiry-based activities meant to stimulate discussion that leads to learning. As a result, students can often be seen initiating conversations with their tablemates or collaborating with peers at other parts of the room in order to reach consensus.

Brewe, Kramer, and O’Brien (2010a) showed that students in MI courses see increased opportunities to engage with peers on academic content than do students in lecture-based sections of the course. The authors calculated the number of connections made between students in lecture-based and MI introductory physics courses by asking them at the beginning and end of the semester who they worked with to learn physics. Students in MI reported ten times the number of interactions. Moreover, by the end of the course, all MI students reported interacting with at least one other person in class, while a great majority of those in lecture-based courses still reported no peer-to-peer

interactions. The authors made the case that both the physical layout of the MI classroom (i.e., open space with moveable furniture) and the instructional design of the curriculum help to facilitate socialization in the context of physics learning.

Qualitative analyses of student participation in MI courses revealed the existence of self-efficacy experience opportunities (SEOs)--occurrences aligned with one of the four sources of self-efficacy (i.e., mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, physiological states) that have the potential to impact its development (Sawtelle et al., 2012). For example, while trying to

complete a position versus time graph two students discuss the importance of having a reference point; mutual agreement on what the reference point is in this particular problem can potentially serve as a mastery experience, and therefore, an SEO. The authors do not directly attribute the abundant presence of these types of experiences to MI as a whole, but rather to the model-eliciting group activities that are part of the curriculum.

3.6. The Role of Student Interactions in Physics Self-Efficacy Formation in