This case study features the learning environments (see Resource A) created by Professor Curtis Hieggelke of the Department of Natural Sciences and Physical Education at Joliet Junior College (see Resource B) for his introductory physics students. Central to this narrative are the efforts of three of Curt's colleagues (presented below), all of whom have adapted his methods in various ways to suit the needs of their own students.

Dr. William (Bill) Hogan teaches physics courses for students in technical programs, as well as for students planning to transfer to four-year programs in life sciences and engineering. He has adapted many computer teaching methods for use in all of his courses.

Dr. Marie Wolff teaches general and organic chemistry. She was one of two faculty members chosen for the JJC Outstanding Teaching Award in 1992. She is also a member the Chicagoland Consortium to Improve Chemistry, a group that received an National Science Foundation grant to link nine two-year colleges with the NSF's Chemistry Systematic Reform Initiative.

Dr. Michael Lee is Chairman of the Natural Science/Physical Education Department and President of the JJC Faculty Union. He teaches microbiology, healthy, human anatomy and physiology, and uses technology extensively in all his courses. He has also taught video telecourses and courses using interactive television for JJC's Distance Learning Program.

The learning environments that these faculty bricoleurs^a create are informed by two key teaching principles: that faculty should

• shift major responsibility for learning from themselves to the students, and
• enable learning to occur in diverse ways.

These principles guide the JJC instructors' choices of learning activities, such as the computer-dependent uses of hands-on experimentation, visualization and graphical representation and simulation, and Interactive Lecture Demonstrations as described in the Introduction.

The JJC bricoleurs use these activities in conjunction with learning activities that are computer-independent to address common problems that arise in the classroom (namely, weak student performance and student values that contrast with those of the faculty) and to achieve their goals for student learning (to develop in students a conceptual understanding of basic ideas and a lasting interest in physics). As we have seen, the results are impressive: On nationally recognized physics exams, JJC students perform at levels comparable to those achieved by students at elite four-year institutions.

Curt believes that the successfull transformation of his physics courses at JJC depends, in good part, on computer-based labs.

Curt finds that electronic probes that interface with a computer and allow his students to themselves collect and analyze data are especially useful. He attributes their special value to the predict-observe-explain¹ learning process which they are designed to foster. These probe-based labs help students to:

• visualize patterns of data or information;
• use graphical representations in ways that enable them to avoid getting lost in the data setup and collection details that accompany most lab activities;
• experiment easily with different parameters in the same lab setup.

Curt refers to hardware and software that is designed to facilitate a predict-observe-explain learning process as second generation software tools.^b These tools are expressly designed to help students understand relationships between data and concepts and to engage their interest in physics.

His enthusiasm for these labs and the animated responses of his students are contagious: his faculty colleagues have adapted his methods and are even participating to some extent in the vigorous national dissemination efforts that occupy most of Curt's time outside of teaching.

Curt combines his computer-enhanced strategies with other active-learning strategies, such as carefully guided group work projects and formative assessment ^c practices, in order to foster deeper student engagement and learning. As you will find in the other sections of this study, Bill, Marie, and Mike also use these computer-independent activities with much success. All of them are finding that these diverse learning strategies reinforce each other, providing students with challenging, engaging, and effective science learning experiences.

The introductory science courses mentioned in this study include:

• Basic Physics (Physics 100, 4 credits), survey course for non-science majors. Includes lab.
• Engineering Physics (Physics 201-202-203, 5-5-3 credits), requires calculus and is for students preparing for engineering and science program. Physics 201-202 are lab courses, while Physics 203 is not.
• Technical Physics (Physics 103-104, 4-4 credits), for students in technology programs leading directly to employment.
• College Physics (Physics 101-102, 5-5 credits), requires algebra and trigonometry and is for students preparing for life science programs (e.g., pharmacy, physical therapy). Includes lab.
• General Chemistry (Chemistry 101-102, 5-5 credits), for students planning science-related careers. Includes lab.
• Organic Chemistry (Chemistry 209-210, 5-5 credits), lab course for students planning life science and chemistry-based careers.
• Human Anatomy and Physiology (Biology 250, 4 credits), lab course for students planning careers in the health fields.

Syllabi for some of these courses appear in Resource C.