Interactive engagement in an introductory university physics course: Learning gains and perceptions

At Kansas State University we have altered our calculus-based introductory physics course to create the New Studio format for teaching fundamental physics to large undergraduate classes. This format retains the large lecture component but combines recitation and laboratory instruction into the New Studio. Studio is composed of 40 students working in groups of four at tables equipped with modern instructional technology and other apparatus. The group setting allows for peer instruction and development of group skills. Each sequence of the course begins with a traditional lecture to economically introduce students to new ideas, with an emphasis on physics concepts, followed the next day by Studio, an integration of simple experiments/demonstrations with corresponding problems from the previous night’s homework set. This sequence occurs twice each week. In this way, problem solving and analysis activities are built into the context of the real, hands-on demonstrations. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the perceptions of the students and instructors concerning the change from the traditional format to an interactiveengagement format as well as to determine the conceptual gains that the students may have made. To address these questions, open-ended and Lickert scale question surveys were developed and administered to all students enrolled in the courses in the new format. In addition, students volunteered to be interviewed, on an individual basis, throughout the semester, and all instructors involved in the teaching of the courses were interviewed. Finally, conceptual surveys were administered, preand post-instruction to evaluate learning gains. The results of this study show that the students find the interactive-engagement method of learning physics to be a positive experience. They liked the integration of homework and laboratory activities, working in groups, and having the opportunity to interact, individually, with instructors. The instructors also considered the new format to be a positive change for similar reasons. The comparison of the preand post-instruction surveys indicated that the students made significant conceptual gains in the new format. In light of these results, it is evident that Studio has made a positive impact on the introductory, calculus-based physics course at Kansas State University.

[1]  David Hestenes,et al.  Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller , 1995 .

[2]  A. Lawson,et al.  Promoting Intellectual Development Through Science Teaching. , 1973 .

[3]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Evaluating introductory physics classes in light of the ABET criteria: An example from the SCALE-UP Project , 2000 .

[4]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Introduction to SCALE-UP: Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment University Physics. , 2000 .

[5]  D. C. Phillips.  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism , 1995 .

[6]  Priscilla W. Laws,et al.  Workshop Physics Activity Guide , 1996 .

[7]  Evelyn Jacob,et al.  Qualitative Research Traditions: A Review , 1987 .

[8]  Robert Gordon,et al.  Promoting conceptual change using collaborative groups in quantitative gateway courses , 1999 .

[9]  D. Treagust.  Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science , 1988 .

[10]  Robert Fuller,et al.  Workshop on Physics Teaching and the Development of Reasoning: Complete Set of Modules , 1975 .

[11]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Authentic School Science , 1995 .

[12]  A. V. Heuvelen,et al.  Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research‐based instructional strategies , 1991 .

[13]  M. Lecompte,et al.  Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research , 1984 .

[14]  Priscilla W. Laws,et al.  Women’s responses to an activity-based introductory physics program , 1999 .

[15]  John W. Renner,et al.  Are Colleges Concerned with Intellectual Development , 1971 .

[16]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits , 2004 .

[17]  Ibrahim A. Halloun,et al.  Common sense concepts about motion , 1985 .

[18]  Priscilla W. Laws,et al.  Calculus‐Based Physics Without Lectures , 1991 .

[19]  D. Sokoloff,et al.  Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment , 1997 .

[20]  John W. Renner,et al.  Piagetian Theory and Instruction in Physics , 1973 .

[21]  Jeffery M. Saul,et al.  Student expectations in introductory physics , 1998 .

[22]  Leonhard E. Bernold,et al.  Impec: An Integrated First Year Engineering Curriculum , 1996 .

[23]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 1997 .

[24]  A. Bork,et al.  Interactive learning: Millikan Lecture, American Association of Physics Teachers, London, Ontario, June, 1978 , 1979 .

[25]  K. N. Yu,et al.  Students Teaching Students in a Teaching Studio. , 1998 .

[26]  Dean Zollman.  Learning cycles for a large‐enrollment class , 1990 .

[27]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Qualitative Analysis For Social Scientists , 1987 .

[28]  Douglas Huffman,et al.  What does the force concept inventory actually measure , 1995 .

[29]  Thomas F. Wolff,et al.  Classroom Teaching through Inquiry , 2000 .

[30]  George M. Bodner,et al.  The Many Forms of Constructivism , 2001 .

[31]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Evaluating innovation in studio physics , 1999 .

[32]  Gregor M. Novak,et al.  World Wide Web Technology as a New Teaching and Learning Environment , 1997 .

[33]  Brent G. Wilson,et al.  Constructivist Learning on the Web , 2000 .

[34]  Edward F. Redish,et al.  Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics , 1994 .

[35]  Carol A. Twigg,et al.  Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: Redesigning Large-Enrollment Courses. , 1999 .

[36]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement vs Traditional Methods in Mechanics Instruction* , 1998 .

[37]  Lillian C. McDermott,et al.  RL-PER1: Resource Letter on Physics Education Research. , 1999 .

[38]  D. Hinkle,et al.  Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[39]  Douglas Huffman,et al.  Interpreting the force concept inventory: A reply to Hestenes and Halloun , 1995 .

[40]  Leonard Springer,et al.  Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis , 1997 .

[41]  Ibrahim A. Halloun,et al.  The initial knowledge state of college physics students , 1985 .

[42]  J. Best,et al.  Research in Education , 1966, Nature.

[43]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[44]  C. Moustakas.  Phenomenological Research Methods , 1994 .

[45]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Can one lab make a difference , 1999 .

[46]  Patricia A. Heller,et al.  Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving , 1992 .

[47]  B. O. Smith,et al.  Fundamentals of curriculum development , 1950 .

[48]  Edward F. Redish,et al.  Millikan Lecture 1998: Building a Science of Teaching Physics , 1999 .

[49]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[50]  Eric Mazur.  Qualitative vs. quantitative thinking: Are we teaching the right thing? , 1992 .

[51]  Kevin Ryan,et al.  Those who can, teach , 1972 .

[52]  Priscilla W. Laws,et al.  Using digital video analysis in introductory mechanics projects , 1998 .

[53]  Fred Goldberg,et al.  Making the invisible visible: A teaching/learning environment that builds on a new view of the physics learner , 1995 .

[54]  Patricia A. Heller,et al.  Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups , 1992 .

[55]  Innovations in physics teaching—A cautionary tale , 1999 .

[56]  Priscilla W. Laws,et al.  Workshop Physics: Learning Introductory Physics by Doing It , 1991 .

[57]  Gregory A. Jackson,et al.  Evaluating Learning Technology: Methods, Strategies, and Examples in Higher Education , 1990 .

[58]  J.M. Wilson,et al.  Studio courses: How information technology is changing the way we teach, on campus and off , 2000, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[59]  L. McDermott,et al.  Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension , 1980 .

[60]  J. Creswell.  Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. , 1998 .

[61]  Leonhard E. Bernold,et al.  Case study of the physics component of an integrated curriculum , 1999 .

[62]  S. Farnham-Diggory.  Paradigms of Knowledge and Instruction , 1994 .

[63]  Lillian C. McDermott,et al.  Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap , 1991 .

[64]  Millikan Lecture 1995: Do they just sit there? Reflections on helping students learn physics , 1996 .

[65]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , 1996 .

[66]  H. Taba,et al.  Curriculum development; theory and practice , 1962 .

[67]  L. McDermott,et al.  Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension , 1981 .

[68]  David P Maloney,et al.  Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism , 2001 .

[69]  Promoting Collaborative Groups In Large Enrollment Courses. , 2000 .

[70]  Peter Graham Richmond,et al.  An introduction to Piaget , 2007 .

[71]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Realtime Physics: Active Learning Laboratories , 1998 .

[72]  P. W. Laws,et al.  Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses , 1997 .

[73]  Paul D. Cottle,et al.  Cooperative learning in the tutorials of a large lecture physics class , 1996 .

[74]  Sally Sieloff Magnan,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 1997 .

[75]  Paula V. Engelhardt,et al.  Examining students' understanding of electrical circuits through multiple-choice testing and interviews , 1997 .

[76]  D. Hestenes,et al.  Force concept inventory , 1992 .