Over a four-year time span, several departments at North Carolina State University offered experimental sections of courses taken by freshman engineering students. The acronym IMPEC (Integrated Math, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry curriculum) describes which classes were involved. This paper discusses the physics component of the curriculum and describes the impact of the highly collaborative, technology-rich, activity-based learning environment on a variety of conceptual and problem-solving assessments and attitude measures. Qualitative and quantitative research results indicate that students in the experimental courses outperformed their cohorts in demographically matched traditional classes, often by a wide margin. Student satisfaction and confidence rates were remarkably high. We also noted substantial increases in retention and success rates for groups underrepresented in science, math, and engineering. Placing students in the same teams across multiple courses appears to have been the most beneficial aspect of the learning environment.
Topics
Education
REFERENCES
1.
A. W. Astin, “Engineering Outcomes,” ASEE Prism 27–30 (Sept. 1993).
2.
R. W.
Heckel
, “Engineering Freshman Enrollments: Critical and Non-critical Factors
,” J. Engr. Educ.
85
, 15
–21
(1996
).3.
L. C.
McDermott
, “Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned–Closing the gap
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 301
–315
(1991
).4.
D.
Hestenes
, “Toward a Modeling Theory of Physics Instruction
,” Am. J. Phys.
55
, 440
–454
(1987
).5.
J. H.
Larkin
, “Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems
,” Science
208
, 1335
–1342
(1980
).6.
L. C. McDermott, Physics by Inquiry (Wiley, New York, 1997).
7.
P. Laws, Workshop Physics Activity Guide (Wiley, New York, 1997).
8.
J. M.
Wilson
, “The CUPLE Physics Studio
,” Phys. Teach.
32
, 518
–523
(1994
).9.
R. R.
Hake
, “Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 64
–74
(1998
).10.
D. Johnson, R. Johnson, and K. Smith, “Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity,” ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4 (The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, Washington, DC, 1991).
11.
R. M. Felder and R. Brent, “Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs,” ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 377038 (1994).
12.
B. Panitz, “The Integrated Curriculum,” ASEE Prism 24–29 (Sept. 1997).
13.
T.
Foster
and P.
Heller
, “Problem solving labs at the University of Minnesota. 1. Context-rich problems
,” AAPT Announcer
26
(2
), 79
(1996
);P.
Heller
, R.
Keith
, and S.
Anderson
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. 1. Group versus individual problem solving
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 627
–636
(1992
).14.
R.
Chabay
and B.
Sherwood
, “Where is the physics in homework problems?
” AAPT Announcer
26
(2
), 104
(1996
).15.
H.
Brasell
, “The Effect of Real-time Laboratory Graphing on Learning Graphic Representations of Distance and Velocity
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
24
, 385
–395
(1987
).16.
R.
Beichner
, “Impact of video motion analysis on kinematics graph interpretation skills
,” Am. J. Phys.
64
, 1272
–1278
(1996
).17.
E. F.
Redish
, J. M.
Saul
, and R. N.
Steinberg
, “On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories
,” Am. J. Phys.
65
, 45
–54
(1997
).18.
A. Arons, A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching (Wiley, New York, 1990).
19.
Excel Inc., Learning Type Measure (Excel Inc., Barrington, IL, 1987).
20.
See Ref. 7. See also
P.
Laws
, “Calculus-based physics without lectures
,” Phys. Today
44
, 24
–31
(1991
).21.
E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
22.
A. Van Heuvelen, Overview: Case Study Physics; Study Guide I (The Ohio State U.P., Columbus, OH, 1995).
23.
R. R.
Hake
, “Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 546
–552
(1992
).24.
D. Halliday, R. Resnick, and J. Walker, Fundamentals of Physics (Wiley, New York, 1997), 5th ed., Vol. 1.
25.
F. Reif, Understanding Basic Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1995).
26.
A. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (SAGE, Newbury Park, CA, 1990).
27.
D.
Hestenes
, M.
Wells
, and Swackhamer
, “Force concept inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 141
–158
(1992
).28.
R.
Beichner
, “Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs
,” Am. J. Phys.
62
, 750
–762
(1994
).29.
M.
Rowe
, “Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic and fate control: Part one-Wait time
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
11
, 263
–279
(1974
).30.
R. M. Felder, L. E. Bernold, E. E. Burniston, P. R. Dail, H. Fuller, and J. E. Gastineau, “IMPEC: Integrated Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry Curriculum,” 1996 Report to the National Science Foundation, N.C. State University, November 1996.
31.
R. M. Felder, R. Beichner, L. E. Bernold, E. E. Burniston, P. R. Dail, and H. Fuller, “IMPEC: Integrated Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry Curriculum,” 1997 Report to the National Science Foundation, N.C. State University (unpublished).
32.
I. Halloun, “Views about science and physics achievement: The VASS story,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, College Park, MD, 31 July–3 August 1996, edited by E. F. Redish and J. S. Rigden (AIP Press, Woodbury, NY, 1997), pp. 605–613.
33.
E. F.
Redish
, J. M.
Saul
, and R. N.
Steinberg
, “Student expectations in introductory physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 212
–224
(1998
).34.
R. Landis, Studying Engineering (Discovery, Burbank, CA, 1995).
35.
D. Hughes-Hallett et al., Calculus (Wiley, New York, 1994).
36.
R. Chang, Chemistry (McGraw–Hill, New York, 1994), 5th ed.
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1999 American Association of Physics Teachers.
1999
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
