In 1993, Rensselaer introduced the first Studio Physics course. Two years later, the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to measure the conceptual learning gain 〈g〉 in the course. This was found to be a disappointing 0.22, indicating that Studio Physics was no more effective at teaching basic Newtonian concepts than a traditional course. Our study verified that result, and thereby provides a baseline measurement of conceptual learning gains in Studio Physics I for engineers. These low gains are especially disturbing because the studio classroom appears to be interactive and instructors strive to incorporate modern pedagogies. The goal of our investigation was to determine if incorporation of research-based activities into Studio Physics would have a significant effect on conceptual learning gains. To measure gains, we utilized the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). In the process of pursuing this goal, we verified the effectiveness of Interactive Lecture Demonstrations and and Cooperative Group Problem Solving and and examined the feasibility of using these techniques in the studio classroom. Further, we have assessed conceptual learning in the standard Studio Physics course and In this paper, we will clarify the issues noted above. We will also discuss difficulties in implementing these techniques for first time users and implications for the future directions of the Studio Physics courses at Rensselaer.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
July 1999
PAPERS|
July 01 1999
Evaluating innovation in studio physics
Karen Cummings;
Karen Cummings
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 12180
Search for other works by this author on:
Jeffrey Marx;
Jeffrey Marx
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 12180
Search for other works by this author on:
Ronald Thornton;
Ronald Thornton
Center for Science and Mathematics Teaching, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155
Search for other works by this author on:
Dennis Kuhl
Dennis Kuhl
Center for Science and Mathematics Teaching, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155
Search for other works by this author on:
Am. J. Phys. 67, S38–S44 (1999)
Article history
Received:
January 07 1999
Accepted:
April 08 1999
Citation
Karen Cummings, Jeffrey Marx, Ronald Thornton, Dennis Kuhl; Evaluating innovation in studio physics. Am. J. Phys. 1 July 1999; 67 (S1): S38–S44. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19078
Download citation file:
Pay-Per-View Access
$40.00
Sign In
You could not be signed in. Please check your credentials and make sure you have an active account and try again.
Citing articles via
Ergodic Lagrangian dynamics in a superhero universe
I. L. Tregillis, George R. R. Martin
All objects and some questions
Charles H. Lineweaver, Vihan M. Patel
Exact solutions for the inverse problem of the time-independent Schrödinger equation
Bhavika Bhalgamiya, Mark A. Novotny
In this issue: January 2025
Joanna Behrman, Pierre-François Cohadon, et al.
Introductory learning of quantum probability and quantum spin with physical models and observations
Anastasia Lonshakova, Kyla Adams, et al.
Quantum information science and technology high school outreach: Conceptual progression for introducing principles and programming skills
Dominik Schneble, Tzu-Chieh Wei, et al.
Related Content
Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study
Am. J. Phys. (December 2016)
Validity and reliability of the force and motion conceptual evaluation
American Journal of Physics (September 2008)
Comparing Three Methods for Teaching Newton’s Second Law
AIP Conference Proceedings (November 2009)
The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics
Am. J. Phys. (May 2011)
Adapting RealTime Physics for Distance Learning with the IOLab
Phys. Teach. (September 2019)