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, 〈gFCI,98〉=0.18±0.12 (s.d.), 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[〈gFCI〉=0.35±0.06 (s.d.) and 〈gFMCE〉=0.45±0.03 (s.d.)] and Cooperative Group Problem Solving(〈gFCI〉=0.36 and 〈gFMCE〉=0.36), and examined the feasibility of using these techniques in the studio classroom. Further, we have assessed conceptual learning in the standard Studio Physics course [〈gFCI,98〉=0.18±0.12 (s.d.) and 〈gFMCE,98〉=0.21±0.05 (s.d.)]. 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.

1.
J.
Wilson
, “
The CUPLE Physics Studio
,”
Phys. Teach.
32
(
12
),
518
522
(
1994
).
2.
M. A. Cooper, “An Evaluation of the Implementation of an Integrated Learning System for Introductory College Physics,” Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 1993.
3.
D.
Hestenes
,
M.
Wells
, and
G.
Swackhamer
, “
Force concept inventory
,”
Phys. Teach.
30
(
3
),
141
158
(
1992
).
4.
R.
Hake
, “
Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,”
Am. J. Phys.
66
(
1
),
64
74
(
1998
).
5.
P. W.
Hewson
and
M. G.
A’Beckett-Hewson
, “
The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction
,”
Instrum. Sci.
13
,
1
13
(
1984
).
6.
J.
Clement
, “
Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics
,”
J. Res. Sci. Teach.
30
(
10
),
1241
1257
(
1993
).
7.
K. Cummings and J. Marx were instructors in Studio Physics I for engineers during the Spring 1998 semester, and experimented with the use of research-based activities in the Studio classroom. Cummings taught sections 4, 9, and 11. Marx taught sections 6 and 8 as well as a weak control group, section 7.
8.
D.
Sokoloff
and
R.
Thornton
, “
Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to Create an Active Learning Environment
,”
Phys. Teach.
35
(
10
),
340
347
(
1997
).
9.
P.
Heller
,
R.
Keith
, and
S.
Anderson
, “
Teaching Problem Solving through Cooperative Grouping. 1. Group versus Individual Problem Solving
,”
Am. J. Phys.
60
(
7
),
627
636
(
1992
).
10.
P.
Heller
and
M.
Hollabaugh
, “
Teaching Problem Solving through Cooperative Grouping. 2. Designing Problems and Structuring Groups
,”
Am. J. Phys.
60
(
7
),
637
644
(
1992
).
11.
R.
Thornton
and
D.
Sokoloff
, “
Assessing student learning of Newton’s Laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula
,”
Am. J. Phys.
66
(
4
),
338
352
(
1998
).
12.
R. K.
Thornton
and
D. R.
Sokoloff
, “
Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools
,”
Am. J. Phys.
58
(
9
),
858
867
(
1990
).
13.
Mechanics Interactive Lecture Demonstration Package (ILD), Vernier Software, 8565 S.W. Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy., Portland, OR 97225-2429, 503-297-5317.
14.
“Instructor’s Handbook,” identified as “TA Orientation, School of Physics and Astronomy, Fall 1997,” See also http:www.physics.umn.edu/groups/physed/
15.
K. Cummings, D. Kuhl, J. Marx, and R. Thornton, “Comparing the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation” (unpublished).
16.
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
).
17.
Pamela Ann Kraus, “Promoting Active Learning in Lecture-Based Courses: Demonstrations, Tutorials, and Interactive Tutorial Lectures,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1997, University Microfilms, UMI No. 9736313.
This content is only available via PDF.
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.