We present data on student performance on conceptual understanding and on quantitative problem-solving ability in introductory mechanics in both studio and traditional classroom modes. The conceptual measures used were the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation. Quantitative problem-solving ability was measured with standard questions on the final exam. Our data compare three different quarters over the course of 2 years. In all three quarters, the normalized learning gain in conceptual understanding was significantly larger for students in the studio sections. At the same time, students in the studio sections performed the same or slightly worse on quantitative final exam problems.
Topics
Education
REFERENCES
1.
Lillian C.
McDermott
and Edward F.
Redish
, “Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research
,” Am. J. Phys.
67
, 755
–767
(1999
).2.
R. N.
Steinberg
and M. S.
Sabella
, “Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems
,” Phys. Teach.
35
, 150
–155
(1997
).3.
B.
Thacker
, E.
Kim
, K.
Trefz
, and S. M.
Lea
, “Comparing problem solving performance of physics students in inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
62
, 627
–633
(1994
).4.
D.
Hestenes
, M.
Wells
, and G.
Swackhamer
, “Force Concept Inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 141
–158
(1992
);the most recent information is at 〈http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling.html〉.
5.
R. K.
Thornton
and D. R.
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
, 338
–352
(1998
).6.
Karen
Cummings
, Jeffrey
Marx
, Ronald
Thornton
, and Dennis
Kuhl
, “Evaluating innovation in studio physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
67
, S1
, S38
(1999
).7.
We use the Universal Laboratory Interface along with Motion Detectors and Force Probes from Vernier Software & Technology, 〈www.vernier.com〉; we also used Rotary Motion Sensors (CI-6625) from Pasco Scientific, 〈www.pasco.com〉.
8.
David R. Sokoloff, Ronald K. Thornton, and Priscilla W. Laws, Real Time Physics, Module 1: Mechanics (J Wiley, New York, 1999). The students did Lab 1: 1, 2, 3-1, 4; Lab 2: 1, 3; Lab 3: 1, 2; Lab 4: 1; Lab 5: 1, 2-1; Lab 8: 1, 2; Lab 11: 1, 2; and Lab 12: 1, 2. An entire lab was typically spread out with one or two investigations per class meeting. We did not assign any of the prelab preparation sheets and for each lab the corresponding homework was assigned and collected. The materials were slightly modified to account for local experimental arrangements.
9.
Tools for Scientific Thinking—Interactive Lecture Demonstrations (Vernier Software, Beaverton, OR). We did ILD #3.
10.
VideoPoint software is available from Lenox Softworks, 〈www.lsw.com〉.
11.
A.
Van Heuvelen
, “Overview, Case Study Physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 898
–907
(1991
).12.
The use of structured group work is discussed in
P.
Heller
, R.
Keith
, and S.
Anderson
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1. Group versus individual problem solving
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 627
–636
(1992
);P.
Heller
and M.
Hollabaugh
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2. Designing problems and structuring groups
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 637
–644
(1992
).13.
Randall D. Knight, Physics: A Contemporary Perspective (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1997), preliminaryed., Vol. I.
14.
Randall D. Knight, Student Workbook to Accompany Physics: A Contemporary Perspective (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1997), preliminaryed., Vol. I.
15.
Robert Resnick, David Halliday, and Kenneth S. Krane, Physics 4th ed. (J Wiley, New York, 1992).
16.
David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker, Fundamentals of Physics 5th ed. (J Wiley, New York, 1997).
17.
Harris Benson, University Physics (J Wiley, New York, 1996), revised ed.
18.
For discussion about the FCI see
Charles
Henderson
, “Common concerns about the Force Concept Inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
40
, 542
–547
(2002
);Richard
Steinberg
and Mel
Sabella
, “Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems
,” Phys. Teach.
35
, 150
–155
(1997
);Robert C.
Hudson
and Frank
Munley
, “Re-score the force concept inventory!
,” Phys. Teach.
34
, 261
–267
(1996
);Pat
Heller
and Doug
Huffman
, “Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory: A reply to Hestenes and Halloun
,” Phys. Teach.
33
, 502
(1995
);David
Hestenes
and Ibrahim
Halloun
, “Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller
,” Phys. Teach.
33
, 503
(1995
);Doug
Huffman
and Pat
Heller
, “What does the Force Concept Inventory actually measure?
” Phys. Teach.
33
, 138
–143
(1995
).19.
Richard R.
Hake
, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 64
–74
(1998
).20.
Michael Wittman, private communication.
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2005 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2005
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.