The use of interactive engagement strategies to improve learning in introductory physics is not new, but have not been used as often for upper-division physics courses. We describe the development and implementation of a Studio Optics course for upper-division physics majors at Kansas State University. The course adapts a three-stage Karplus learning cycle and other elements to foster an environment that promotes learning through an integration of lecture, laboratories, and problem solving. Some of the instructional materials are described. We discuss the evaluation of the course using data collected from student interviews, a conceptual survey, an attitudinal survey, and the instructor’s reflections. Overall, students responded positively to the new format and showed modest gains in learning. The instructor’s experiences compared favorably with the traditional course that he had taught in the past.

1.
R. R.
Hake
, “
Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab
,”
Phys. Teach.
30
,
546
552
(
1992
).
2.
K.
Cummings
,
J.
Marx
,
R.
Thornton
, and
D.
Kuhl
, “
Evaluating innovation in studio physics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
67
(
S1
),
S38
S44
(
1999
).
3.
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
).
4.
P.
Laws
, Workshop physics: “Learning introductory physics by doing it,” Change Magazine, 20–27 July/August
1991
.
5.
C. H.
Crouch
and
E.
Mazur
, “
Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results
,”
Am. J. Phys.
69
(
9
),
970
977
(
2001
).
6.
R. 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
).
7.
C. M.
Sorensen
,
A. D.
Churukian
,
S.
Maleki
, and
D. A.
Zollman
, “
The new studio format for instruction of introductory physics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
74
(
12
),
1077
1082
(
2006
).
8.
C. A.
Manogue
,
P. J.
Siemens
,
J.
Tate
, and
K.
Brown
, “
Paradigms in physics: A new upper-division curriculum
,”
Am. J. Phys.
69
(
9
),
978
990
(
2001
).
9.
B. S.
Ambrose
, “
Investigating student understanding in intermediate mechanics: Identifying the need for a tutorial approach to instruction
,”
Am. J. Phys.
72
(
4
),
453
459
(
2004
).
10.
M. F.
Masters
and
T. T.
Grove
, “
Active learning in intermediate optics through concept building laboratories
,”
Am. J. Phys.
78
(
5
),
485
491
(
2010
).
11.
R. J.
Karplus
, “
Science teaching and development of reasoning
,”
J. Res. Sci. Teach.
12
,
213
221
(
1974
).
12.
D.
Schwartz
and
J. D.
Bransford
, “
A time for telling
,”
Cogn. Instruct.
16
(
4
),
475
5223
(
1998
).
13.
E.
Mazur
,
Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual
(
Prentice Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
,
1997
).
14.
D. M.
Watts
, “
Student conceptions of light: A case study
,”
Phys. Educ.
20
,
183
187
(
1985
).
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.