The Colorado School of Mines (CSM) has taught its first-semester calculus-based introductory physics course (Physics I) using a hybrid lecture/Studio Physics format since the spring of 1997. Starting in the fall of 2007, we have been converting the second semester of our calculus-based introductory physics course (Physics II) to a hybrid lecture/Studio Physics format, beginning from a traditional lecture/lab/recitation course. In this paper, we document the stages of this transformation, highlighting what has worked and what has not, and the challenges and benefits associated with the switch to Studio Physics. A major goal in this study is to develop a method for secondary implementations of Studio physics that keeps the time and resource investments manageable. We describe the history of Studio at CSM and characterize our progress via several metrics, including pre/post Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM) scores, Colorado Learning About Science Survey scores (CLASS), exam scores, failure rates, and a variety of qualitative observations. Results suggest that Studio has increased student performance and satisfaction despite an aggressive expansion of class sizes in the past few years. Gains have been concentrated mostly in problem-solving skills and exam performance (as opposed to conceptual survey gains), in contrast to what has sometimes been seen in other studies.
REFERENCES
1.
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, N.A.S., National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine
, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future
(National Academies Press
, Washington, D.C.
, 2007
).2.
Committee on Recognizing, Rewarding, and Developing Excellence in Teaching of Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
, Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
, edited by M. A.
Fox
(National Academies Press
, Washington, D.C.
, 2003
).3.
<www.iclicker.com>.
4.
E.
Mazur
, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual
(Prentice-Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ
, 1997
).5.
L. C.
McDermott
and P. S.
Schaffer
, Tutorials in Introductory Physics
(Prentice-Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ
, 1998
).6.
J. M.
Wilson
, “The CUPLE physics studio
,” Phys. Teach.
32
(12
), 518
–523
(1994
).7.
Y.
Dori
and J.
Belcher
, “How does Technology-Enabled Active Learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts?
,” J. Learn. Sci.
14
(2
), 243
–279
(2005
).8.
R.
Beichner
, J.
Saul
, D.
Abbott
, J.
Morse
, D.
Deardorff
, R.
Allain
, S.
Bonham
, M.
Dancy
, and J.
Risley
, “Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project
,” in PER-Based Reform in University Physics
, edited E. F.
Redish
and P. J.
Cooney
(American Association of Physics Teachers
, College Park, MD
, 2006
).9.
T.
Furtak
and T.
Ohno
, “Installing studio physics
,” Phys. Teach.
39
(12
), 11
–15
(2001
).10.
N. D.
Finkelstein
and S. J.
Pollock
, “Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
1
, 010101
(2005
).11.
http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/.
12.
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
).13.
C.
Hoellwarth
and M. J.
Moelter
, “The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics
,” Am. J. Phys.
79
(5
), 540
–545
(2011
).14.
C. M.
Sorensen
, D. L.
McBride
, and N. S.
Rebello
, “Studio optics: Adapting interactive engagement pedagogy to upper-division physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
79
(3
), 320
–325
(2011
).15.
Note that “problem-solving skills” is a term used in a variety of ways in the physics community. In the PER community, there is often the distinction between an “exercise,” or a routine task, and a “problem” that presents a genuinely new obstacle to the problem-solver. More colloquially, “problem-solving skill” is equated with skill at traditional, mathematical physics problems such as those found on many exams. It is that latter convention that we adhere to in this paper.
16.
C.
Hoellwarth
, M. J.
Moelter
, and R. D.
Knight
, “A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms
,” Am. J. Phys.
73
(5
), 459
–462
(2005
).17.
D.
Hestenes
, M.
Wells
, and G.
Swackhamer
, “Force concept inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 141
–158
(1992
).18.
Physics 100 at the Colorado School of Mines, <http://einstein.mines.edu/poster/>.
19.
P.
Heller
and M.
Hollabaugh
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part II: Designing problems and structuring groups
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
(7
), 637
–644
(1992
).20.
D. W.
Johnson
, R.
Johnson
, and K.
Smith
, Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom
(Interaction Book Company
, Edina, MN
, 1991
).21.
D.
Hestenes
, “Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction
,” Am. J. Phys.
55
(5
), 440
–454
(1997
).22.
M.
Enghag
, P.
Gustaffson
, and G.
Jonnson
, “From everyday life experiences to physics understanding occurring in small group work with context rich problems during introductory physics work at university
,” Res. Sci. Educ.
37
(4
), 449
–467
(2007
).23.
J.
Lave
and E.
Wenger
, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
(Cambridge U.P.
, New York, NY
, 1991
).24.
J. S.
Brown
, A.
Collins
, and P.
Duguid
, “Situated cognition and the culture of learning
,” Educ. Res.
18
(1
), 32
–41
(1989
).25.
A.
Collins
, J. S.
Brown
, and S.
Newman
, “Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics
,” in Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser
, edited by L.
Resnick
(Erlbaum
, Hillsdale, NJ
, 1989
), pp. 453
–494
.26.
M.
Ward
and J.
Sweller
, “Structuring effective worked examples
,” Cogn. Instruct.
7
, 1
–39
(1990
).27.
The Learning Online Network with CAPA, <http://www.lon-capa.org>.
28.
Physlets available at <http://webphysics.davidson.edu/applets/applets.html>.
29.
PhET Interactive Simulations at the University of Colorado at Boulder, <http://phet.colorado.edu/>.
30.
K. K.
Perkins
, W. K.
Adams
, M.
Dubson
, N. D.
Finkelstein
, S.
Reid
, C.
Wieman
, and R.
LeMaster
, “PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics
,” Phys. Teach.
44
, 18
–23
(2006
).31.
D. P.
Maloney
, T. L.
O’Kuma
, C. J.
Hieggelke
, and A. V.
Heuvelen
, “Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
(S1
), S12
–S23
(2001
).32.
W. K.
Adams
, K. K.
Perkins
, N. S.
Podelefsky
, M.
Dubson
, N. D.
Finkelstein
, and C. E.
Wieman
, “New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
2
(1
), 010101
(2006
).33.
P. B.
Kohl
, C.
Pearl
, and H.
Vincent Kuo
, “Direct and indirect approaches to increasing conceptual survey gains
,” in Proceedings of the 2010 PERC
, edited by M.
Sabella
, C.
Singh
, and S.
Rebello
(AIP Conference Proceedings, Madison, Wisconsin, 2010
), pp. 193
–196
.34.
S. J.
Pollock
, “Comparing student learning with multiple research-based conceptual surveys: CSEM and BEMA
,” in Proceedings of the 2008 PERC
, edited by C.
Henderson
, M.
Sabella
, and L.
Hsu
(AIP Conference Proceedings, Madison, Wisconsin, 2008
), pp. 171
–174
.35.
E. F.
Redish
, R. N.
Steinberg
, and J. M.
Saul
, “Student expectations in introductory physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 212
–224
(1998
).36.
V.
Otero
, S.
Pollock
, and N. D.
Finkelstein
, “A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model
,” Am. J. Phys.
78
(11
), 1218
–1224
(2010
).37.
L. E.
Kost
, S. J.
Pollock
, and N. D.
Finkelstein
, “Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
5
(1
), 010101
(2009
).38.
M.
Lorenzo
, C. H.
Crouch
, and E.
Mazur
, “Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom
,” Am. J. Phys.
72
, 118
–122
(2006
).39.
P. B.
Kohl
and H.
Vincent Kuo
, “Introductory Physics Gender Gaps: Pre- and Post-Studio Transition
,” in Proceedings of the 2009 PERC
, edited by M.
Sabella
, C.
Henderson
, and C.
Singh
(AIP Conference Proceedings, Madison, Wisconsin, 2009
), pp. 173
–176
.40.
F. V.
Kowalski
, S. E.
Kowalski
, and L.
Campagnola
, “Tablet Computers Used for Teaching and Real-Time Assessment of Conceptual Understanding of Engineering Students
,” in Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Conference, Portland OR, 14 June 2005
, pp. 1–10, available online at <http://www.asee.org/>.41.
S. B.
McKagan
and C. E.
Wieman
, “Exploring Student Understanding of Energy Through the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey
,” in Proceedings of the 2005 PERC
, edited by P.
Heron
, L.
McCollough
, and J.
Marx
(AIP Conference Proceedings, Madison, Wisconsin, 2006
), pp. 65
–68
.42.
L. D.
Carr
and S. B.
McKagan
, “Graduate quantum mechanics reform
,” Am. J. Phys.
77
, 308
–319
(2009
).43.
H.
Vincent Kuo
, P. B.
Kohl
, and L. D.
Carr
, “Socratic Dialogs and Clicker use in an Upper-Division Mechanics Course
,” in Proceedings of the 2011 PERC
, edited by C.
Singh
, S.
Rebello
, and P.
Engelhardt
, (AIP
, Melville, NY
, 2012
), pp. 235
–238
.44.
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
, 64
–74
(1998
).45.
D. R.
Sokoloff
and R. K.
Thornton
, “Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment
,” Phys. Teach.
35
, 340
–347
(1997
).© 2012 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2012
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.
