A thoughtful approach to designing and improving labs, particularly at the advanced level, is critical for the effective preparation of physics majors for professional work in industry or graduate school. With that in mind, physics education researchers in partnership with the physics faculty at the University of Colorado Boulder have overhauled the senior-level Advanced Physics Lab course. The transformation followed a three part process of establishing learning goals, designing curricula that align with the goals, and assessment. Similar efforts have been carried out in physics lecture courses at the University of Colorado Boulder, but this is the first systematic research-based revision of one of our laboratory courses. The outcomes of this effort include a set of learning goals, a suite of new lab-skill activities and transformed optics labs, and a set of assessments specifically tailored for a laboratory environment. While the particular selection of advanced lab experiments varies widely between institutions, the overall transformation process, the learning goals, and the assessments are broadly applicable to the instructional lab community.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics,” Report to the President, Released Feb 7 (2012).
3.
N. L.
Fortenberry
, J. F.
Sullivan
, P. N.
Jordan
, and D. W.
Knight
, “Engineering education research aids instruction
,” Science
317
, 1175
–1176
(2007
).4.
E.
Etkina
, S.
Murthy
, and X.
Zou
, “Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design
,” Am. J. Phys.
74
, 979
–986
(2006
).5.
E.
Etkina
, A.
Karelina
, M.
Ruibal-Villasenor
, D.
Rosengrant
, R.
Jordan
, and C. E.
Hmelo-Silver
, “Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories
,” J. Learn. Sci.
19
, 54
–98
(2010
).6.
E. H.
Hall
and J. Y.
Bergen
, A Text-Book of Physics Largely Experimental
(Henry Holt and Company
, New York
, 1892
).7.
More information on ALPhA can be found online at <http://advlab.org>.
8.
O.
Oldenberg
, “A laboratory course in atomic physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
2
, 163
–166
(1934
).9.
E.
Etkina
and A.
Van Heuvelen
, “Investigative Science Learning Environment—A Science Process Approach to Learning Physics
,” in Research-Based Reform of University Physics
, edited by E. F.
Redish
and P. J.
Cooney
(American Association of Physics Teachers
, College Park, MD
, 2007
), Reviews in PER Vol. 1, available online at <http://www.per-central.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4988>.10.
C. M.
Sorensen
, D. L.
McBride
, and N. S.
Rebello
, “Studio optics: Adapting interactive engagement pedagogy to upper-division physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
79
, 320
–325
(2011
).11.
J.
Blue
, S.
Burcin Bayram
, and S.
Douglas Marcum
, “Creating, implementing, and sustaining an advanced optical spectroscopy laboratory course
,” Am. J. Phys.
78
, 503
–509
(2010
).12.
J.
Henningsen
, “Teaching laser physics by experiments
,” Am. J. Phys
79
, 85
–93
(2011
).13.
E. J.
Galvez
, C. H.
Holbrow
, M. J.
Pysher
, J. W.
Martin
, N.
Courtemanche
, L.
Heilig
, and J.
Spencer
“Interference with correlated photons: Five quantum mechanics experiments for undergraduates
,” Am. J. Phys.
73
, 127
–140
(2005
).14.
B. J.
Pearson
and D. P.
Jackson
, “A hands-on introduction to single photons and quantum mechanics for undergraduates
,” Am. J. Phys.
78
, 471
–484
(2010
).15.
Steven J.
Pollock
, Rachel E.
Pepper
, and Alysia D.
Marino
, “Issues and Progress in Transforming a Middle-Division Classical Mechanics/Math Methods Course
,” in AIP Conf. Proc. 1413
, edited by N. S.
Rebello
, P. V.
Engelhardt
, and C.
Singh
, 303
–306
(2012
).16.
R.
Pepper
, S.
Chasteen
, S.
Pollock
, and K.
Perkins
, “Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
8
, 010111
–1
(2012
).17.
S.
McKagan
, K.
Perkins
, and C.
Wieman
, “Deeper look at student learning of quantum mechanics: The case of tunneling
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
4
, 010103
–1
(2008
).18.
C.
Baily
and N. D.
Finkelstein
, “Teaching and understanding of quantum interpretations in modern physics courses
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
6
, 010101
–1
(2010
).19.
S.
Goldhaber
, S.
Pollock
, M.
Dubson
, P.
Beale
, and K. Perkins, “Transforming upper-division quantum mechanics: Learning goals and assessment
,” in AIP Conf. Proc. 1179
, edited by M.
Sabella
, C.
Henderson
, and C.
Singh
, 145
–148
(2009
).20.
C.
Wieman
, K.
Perkins
, and S.
Gilbert
, “Transforming science education at large research universities: A case study in progress
,” Change Magazine, March-April (2010
).21.
S. V.
Chasteen
, K. K.
Perkins
, P. D.
Beale
, S. J.
Pollock
, and C. E.
Wieman
, “A thoughtful approach to instruction: Course transformation for the rest of us
,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach.
40
, 70
–76
(2011
).22.
The detailed learning goals are available as supplementary materials at http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4768890 and can also be found online at <http://tinyurl.com/Advanced-Lab-LGs>.
23.
E.
Etkina
, A.
Warren
, and M.
Gentile
, “The role of models in physics instruction
,” Phys. Teach.
44
, 34
–39
(2006
).24.
D.
Hestenes
, “Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction
,” Am. J. Phys.
55
, 440
–454
(1987
).25.
M.
Wells
, D.
Hestenes
, and G.
Swackhamer
, “A modeling method for high school physics instruction
,” Am. J. Phys.
63
, 606
–619
(1995
).26.
E.
Brewe
, “Modeling theory applied: Modeling Instruction in introductory physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
76
, 1155
–1160
(2008
).27.
These screencasts can be viewed at <http://www.youtube.com/compphysatcu>.
28.
R.
Clark Jones
, “A new calculus for the treatment of optical systems
,” J. Opt. Soc. Am.
31
, 488
–493
(1941
).29.
More information about SALG can be found online at <www.salgsite.org> or by consulting
E.
Seymour
, D. J.
Wiese
, Anne -Barrie
Hunter
, and Susan M.
Daffinrud
, “Creating a Better Mousetrap: On-line Student Assessment of their Learning Gains
,” Paper presentation at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society
, San Francisco, CA (2000
), available online at <http://www.salgsite.org/docs/SALGPaperPresentationAtACS.pdf>.30.
A.
Hunter
, T. J.
Weston
, S. L.
Laursen
, and H.
Thiry
, “URSSA: Evaluating student gains from undergraduate research in the sciences
,” Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly
29
, 15
–19
(2009
).31.
B.
Zwickl
, N.
Finkelstein
, and H. J.
Lewandowski
, “Development and validation of the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey
,” in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference
(accepted); e-print arXiv:1207.2418v1.32.
W.
Adams
, K.
Perkins
, N.
Podolefsky
, M.
Dubson
, N.
Finkelstein
, and C.
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
, 010101
–1
(2006
).33.
L. T.
Tien
, D.
Rickey
, and A. M.
Stacy
, “The MORE thinking frame: Guiding students' thinking in the laboratory
,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach.
28
, 318
–324
(1999
).34.
R.
Lippmann Kung
and C.
Linder
, “Metacognitive activity in the physics student laboratory: Is increased metacognition necessarily better?
,” Metacog. Learn.
2
, 41
–56
(2007
).© 2013 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2013
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.
