New technology like the Arduino microcontroller platform presents an opportunity to transform Beyond the First Year (BFY) physics labs to better prepare physics students for work in research labs and beyond. The flexibility, low cost, and power of these devices provide an attractive way for students to learn to use and master research-grade instrumentation. Therefore, we introduced new technology, including Arduino Due microcontroller boards, to a second-year honors physics lab in order to provide improved learning experiences for students. This transformation was implemented in three lab modules and focused on diminishing the black box nature of the traditional labs while encouraging students to engage in troubleshooting. The importance of troubleshooting was made evident to students by the instructor emphasizing it as an inevitable and central part of experimentation. This lab transformation also required that students perform work that was “above and beyond” the scope of the assigned experimental work for part of the course credit. While the technological aspects of the transformation were received well by a majority of students, our observations during the initial implementation suggested a need for some modifications to instructional practices in order to improve the learning and experiences for all students. In particular, we find that many students can benefit from additional scaffolding in order to complete above and beyond work. Similarly, we find that students in general, and under-represented students such as women, in particular, may need thoughtful intervention from the instructor, e.g., in order to avoid becoming isolated when the lab work is designed for pair work. Otherwise, some students may be left to work alone with a disproportionate work-load if students choose their own partners. With these lessons taken into account, recent student experiences in the transformed lab were notably improved.

1.
A. B.
Hunter
,
S. L.
Laursen
, and
E.
Seymour
, “
Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students' cognitive, personal, and professional development
,”
Sci. Educ.
91
(
1
),
36
74
(
2007
).
2.
M. C.
Linn
,
E.
Palmer
,
A.
Baranger
,
E.
Gerard
, and
E.
Stone
, “
Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities
,”
Science
34
(
6222
),
1261757
(
2015
).
3.
R.
Beichner
, “
History and evolution of active learning spaces
,”
Active Learning Spaces
(
Jossey-Bass
,
2014
), pp.
9
16
.
4.
Y. J.
Dori
and
J.
Belcher
, “
How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts?
,”
J. Learn. Sci.
14
,
243
279
(
2005
).
5.
M. F.
Masters
and
R. E.
Miers
, “
Use of a digital oscilloscope as a spectrum analyzer in the undergraduate laboratory
,”
Am. J. Phys.
65
,
254
255
(
1997
).
6.
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
).
7.
D.
Branning
,
S.
Bhandari
, and
M.
Beck
, “
Low-cost coincidence-counting electronics for undergraduate quantum optics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
77
,
667
670
(
2009
).
8.
E. A.
George
,
M. J.
Broadstock
, and
J. V.
Abad
, “
Learning energy, momentum, and conservation concepts with computer support in an undergraduate physics laboratory
,” in
Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences,
2013
, pp.
2
3
.
9.
G. C.
Spalding
and
L. I.
McCann
, “
Co-valuing instructional laboratory course offerings
,” in
Proceedings of the Symposium on Envisioning the Future of Undergraduate STEM Education
,
Washington, DC
,
2016
.
10.
R. S.
Aspden
,
M. J.
Padgett
, and
G. C.
Spalding
, “
Video recording true single-photon doubleslit interference
,”
Am. J. Phys.
84
,
671
677
(
2016
).
11.
M.
Sobhanzadeh
,
C. S.
Kalman
, and
R. I.
Thompson
, “
Labatorials in introductory physics courses
,”
Eur. J. Phys.
38
,
065702
(
2017
).
12.
B. M.
Zwickl
,
N.
Finkelstein
, and
H. J.
Lewandowski
, “
The process of transforming an advanced lab course: Goals, curriculum, and assessments
,”
Am. J. Phys.
81
,
63
70
(
2013
).
13.
N. G.
Holmes
and
E. M.
Smith
, “
Operationalizing the AAPT learning goals for the lab
,”
Phys. Teach.
57
,
296
299
(
2019
).
14.
AAPT Committee on Laboratories,
AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum
(
AAPT
,
College Park, MD
2015
).
15.
B.
D'Urso
, Pythics,
2015
<https://github.com/dursobr/Pythics>.
16.
A.
Collins
,
J. S.
Brown
, and
A.
Holum
, “
Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible
,”
Am. Educ.
15
,
6
11
(
1991
); available at https://www.aft.org/ae/winter1991/collins_brown_holum.
17.
F.
Bouquet
,
J.
Bobroff
,
M.
Fuchs-Gallezot
, and
L.
Maurines
, “
Project-based physics labs using low-cost open-source hardware
,”
Am. J. Phys.
85
,
216
222
(
2017
).
18.
J.-F.
Hsu
,
S.
Dhingra
, and
B.
D'Urso
, “
Design and construction of a cost-efficient Arduino-based mirror galvanometer system for scanning optical microscopy
,”
Am. J. Phys.
85
,
68
75
(
2017
).
19.
C.
Galeriu
,
C.
Letson
, and
G.
Esper
, “
An Arduino investigation of the RC circuit
,”
Phys. Teach.
53
,
285
288
(
2015
).
20.
C. M.
Lavelle
, “
Gamma ray spectroscopy with Arduino UNO
,”
Am. J. Phys.
86
,
384
394
(
2018
).
21.
M.
Gopalakrishnan
and
M.
Gühr
, “
A low-cost mirror mount control system for optics setups
,”
Am. J. Phys.
83
,
186
190
(
2015
).
22.
S.
DeVore
,
A.
Gauthier
,
J.
Levy
, and
C.
Singh
, “
Improving student understanding of lock-in amplifiers
,”
Am. J. Phys.
84
,
52
56
(
2016
).
23.
S.
DeVore
,
A.
Gauthier
,
J.
Levy
, and
C.
Singh
, “
Development and evaluation of a tutorial to improve students' understanding of a lock-in amplifier
,”
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
12
,
020127
(
2016
).
24.
J. T.
Stanley
and
H. J.
Lewandowski
, “
Recommendations for the use of notebooks in upper-division physics lab courses
,”
Am. J. Phys.
86
,
45
53
(
2018
).
25.
D. R.
Dounas-Frazer
and
H. J.
Lewandowski
, “
Electronics lab instructors' approaches to troubleshooting instruction
,”
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
13
,
010102
(
2017
).
26.
H. B.
Carlone
and
A.
Johnson
, “
Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens
,”
J. Res. Sci. Teach.
44
,
1187
1218
(
2007
).
27.
Z.
Hazari
,
P. M.
Sadler
, and
G.
Sonnert
, “
The science identity of college students: Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity
,”
J. Coll. Sci. Teach.
42
,
82
91
(
2013
).
28.
Z. Y.
Kalender
,
E.
Marshman
,
C. D.
Schunn
,
T. J.
Nokes-Malach
, and
C.
Singh
, “
Why female science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors do not identify with physics: They do not think others see them that way
,”
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
15
,
020148
(
2019
).
29.
Z. Y.
Kalender
,
E.
Marshman
,
C. D.
Schunn
,
T. J.
Nokes-Malach
, and
C.
Singh
, “
Gendered patterns in the construction of physics identity from motivational factors
,”
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
15
,
020119
(
2019
).
30.
V. K.
Otero
and
D. B.
Harlow
, “
Getting started in qualitative physics education research
,”
Rev. PER
2
,
1
66
(
2009
).
31.
B. R.
Wilcox
and
H. J.
Lewandowski
, “
Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities: Impact on students' beliefs about experimental physics
,”
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
12
,
020132
(
2016
).
32.
B.
Wilcox
and
H.
Lewandowski
, “
Students' epistemologies about experimental physics: Validating the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey for experimental physics
,”
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
12
,
010123
(
2016
).
33.
J.
Cohen
,
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
(
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
,
Mahwah, NJ
,
2013
).
34.
D.
Doucette
,
R.
Clark
, and
C.
Singh
, “
Hermione and the secretary: How gendered task division in introductory physics labs can disrupt equitable learning
,”
Eur. J. Phys.
41
,
035702
(
2020
).
35.
E. M.
Marshman
,
Z. Y.
Kalender
,
T.
Nokes-Malach
,
C.
Schunn
, and
C.
Singh
, “
Female students with A's have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C's in introductory courses: A cause for alarm?
,”
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
14
,
020123
(
2018
).
36.
Z. Y.
Kalender
,
E.
Marshman
,
C. D.
Schunn
,
T. J.
Nokes-Malach
, and
C.
Singh
, “
Damage caused by women's lower self-efficacy on physics learning
,”
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
16
,
010118
(
2020
).
37.
C.
Singh
, “
Impact of peer interaction on conceptual test performance
,”
Am. J. Phys.
73
,
446
451
(
2005
).
38.
M.
Azmitia
and
R.
Montgomery
, “
Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning
,”
Soc. Dev.
2
,
202
221
(
1993
).
39.
P.
Heller
and
K.
Heller
,
Cooperative Group Problem Solving in Physics
(
Department of Physics, University of Minnesota
,
Minneapolis
,
2001
).
40.
B.
Kirwan
and
L. K.
Ainsworth
,
A Guide to Task Analysis: The Task Analysis Working Group
(
CRC Press
,
London
,
1992
).
41.
R. E.
Clark
,
D. F.
Feldon
,
J. G.
van Merriënboer
,
K.
Yates
, and
S.
Early
, “
Cognitive task analysis
,” in
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology
, edited by
J. M.
Spector
,
M. D.
Merrill
,
J. G.
van Merriënboer
, and
M. P.
Driscoll
(
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
,
Mahwah, NJ
,
2007
).
42.
D. L.
Schwartz
,
J. D.
Bransford
, and
D.
Sears
, “
Efficiency and innovation in transfer
,” in
Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives
, edited by
J.
Mestre
(
Information Age Publishing
,
Greenwich, CT
,
2005
), pp.
1
51
.
43.
M.
Kapur
, “
Productive failure
,”
Cognit. Instr.
26
,
379
424
(
2008
).
44.
M.
Lorenzo
,
C. H.
Crouch
, and
E.
Mazur
, “
Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom
,”
Am. J. Phys.
74
,
118
122
(
2006
).
45.
N. I.
Karim
,
A.
Maries
, and
C.
Singh
, “
Do evidence-based active-engagement courses reduce the gender gap in introductory physics?
,”
Eur. J. Phys.
39
,
025701
(
2018
).
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.