As physics instructors, we enjoy access to a variety of powerful instructional materials. Among them are classroom-tested inquiry-based laboratory curricula such as Physics by Inquiry1 and Workshop Physics.2 Unfortunately, such materials are often tested in conditions unattainable in introductory physics courses. In particular, the recommended instructor-student ratio tends to be larger than we can afford. This article describes an implementation of Physics by Inquiry in a liberal-arts physics class with 70 students and one instructor. I discuss the choices I made with the materials under these circumstances, describe the challenges that arose, and offer evidence that the course was fairly successful. Examples such as this one show that proven instructional materials can be put to good use even in circumstances that fall outside the tested conditions.

Topics
Educational aids, Educational assessment
1.
L.C. McDermott and the PER Group at the University of Washington, Physics by Inquiry (Wiley, New York, 1996), Vols. I and II.
2.
P.W. Laws, Workshop Physics (Wiley, New York, 1996), Modules 1–4.
3.
See, for example,
L. C.
 
McDermott
, 
P. S.
 
Shaffer
, and 
C. P.
 
Constantinou
, “
Preparing teachers to teach physics and physical science by inquiry
,”
Phys. Educ.
 
35
(
6
),
411
(Nov.
2000
);
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
B. A.
Thacker
,
E.
Kim
, and
K.
Trefz
, “
Comparing problem-solving performance of inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics courses
,”
Am. J. Phys.
62
(
7
),
627
–
633
(July
1994
).
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
4.
For a description of courses taught at the UW based on PbI, see, for example,
L. C.
McDermott
, “
A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: The need for special science courses for teachers
,”
Am. J. Phys.
58
,
734
–
742
(
1990
).
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
5.
In future years, I would have been able to recruit peer instructors from among students who had taken the course.
6.
The Five Blocks question and the associated data are from
M. E.
 
Loverude
, 
C. H.
 
Kautz
, and 
P. R. L.
 
Heron
, “
Helping students develop a functional understanding of Archimedes' principle, Part I: Research on student understanding
,” accepted for publication in
Am. J. Phys.
, and
P. R. L.
Heron
,
M. E.
Loverude
,
P. S.
Shaffer
, and
L. C.
McDermott
, “
Helping students develop a functional understanding of Archimedes' principle, Part II: Development of research-based instructional materials
,” accepted for publication in
Am. J. Phys.
Additional detail on the study, including student quotations, can be found in M.E. Loverude, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 2000.
7.
Only differences of about 20% or more are considered significant by the developers of the curriculum.
8.
The Oil Displacement question and the associated data are from personal communication with P.R.L. Heron, University of Washington, 2000.
9.
For an example of an unsuccessful implementation of research-based instructional materials, see
M. C.
Wittmann
, “
On the dissemination of a proven curriculum: RealTime Physics and Interactive Lecture Demonstrations
,” submitted to
Am. J. Phys.
2002
.
Google Scholar
 
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2003 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2003
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.