We have developed and employed a set of inquiry-based labs built around engaging “real-world” scenarios for our studio-style introductory Physics II course. In real-world situations, there is more than one path to success and step-by-step instructions are not provided. For this reason, the primary goal for these labs is to provide students with the freedom to develop collaborative solutions to open-ended challenges, where creativity and independent thought are encouraged. This approach is more akin to what they will encounter in the academic or industrial lab settings. The main challenges facing the students are developing the experimental plan and writing an in-depth lab report; in the end, the necessary measurements typically require only 5-10 minutes. The primary challenge to the instructor(s) is providing just enough guidance to keep students on the path to a feasible plan without giving away the solution. Student feedback has been very positive and we have made these labs freely available to our students and the larger physics community.

1.
Richard 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
(
Jan.
1998).
2.
Scott
Freeman
,
Sarah L.
Eddy
,
Miles
McDonough
,
Michelle K.
Smith
,
Nnadozie
Okoroafor
,
Hannah
Jordt
, and
Mary Pat
Wenderoth
, “
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics
,”
PNAS
111
,
8410
8415
(
June
2014).
3.
Catherine H.
Crouch
and
Eric
Mazur
, “
Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results
,”
Am. J. Phys.
69
,
970
977
(
Sept.
2001
).
4.
Louis
Deslauriers
,
Ellen
Schelew
, and
Carl
Wieman
, “
Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class
,”
Sci.
332
,
862
864
(
May
2011
).
5.
Robert
Beichner
and
Jeff
Saul
, “Introduction to the SCALE-UP (Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs) Project,” in
Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course CLVI in Varenna, Italy
, edited by
M.
Vicentini
and
E. F.
Redish
(
IOS Press
,
Amsterdam
,
2004
).
6.
Randall D.
Knight
,
Five Easy Lessons: Strategies for Successful Physics Teaching
(
Pearson
,
San Francisco
,
2002
), p.
1
.
7.
Edward F.
Redish
,
Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite
(
Wiley
,
Hoboken
,
2003
), p.
1
.
8.
Priscilla W.
Laws
,
Workshop Physics Activity Guide: The Core Volume
(
Wiley
,
Hoboken
,
2004
), p.
1
.
9.
Natasha G.
Holmes
and
Carl E.
Wieman
, “
Introductory physics labs: We can do better
,”
Phys. Today
71
,
38
45
(
Jan.
2018
).
10.
Kathleen
Foote
and
Silvia
Martino
, “
Implementing investigative labs and writing intensive reports in large university physics courses
,”
Phys. Teach.
56
,
466
469
(
Oct.
2018
).
11.
Kasey
Wagoner
,
K. Mairin
Hynes
, and
Daniel
Flanagan
, “
Interesting guided-inquiry labs for a large-enrollment, active learning Physics II course
,”
Phys. Teach.
56
,
244
247
(
April
2018
).
12.
Carl
Wieman
and
N.G.
Holmes
, “
Measuring the impact of instructional laboratory on the learning of introductory physics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
83
,
972
978
(
Nov.
2015
).
13.
The appendix can be found at TPT Online, http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.5131122, under the Supplemental tab.

Supplementary Material

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.