Project Description
1. Introduction
Physics Education Research (PER) has changed the landscape of the physics classroom and lab
in recent years. Introductory physics instructors are adopting active-learning methods from PER
in their introductory physics classes, and in some instances colleges and universities are
remodeling physics classrooms to accommodate lecture and lab instruction in an integrated
environment.1 The purpose of these lecture/lab classrooms is to provide an active, hands-on
learning environment where students are able to acquire conceptual, problem solving and
laboratory skills more effectively. Madison Area Technical College (MATC) moved into
combined lecture/lab physics classrooms a few years ago. In 2009 University of Wisconsin Platteville (UWP) will move into three new lecture/lab physics classrooms in a new building.
The existing classrooms at MATC and the new classrooms at UWP are designed to
accommodate a variety faculty teaching styles within the active-learning environment. An
assessment of the effectiveness of different teaching styles within the integrated lecture/lab
environments at the two institutions will be an extension to physics education research.
Madison Area Technical College is the technical and community college for the greater
Madison, Wisconsin area serving about 44,000 students each year. The school is dedicated to
providing accessible, high quality instruction and technical experience to meet the needs of its
students, community and area employers. It provides a comprehensive curriculum of technical,
liberal arts and sciences, adult basic education and continuing education, as well as customized
training for employers. The college awards associate degrees, technical diplomas and certificates
and offers classes that transfer to four-year degree programs. The Natural Sciences Department
offers courses in technical physics and college physics (both algebra- and calculus-based).
Enrollments in these courses total about 500 students each year in sections of about 20 each.
Current staffing includes 5 full-time physics instructors.
University of Wisconsin - Platteville is a primarily undergraduate, public university of about
6000 students. Approximately half of the students are majoring in engineering, science, or
technology and are required to take introductory physics. Present enrollments in introductory
physics courses total about 700 students per year in sections of 40 - 60 students. The
Engineering Physics Department also offers courses in astronomy and physical science enrolling
about 100 students per year. The introductory courses represent about 75% of the teaching load
for the engineering physics department. Current staffing includes 5 faculty, 1 full-time teaching
academic staff, and 1 full-time lab instructor, all of whom teach introductory physics, astronomy,
or physical science at least once each academic year. All seven agree that an integrated approach
to lecture and lab would be an improvement.
At present all introductory physics instruction at UWP is conducted in separate lectures and labs.
Due to projected increases in overall enrollment, the engineering college is planning a new
building to house a few of the engineering departments, including Engineering Physics.
Architectural plans for the building include three classrooms designed to accommodate both
lecture and lab instruction in the same room. It is now up to us to determine how best to use
these new resources. Our goal is to do so in a format that will engage and involve the students in
interactive learning and hands-on experiences in an integrated manner while still allowing for a
1
breadth of faculty teaching styles.
This proposal requests assistance from NSF in the transition to more active-learning based
physics instruction in an integrated lecture/lab environment at UWP and assessment of the
effectiveness of different styles of instruction in such an environment at both UWP and MATC.
Sections II and III review the PER and local experiences which have influenced our plans. In
section IV we discuss our goals in building lecture/lab classrooms at UWP. In sections V and VI
we outline the steps in the transition at UWP and present our plans for assessment and
dissemination of the results to the physics education community. Section VII shows our timeline, and then in section VIII we review how this proposal fulfills the goals of the NSF CCLI
program.
2. PER on Active Learning
Throughout the past century introductory physics has been taught primarily in lecture classes.2
Professors have spent most, if not all, of their allotted time presenting explanations of the physics
principles and applications with little student participation. Student involvement in the learning
process was usually limited to homework problems and laboratory experiments. Discussion
sections were often scheduled where the students could interact with an instructor about their
experiences with the homework or experiments, but these discussion periods were separate from
the lecture.
About thirty years ago some professors and universities began introducing more active-learning
methods into the introductory physics classroom. Students were given the opportunity to
become actively engaged in the learning process in the lecture class. Physics education
researchers have been comparing the effectiveness of these active-learning methods to the
effectiveness of predominantly lecture instruction. The results of this research strongly suggest
that physics classrooms with a significant amount of active-learning are more effective than
predominantly lecture classrooms.2,3,4,5
Over the years a number of different approaches to active-learning have been developed,
evaluated, and presented in the literature. A number of different interactive learning techniques
have proven successful at improving both concept comprehension and problem solving skills.6,7
The PER group at University of Washington introduced topical tutorials to improve student
comprehension of physics concepts. Working on these tutorials in groups during class time, the
students are more engaged in the learning process.8,9 In another interactive approach, Peer
Instruction, students respond first to the instructor through a survey and then interact with each
other to correct misconceptions.10,11 This method of instruction has become so popular that
electronic responders and computer data processing have been developed and marketed by
several of the publishers of physics texts.
Other researchers have introduced laboratory activities into the classroom as a means of
engaging the students more in the learning process. Sokoloff and Thornton accomplished this
through Interactive Lecture Demonstrations.12 In an interactive demonstration the students work
individually and then in groups to predict the outcome of the demonstration. Their predictions
are then compared to the actual result. Laws has carried the idea of combining lecture and lab
even further in first Workshop Physics13,14 and then Real-Time Physics15 where the physics
2
classes are taught in a laboratory environment. Students are able to discover the physics in
laboratory exercises rather than just learning about concepts from a lecture or textbook and then
seeing the experimental evidence at some later time in a separate lab. These approaches are best
suited for small class sizes compatible with traditional physics instructional laboratories.
Recently, several universities have been introducing both interactive and inquiry-based learning
in large physics classes. In the Studio Physics16,17 approach pioneered at RPI, the students (3045 per section) use computers and interact with the instructor more than in traditional
classrooms. This approach has shown some success, particularly when collaborative learning and
Interactive Lecture Demonstrations are included. In the Student Centered Activities for Large
Enrollment University Physics (SCALE-UP)1 approach pioneered by North Carolina State
University, the classes are also two hours in length with collaborative and laboratory activities
integrated together. Lecture is almost nonexistent. A number of universities have adopted this
approach to physics instruction, remodeling classrooms to facilitate group interactions and
laboratory activities.
3. Active-Learning at MATC and UWP
At MATC the physics classes are taught in laboratories which accommodate both lecture and lab
instruction. The investigator from MATC (Zimmerman) has been implementing active-learning
in his classes for several years. He worked with the physics education research group at
University of Minnesota while in graduate school. At MATC he is utilizing many of the activelearning instruction materials that have been developed for both small and large classrooms,
including Workshop Physics,14 McDermott=s tutorials,9 Interactive Lecture Demonstrations,12
and Peer Instruction.10 He has written his own active-learning workbook to accompany the text
in one of his classes. One other member of the faculty has begun to use some of the same
materials in his classes.
The physics faculty at UWP has been following the developments in physics education for the
past 15 to 20 years. Although enrollments in the introductory physics sections are typically 4070, several of the recommendations from PER have been implemented from time to time. One
member of the faculty introduced group-learning activities in the early 1990's. Over the years he
has expanded the use of group exercises, and now he devotes about 50% of his class time to
group activities. Others in the department began to copy his approach at least once per week,
and then in the mid 1990's the department began scheduling 2 class periods per week devoted to
group learning in smaller sections (20 - 25 per section). The students worked in groups of 3 or 4
around tables with frequent interaction with the instructor. Four of the six teaching faculty/staff
participated in this experiment even though it led to increased contact hours. The results were
encouraging, but the effort had to be abandoned after three years because of increased loads in
advanced courses and the conversion of the classroom into an advanced laboratory. All the
faculty who participated in these group sessions continued using group activities in their full
classes at least once per week. Some of the participants have since retired, but their
replacements have introduced group learning into their classes, too. In general, the effectiveness
of the group activities appears to be limited more by the classroom layout than the size of the
class. Because the classroom is designed for lecture, the students have to put forth some effort to
come together as a group. Some students are more willing to put forth the effort than others, plus
3
some instructors are more effective at encouraging that effort than others.
Implementation of teaching innovations in physics has not been limited to just group activities.
Two members of the faculty were funded over a two-year period (1999-2001) to develop activelearning resources for both the first and second semester general physics classes.18,19,20 They
focused on implementation of Peer Instruction, developing questions and procedures appropriate
for the facilities and curriculum here at UWP. Unfortunately, the techniques and resources they
developed were never seen as user friendly by the other faculty, and both investigators have
since retired.
One of the investigators on this proposal (Patterson) has some experience teaching small classes
in an integrated lecture/lab format at MATC. In 2004 she participated in an active learning
workshop21 conducted by Priscilla Laws, David Sokoloff, and Ronald Thornton. Since coming
to UWP in 2004, she has begun introducing some hands-on activities into her high enrollment
(>50) classes, particularly a physical science class. She plans to teach a small section of
calculus-based physics in an integrated lecture/lab format during summer school in 2006.
Two professors, including the principal investigator (Young), participated in a science
curriculum reform workshop in 1997 and then received funding to rework the first semester
general physics laboratory.22,23 In the revised lab the students are encouraged to interact with
each other and the instructor more than in the past. The revised lab exercises focus on the
development of an experimental mind-set more than on the physics content. Student response to
the revised lab approach has been very positive, and many of the revisions have been translated
into experiments in other introductory physics lab courses. However, no formal assessment was
conducted to determine the actual effectiveness of the changes.
4. Future Plans
This past year UWP embarked on an enrollment plan which should increase overall enrollment
by about 33% over the next five to ten years. Engineering is a major focus of the growth plan, so
introductory physics enrollments are projected to grow by about 40%. To accommodate the
growth in engineering, the university is planning a second engineering building, including new
physics classrooms and labs. Construction is scheduled for 2007 - 2008 with occupation
scheduled for the spring semester 2009.
When the new engineering building was first announced, the engineering physics faculty began
planning for the new introductory classroom and lab facilities with one overriding goal: to
provide facilities that will enable more effective instruction and learning through increased
student involvement. After a review of local experiences and the PER literature, the faculty
adopted five objectives for the new facilities:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To provide students with an environment conducive to collaborative learning
To provide students with the opportunity to observe and experience the physics as they
are learning
To allow students to discover the physics whenever practical
To provide students with experience in doing experimental physics
To utilize technology to help achieve the first four goals
4
The physics faculty then voted unanimously to propose combined lecture/lab classrooms in the
new building, designed similar to the lecture/lab classrooms at universities using the SCALE-UP
approach to instruction. In the SCALE-UP classroom, instruction features collaborative and
active learning, and the lab experiences are fully integrated into the learning experience.1 The
SCALE-UP approach is also compatible with class sizes at UWP.
The proposed classrooms each consist of 14 stations with 4 students per station. The stations are
designed for effective student-student and student-experiment interactions. The room layout is
designed for effective student-instructor interactions. The new building will include three such
classrooms for General Physics I and II (calculus-based), College Physics I and II (algebrabased), Physical Science, and Astronomy. As part of the College of Engineering, Mathematics,
and Science at UWP, the Engineering Physics Department has been in communication with the
engineering departments about this planned change in physics instruction, and they have been
fully supportive. The university has approved the idea, and three lecture/lab classrooms are part
of the architectural plan for the new building.
After the new building is completed, all sections of introductory physics, astronomy, and
physical science will be taught in the new classrooms, so every member of the Engineering
Physics Department will be teaching in the classrooms at least once each year. Requiring every
member of the physics faculty, both present and future, to teach in the lecture/lab environment
represents possibly the greatest challenge in the proposed transition. Participation in lecture/lab
instruction at the larger universities in SCALE-UP or Studio Physics is mostly voluntary.24
Lecture/lab classes represent a smaller percentage of the total teaching load, and faculty may
choose to teach their introductory classes with separate lectures and lab, or they teach only
upper-level classes.
At both UWP and MATC all introductory physics classes will be taught in classrooms adapted to
the lecture/lab format. Therefore, all faculty will have the opportunity to incorporate
collaborative learning and hands-on experiences into their classes and to fully integrate the labs
into the curriculum, but they will also have the option of including lecture instruction with the
active-learning exercises. Although research indicates that students, in general, learn better in an
interactive environment,3 the instructor=s involvement in the process also plays a big part. Some
instructors are very effective in the interactive environment and a dedicated interactive classroom
should work well for them. Other instructors feel that they are more effective in the lecture
environment and will be more reluctant to adopt active-learning instruction completely. We
believe the best learning in the classrooms takes place when the instructors blend their teaching
strengths with active-learning. One of the goals of this project will be to assess the effectiveness
of the different teaching styles in the lecture/lab environment.
The most common SCALE-UP classroom layout has the students sitting at round tables with the
instructor in the middle of the room.1 Instruction is primarily through active- learning.
Information presented to the whole class, such as lecture material, is projected via computer or
document camera to two locations in the room so all students can see the material. The students
are not looking at the instructor. At MATC the classes are small and the stations all face the
front of the room. The new classroom design at UWP calls for rectangular stations laid out such
5
that students can sit either facing the instructor station in the front of the room or facing each
other. At both institutions students will be able to experience various methods of instruction,
including lecture, collaborative learning, hands-on discovery, and experimentation, all in the
same room and with minimal rearrangement of seating. Instructors will be able to move between
methods all within a single two-hour class period. Individual instructors will be able to develop
their own mix of the different methods of instruction to best meet the needs of their students
while utilizing their own strengths.
Changing the instruction in introductory physics will not be easy. Most of the faculty are more
comfortable with lecturing and the change will require considerable effort. Other universities
have implemented similar plans for change without success.25 However, there are several factors
that favor success for this project: (1) Both institutions will have classrooms designed for
integrated lecture/lab instruction. (2) The decision to switch to lecture/lab instruction was
decided by the entire faculty at UWP. (3) The classroom designs at the two institutions allow for
flexibility in teaching methods. Instructors will be able to develop a blend of active and lecture
methods best suited to their strengths.
5. Project Activities
Spring semester 2009 will bring a major change to introductory physics instruction here at UWP.
Instructors used to teaching physics primarily with lectures and separate labs will be asked to
teach in an active-learning environment with increased student-student and student-instructor
interaction. For that transition to be successful, we must accomplish five major steps over the
next few years.
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
Development of instructional materials
Faculty training
Purchase of new equipment
Assessment
Construction of new classroom facilities
Although these activities will be planned around the new building at UWP, the instructional
materials, faculty training, and assessment will also benefit the physics program at MATC. This
proposal requests assistance with 1 through 4. The new classroom facilities at UWP are part of
the new building.
5.1. Development of instructional materials
If all faculty are expected to participate in lecture/lab instruction, then they must be provided
with instructional materials for interactive learning, hands-on discovery, and in-class laboratory
exercises. Faculty accustomed to lecturing most of the time will need to have resources readily
available, or they will fall back into the lecture mode. New faculty will also need the resources
so they don=t become primarily lecturers.
Many interactive learning resources are already available in the physics community.9,10
Although individual faculty may choose to further develop their own materials, it doesn=t make
sense for us to repeat the work of others. We will identify those materials which are best suited
6
for our classes and then make them available to all the faculty. A similar effort will be
conducted on materials already developed by faculty at the two institutions.
Physics education researchers have also developed resources for hands-on discovery
exercises.14,15 Those resources applicable to the courses at UWP and MATC must also be
identified, but here some adaptation will be necessary. The procedures will be modified for the
equipment available at the two institutions. Also, over the years faculty at the two institutions
have developed classroom demonstrations, some of which will be modified into hands-on
discovery experiences for the students.
The lecture/lab classroom will also include laboratory experiments similar to those being
performed presently in the separate lab classes. However, at UWP these experiments should be
changed to better complement the lecture/lab instruction. The overall objectives and outcomes
for the laboratory experience will be rewritten to take advantage of the integration of the lecture
and laboratory. Furthermore, the objectives of individual lab exercises will change because the
lab experience will be better coordinated with the lecture coverage. The department will first
identify the overall objectives for the laboratory experience. Then we will identify laboratory
exercises that fulfill those objectives and develop procedures for the equipment available at the
two institutions. We will also prepare guidelines for integrating the hands-on activities into the
curriculum at both schools.
5.2. Faculty training
Teaching in an integrated lecture/lab environment will be a new experience for all the physics
faculty at UWP and some of the instructors at MATC have only had limited experience with the
lecture/lab environment. Two members of the UWP faculty have already attended a Chautauqua
short course on active learning.21 The rest of the faculty will attend a similar workshop and/or
spend time observing an integrated lecture/lab classroom prior to January 2009. We have
already talked with North Carolina State University and Bradley University about possibly
observing integrated classes at those universities. Also, all faculty/instructors from both
institutions will participate in a workshop on lecture/lab instruction over the summer prior to
moving into the new classrooms at UWP.
5.3. Purchase of new equipment
Three of the objectives for the lecture/lab classroom are related to doing physics, thus requiring
laboratory equipment. In order for students to observe and experience the physics as they are
learning and to discover the physics, the stations must include equipment for demonstrating and
observing basic physics phenomena. In the Physics I classroom each station must include
mechanical mounts, a frictionless track for linear kinematics and dynamics, a rotary platform for
rotational motion, wave equipment, and thermodynamic supplies. The room must also include
several electronic balances. At least the mechanical mounts, the frictionless tracks, and the
electronic balances must be duplicated in the third classroom. In the Physics II classroom each
station must include circuit boards, dc power supplies, ac function generators, multimeters, and
optical benches and supplies.
All stations in all classrooms must be equipped with a computer and a data collection system.
Universities implementing both Real-Time Physics and SCALE-UP lecture/lab instruction have
demonstrated the value of real-time collection and graphing of data with computers. Observing,
7
experiencing, or discovering physics must be real-time to be effective.14,1
Finally, to fulfill objective 4 the students must perform physics experiments, including data
collection, analysis, and reporting. Some of the experiments will involve the equipment listed
above, but others may require additional equipment particular to the experiment. The specialized
equipment will only be needed in one classroom at a time.
MATC already owns most of the basic equipment necessary for lecture/lab instruction, but there
are a few items which would improve the instruction. These are listed in the budget justification.
However, at UWP the existing laboratory equipment used in the separate introductory physics
labs will not be adequate for the lecture/lab classrooms. Presently, introductory physics and
astronomy labs are scheduled in two laboratory classrooms, each with 12 stations, 2 students per
station. In the new building there will be three rooms each with 14 stations, 4 students per
station. One room will be dedicated to Physics I classes covering mechanics, thermodynamics,
and waves. A second room will be dedicated to Physics II classes covering electricity and
magnetism and optics. The only equipment common to these two rooms will be computers,
printers, and data collection systems. The third room will be used for astronomy, physical
science, and one-semester physics classes which cover all the physics areas. All the equipment
used in the other two rooms might be used in the third room from time to time. Some of the
equipment will have to be duplicated; some can be shared. Equipment inventories for the present
labs are obviously too small for the larger classrooms in the new building. Also, much of the
present physics laboratory equipment is out-of-date and inadequate for the needs of the new
lecture/lab classrooms. For example, the present air tracks are very heavy and require relatively
high-pressure air which is noisy. Newer, lighter and quieter frictionless tracks will have to be
purchased for the lecture/lab classrooms. Table I lists the basic physics equipment necessary to
support the hands-on learning in the lecture/lab format. The university already owns some of
these items; the rest must be purchased prior to spring 2009. The budget justification provides
more information on costs of each item.
8
Table I: UWP Lab Equipment
Item
Computer
Student responder
Responder software
Frictionless Track
Air track
Data Acquisition system
Sensor set
Pole mount system
Rotational system
Mass set
Electronic Balance
Wave driver
Breadboard
Multi-meter
DC power supply
Function generator
Optical bench
# required
45
180
3
30
2
45
45
30
15
30
6
15
30
60
30
15
15
Onhand
26
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
15
13
13
0
# needed
19
120
3
30
1
45
45
30
15
18
6
15
30
45
17
2
15
5.4. Assessment
Early research into the conceptual understanding of physics students illuminated two important
points; 1) performance on homework problems, exams, and overall course grades do not provide
an accurate measure of students= conceptual understanding and 2) instructor's personal
assessments of their students' understanding frequently are at odds with what students actually
understood. These observations have lead to the development of various assessment tools such
as the Force Concept Inventory (FCI)26 and the Force and Motion Concept Evaluation (FMCE).27
In the course of our transition, individual faculty assessments of learning in both the traditional
lecture and lab instruction as well as the new lecture/lab instruction may also be at odds with
what is actually taking place. Therefore, to more accurately measure the effectiveness of the
changes, we will make use of established assessment tools, whenever possible, to link student
understanding with teaching methods both before and after the lecture-lab transition. Although
we will rely primarily on existing tools, we may have to adapt those tools to our classes or even
develop our own tools to address particular topics of interest.
The assessments of student learning will be performed on-line as much as possible. This will
allow both pre- and post-instruction assessments to be administered throughout the semester
without disrupting the classes. In addition, we will use some in-class electronic response
assessments to supplement the primary on-line assessments. The combined approach will allow
short turn-around of data analysis. The assessment results will be tabulated and displayed on a
project web site.
9
The assessments of student learning will be supplemented by assessments of student attitudes
and faculty methods and attitudes.28,29 Correlations between student learning and attitude will
indicate whether methods of instruction should be adjusted in response to student resistance to
the lecture/lab format. Correlations between faculty methods and attitudes and student learning
gains will help individual faculty identify areas for improvement. The investigators will also use
the assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of different teaching styles within the lecture/lab
environment. All assessment will be performed for physics classes at both institutions.
6. Dissemination
The initial dissemination of information on this project will take place on the internet. A project
web site will report the results of our assessments both before and after the transition. Anyone
interested in the effectiveness of lecture/lab physics instruction will have access to our results
immediately.
As it progresses, the project will then generate two different types of more formal reports to the
physics education community. The first reports will focus on the transition from traditional
lecture instruction to active-learning in a lecture/lab classroom. Other institutions are
considering or experiencing similar transitions. Sharing our experiences leading up to and
following the transition should be beneficial to others. Physics education conferences such as
the winter and summer meetings of the American Association of Physics Teachers or the annual
meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education are excellent venues for such
reports.
A final report after the completion of the project will focus on the results of our research on the
effectiveness of different teaching styles in an integrated lecture/lab environment. From our
assessments we hope to answer questions such as: Can faculty with diverse teaching styles adapt
to the active-learning environment? Is one teaching style more effective than another within an
integrated lecture/lab environment? At the conclusion of this project we will have three
semesters of data on which to base our conclusions. That should be adequate for a preliminary
report. The studies will be continued beyond the grant period to better establish the validity of
the conclusions. The results will be submitted for publication sometime after the completion of
the study.
7. Project Management and Time Line
University of Wisconsin - Platteville is the lead institution on this proposal. The Principal
Investigator, Dr. Philip Young, will serve as project manager and will be responsible for the
overall direction of the project.
The time line is obviously centered around classroom occupancy at UWP. Planning,
particularly on classroom design, began in the summer of 2005 with a small Curriculum
Improvement Grant from UWP. Although the grant period for this proposal does not begin until
2007, efforts will continue through the 2006-2007 academic year even without funding.
Assessment and dissemination will continue after the grant expires. The time line presented
below is tentative.
10
Summer 2006
Professor Patterson teaches a 2nd-semester physics class in a lecture/lab format.
Fall/Spring 2006-2007
One investigator visits a university using SCALE-UP instruction
Existing interactive instructional materials are collected
Assessment tools are identified
Summer 2007 (Grant period begins 6/1/07)
Assessment tools are modified as necessary and put on-line
Hands-on activities and lab experiments are identified and tested
Investigators attend physics education conferences
Fall/Spring 2007-2008
Assessments begin at both institutions
Undergraduate assistants begin wording with the investigators in lecture and lab
Faculty observe SCALE-UP classrooms
Summer 2008
Hands-on and laboratory procedures are written
All faculty participate in a workshop on active-learning
Investigators attend physics education conferences and present status reports
Lab equipment is ordered
Fall 2008
Final semester of lecture assessments at UWP
Undergraduate students continue assisting in lecture and lab
Remaining faculty observe SCALE-UP classroom
Final preparations for move
Spring 2009 (Classes begin in the new building)
First semester of lecture/lab assessments at UWP
Undergraduate students assist in lecture/lab classes
Summer 2009
Assessments are evaluated
Investigators attend physics education conference and present preliminary results
Fall/Spring 2009-2010 (Grant period ends 5/31/10)
Assessment of lecture/lab classes continues
Undergraduate students continue to assist in lecture/lab classrooms
Summer 2010 and beyond
Evaluation of assessments
Results are presented at a physics education conference
Report submitted to physics education journal (once adequate data available)
11
8. Conclusion
8.1. CCLI model
In fulfilling this proposal, we will be addressing all five stages in the cyclic model of learning on
which the CCLI program is based. Our approaches to lecture/lab instruction will be modeled
after PER developments in Studio Physics, RealTime Physics, and SCALE-UP pioneered by
physics education researchers at other universities. To facilitate the transition to a lecture/lab
environment at UWP, we will primarily adapt active-learning materials developed by these and
other researchers, but we will also have to develop some new materials to meet specific needs.
All our faculty will receive training in active-learning methods and will gain new expertise in
lecture/lab instruction as they implement the new methods in the new classrooms. Assessments
will be conducted to evaluate the effects of the new instructional approaches on student learning
and to evaluate the effectiveness of different teaching styles in the lecture/lab environment .
These assessments will represent physics education research which will be reported to the
physics education community through conferences and publications. The success of our
transition with both students and faculty could influence other physics departments to consider
building or remodeling integrated lecture/lab classrooms.
8.2. Intellectual Merit
Our primary goal in this project is to provide more effective physics instruction through
increased use of active-learning instructional methods in an integrated lecture/lab environment.
Integrated lecture/lab instruction has been implemented with some measure of success at several
other universities through RealTime Physics, Studio Physics, and SCALE-UP, and other
programs. Two major components of the project are laboratory equipment and assessment.
Active, hands-on learning in a medium sized classroom requires proper equipment. The project
includes the purchase of the necessary equipment for the lecture/lab classrooms at UWP and
MATC. The assessment planned as part of the project will not only provide a measure of the
success of the transition to lecture/lab instruction, but it will also provide feedback to instructors
about the effectiveness of their teaching methods. Instructors will be able to alter their practives
to reach the students more effectively. Correlation studies between student learning and
teaching styles within the lecture/lab environment will represent a significant extension to
existing physics education research.
8.3. Broader Impact
This project will impact several different constituencies. First, the faculty at the two institutions
will benefit from the training in active learning methods and from the instructional materials
developed for hands-on learning. As a result of the training and the availability of procedures,
faculty will be better prepared to introduce active-learning activities into their classes in the
lecture/lab classrooms. Secondly, the students will benefit from the active learning activities
introduced by the instructors in the lecture/lab classrooms. As discussed in section 2, PER
indicates that student learning improves when more active learning is included in the classroom.
The student populations of the two institutions represent a wide spectrum of student
backgrounds, skills, and goals. Jointly created materials and joint assessments will provide
greater insights into how best to address the needs of students from different parts of the
spectrum. Also, most research-based materials are aimed at calculus-based and algebra-based
physics courses. The materials and assessments at MATC will include technical physics courses.
12
Thirdly, the physics education community will benefit from our assessments of student learning
and faculty teaching styles and attitudes. Correlation studies between learning and teaching
styles in the lecture/lab environment will be an addition to the research on effects of active
learning methods on student learning. Finally, our experiences at UWP in changing from
traditional lectures with separate labs to an integrated lecture/lab environment will benefit other
schools considering a change.
13
References
1. Robert J. Beichner, Jeffery M. Saul, Rhett J. Allain, Duane L. Deardorff, and David S. Abbott,
AIntroduction to SCALE-UP: Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment University
Physics,@ Proceeding of the 2000 Ann. Mtg. Am. Soc. Engr. Educ.
2. Edward F. Redish and Richard N. Steinberg, ATeaching physics: Figuring out what works,@
Physics Today 52(1), 24-30 (1999).
3. Lillian Christie McDermott, Millikan Lecture 1990: AWhat we teach and what is learned BB
closing the gap,@ Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991).
4. Alan Van Heuvelen, ALearning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based
instructional strategies,@ Am. J. Phys. 59, 891-897 (1991).
5. R.R. Hake, AInteractive Engagement vs Traditional Methods: a 6000 student survey of
mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,@ Am. J. Phys. 69, 970-977 (2001).
6. Patricia Heller, Ronald Keith, and Scott Anderson, ATeaching problem solving through
cooperative grouping. Part I: Group versus individual problem solving,@ Am. J. Phys. 60, 627636 (1992).
7. Calvin S. Kalman, Stanley Morris, Christopher Cottlin, and Robert Gordon, APromoting
conceptual change using collaborative groups in quantitative gateway courses,@ Phys. Ed. Res.,
Am. J. Phys. Suppl. 67, S45-S51 (1999).
8. Lillian C. McDermott, Peter S. Shaffer, and Mark D. Somers, AResearch as a guide for
teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood==s machine,@
Am. J. Phys. 62, 46-55 (1994).
9. L.C. McDermott and P.S. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics, Prentice Hall, New York
(1998).
10. Eric Mazur, Peer Instruction, Prentice Hall, New York (1997).
11. E. Mazur, APeer Instruction: ten years of experience and results,@ Am. J. Phys., 69, 970977 (2001).
12. D.R. Sokoloff and R.K. Thornton, AUsing interactive lecture demonstrations to create an
active learning environment,@ Physics Teacher 35, 24-30 (1997).
13. P.W. Laws, Millikan Lecture 1996: APromoting active learning based on physics education
research in introductory physics courses,@ Am. J. Phys. 65, 13-21 (1997).
14
14. Priscilla Laws, Workshop Physics7 Activity Guide, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York
(1997).
15. David R. Sokoloff, Donald K. Thornton and Priscilla W. Laws, RealTime Physics, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (2004).
16. J.M. Wilson, AThe CUPLE Physics Studio,@ Physics Teacher 32, 518-522 (1994).
17. Karen Cummings and Jeffrey Marx, AEvaluating innovations in studio physics,@ Phys.
Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl. 67, S38-S44 (1999).
18. J. Harvey Hensley and Robert Lind, “Increasing the Level of Student Participation in the
Calculus Level General Physics Course,@ UW System Unified Grant for Undergraduate
Initiatives, 1999-2000
18. J. Harvey Hensley and Robert Lind , “Increasing the Level of Student Participation in the
Second Semester of the Calculus Level General Physics Course,@ UW System Unified Grant for
Undergraduate Initiatives, 2000-2001.
20. J. Harvey Hensley, “Increasing Level of Student Participation in Calculus-Level
Introductory Physics,” Presentation at AAPT Summer Meeting, 2000.
21 Priscilla K. Laws, David K. Sokoloff, and Ronald K. Thornton, APromoting Active Learning
in Introductory Physics Courses II,@ Chautauqua Short Course, Dickinson College, June 3-5,
2004.
22. Bob Lind and Philip Young, “Developing an Exploratory Approach to the Introductory
Physics Lab,” UW System Unified Grant for Undergraduate Initiatives, 1998-1999.
23. Robert Lind, “New Exploratory General Physics Lab: One Year Experience”, Presentation at
AAPT Summer Meeting, 2000.
24. Private communications with Robert Beichner (North Carolina State University), Kevin
Kimberlin, (Bradley University), and S. Dwyer (RPI).
25. Charles Henderson, “The challenges of instructional change under the best of circumstances:
A case study of one college physics instructor,” Am. J. Phys. (PER Section) 73, 778-786 (2005).
26. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, “Force Concept Inventory,” Physics Teacher
30, 141-158 (1992).
27. R. Thornton and D. Sokoloff, AAssessing student learning of Newton==s Laws: The Force
15
and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and
Lecture Curricula,@ Am. J. Phys. 66, 338-352 (1998).
28. E. Yerushalmi, K. Heller, P. Heller, C. Henderson, and V.H. Kuo, “Why Solve Problems? –
Interviewing College Faculty about the Learning and Teaching of Problem Solving,”
Proceedings of Physics Teacher Education Beyond 2000 International Conference, Barcelona,
Spain, August, 2000.
29. P. Heller, K. Heller, C. Henderson, V.H. Kuo, and E. Yerushalmi, “Instructor’s Beliefs and
Values about Learning Problem Solving,” Proceedings of AAPT Physics Education Research
Conference, Rochester, NY, July, 2001.
16