Implementing Studio Physics at an Undergraduate Engineering School
Philip W. Young
Dept. of Chem. & Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin-Platteville, Platteville, Wisconsin 53818
Introduction
University of Wisconsin - Platteville is a primarily undergraduate state school
with about 1600 engineering students. The physics faculty are in the second
year of preparations to implement flexible lecture/lab instruction with the
support of NSF-DUE CCLI grant #0633583: Faculty-Flexible Lecture-Lab
Instruction in Physics.
Studio classrooms were included in a new
engineering building that opened this past spring. The department identified
5 objectives for the transition. These are explained below.
1. Introduce studio physics in all introductory physics
classes
Introductory physics classes at UWP were being taught primarily with
traditional lectures to medium-sized classes (50-60).
Lectures were
complemented with a full-class discussion hour and separate lab classes. A
majority of the instructors were lecturing most of the time, although some
instructors were using the discussion hour for group work. One instructor
was using group work during some of the lecture hours. The labs were not
well coordinated with the class material, particularly in Physics II
3. Provide classroom facilities that are compatible with
different teaching styles
The new building includes 3 identical studio classrooms. All 3 classrooms
are directly connected to a preparation/storage room. Staffing limitations
dictated 56 students per section: 14 stations, 4 students per station.
3' x 6' lab table with 1.5' storage cabinet/computer stand at one end
Standard table height with mobile chairs
1 computer/station
Each room is 33' x 59' = 1950 ft2. The front (long dimension) includes a
lecture station, a demo table, and dual projection of computer, document
camera, and video camera (for demonstrations). The student stations are set
in 2 rows of 7 stations (lengthwise angled toward the front). There is 80’ of
white board around the room plus two sinks and a limited amount of storage in
the back.
2. Allow instructors flexibility in how they teach within
the studio environment
All introductory physics classes will be taught in studio physics classrooms.
Calculus-based Physics I and II (12-13 sections/yr)
Algebra-based Physics I and II (2 sections/yr)
Physics for technology students (2 sections/yr)
Liberal-arts physics (1 section/yr)
The calculus-based studio classes meet 2 hours on two days and 1 hour on
2 days each week. (6 contact hours for 4 credits). The other classes meet
for an extra one-hour session (7 contact hours for 5 credits)
Some instructors are not yet comfortable with all aspects of active learning,
particularly the idea of “eliminating” lecture. Instructors will be allowed the
freedom of adapting the studio curriculum to their own teaching style. Due to
faculty load issues, some sections may even be taught with a designated lab
day and the “lecture” instructor may not be involved in the lab day.
The studio format will be phased in over several semesters, beginning
Spring 2009.
2 out of 9 sections S09
4 out of 8 sections F09
? out of 9 sections S10
Hands-on learning activities and laboratory experiments are being prepared for all
instructors to adopt as they desire. Many of the activities and experiments utilize
computer data acquisition with real-time graphing. A set of activities and labs that
fulfill the above objectives must be compatible with designated lab days as well as
a fully integrated lecture/lab schedule. Instructors are free (and encouraged) to
develop their own activities as long as they fulfill the laboratory objectives
Instructors are responsible for their own discussion materials, although several
resources have been identified and made available.
The laboratory objectives for the algebra-based physics sequence are slightly
different. However, many of the materials developed for the calculus-based
courses have been adapted for the algebra-based classes.
5. Assess the effectiveness of materials and different
teaching styles within the studio environment
The assessments are administered out-of-class via a password protected
classroom management system(Desire-to-Learn). Students are provided with some
incentive to participate, e.g. 2 test points for both the pre and post assessment.
Instructor participation is now 100% but overall student participation is only about
50%. The best sections only achieve 75% participation in both the pre- and the
post- assessment.
Student participation seems to depend on the level of
“commitment” by the instructor.
PER suggests that physics classrooms with a significant amount of activelearning are more effective than predominantly lecture classrooms.,1,2,3,4
Laws integrated the lecture and lab with technology in Workshop Physics5,6
and Real-Time Physics.7 RPI pioneered Studio Physics8,9 which combined
the lecture and lab in larger classes (30-45). Student Centered Activities for
Large Enrollment University Physics (SCALE-UP)10 at North Carolina State
University expanded the studio format to larger sections (up to100).
UWP faculty observed studio classes at RPI, FIU, and RIT. With the
promise of new classrooms in a new engineering building, UWP Physics
decided that studio physics would be a significant improvement over our
lecture and lab format
4. (Continued)
4. Provide laboratory and instructional materials that
can be adopted within different teaching styles.
A textbook rental policy at UWP makes use of commercial materials (other
than textbooks) difficult. We are preparing a set of in-house instructional
materials for the studio classes. Efforts to-date have been focused on
developing materials for classroom activities involving an “experiment”. We
have defined two categories of “experiments” within the studio format
1. Hands-on learning activity. The students do a small experiment
for which the primary objective is the observation of a new
phenomena or principle or the reinforcement of the material
being discussed in class at that time.
2. Laboratory experiment. The experiment is usually more
involved than the hands-on activity. Laboratory experiments are
designed to either help develop a laboratory skill or produce an
experimental result.
The faculty have committed to a set of laboratory objectives for the calculusbased physics sequence. No matter how a section is taught, the hands-on
learning activities and laboratory experiments must:
1. Support the learning outcomes of the class. Experiments should be
related to the material being covered .
2. Develop an understanding of the uncertainty inherent in
experimentation and the ability to perform uncertainty analysis.
3. Introduce graphical analysis of linear and non-linear equations
4. Introduce the art of experimental design. Students shall be required
to propose experimental procedures to determine specific
parameters within existing theories and to determine unknown
functional relationships between physical quantities
So far we have baseline data from 3 semesters of fairly traditional instruction
Force Concept Inventory:
25% gain in calc-based physics (213 participants)
31% gain in standard algebra-based physics (33)
19% gain in the 1-semester physics for technology students (30)
Conceptual Survey in Electricity and Magnetism:
19% gain in calc-based physics (175)
References
1. Edward F. Redish and Richard N. Steinberg, “Teaching physics: Figuring out
what works,” Physics Today 52(1), 24-30 (1999).
2. Lillian Christie McDermott, Millikan Lecture 1990: “What we teach and what is
learned -- closing the gap,” Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991).
3. Alan Van Heuvelen, “Learning to think like a physicist: A review of researchbased instructional strategies,” Am. J. Phys. 59, 891-897 (1991).
4. R.R. Hake, “Interactive Engagement vs Traditional Methods: a 6000 student
survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 69,
970-977 (2001).
5. P.W. Laws, Millikan Lecture 1996: “Promoting active learning based on physics
education research in introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 65, 13-21 (1997).
6. Priscilla Laws, Workshop Physics Activity Guide, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York (1997).
7. David R. Sokoloff, Donald K. Thornton and Priscilla W. Laws, RealTime Physics,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (2004).
8. J.M. Wilson, “The CUPLE Physics Studio,” Physics Teacher 32, 518-522 (1994).
9. Karen Cummings and Jeffrey Marx, “Evaluating innovations in studio physics,”
Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl. 67, S38-S44 (1999).
10. Robert J. Beichner, Jeffery M. Saul, Rhett J. Allain, Duane L. Deardorff, and
David S. Abbott, “Introduction to SCALE-UP: Student-Centered Activities for Large
Enrollment University Physics,” Proceeding of the 2000 Ann. Mtg. Am. Soc. Engr.
Educ.
This project is funded in part by NSF-DUE CCLI #0633583