home » Journal Article Detail Page

Detail Page

American Journal of Physics
Evaluating innovation in studio physics
written by Karen Cummings, Jeffrey Marx, Ronald K. Thornton, and Dennis Kuhl
In 1993, Rensselaer introduced the first Studio Physics course. Two years later, the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to measure the conceptual learning gain in the course. This was found to be a disappointing 0.22, indicating that Studio Physics was no more effective at teaching basic Newtonian concepts than a traditional course. Our study verified that result, = 0.18 ± 0.12 (s.d.), and thereby provides a baseline measurement of conceptual learning gains in Studio Physics I for engineers. These low gains are especially disturbing because the studio classroom appears to be interactive and instructors strive to incorporate modern pedagogies. The goal of our investigation was to determine if incorporation of research-based activities into Studio Physics would have a significant effect on conceptual learning gains. To measure gains, we utilized the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). In the process of pursuing this goal, we verified the effectiveness of Interactive Lecture Demonstrations [ = 0.35 ± 0.06 (s.d.) and = 0.45 ± 0.03 (s.d.)] and Cooperative Group Problem Solving ( = 0.36 and = 0.36), and examined the feasibility of using these techniques in the studio classroom. Further, we have assessed conceptual learning in the standard Studio Physics course [ = 0.18 ± 0.12 (s.d.) and = 0.21 ± 0.05 (s.d.)]. In this paper, we will clarify the issues noted above. We will also discuss difficulties in implementing these techniques for first time users and implications for the future directions of the Studio Physics courses at Rensselaer.
American Journal of Physics: Volume 67, Issue S1, Pages S38-S44
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19078
Subjects Levels Resource Types
Education Practices
- Active Learning
= Interactive Lecture Demonstration
- Pedagogy
General Physics
- Physics Education Research
- Lower Undergraduate
- Instructional Material
= Best practice
= Instructor Guide/Manual
- Reference Material
= Research study
Intended Users Formats Ratings
- Researchers
- Educators
- text/html
- application/pdf
- application/postscript
  • Currently 0.0/5

Want to rate this material?
Login here!

Access Rights:
Available by subscription
Restriction:
© 1999 AIP
Additional information is available.
DOI:
10.1119/1.19078
Keywords:
educational courses, evaluation, physics, problem solving, studio physics, teaching
Record Creator:
Metadata instance created June 13, 2005 by Lyle Barbato
Record Updated:
October 26, 2005 by Vince Kuo
Last Update
when Cataloged:
July 1, 1999
Other Collections:

ComPADRE is beta testing Citation Styles!

Record Link
AIP Format
K. Cummings, J. Marx, R. Thornton, and D. Kuhl, , Am. J. Phys. 67 (S1), S38 (1999), WWW Document, (https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19078).
AJP/PRST-PER
K. Cummings, J. Marx, R. Thornton, and D. Kuhl, Evaluating innovation in studio physics, Am. J. Phys. 67 (S1), S38 (1999), <https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19078>.
APA Format
Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D. (1999, July 1). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. Am. J. Phys., 67(S1), S38-S44. Retrieved September 18, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19078
Chicago Format
Cummings, K, J. Marx, R. Thornton, and D. Kuhl. "Evaluating innovation in studio physics." Am. J. Phys. 67, no. S1, (July 1, 1999): S38-S44, https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19078 (accessed 18 September 2024).
MLA Format
Cummings, Karen, Jeffrey Marx, Ronald Thornton, and Dennis Kuhl. "Evaluating innovation in studio physics." Am. J. Phys. 67.S1 (1999): S38-S44. 18 Sep. 2024 <https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19078>.
BibTeX Export Format
@article{ Author = "Karen Cummings and Jeffrey Marx and Ronald Thornton and Dennis Kuhl", Title = {Evaluating innovation in studio physics}, Journal = {Am. J. Phys.}, Volume = {67}, Number = {S1}, Pages = {S38-S44}, Month = {July}, Year = {1999} }
Refer Export Format

%A Karen Cummings %A Jeffrey Marx %A Ronald Thornton %A Dennis Kuhl %T Evaluating innovation in studio physics %J Am. J. Phys. %V 67 %N S1 %D July 1, 1999 %P S38-S44 %U https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19078 %O text/html

EndNote Export Format

%0 Journal Article %A Cummings, Karen %A Marx, Jeffrey %A Thornton, Ronald %A Kuhl, Dennis %D July 1, 1999 %T Evaluating innovation in studio physics %J Am. J. Phys. %V 67 %N S1 %P S38-S44 %8 July 1, 1999 %U https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19078


Disclaimer: ComPADRE offers citation styles as a guide only. We cannot offer interpretations about citations as this is an automated procedure. Please refer to the style manuals in the Citation Source Information area for clarifications.

Citation Source Information

The AIP Style presented is based on information from the AIP Style Manual.

The APA Style presented is based on information from APA Style.org: Electronic References.

The Chicago Style presented is based on information from Examples of Chicago-Style Documentation.

The MLA Style presented is based on information from the MLA FAQ.
Save to my folders

Contribute

Make a Comment
Relate this resource

Similar Materials

Resource Letter ALIP–1: Active-Learning Instruction in Physics

Characteristics of well-propagated undergraduate STEM teaching innovations

Testing group composition within a studio learning environment

More...