122
Portland
Wednesday afternoon
Session FG: ALPhA Labs in the
Classroom
Location: Galleria I
Sponsor: Committee on Research in Physics Education
Co-Sponsor: Committee on Laboratories
Date: Wednesday, July 17
Time: 12:30–2:10 p.m.
Presider: Joss Ives
FG01:
12:30-1 p.m. Can Instructional Lab Resemble Science
Lab? What and How
Invited – Eugenia Etkina, Rutgers University, 10 Seminary Place, New Bruns-
wick, NJ 08901;
In this talk I will describe how one can use physics instructional laboratory
to create the spirit of a science lab. To achieve this we need to a) rethink
the goals of the labs; b) have a clear vision of what the achievement of these
goals looks like; c) create experiences for the students that will help them
reach the desired achievement level. In my talk I will describe a 10-year
long journey of Rutgers ISLE
1
labs that allowed us not only to answer the
above questions but to collect robust data that show what activities stu-
dents can be engaged in a lab to learn to approach experimental problems
like scientists and how we can help them be successful in this endeavor.
2, 3
1. E. Etkina & A. Van Heuvelen, (2007) in E. F. Redish and P. Cooney, (Eds.),
Research
Based Reform of University Physics
(AAPT, 2007).
2. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, & X. Zou,
Am J. Phys.
74
, 979-982. (2006).
3. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, M. Ruibal-Villasenor, R. Jordan, D. Rosengrant, & C.
Hmelo-Silver,
JLS,
19
, 1, 54-98. (2010).
FG02:
1-1:30 p.m. Doing Research in the Advanced Lab: A
Hybrid Approach
Invited – Martin J. Madsen, Wabash College, 301 W Wabash Ave., Craw-
fordsville, IN 47933;
We have adopted a hybrid approach to our junior/senior physics major
laboratory classes that integrates components from a more traditional
advanced lab-like course and a full undergraduate research experience in a
research lab. We have limited resources both in terms of faculty and budget
which make it difficult to give our students research experience in faculty
labs. I will describe our alternative approach which is to integrate the pro-
cess of doing science in our advanced lab. Since we moved to this format,
we have found better engagement from the students, positive feedback
on the class from alumni, and have even published several papers in the
American Journal of Physics.
FG03:
1:30-1:40 p.m. A National Assessment of Undergradu-
ate Physics Labs: First Results
Contributed – H. J. Lewandowski, University of Colorado, Boulder, Depart-
ment of Physics, 390 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309; benjamin.zwickl@colorado.
edu
Benjamin Zwickl, Takako Hirokawa, Noah Finkelstein, University of Colorado,
Boulder
The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Experimental
Physics (E-CLASS) is a short multiple choice survey that assesses students’
attitudes about conducting physics experiments in an instructional setting
and in professional research. The survey is given at the beginning and at
the end of a course, whereupon students are also asked about what helped
to earn a good grade in the course. A variety of aspects of experimentation
are explored, including students’ sense-making, affect, self-confidence,
and the value of collaboration. Over 4000 E-CLASS responses have been
gathered from over 30 courses at 17 colleges and universities. We will pres-
ent a broad overview of our findings, including which student views are the
least expert-like, which views shift most over the course of a semester, and
which have largest differences between introductory and upper-division
courses.
FG04:
1:40-1:50 p.m. Students’ Use of Modeling in the Upper-
Division Physics Laboratory
Contributed – Benjamin Zwickl, University of Colorado, Boulder, Department
of Physics, 390 UCB Boulder, CO 80309;
Noah Finkelstein, H. J. Lewandowksi, University of Colorado, Boulder
Modeling, the practice of developing, testing, and refining models of
physical systems, has gained support as a key scientific practice in the K-12
Next Generation Science Standards, and in curricula such as Modeling
Instruction, RealTime Physics, ISLE, and Matter & Interaction. However,
modeling has gained less traction at the upper-division undergraduate
level. As part of a larger effort to transform upper-division physics labs to
incorporate scientific practices, including modeling, we conducted a series
of think-aloud experimental activities using simple electronic and optical
components in order to investigate how students use modeling with mini-
mal explicit prompting in a laboratory setting. We review general patterns
in students’ use of models, describe our coding scheme, and conclude with
a discussion of implications for the design of modeling-focused lab activi-
ties and lab-appropriate assessments.
FG05:
1:50-2 p.m. Reflecting and Evaluation In Physics Labs:
Can It Be Done?
Contributed – Natasha G. Holmes, University of British Columbia, 6224 Agri-
cultural Road, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada;
James Day, Ido Roll, Doug A. Bonn, University of British Columbia
Sense making behaviours during experiments, such as reflection and evalu-
ation, often require a mastery of subject matter, as well as considerable
technical understanding of equipment being used. Students are novices in
both of these areas and so require assistance in developing these important
behaviours. We have recently studied if, when, and how students reflect
during physics labs. Our work showed that while many students were
able to reflect on their results and correct systematic errors when two
nominally equivalent measurements differed from one another by about
30%, very few would make corrections when the difference was only about
5%. Rather than confront the discrepancy, students often would simply
increase their stated uncertainties to reflect the inaccuracy, so that 5% was
not a significant difference. During this talk, I will present our study and
discuss some of the approaches we are taking to target these behaviours in
an introductory physics lab.
FG06:
2-2:10 p.m. Evaluating Scientific Learning Community
Labs at The University of Toledo
Contributed – Adam C. Lark, University of Toledo, McMaster Hall, Rm 2017,
2801 W. Bancroft, Toledo, OH 43606-3390;
For three years The University of Toledo has been piloting our version of
The University of Maryland’s Scientific Community Labs (SCL) with the
intent of replacing our traditional Real Time Physics Labs. This semester
(fall 2013) we are running a full study comparing the SCL to the Tradi-
tional Labs. Using standard measures such as the Force Concept Inventory
(FCI) and Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Experi-
mental Physics (E-CLASS) surveys as well as interviews meant to gauge a
student’s procedural learning, we can compare both classes for changes in
each throughout the semester.
