- 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

Remote advanced lab course: A case study analysis of open-ended projects

Jessica R. Hoehn1,2,*, Michael F. J. Fox1,2,3, Alexandra Werth1,2, Victoria Borish1,2, and H. J. Lewandowski1,2

  • 1Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 2JILA, National Institute of Standards and Technology and University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom

  • *jessica.hoehn@colorado.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020111 – Published 20 August, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020111

Abstract

The rapid transition to remote teaching in the spring of 2020 posed particular challenges for laboratory courses, which often involve students working hands-on with equipment in collaborative environments. Replicating in-person experiments was especially challenging for advanced lab courses that utilize specialized apparatus, which could not be accessed by students at home. However, physics lab instructors employed a variety of creative strategies to overcome these barriers and provide students access to lab-like learning in a remote setting. We report on one advanced lab course that used the transition to remote teaching to completely redefine the course goals and transition from traditional prescriptive labs to more open-ended projects. We conduct a case study analysis, triangulating among several data sources—survey responses and interviews from both instructor and students—to construct an in-depth understanding of the remote course and how students experienced it. Although we cannot necessarily generalize the results of this analysis to the entire student experience in the course due to the student response rate, the feedback that the course did receive from both students and the instructor was overwhelmingly positive, and the instructors are planning to retain the open-ended projects when the course returns to an in-person format. We find that the new open-ended projects afforded students opportunities to make decisions and think deeply about their experiments, which students report as contributing to their enjoyment and satisfaction with the course. Students had mixed group work experiences, with some describing positive and meaningful interactions and others describing group work as a source of frustration and stress. Additionally, some students missed being able to work hands-on with equipment, and some reported a high workload that made the course stressful. We discuss these student experiences and provide implications for both in-person and remote lab courses.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (53)

  1. 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.
  2. T. Feder, Universities overcome bumps in transition to online teaching, Phys. Today 73, No. 6, 22 (2020).
  3. A. Werth, J. R. Hoehn, K. Oliver, M. F. J. Fox, and H. J. Lewandowski, Rapid transition to remote instruction of physics labs during Spring 2020: Instructor perspectives, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. (in preparation).
  4. M. F. J. Fox, J. R. Hoehn, A. Werth, and H. J. Lewandowski, Lab instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic: Effects on student views about experimental physics in comparison with previous years, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010148 (2021).
  5. P. Klein, L. Ivanjek, M. N. Dahlkemper, K. Jeličić, M.-A. Geyer, S. Küchemann, and A. Susac, Studying physics during the COVID-19 pandemic: Student assessments of learning achievement, perceived effectiveness of online recitations, and online laboratories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010117 (2021).
  6. S. Shivam and K. Wagoner, How well do remote labs work? A case study at Princeton University, arXiv:2008.04499.
  7. F. R. Bradbury and C. F. J. Pols, A pandemic-resilient open-inquiry physical science lab course which leverages the Maker movement, Electron. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 24, 60 (2020).
  8. F. Pols, A physics lab course in times of COVID-19, Electron. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 24, 172 (2020).
  9. D. Howard and M. Meier, Meeting laboratory course learning goals remotely via custom home experiment kits, arXiv:2007.05390.
  10. B. M. Zwickl, T. Hirokawa, N. D. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Epistemology and expectations survey about experimental physics: Development and initial results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010120 (2014).
  11. J. Kozminski, H. J. Lewandowski, N. Beverly, S. Lindaas, D. Deardorff, A. Reagan, R. Dietz, R. Tagg, M. Eblen-Zayas, J. Williams, R. Hobbs, and B. Zwickl, AAPT recommendations for the undergraduate physics laboratory curriculum subcommittee membership, Tech. Rep. (American Association of Physics Teachers Committee on Laboratories, College Park, MD, 2014).
  12. A. Sithole, E. T. Chiyaka, F. Manyanga, and D. M. Mupinga, Emerging and persistent issues in the delivery of asynchronous non-traditional undergraduate physics experiments, Int. J. Phys. Chem. Educ. 12, 1 (2020).
  13. C. Colwell, E. Scanlon, and M. Cooper, Using remote laboratories to extend access to science and engineering, Comput. Educ. 38, 65 (2002).
  14. D. J. Rosen and A. M. Kelly, Epistemology, socialization, help seeking, and gender-based views in in-person and online, hands-on undergraduate physics laboratories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020116 (2020).
  15. L. Leblond and M. Hicks, Designing laboratories for online instruction using the iolab device, Phys. Teach. 59, 351 (2021).
  16. J. Ma and J. V. Nickerson, Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review, ACM Comput. Surv. 38, 7 (2006).
  17. B. Wilcox and M. Vignal, Recommendations for emergency remote teaching based on the student experience, Phys. Teach. 58, 374 (2020).
  18. T. Feder, College-level project-based learning gains popularity, Phys. Today 70, No. 6, 28 (2017).
  19. Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs, Phys21: Preparing physics students for 21st-century careers, Tech. Rep. (American Physical Society and American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2016).
  20. J. R. Hoehn and H. J. Lewandowski, Framework of goals for writing in physics lab classes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010125 (2020).
  21. J. R. Hoehn and H. J. Lewandowski, Incorporating writing in advanced lab projects: A multiple case-study analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020161 (2020).
  22. N. G. Holmes, B. Keep, and C. E. Wieman, Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010109 (2020).
  23. P. W. Irving and E. C. Sayre, Conditions for building a community of practice in an advanced physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010109 (2014).
  24. D. R. Dounas-Frazer, K. S. Johnson, S. E. Park, J. T. Stanley, and H. J. Lewandowski, Student perceptions of laboratory classroom activities and experimental physics practice, in Proceedings of the 2020 Physics Education Research Conference, virtual conference, edited by S. Wolf, M. B. Bennett, and B. W. Frank (AIP, New York, 2020).
  25. N. M. Juma, E. Gire, K. Corwin, B. Washburn, and N. S. Rebello, Students’ and instructor’s impressions of ill-structured capstone projects in an advanced electronics lab, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 181 (2010).
  26. M. Martinuk, R. Moll, and A. Kotlicki, Research projects in introductory physics: Impacts on student learning, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 193 (2009).
  27. D. R. Dounas-Frazer, J. T. Stanley, and H. J. Lewandowski, Student ownership of projects in an upper-division optics laboratory course: A multiple case study of successful experiences, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020136 (2017).
  28. D. R. Dounas-Frazer and H. J. Lewandowski, Correlating students’ views about experimental physics with their sense of project ownership, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC (AIP, New York, 2019).
  29. D. R. Dounas-Frazer, L. Ríos, and H. J. Lewandowski, Preliminary model for student ownership of projects, in Proceedings of the 2019 Physics Education Research Conference, Provo, UT (AIP, New York, 2019).
  30. J. Arnold and D. J. Clarke, What is ‘Agency’? Perspectives in science education research, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 735 (2014).
  31. PhET Interactive Simulations, https://phet.colorado.edu/ (2021).
  32. B. Gregorcic and M. Bodin, Algodoo: A tool for encouraging creativity in physics teaching and learning, Phys. Teacher 55, 25 (2017).
  33. S. B. Merriam, The case study in educational research: A review of selected literature, J. Educ. Thought 19, 204 (1985).
  34. 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(AIP, New York, 2018).
  35. D. I. Hanauer, J. Frederick, B. Fotinakes, and S. A. Strobel, Linguistic analysis of project ownership for undergraduate research experiences, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 11, 378 (2012).
  36. K. K. Smith and D. N. Berg, Paradoxes of Group Life: Understanding Conflict, Paralysis, and Movement in Group Dynamics (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1987).
  37. M. Eblen-Zayas, The impact of metacognitive activities on student attitudes towards experimental physics, in Proceedings of the 2016 Physics Education Research Conference, Sacramento, CA (AIP, New York, 2016).
  38. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities: Impact on students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020132 (2016).
  39. W. Sandoval, Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development, Sci. Educ. 98, 383 (2014).
  40. S. Guo, Synchronous versus asynchronous online teaching of physics during the COVID-19 pandemic, Phys. Educ. 55, 065007 (2020).
  41. S. L. Eddy, S. E. Brownell, P. Thummaphan, M.-C. Lan, and M. P. Wenderoth, Caution, student experience may vary: Social identities impact a student’s experience in peer discussions, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 14, ar45 (2015).
  42. K. L. Tonso, Teams that work: Campus culture, engineer identity, and social interactions, J. Eng. Educ. 95, 25 (2006).
  43. R. Lingard and S. Barkataki, Teaching teamwork in engineering and computer science, in Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE (IEEE, New York, 2011).
  44. S. M. Goltz, A. B. Hietapelto, R. W. Reinsch, and S. K. Tyrell, Teaching teamwork and problem solving concurrently, J. Management Educ. 32, 541 (2008).
  45. S. J. Karau and K. D. Williams, Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration, J. Personality Social Psychol. 65, 681 (1993).
  46. M. C. Yang and Y. Jin, An examination of team effectiveness in distributed and co-located engineering teams, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 24, 400 (2008).
  47. M. Borrego, J. Karlin, L. D. Mcnair, and K. Beddoes, Team effectiveness theory from industrial and organizational psychology applied to engineering student project teams: A research review, J. Eng. Educ. 102, 472 (2013).
  48. J. M. Dirkx and R. O. Smith, Thinking out of a bowl of spaghetti, Online Collaborative Learning (IGI Global, Pennsylvania, USA, 2004), pp. 132–159.
  49. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Hermione and the secretary: How gendered task division in introductory physics labs can disrupt equitable learning, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 035702 (2020).
  50. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, What makes a good physics lab partner?, in Proceedings of the 2020 Physics Education Research Conference, virtual conference (AIP, New York, 2020), pp. 124–130.
  51. S. M. Jeon, Z. Y. Kalender, E. C. Sayre, and N. G. Holmes, How do gender and inchargeness interact to affect equity in lab group interactions?, in Proceedings of the 2020 Physics Education Research Conference, virtual conference (AIP, New York, 2020), pp. 240–245.
  52. K. M. Cooper and S. E. Brownell, Coming out in class: Challenges and benefits of active learning in a biology classroom for LGBTQIA students, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, ar37 (2016).
  53. S. Hilton and F. Phillips, Instructor-assigned and student-selected groups: A view from inside, Issues Accounting Educ. 25, 15 (2010).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020111– Published 20 August, 2021
  • Received 19 May 2021
  • Accepted 30 July 2021
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