- 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

Enhancing students’ views of experimental physics through a course-based undergraduate research experience

Alexandra Werth1,2,3,*, Colin G. West1, Nidhal Sulaiman1,2,4, 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
  • 3Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14850, USA
  • 4Department of Physics, College of Science, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 36, AlKhod 123, Oman

  • *alexandra.werth@cornell.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020151 – Published 26 October, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020151

Abstract

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have emerged as a promising approach to enhance undergraduate STEM education by engaging students in authentic discovery. CUREs integrate genuine research projects into undergraduate courses, providing students with a real research experience while earning academic credit. While CUREs offer similar benefits to traditional research experiences, they have the advantage of reaching a larger student population and being accessible to all enrolled students. In this study, we assess the outcomes of the first reported large-enrollment physics CURE within an introductory physics laboratory. One of the primary learning objectives of this CURE, which took place at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2020 to 2021, was to foster the development of more expertlike attitude and beliefs about experimental physics among the students. To evaluate the impact of the CURE along this dimension, we employed the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Experimental Physics (E-CLASS). Precourse and postcourse E-CLASS responses were collected from the CURE participants and compared with data from 363 other first-year physics labs, representing over 20 000 students. We found that students enrolled in the C-PhLARE CURE led to significantly higher scores on many of the E-CLASS items, even when controlling for precourse scores, students’ majors, and students’ genders. In particular, we observed that the C-PhLARE CURE had a significant effect on many of the E-CLASS items aligned with the objectives of the course; notably, students had more expertlike views in areas such as communicating scientific findings to peers, understandings of authentic research practices, and students’ belief in their own research capabilities. Additionally, we found no statistically significant negative impacts on any of the E-CLASS items as compared to the effects of other first-year physics labs. These results demonstrate the efficacy of this CURE in impacting students’ views of experimental physics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (54)

  1. Confronting Failure: Approaches to Building Confidence and Resilience in Undergraduate Researchers, edited by L. A. Corwin, L. K. Charkoudian, and J. H. Heemstra (Council on Undergraduate Research, 2022).
  2. L. C. Auchincloss, S. L. Laursen, J. L. Branchaw, K. Eagan, M. Graham, D. I. Hanauer, G. Lawrie, C. M. McLinn, N. Pelaez, S. Rowland et al., Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report CBE Life, Sci Educ. 13, 29 (2014).
  3. G. A. Szteinberg and G. C. Weaver, Participants’ reflections two and three years after an introductory chemistry course-embedded research experience, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 14, 23 (2013).
  4. S. L. Rowland, G. A. Lawrie, J. B. Behrendorff, and E. M. Gillam, Is the undergraduate research experience (URE) always best?: The power of choice in a bifurcated practical stream for a large introductory biochemistry class, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 40, 46 (2012).
  5. D. Lopatto, Science in solution, Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation for Science Advancement (2010).
  6. AAPT Committee on Laboratories, AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2014).
  7. C. B. Russell and G. C. Weaver, A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based laboratory curricula: Impacts on understanding of the nature of science, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 12, 57 (2011).
  8. B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, A summary of research-based assessment of students’ beliefs about the nature of experimental physics, Am. J. Phys. 86, 212 (2018).
  9. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. 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).
  10. 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).
  11. A. Werth, C. G. West, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impacts on student learning, confidence, and affect in a remote, large-enrollment, course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010129 (2022).
  12. J. P. Mason, A. Werth, C. G. West, A. Youngblood, D. L. Woodraska, C. L. Peck, A. J. Aradhya, Y. Cai, D. Chaparro, J. W. Erikson et al., Coronal heating as determined by the solar flare frequency distribution obtained by aggregating case studies, Astrophys. J. 948, 71 (2023).
  13. CUREnet, https://serc.carleton.edu/curenet/.
  14. N. G. 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).
  15. C. Wieman, Comparative cognitive task analyses of experimental science and instructional laboratory courses, Phys. Teach. 53, 349 (2015).
  16. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Developing skills versus reinforcing concepts in physics labs: Insight from a survey of students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010108 (2017).
  17. National Research Council, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000), https://doi.org/10.17226/9596.
  18. C. Beck, A. Butler, and K. Burke da Silva, Promoting inquiry-based teaching in laboratory courses: Are we meeting the grade?, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 444 (2014).
  19. E. Seymour, A.-B. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and T. DeAntoni, Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study, Sci. Educ. 88, 493 (2004).
  20. G. C. Weaver, C. B. Russell, and D. J. Wink, Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science, Nat. Chem. Biol. 4, 577 (2008).
  21. A. R. Burmeister, K. Dickinson, and M. J. Graham, Bridging trade-offs between traditional and course-based undergraduate research experiences by building student communication skills, identity, and interest, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 22, e00156 (2021).
  22. R. Laungani, C. Tanner, T. Durham Brooks, B. Clement, M. Clouse, E. Doyle, S. Dworak, B. Elder, K. Marley, and B. Schofield, Finding some good in an invasive species: Introduction and assessment of a novel cure to improve experimental design in undergraduate biology classrooms, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 19, 19.2.68.(2018).
  23. E. D. E, T. Sloan et al., Antibiotic discovery throughout the small world initiative: A molecular strategy to identify biosynthetic gene clusters involved in antagonistic activity, Microbiologyopen 6, e00435 (2017).
  24. C. D. Shaffer et al., The genomics education partnership: Successful integration of research into laboratory classes at a diverse group of undergraduate institutions, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 9, 55 (2010).
  25. E. Seymour, A.-B. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and T. DeAntoni, Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study, Sci. Educ. 88, 493 (2004).
  26. M. M. Wooten, K. Coble, A. W. Puckett, and T. Rector, Investigating introductory astronomy students’ perceived impacts from participation in course-based undergraduate research experiences, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010151 (2018).
  27. J. R. Walkup, R. A. Key, S. P. Duncan, A. E. Sheldon, and M. A. Walkup, Catastrophic cancellation in elastic collision lab experiments, Phys. Educ. 55, 015010 (2020).
  28. J. T. Beckham, S. Simmons, G. M. Stovall, and J. Farre, The freshman research initiative as a model for addressing shortages and disparities in stem engagement, in Directions for Mathematics Research Experience for Undergraduates (World Scientific, Singapore, 2015), pp. 181–212.
  29. A. Werth, J. R. Hoehn, K. Oliver, M. F. J. Fox, and H. J. Lewandowski, Instructor perspectives on the emergency transition to remote instruction of physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020129 (2022).
  30. G. LLC, Google Colaboratory welcome page (2018).
  31. A. Werth, K. A. Oliver, C. G. West, and H. J. Lewandowski, Engagement in collaboration and teamwork using Google Colaboratory, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Werth.
  32. J. Knuth, G. Lucas, C. K. Pankratz, T. E. Berger, R. D. Clark, and T. M. Skov, SWx TREC’s space weather data portal: A launch pad for space weather research, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts (2020), Vol. 2020, pp. SM003–0018, https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm20/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/747723.
  33. G. M. Novak, E. T. Patterson, A. D. Gavrin, and W. Christian, Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1999).
  34. H. Y. Agustian and M. K. Seery, Reasserting the role of pre-laboratory activities in chemistry education: A proposed framework for their design, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 18, 518 (2017).
  35. H. Lewandowski, B. Pollard, and C. G. West, Using custom interactive video prelab activities in a large introductory lab course, presented at PER Conf. 2020, Provo, UT, 10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Lewandowski.
  36. A. Werth, K. Oliver, C. G. West, and H. J. Lewandowski, Assessing student engagement with teamwork in an online, large-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020128 (2022).
  37. K. A. Oliver, A. Werth, and H. J. Lewandowski, Student experiences with authentic research in a remote, introductory course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010124 (2023).
  38. N. G. Lederman, F. Abd-El-Khalick, R. L. Bell, and R. S. Schwartz, Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 39, 497 (2002).
  39. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66, 212 (1998).
  40. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado learning attitudes about science survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010101 (2006).
  41. B. M. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Development and validation of the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey for experimental physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 442 (2013).
  42. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. 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).
  43. 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).
  44. J. M. Aiken and H. J. Lewandowski, Data sharing model for physics education research using the 70 000 response colorado learning attitudes about science survey for experimental physics dataset, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020144 (2021).
  45. 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).
  46. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Developing skills versus reinforcing concepts in physics labs: Insight from a survey of students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010108 (2017).
  47. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Students’ views about the nature of experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020110 (2017).
  48. N. Sulaiman, A. Werth, and H. J. Lewandowski, Students’ views about experimental physics in a large-enrollment introductory lab focused on experimental scientific practices, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010116 (2023).
  49. 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).
  50. C. Walsh, H. J. Lewandowski, and N. G. Holmes, Skills-focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimentation views for all students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010128 (2022).
  51. X. Guo, X. Hao, W. Deng, X. Ji, S. Xiang, and W. Hu, The relationship between epistemological beliefs, reflective thinking, and science identity: A structural equation modeling analysis, Int. J. STEM Educ. 9, 40 (2022).
  52. M. J. Graham, J. Frederick, A. Byars-Winston, A.-B. Hunter, and J. Handelsman, Increasing persistence of college students in stem, Science 341, 1455 (2013).
  53. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Research-based assessment of students’ beliefs about experimental physics: When is gender a factor?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020130 (2016).
  54. D. I. Hanauer, M. J. Graham, and G. F. Hatfull, A measure of college student persistence in the sciences (pits), CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, ar54 (2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020151– Published 26 October, 2023
  • Received 28 July 2023
  • Accepted 4 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