- 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

Historical analysis of innovation and research in physics instructional laboratories: Recurring themes and future directions

Jason M. May*

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6315, USA

  • *jason.may@mail.wvu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020168 – Published 20 December, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020168

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions.] Physics instructional labs have long been an area of pedagogical innovation and educational research. While current stakeholders in instructional labs are undoubtedly aware of the day’s concerns, reform efforts, and empirical research within lab settings, likely less apparent are the deep-rooted connections today’s deliberations have with those from multiple educational eras across the last 200 years. To this end, this paper provides a historical analysis of instructional laboratories in undergraduate physics education in the United States, with the goal of elucidating recurring themes in educational reform and research aimed at improving these learning environments. This work aims to synthesize the recursive themes present in the instructional laboratory landscape while summarizing how new research and pedagogical trends can promote further growth in this important learning environment. Through this analysis, commonly recurring themes are identified related to the longitudinal criticism of confirmatory, “cookbook” lab structures, the community’s skepticism of instructional labs’ abilities to reinforce lecture content, and the possibility of technological and societal obstructions which may implicitly limit innovative ideas, pedagogy, and research. By bringing to light these latent recursive themes, this work hopes to work toward helping break the cycle of criticism and stifled innovation alongside recent positive movements in evidence-based reforms and promising empirical research into student learning and engagement in instructional labs.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Focused Collection on Instructional Labs: Improving Traditions and New Directions

Focused Collection on Instructional Labs: Improving Traditions and New Directions

Article Text

References (179)

  1. D. E. Meltzer and V. K. Otero, A brief history of physics education in the United States, Am. J. Phys. 83, 447 (2015).
  2. W. G. Adams, The essentials of geometry, plane and solid, as taught in French and German schools, with shorter demonstrations than in Euclid; adapted for students preparing for examination, cadets in military and naval schools, technical classes, &c., Nature (London) 3, 323 (1871).
  3. S. C. Brown, A survey of elementary physics laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 21, 411 (1953).
  4. M. Phillips, Laboratories and the rise of the physics profession in the nineteenth century, Am. J. Phys. 51, 497 (1983).
  5. J. C. Menzie, The lost arts of experimental investigation, Am. J. Phys. 38, 1121 (1970).
  6. C. L. Henshaw, Laboratory teaching in general education courses, Am. J. Phys. 22, 68 (1954).
  7. 120 years of American education: A statistical portrait, U.S. Department of Education, Technical Report, 1993.
  8. S. R. Harper, L. D. Patton, and O. S. Wooden, Access and equity for African American students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts, J. Higher Educ. 80, 389 (2009).
  9. M. Phillips, Early history of physics laboratories for students at the college level, Am. J. Phys. 49, 522 (1981).
  10. E. H. Hall, Descriptive List of Elementary Exercises in Physics: Corresponding to the Requirement in Elementary Experimental Physics for Admission to Harvard College and the Lawrence Scientific School (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1897).
  11. A. E. Moyer, Edwin Hall and the emergence of the laboratory in teaching physics, Phys. Teach. 14, 96 (1976).
  12. H. Rowland, The physical laboratory in modern education, Science 7, 573 (1886).
  13. National Education Association, Report of the Committee of ten on secondary school studies; with the reports of the conferences arranged by the committee, Technical Report, American Book Company, 1894.
  14. J. S. Ames and W. J. A. Bliss, A Manual of Experiments in Physics, Laboratory Instructions for College Classes, edited by Joseph S. Ames and William J. A. Bliss (American Book Company, New York, 1898).
  15. C. R. Mann, The Teaching of Physics for Purposes of General Education (Macmillan, London, 1912).
  16. C. R. Fountain, Laboratory investigation versus laboratory verification, Am. J. Phys. 2, 177 (1934).
  17. M. H. Trytten, The exercise of student originality in the general physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 3, 192 (1935).
  18. R. E. Berger, An experiment in laboratory instruction, Am. J. Phys. 7, 398 (1939).
  19. W. Barrett, Practical Physics: An Introductory Handbook for the Physical Laboratory (Percival, 1892), https://archive.org/details/cu31924012324970.
  20. J. Watkins, J. E. Coffey, A. C. Maskiewicz, and D. Hammer, An account of teachers’ epistemological progress in science, in Teachers’ Personal Epistemologies: Evolving Models for Informing Practice (AIP, Charlotte, NC, 2017).
  21. W. Eliot, Laboratory teaching, School Sci. Math. 6, 703 (1906).
  22. F. F. Good, Laboratory Projects in Physics: A Manual of Practical Experiments for Beginners (Macmillan, London, 1920).
  23. W. V. Norris, A study in laboratory manuals, Am. J. Phys. 6, 135 (1938).
  24. H. A. Cunningham, Lecture demonstration versus individual laboratory method in science teaching—A summary, Sci. Educ. 30, 70 (1946).
  25. Formation of AAPT, https://www.aapt.org/aboutaapt/history/aaptformation.cfm ().
  26. A. A. Bless, Cook-book laboratory work, Am. J. Phys. 1, 88 (1933).
  27. G. E. Owen, Some contributions the physics laboratory can make to general education, Am. J. Phys. 17, 270 (1949).
  28. H. Kruglak, The delusion of the scientific method, Am. J. Phys. 17, 23 (1949).
  29. P. Frank, The place of the philosophy of science in the curriculum of the physics student, Am. J. Phys. 15, 202 (1947).
  30. O. Blüh, Physics in premedical education, Am. J. Phys. 17, 156 (1949).
  31. E. L. Harrington, Premedical courses in physics—Advantages and trends, Am. J. Phys. 22, 162 (1954).
  32. J. S. Rinehart, Student likes and dislikes in the elementary laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 9, 218 (1941).
  33. Laboratory instruction in general college physics, Report of the committee on conclusions of the Conference on Laboratory Instruction in General Physics, Am. J. Phys. 25, 436 (1957).
  34. H. Krieghbaum and H. Rawson, To Improve Secondary School Science and Mathematics Teaching: A Short History of the First Dozen Years of the National Science Foundation’s Summer Institutes Program, 1954–1965 (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 1968).
  35. G. W. Hazzard, Suggestions for the improvement of physics teaching in colleges and universities, Am. J. Phys. 19, 374 (1951).
  36. V. Crawford, The undergraduate physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 22, 344 (1954).
  37. H. M. Landis, Experimental experiments in the elementary physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 32, 704 (1964).
  38. H. V. Neher, The role of experimental work, Am. J. Phys. 30, 186 (1962).
  39. L. White, On statistical analysis in the general physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 38, 243 (1970).
  40. R. L. Weber, Automation in the marking of laboratory reports, Am. J. Phys. 24, 116 (1956).
  41. G. Theysohn and H. Jodl, Testing laboratory performance, Am. J. Phys. 51, 334 (1983).
  42. H. Kruglak, Evaluating laboratory instruction by use of objective-type tests, Am. J. Phys. 26, 31 (1958).
  43. A. L. King, Laboratory report, Am. J. Phys. 33, 1090 (1965).
  44. F. B. Stumpf, Ways to improve undergraduate-laboratory report writing, Am. J. Phys. 33, 917 (1965).
  45. A. Kshatriya and W. Thumm, Writing laboratory reports, Am. J. Phys. 34, 539 (1966).
  46. G. R. Caughlan and G. C. Towe, Laboratory performance testing, Am. J. Phys. 29, 777 (1961).
  47. H. Kruglak, Current teaching practices and problems in the general physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 28, 791 (1960).
  48. R. M. Price and D. Brandt, Walk-in laboratory: A laboratory for introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 42, 126 (1974).
  49. J. W. G. Ivany and M. R. Parlett, The divergent laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 36, 1072 (1968).
  50. R. C. Murty, Another approach to the first-year physics laboratory course, Am. J. Phys. 33, 205 (1965).
  51. J. G. King, On physics project laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 34, 1058 (1966).
  52. B. Fryshman, A laboratory course for nonscience majors, Am. J. Phys. 36, 262 (1968).
  53. M. C. Robinson, Undergraduate laboratories in physics: Two philosophies, Am. J. Phys. 47, 859 (1979).
  54. J. R. Prescott and C. D. Anger, Removing the “Cook Book” from freshman physics laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 38, 58 (1970).
  55. I. E. Dayton, Toward a more effective introductory laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 30, 218 (1962).
  56. L. Nedelsky, Introductory physics Laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 26, 51 (1958).
  57. H. Laster, A step away from the conventional laboratory in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 27, 166 (1959).
  58. S. C. Brown, Elementary laboratory instruction in England, Am. J. Phys. 23, 27 (1955).
  59. G. H. Barbenza and O. Miguel, A teaching strategy to develop physicist’s skills early, Am. J. Phys. 40, 256 (1972).
  60. F. Behroozi, Freshman physics laboratory in a small college overseas, Am. J. Phys. 44, 334 (1976).
  61. M. W. White, Distribution of time in general physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 29, 291 (1961).
  62. M. R. Moldover, Cost of elementary laboratory and lecture instruction at a large university, Am. J. Phys. 39, 454 (1971).
  63. H. Kruglak, Achievement of physics students with and without laboratory work, Am. J. Phys. 21, 14 (1953).
  64. H. Kruglak, Experimental outcomes of laboratory instruction in elementary college physics, Am. J. Phys. 20, 136 (1952).
  65. H. Kruglak and R. A. Goodwin, Laboratory achievement in relation to the number of partners, Am. J. Phys. 23, 257 (1955).
  66. N. Holmes and H. J. Lewandowski, Investigating the landscape of physics laboratory instruction across North America, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020162 (2020).
  67. J. I. Shonle, A progress report on open-end laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 38, 450 (1970).
  68. F. Reif and M. St. John, Teaching physicists’ thinking skills in the laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 47, 950 (1979).
  69. C. S. Kalman, A computer-managed undergraduate physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 55, 46 (1987).
  70. D. W. Preston and R. H. Good, Computers in the general physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 64, 766 (1996).
  71. P. J. Moriarty, B. L. Gallagher, C. J. Mellor, and R. R. Baines, Graphical computing in the undergraduate laboratory: Teaching and interfacing with LabVIEW, Am. J. Phys. 71, 1062 (2003).
  72. R. L. Spencer, Teaching computational physics as a laboratory sequence, Am. J. Phys. 73, 151 (2005).
  73. L. E. Turner, Instructional uses of the computer: Propagation of error in the physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 44, 477 (1976).
  74. B. F. Gore, Instructional uses of the computer: Computerized least squares fits in the introductory laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 38, 109 (1970).
  75. J. R. Merrill, Uses of desk-top computers in introductory laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 38, 334 (1970).
  76. P. Seligmann and C. D. Spencer, Two freshman courses which introduce digital electronics, programming, computers, and interfacing, Am. J. Phys. 53, 343 (1985).
  77. J. E. Fredrickson and L. Moreland, Electromagnetic induction: A computer-assisted experiment, Am. J. Phys. 40, 1202 (1972).
  78. A. G. Guy, Application of classical physics to electronic devices, Am. J. Phys. 53, 339 (1985).
  79. J. M. Wilson, Experimental simulation in the modern physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 48, 701 (1980).
  80. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, C. Malley, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, and C. E. Wieman, Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 406 (2008).
  81. C. E. Wieman, K. K. Perkins, and W. K. Adams, Oersted medal lecture 2007: Interactive simulations for teaching physics: What works, what doesn’t, and why, Am. J. Phys. 76, 393 (2008).
  82. S. Hoffmaster, Using video equipment as a physics laboratory tool, Am. J. Phys. 59, 375 (1991).
  83. Vernier video analysis, https://www.vernier.com/product/video-analysis/.
  84. Capstone video analysis—PASCO Blog, https://www.pasco.com/resources/blog/9.
  85. Pivot Interactives: Interactive video-based science activities, https://www.pivotinteractives.com/.
  86. S. G. Eckstein, Verification of fundamental principles of mechanics in the computerized student laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 58, 909 (1990).
  87. J. R. Patterson and J. R. Prescott, Self-paced freshman physics laboratory and student assessment, Am. J. Phys. 48, 163 (1980).
  88. W. K. McFarlane, A discriminating laboratory in elementary mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 38, 305 (1970).
  89. H. A. Buckmaster, Evaluating the effectiveness of an elementary undergraduate laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 54, 702 (1986).
  90. W. S. Toothacker, A critical look at introductory laboratory instruction, Am. J. Phys. 51, 516 (1983).
  91. S. C. Brown, Do college students benefit from high school laboratory courses?, Am. J. Phys. 26, 334 (1958).
  92. W. L. Saunders and D. H. Dickinson, A comparison of community college students’ achievement and attitude changes in a lecture-only and lecture-laboratory approach to general education biological science courses, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 16, 459 (1979).
  93. M. F. Dubravcic, Practical alternatives to laboratory in a basic chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ. 56, 235 (1979).
  94. J. Spears and D. Zollman, Orientation for the new teaching assistant—A laboratory based program, Am. J. Phys. 42, 1062 (1974).
  95. J. G. Potter and J. Burns, Alternative justification for introductory physics laboratory courses, Am. J. Phys. 52, 12 (1984).
  96. A. B. Arons, Guiding insight and inquiry in the introductory physics laboratory, Phys. Teach. 31, 278 (1993).
  97. E. H. Carlson, Constructing laboratory courses, Am. J. Phys. 54, 972 (1986).
  98. R. R. Hake, Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory, Phys. Teach. 30, 546 (1992).
  99. R. R. Hake, Promoting student crossover to the Newtonian world, Am. J. Phys. 55, 878 (1987).
  100. D. R. Sokoloff, P. W. Laws, and R. K. Thornton, RealTime Physics: Active learning labs transforming the introductory laboratory, Eur. J. Phys. 28, S83 (2007).
  101. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
  102. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, Investigative Science Learning Environment (2007).
  103. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J. Phys. 74, 979 (2006).
  104. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, D. T. Brookes, and D. Mills, Role of Experiments in Physics Instruction—A process approach, Phys. Teach. 40, 351 (2002).
  105. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, and M. Ruibal-Villasenor, How long does it take? A study of student acquisition of scientific abilities, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020108 (2008).
  106. 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).
  107. A. Karelina and E. Etkina, Acting like a physicist: Student approach study to experimental design, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020106 (2007).
  108. P. W. Laws, Calculus-based physics without lectures, Phys. Today 44, No. 12, 24 (1991).
  109. J. M. Wilson, The CUPLE physics studio, Phys. Teach. 32, 518 (1994).
  110. J. W. Belcher, Studio physics at MIT, Technical Report, 2001, https://physics.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/physicsatmit_01_teal.pdf.
  111. 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, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics, edited by E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney, Reviews in PER Vol. 1 (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007).
  112. R. Beichner, R. Chabay, and B. Sherwood, Labs for the matter & interactions curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 78, 456 (2010).
  113. 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).
  114. C. M. Sorensen, A. D. Churukian, S. Maleki, and D. A. Zollman, The new studio format for instruction of introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 74, 1077 (2006).
  115. P. B. Kohl, H. V. Kuo, M. Sabella, C. Henderson, and C. Singh, Introductory physics gender gaps: Pre- and post-studio transition, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 173 (2009).
  116. P. B. Kohl and H. Vincent Kuo, Chronicling a successful secondary implementation of studio physics, Am. J. Phys. 80, 832 (2012).
  117. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020107 (2009).
  118. NGSS Lead States, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013).
  119. A. Hofstein and R. Mamlok-Naaman, The laboratory in science education: The state of the art, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 8, 105 (2007).
  120. National Research Council, BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003), p. 10497.
  121. National Research Council, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
  122. National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  123. J. Kozminski, H. Lewandowski, N. Beverly, S. Lindaas, D. Deardorff, A. Reagan, R. Dietz, R. Tagg, M. EblenZayas, J. Williams, and others, AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2014), Vol. 29.
  124. C. Wieman and N. G. Holmes, Measuring the impact of an instructional laboratory on the learning of introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 83, 972 (2015).
  125. 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).
  126. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, 38 (2018).
  127. N. G. Holmes, C. E. Wieman, and D. A. Bonn, Teaching critical thinking, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11199 (2015).
  128. C. Wieman, Comparative cognitive task analyses of experimental science and instructional laboratory courses, Phys. Teach. 53, 349 (2015).
  129. N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT learning goals for the lab, Phys. Teach. 57, 296 (2019).
  130. D. R. Dounas-Frazer and H. J. Lewandowski, The modeling framework for experimental physics: Description, development, and applications, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 064005 (2018).
  131. B. M. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Incorporating learning goals about modeling into an upper-division physics laboratory experiment, Am. J. Phys. 82, 876 (2014).
  132. M. Vonk, P. Bohacek, C. Militello, and E. Iverson, Developing model-making and model-breaking skills using direct measurement video-based activities, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020106 (2017).
  133. E. Brewe, Modeling theory applied: Modeling Instruction in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1155 (2008).
  134. P. R. Gandhi, J. A. Livezey, A. M. Zaniewski, D. L. Reinholz, and D. R. Dounas-Frazer, Attending to experimental physics practices and lifelong learning skills in an introductory laboratory course, Am. J. Phys. 84, 696 (2016).
  135. J. R. Hoehn and H. J. Lewandowski, Framework of goals for writing in physics lab classes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010125 (2020).
  136. J. T. Stanley and H. J. Lewandowski, Recommendations for the use of notebooks in upper-division physics lab courses, Am. J. Phys. 86, 45 (2018).
  137. M. D. Caballero, N. Chonacky, L. Engelhardt, R. C. Hilborn, M. L. Del Puerto, and K. R. Roos, PICUP: A community of teachers integrating computation into undergraduate physics courses, Phys. Teach. 57, 397 (2019).
  138. D. Sachmpazidi, M. Bautista, Z. Chajecki, C. Mendoza, and C. Henderson, Integrating numerical modeling into an introductory physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 89, 713 (2021).
  139. 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).
  140. J. M. May, C. De Grandi, J. M. Gerton, L. Barth-Cohen, A. Beehler, and B. Montoya, Bringing three-dimensional learning to undergraduate physics: Insight from an introductory physics laboratory course, Am. J. Phys. 90, 452 (2022).
  141. K. Moore, J. Giannini, and W. Losert, Toward better physics labs for future biologists, Am. J. Phys. 82, 387 (2014).
  142. A. Robertson and W. T. Hairston, Observing whiteness in introductory physics: A case study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010119 (2022).
  143. A. L. Traxler, X. C. Cid, J. Blue, and R. Barthelemy, Enriching gender in physics education research: A binary past and a complex future, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020114 (2016).
  144. R. S. Barthelemy, M. McCormick, and C. Henderson, Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020119 (2016).
  145. S. Hyater-Adams, C. Fracchiolla, N. Finkelstein, and K. Hinko, Critical look at physics identity: An operationalized framework for examining race and physics identity, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010132 (2018).
  146. K. N. Quinn, M. M. Kelley, K. L. McGill, E. M. Smith, Z. Whipps, and N. Holmes, Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010129 (2020).
  147. N. Holmes, G. Heath, K. Hubenig, S. Jeon, Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, and E. C. Sayre, Evaluating the role of student preference in physics lab group equity, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010106 (2022).
  148. A. J. Gonsalves, A. Danielsson, and H. Pettersson, Masculinities and experimental practices in physics: The view from three case studies, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020120 (2016).
  149. E. M. Stump, M. Dew, S. Jeon, and N. Holmes, Taking on a manager role can support women’s physics lab identity development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010107 (2023).
  150. 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).
  151. 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).
  152. 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).
  153. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Students’ views about the nature of experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020110 (2017).
  154. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Improvement or selection? A longitudinal analysis of students’ views about experimental physics in their lab courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 023101 (2017).
  155. 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).
  156. 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).
  157. J. Haglund, F. Jeppsson, D. Hedberg, and K. J. Schönborn, Students’ framing of laboratory exercises using infrared cameras, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020127 (2015).
  158. A. M. Phillips, M. Sundstrom, D. G. Wu, and N. Holmes, Not engaging with problems in the lab: Students’ navigation of conflicting data and models, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020112 (2021).
  159. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. Holmes, Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020128 (2021).
  160. Z. Y. Kalender, M. Stein, and N. G. Holmes, Sense of agency, gender, and students’ perception in open-ended physics labs, arXiv:2007.07427.
  161. G. Martínez, F. L. Naranjo, L. Pérez, M. I. Suero, and P. J. Pardo, Comparative study of the effectiveness of three learning environments: Hyper-realistic virtual simulations, traditional schematic simulations and traditional laboratory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020111 (2011).
  162. J. J. Chini, A. Madsen, E. Gire, N. S. Rebello, and S. Puntambekar, Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010113 (2012).
  163. N. D. Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C. J. Keller, P. B. Kohl, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, S. Reid, and R. LeMaster, When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010103 (2005).
  164. S. J. Husnaini and S. Chen, Effects of guided inquiry virtual and physical laboratories on conceptual understanding, inquiry performance, scientific inquiry self-efficacy, and enjoyment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010119 (2019).
  165. S. Chen, H.-C. Lo, J.-W. Lin, J.-C. Liang, H.-Y. Chang, F.-K. Hwang, G.-L. Chiou, Y.-T. Wu, S. W.-Y. Lee, H.-K. Wu, C.-Y. Wang, and C.-C. Tsai, Development and implications of technology in reform-based physics laboratories, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020113 (2012).
  166. A. Werth, J. R. Hoehn, K. Oliver, M. F. 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).
  167. D. J. Rosen and A. M. Kelly, Working together or alone, near, or far: Social connections and communities of practice in in-person and remote physics laboratories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010105 (2022).
  168. B. Pollard, A. Werth, R. Hobbs, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of a course transformation on students’ reasoning about measurement uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020160 (2020).
  169. 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).
  170. B. Pollard, R. Hobbs, R. Henderson, M. D. Caballero, and H. J. Lewandowski, Introductory physics lab instructors’ perspectives on measurement uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010133 (2021).
  171. B. Cai, L. A. Mainhood, R. Groome, C. Laverty, and A. McLean, Student behavior in undergraduate physics laboratories: Designing experiments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020109 (2021).
  172. 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).
  173. B. M. Zwickl, D. Hu, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Model-based reasoning in the physics laboratory: Framework and initial results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020113 (2015).
  174. J. T. Stanley, W. Su, and H. J. Lewandowski, Using lab notebooks to examine students’ engagement in modeling in an upper-division electronics lab course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020127 (2017).
  175. 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).
  176. J. Day and D. Bonn, Development of the concise data processing assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010114 (2011).
  177. T. O. B. Odden and R. S. Russ, Defining sensemaking: Bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct, Sci. Educ. 103, 187 (2019).
  178. J. M. May, L. A. Barth-Cohen, J. M. Gerton, C. De Grandi, and A. L. Adams, Student sensemaking about inconsistencies in a reform-based introductory physics lab, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020134 (2022).
  179. A. Sirnoorkar, P. D. Bergeron, and J. T. Laverty, Sensemaking and scientific modeling: Intertwined processes analyzed in the context of physics problem solving, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010118 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020168– Published 20 December, 2023
  • Received 2 June 2023
  • Accepted 17 November 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