STUDIO PHYSICSAT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

Supported by the US Dept. of Education and The University of Alabama

Statement of the Problem

Traditional physics course: 3 lectures per week 1 laboratory (separate) Large size

Issues with Traditional Lecture Inactive learning Poor attendance Lack of coordination of labs/lectures

Inefficient use of technology Impersonal

The studio approach is: Integrated lecture/labs Active learning Technology Almost daily assignments Group work (mostly)

STUDIO IS ALSO: Flexible

Adapts to instructor’s tastes, styles Adapts to students’ needs

Only a structure

A LITTLE HISTORY

Foundation Coalition (NSF: Engineering) Active Learning Technology in the classroom Teaming More technology in labs

DETAILS

Schedule: 2hrs, 2 days a week; 1 hr recitation per week

Short lectures Labs and activities for most of the 2-

hr sessions 50-60 students per section Technology driven

                                                     

The University of Alabama Department of Physics and Astronomy

Studio Physics Classroom

The University of Alabama Department of Physics and Astronomy

Students in Studio Physics Classroom doing optics experiment

The faculty role Professor: lectures, guides GTA: guides, leads recitation section

UTA: guides Student/teacher ratio: 20/1

LABS

Take data electronically Analyze data numerically …But also do paper/pencil analysis

WHAT GOES ON IN A 2-HOUR CLASS?

Some lecture Problem-solving examples Clicker questions Exercises Simulations Labs once a week

RESOURCES

https://bama.ua.edu/~stjones/ph101.htm

http://bama.ua.edu/~jharrell/PH105-F08/

http://bama.ua.edu/~rschad/teaching/LABs/

http://www.as.ua.edu/ph/courses/Studio.html

http://bama.ua.edu/~stjones/PH101-105activities.htm

DO YOU COVER EVERYTHING?

No Must pick and choose Cover main items well Students responsible for rest This is a 4-hour course!

MISCONCEPTIONS

Students have preconceived ideas These are hard to dislodge People can hold conflicting concepts

simultaneously Students must be confronted by a

conflict in order to abandon a misconception More than once

EXAMPLE

Consider a boat loaded with scrap iron in a swimming pool. If the iron is thrown overboard into the pool, will the water level at the edge of the pool

A. rise, B. fall, or C. remain unchanged?

WHAT WE KNOW

Interactive engagement techniques outstrip “traditional” in conceptual learning (Hake,1997)

Conceptual learning in mechanics often measured with Force Concept Inventory (Hestenes et al., 1992, 1995)

Hake gain: g = (post – pre)/(100% - pre)

HAKE’S RESULTS

STUDIO FORMAT ALONE DOES NOT GUARANTEE CONCEPTUAL LEARNING

Cummings et al. (1999): Interactive Lecture Demonstrations (Sokoloff and Thornton, 1997) and Cooperative Group Problem Solving (Heller et al., 1992) are effective in a studio context.

Many of Hake’s examples of interactive engagement were lecture courses

OBSERVATIONS

Hake (1998): Students won’t take seriously tasks they don’t get credit for.

Students are not necessarily actively (or even inactively) engaged when we think they are.

021 023 024 024 031 054 054 064 071 071 73 074 0740

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

FCI gain PH 105 sections

studio sectionslecture sections

Term

Ga

in

023 054 071 071 073 074 0740

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

PH101

PH101

RECITATION SESSIONS

Quiz? Help with homework Exercises Simulations Structured problem-solving

e.g. https://bama.ua.edu/~stjones/ph101.htm

CONCLUSIONS

Active learning Considerable student/teacher

interaction Integration of labs and lecture material Collaborative learning Effective use of technology