DESIGNING A PER-BASED INTRODUCTORY PHYSICS LAB

By
Nicholas Karl Corak
A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Honors Program in the
Department of Physics and Physical Oceanography.
Approved By:
Examining Committee:
______
Russell L. Herman, Ph.D.
Faculty Supervisor
______
______
______
________
Department Chair

Honors Council Representative

Director of the Honors Scholars Program

University of North Carolina Wilmington

Wilmington, North Carolina
December 2010

Table of Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Motivation

What is PER?

Research Methods and Tools

13

Students Use Mental Models

16

Epistemology

19

Implications from a Traditional

LaboratoryObservations
Lab I
Lab II

23
23
25

The PER-based Laboratory Exercise: A

modified design
How to Run the Laboratory Exercise

26
27

Conclusion
Appendix A

33

Appendix B

33

3
Abstract
Physics Education Research (PER) faculty investigate how students develop their
understanding of physics concepts and phenomena. They have found that students do not
walk away from introductory physics courses with a coherent knowledge of physics
principles even if they make a good grade in the course. When asked to explain their
reasoning or describe their solution, students do not make correct conjectures about the
physics. Through a modified laboratory exercise, designed from an analysis of research
from introductory physics courses, we look for more effective ways to achieve student
understanding. The exercises are designed to increase student involvement in class
through hands-on activities with a focus on increasing students communication with the
instructor, lab group, and the class.

4
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my thanks to the Edward Redish and the University of Marylands
Physics Education Research Group (PERG) for their extensive commitment to fostering
research in the field of physics education. Without the research conducted there and at
other institutions across the nation at universities such as the University of ColoradoBoulder, the University of Washington, North Carolina State University, and others, I
would not have found the inspiration for this thesis. My gratitude extends to Dr. Shelby
Morge, Dr. Kate Bruce and the entire Honors Scholars Program at the University of
North Carolina Wilmington. My time completing the Honors Scholars Program could
not have been done with out the extensive support from the honors faculty, staff, and
students. I would also like to thank my parents, Patty and Eli Corak, for their lifelong
encouragement to follow my dreams, keeping me focused on what is important. I would
like to thank my sister, Rachel, for her young words of wisdom. To my friends and
classmates for their ears whenever I have needed to talk, I appreciate all that you continue
to do. Special thanks are needed for Dr. Timothy Black, Dr. Brian Davis, and Dr. Dennis
Kubasko for their dedication as committee members for my honors thesis. You have all
been influential and inspiring teachers to me. Lastly, Dr. Russell Herman deserves my
upmost appreciation for his patience, wisdom, and loyalty. I could not ask for a better
faculty supervisor to help me begin my quest as a physics researcher.

5
Introduction
Over the last twenty years, physics education research (PER) has become a growing field
in physics departments.

Faculty members in physics departments are reshaping

instructional methods based on results from research conducted on how students come to
develop their understanding of physics concepts and phenomena. They have found that
students often have a disconnection among physics principles. They come to class with a
set of knowledge already engrained and often fail to correctly adapt their prior knowledge
when presented with new physics topics (Sabella, 1999).

As instructors of physics, we have a skewed view of how students learn physics (Redish,
1994). We think that our students see and understand physical concepts as we do. This is
not the case. Students learn physics based on their own interpretations of physical
principles presented to them.

Students rarely have an opportunity to express their

interpretations of the physics they are learning. It is our duty as instructors to serve
students by asking them to explain themselves so they begin articulating physics in their
own words. When students are asked to explain themselves and their reasoning, they
begin to think about how they think about physics (McCaskey, 2009).

It was not until recently that physicists began to collect data on how their students learn
and process information. They notice that as physics teachers we fail to make a strong
impact on how our students view the world (Redish, 1994). In this essay, I seek to show
how to design a laboratory exercise based on research from physics faculty across the
nation. Research groups in large physics departments across the nation are implementing

6
modified methods of instruction which focus on the learner. Instructors often focus too
much on the physics content covered in class rather than how their students are
interpreting and learning. If we want to see success from more students, we must pay
closer attention to what the students are asking and doing when in physics courses
(Redish 1994).

In this paper, I seek to show how to design a lab which engages students in their own
learning processes. The lab design moves away from the traditional procedural based lab
and towards an inquiry based lab.

In the inquiry-based lab, the students undergo

empirical investigations in order to discover or validate a physical principle guided by

their own intuition and discussion among class (Russ, 2006). People, in general, learn
better by actively engaging in activities rather than passively watching the activities
(Redish 1994). I have focused on how to actively engage physics students through a lab
design which requires students to think, discuss, question, and articulate their ideas and
views on physics. My goal is to provide an environment in which students develop their
own ideas about physical phenomena and articulate the principles in their own words. I
believe that once this is done, the physical principle will lie in the mind of the student.

Motivation: Why study how students learn?

Researchers have been studying how students learn physics for years yet students are still
struggling with the basics (Redish, 1994). Understanding the learning process of students
will help instructors better meet the needs of their students in the classroom. Instructors

7
should probe the students with thoughtful questions about the physical concepts at hand
(Driscoll, 1999). The students should analyze their own thought processes. When
students communicate their thoughts with their classmates and the class works together to
give one another feedback, the students will have a greater understanding of the thought
process that led to the development of physical principles.

When faced with solving a problem, researchers have found that students use a set of
strongly related pieces of knowledge called a schema. This may consist of memorizing a
formula or fact and applying it to the context of the problem (Sabella, 1999). However,
when students are faced with more difficult problems, the schemata may not suffice.
Students must look for new ways to solve the problem. The goal of PER is to develop
effective methods for teaching students a useful set of problem solving skills.

In this thesis, we review research topics including student coherence and deep conceptual
understanding of physical phenomenon. As an application, we will see how the research
can be applied through laboratory exercises, namely using springs to teach concepts
about forces and equilibrium.

We show how students apply schemata and how

instructors can design labs in order to increase student knowledge of the schemata. By
analyzing their own thought processes, students compare their common sense and instinct
with the principles and concepts set forth through the lab.

The lab design shows how previous research can be applied to a traditional lab. We
compare a traditional, procedural lab with a modified lab based on PER. The adaptations

8
and modifications will enhance students conceptual understanding coupled with a handson experience. Students will be able to observe and describe what they see in physical
terms. By increasing student communication throughout the lab, students will enhance
their physics vocabulary and have a better sense for the true meaning of words like
displacement, force, and equilibrium (Aarons, 1997).

The students will numerically and conceptually evaluate data in small groups.
Intermittently and at the end of the lab, the students have a chance to communicate their
findings with the class. The instructor will then lead a class discussion. Critiques and
questions regarding the lab and any discrepancies again give the students an opportunity
to verbally conceptualize their understanding. Some of the probing questions require that
students predict what will happen and support their claims (Driscoll, 1999; Redish,
2003). Later, the students will reevaluate their predictions and why they thought the way
they did. They will compare their own thoughts with the information presented by the
instructor. First, we must discuss the foundations for this paper, the roots of physics
education research.

What is PER?

For millennia, natural philosophers, alchemists, astronomers, and scientists have made
world-changing discoveries in order to teach the people of earth about the inner workings
of the universe. Why, after thousands of years, should we stop trying to spread the
knowledge? Years of research in education indicate various learning styles and cognitive

9
developmental differences.

As a future teacher of physics, my ultimate goal is to

influence as many students as I can to see the importance of understanding the world
around them. As a student, I understand some of the difficulties in understanding the
counterintuitive ideas that present themselves in various physics topics. It is my goal to
bridge the gap between the student and the teacher by researching learning, and
specifically researching how students develop an understanding of physics. As a result, I
will have a better understanding of physical concepts, intuition, and the areas in which
the two overlap.

Researchers at the University of Colorado-Boulder use learning assistants (LAs) for

supplemental lab instruction. The LAs are students hired to assist faculty who want their
introductory physics courses to allow students to have more opportunities to articulate
and defend their ideas and interact with one another (Otero et. al., 2010). The figure
shows a redesign from the traditional class set up. The students in the transformed class
face each other, like in a laboratory setting, for the purpose of increasing student
discourse. The researchers use lessons which are inquiry based and interactive (Otero
et. al., 2010). This same sort of design can be implemented in the laboratory setting in
which the instructor acts a facilitator. By merely responding to the students questions by
asking probing questions, the instructor allows the students to discuss ideas with one
another rather than back and forth with the instructor. The research also shows that the
LAs learn more physics (Otero et. al., 2010).

10

Figure 1. The transformed class at the UC-Boulder allows for student-student discussion with LAs
facilitating discussion with questions that allow students to articulate their thought processes (Otero et. al,
2010).

Figure 2. The bar graph shows results from the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment. The graph
display pre and post test scores after students at the University of Colorado had LA-led recitation. The
Learning Assistants also improved on the assessment (Otero et. al, 2010).

As instructors, is it not our duty to ensure that our students are more than robots listening
and repeating what the authorities say? Shouldnt we be concerned that students are
reconciling any differences between common sense and correct physics knowledge?
There should be no difference.

Instructors should entice students to accept

11
misunderstanding and seek to resolve the misconceptions. We want our students walking
away from class embracing uncertainty, noticing it as an integral part of understanding.
For example we are uncertain of a particles momentum if we know its position, but this
helps us understand how particles behave. Admittedly, that may always be unclear to me
but what I will do, if it takes me the rest of my life, is figure out how to make
Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle and other physical concepts more intuitive to my
students.

Humans believed that the earth was flat and that teaching was an art form (Beichner,
2009). It took hundreds of years to convince people that the earth was spherical but
hopefully it will not take as long for us to realize that teaching is more than an art form.
Rather, teaching can use the scientific method for connecting students thoughts and
misconceptions and formulating adaptive teaching methods that actively engage students
in their own learning processes.

Education research is nothing new, but education

research in the field of physics is still a young field of study due to the controversy
surrounding physics education research as a science.

Some physicists believe that PER should reside in schools of education. While that is a
good location, having PER faculty in physics departments can greatly influence the
quality of instruction in the physics departments because the researchers will actually be
teaching those courses. Some faculty in physics departments will only listen to other
physicists. They do not validate the work of science education researchers (Beichner,
2009). Wherever the researchers are located, all instructors can benefit from the work

12
conducted by physics education researchers as they strive towards further understanding
of students views of physics, interpretations of physical phenomena, and struggles
observed in the physics classroom.

Over 100 years ago physicist Robert Millikan said it can not be too strongly emphasized
it is it the grasp of principles, not skill in manipulation which should be the primary
object of General Physics courses (Redish, 1999). As scientists, we try to unearth the
laws of nature, but in doing so we are trying to create the best way of thinking about the
world. This approach to science puts the knowledge in the mind of the scientist (Redish
1998), or the student of physics, for the purpose of this paper. In physics we may not
always follow the standard scientific method, but when we do physics we do use two
important tools, observation, and analysis.

In PER, we do just that, observe how students learn, analyze our observations using
appropriately developed instruments, and produce a method of research-based
instructional reform based on the analysis of the results (Beichner, 2009).

Physics

education research is always changing because the students are always changing. We can
look at physics education research like we look at any other complex system full of
evolving variables, and many unknown or uncontrollable variables. Edward Redish
compares PER experiments with quantum mechanics experiments in that every student
behavior cannot be controlled or predicted, in the same way that one cannot predict the
behavior of an electron (Redish, 1999).

13
Research Methods and Tools

As we look at previous research on student understanding of physics, we must take into

consideration how students are learning. As material becomes more complex, so do
student difficulties in understanding physics. To fully understand student interpretations
of physics we must not focus solely on teaching content: rather, we should look into ways
of investigating how students come to their own understanding of physical concepts.

Model of Learning Cycle

Figure 3. The Model of Learning Cycle as shown by the Physics Education Research Group at the
University of Maryland (Redish, 2003).

Researchers at the University of Maryland (UMd) have devised a Model of Learning

Cycle which uses research of students knowledge and comprehension of physics to
develop a curriculum to maximize student understanding of physics in an introductory

14
physics course (Wittman, 1998). Researchers collect data based on observations via
personal interviews, written questions, and diagnostic tests. Personal interviews consist
of roughly 45 minute video sessions in which students are presented with a problem or
scenario and they are led to an understanding of the problem through probing questions
from the instructor.

Researchers gain an insight into student comprehension via

questions on quizzes and tests at the beginning and end of lessons. Diagnostic tests could
include research-based surveys, questionnaires, or an inventory of concepts which are
specially designed to evaluate a class knowledge of physical concepts and principles
(Redish, 2003).

Observations can start at any point. Instructors may observe everything from students
questions to results on quizzes or exams. Michael Wittman discusses in his doctoral
dissertation how we must not help students arrive at the right answer, rather, we should
discover what problems they are having with the physical concepts (1998). Data from
observations and personal interviews can come from probing questions resulting from a
students description of a physical concept. As part of the research at UMd, instructors
ask for volunteers (usually those who are making better grades are more willing and less
shy to answer questions about physics) to take part in personal interviews.

The

interviews are loosely structured so that the instructor can adapt to the responses of the
students. All video interviews are transcribed to be analyzed. Many researchers other
than the instructor conducting the interview review the transcripts and videos to eliminate
bias when evaluating the students responses. The interviews from various students are

15
compared and evaluated to show commonalities in student reasoning in problem solving
(Wittman, 1998).

Free response questions at the beginning and end of lessons, whether on quizzes or tests,
ask students to not only solve a problem, but also request that students explain how they
arrived at the solution. There can be different methods to attaining solutions but the
results give researchers insight into how students solve problems and how they interpret
the physical concepts related to the problems. The researchers at UMd have found that
the free response answers from the students do not always show all solutions to a
problem, which they believe shows some lack of understanding and that the students are
filtering their responses (Wittman, 1998).

Sometimes, the researchers use multiple choice questions that may have multiple
answers. The students are asked to select all answers they believe are correct and explain
why.

This gives the students a chance to think about their own learning and

comprehension of material covered in class. Sometimes researchers select students who

participated in the interviews to act as pupils for the free response and multiple-choice
multiple-response questions. Vice versa, selected students who participated in the written
questions and surveys participated in interviews. Then the researchers compare the
results of each method to see if students are consistent in their responses or if they
approach the problem differently. By doing so, the researchers began to see correlations
in student comprehension of the topic and will look to adopt a curriculum suited for the
most effective method of learning (Wittman, 1998).

16
When researchers want a broader, statistical view of student performance and opinion
about physics, they distribute surveys and questionnaires to their students as well as
students at other institutions in the same or similar introductory physics courses.

The

large sample allows researchers a chance to look more broadly at student opinions which
reveal certain personalities about physics. One particular survey is the Maryland Physics
Expectations Survey (MPEX). Since 1992, researchers led by Edward F. Redish at UMd
have been surveying introductory physics students and expert physics teachers. The
survey samples a wide range of physics students and experts which allows the researchers
to see the different attitudes that the instructors have from their students. The goal of the
MPEX Survey is to evaluate student attitudes, beliefs, and epistemologies that affect how
they learn physics (McCaskey, 2009).

The results from the interviews, questions, and surveys show correlations in students
patterns of learning. In turn, and based on the data, the researchers can develop a
curriculum catered for student needs. They can get a better grasp on the traditional
methods of instruction while developing a new system of engaging students in order to
maximize students views on instruction and how they think they feel about physics.

Students Use Mental Models

First we must try to decipher how students are processing information. In a general
theory about cognitive developments in physics, Edward Redish states that people tend
to organize their experiences and observations into patterns or mental models (1994).

17
Mental models are made of propositions, images, and procedures, some of which may be
contradictory or incomplete. Learners try to use as little mental energy as possible, like
the ground state energy of an atom. Different learners have different mental models for
describing the physical world. But Redish also argues that mental models must be built
and that people learn better by doing than by watching something being done (1994).
The thesis attempts to use this principle to design laboratory exercises in which students
begin to understand their own mental models from the building blocks of those models up
to full comprehension of the principle.

One component of the foundations of a mental model is a schema.

Students use

schemata, coherent sets of knowledge, to solve problems (Sabella, 1999). They do not
integrate their qualitative and quantitative problem solving skills. The skills must be
integrated in order for students to have a complete understanding of the physical concept.
Researchers at UMd in the PER group found that students lack the ability to develop a
deep conceptual understanding when solving complex problems. When a student can
integrate the conceptual schemata with the qualitative problem solving schemata, they
can fully grasp the concept and solve the problem.

Students develop a rough knowledge of the concepts and the skills in order to solve the
problem using some formula that may or may not be derived in class. Students learn the
formulae and facts and in general, this is sufficient for passing the class and receiving a
good grade. These formulae and facts dont require a deep understanding of the physical
concepts. They merely apply current knowledge from their schemata to correctly solve a

18
problem. Students use of their skill sets becomes habit sufficient enough for them to
pass the course. But when the students are presented with novel problems, they often try
applying knowledge from their schemata in incorrect or inappropriate manners (Sabella,
1999).

Students become accustomed to their manner of solving problems, reverting back to their
ground state. As the course continues and concepts begin to build upon each other,
students struggle more with their qualitative interpretations. Some students may try to
apply a combination of intuition with the concepts from classroom experiences but are
seen reverting back to formulae and facts in order to solve the problems (Sabella, 1999).
Instructors in research based physics have found that a deep qualitative understanding
does not necessarily correlate with problems solving skills and a quantitative
understanding of the material. This means that a student can potentially find the correct
answer without fully comprehending the physics.

Researchers of PER have found that merely teaching qualitative and quantitative skills
are not enough. For a thorough conceptual understanding with the ability to relate
concepts to quantitative problems, instructors must integrate the two during instruction.
Instructors should state the connections among different principles, allow the students to
make their own connections among the principles, and integrate those connections with
their knowledge sets on solving real-world problems. Students must begin to make the
connections but the instructors can help with the development of the connections via
Socratic questioning which requires students to explain themselves (Hake, 1992).

19
Students must increase their discussion and participation in class. Students develop
patterns in reasoning and struggle in adapting to new situations. With the prior methods
ingrained, students cannot build and integrate new concepts.

Integration of students

intuitions and physical phenomena should be the goal of the instructor.

Experts have an integrated knowledge of physical concepts, can adapt knowledge to new
situations, and correlate concepts with real world problems.

They have a deeper

qualitative and quantitative understanding of physical concepts. This is very different

from students who struggle to make connections as principles and concepts build upon
each other. It is important for the instructor to understand how the students are learning
and interpreting the material being covered in the course so he or she can build better
communication with the students. Open communication and active discourse in the
classroom, whether it be in lecture or in lab, leads to students uncovering epistemological
issues.

Epistemology

As we investigate student learning it is important to address the significance of

epistemology within the context of the physics classroom. Epistemology refers to the
origin of knowledge and its limitations. Many student misunderstandings arise from
epistemological difficulties. In the context of learning physics, researchers are studying
students attitudes and perceptions of physics and how those attitudes and perceptions
affect the students learning of physics (McCaskey, 2009). Conflicts and epistemological

20
issues can arise from students and teachers expecting different things out of a class. If an
instructor focuses on concepts and the student focuses on using equations, there is a
conflict. Likewise, if an instructor presents the students with equations requiring merely
substituting values for the variables, the student is likely to miss the concept when
required to connect multiple principles in one problem.

It is important that the instructor and the student understand the expectations of one
another within the scope of the classroom. We see often that students like to follow
instructions because using equations or following a procedure in a lab gets the student
straight to the answer. But getting the answer correct is not necessarily the goal of
education. As instructors we want our students to have a deeper understanding of the
content presented. This paper seeks to identify methods based on a collaboration of
physics research that engages the student in his or her own interpretation of the materials
presented in a physics class, namely through lab practice.

In PER, scientists investigate students learning of physics by analyzing data from

specific classes.

Instead of the psychological research conducted relating to

epistemological issues, physics researchers use different methods for analyzing student
difficulties that focus on the learner.

By better identifying those issues, physics

researchers are finding ways to deal with the epistemological road blocks when they arise
(McCaskey, 2009).

21
The researchers at UMd have reformed their introductory physics courses based on prior
research in an effort to continue researching student difficulties with physics.

An

underlying principle that is stressed throughout this paper is that instructors should
actively and intellectually engage students whether in a lecture, demonstration, help
session, or lab exercise. One recurring method of actively engaging students is to ask
students to reflect on the questions they are asked to answer (McCaskey, 2009). This can
be significant and useful in the physics lab. The students are asked to explain their
intuition and compare it with specific laws discussed in the lesson.

If there are

discrepancies, students are asked to explain them. When students begin to articulate for
themselves, they begin on their journey to a deeper understanding of the topics at hand.
It is important that students do not sit back and get lost in the repetition of finding
solutions. Rather, as physicists, namely teachers of physics, it is our duty to serve the
individual and the entire class in their quest for a deeper knowledge of the workings of
the universe.

Instead of treating the class like a colloquium, we must engage the students in their own
learning processes in an effort to bring out their understanding rather than force it upon
them. There are times when it is necessary to use formal instruction and traditional
lectures; however, the majority of our time teaching physics should be spent eliciting
physical concepts from the observations of the students. Instructors should have the
students explain the physical concepts in their own words before, during, and after
introducing material. Continually engaging students makes students feel a part of their
own learning process.

22

How do we measure epistemological difficulties? The PER group at UMd has developed
surveys that help us answer questions about students epistemological difficulties with
physics (McCaskey, 2009). The Maryland Physics Expectation Survey 2 (MPEX2) was
developed in an effort to combine the original MPEX with EBAPS (Epistemological
Beliefs Assessment for Physical Science.). This survey is designed to evaluate courses
by asking students questions relating to their views on knowledge coherence, learning
independence, and the relationship of concepts and equations in their physics course
(McCaskey, 2009). By offering this survey, the researchers can collect data from a large
sample size used to evaluate the effectiveness of the course.

Another research tool, modified to elicit more accurate responses of true student beliefs
of physical concepts, is the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). The FCI is another survey
which provides information on the effectiveness of a physics course (McCaskey).
McCaskey found that several of the questions did not actually reveal whether or not
students intuitively understood the physical concepts. McCaskey altered and eliminated
questions based on his effort to see something new: that an epistemological belief about
correct physics is reconcilable with common sense and the conceptual knowledge to
make those connections (2009).

He did so by asking students to answer the questions

on the survey in two methods: what they really believe and what they think a scientist
believes. This thesis seeks to incorporate these ideas into the physics laboratory.

23
Along with surveys, observations can prove to be valuable assessment tools in
deciphering what students learn. During this investigation, I observed laboratory sessions
at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) in the Fall 2009. From the
observations, I found that most students do not build upon any pre-existing knowledge
they may have had. Evidence for this claim comes from the lack of student interactions
in the exercises. Roughly half of the students actually worked through the procedure of
the traditional lab, while the remaining students sat at the lab tables without input to their
lab groups. Implications from traditional laboratory observations can be found in the
next section.

Implications from a Traditional LaboratoryObservations

LAB I
In the professor-led laboratory exercise, the professor began by introducing simple
harmonic motion in the context of the universe. He described to the students how
everything moves with simple harmonic motion all the way down to the atomic level. As
the professor spoke, the students listened. The lab introduction covered approximately 45
minutes of lab time. The students did not talk during this session except to one another at
the lab tables. The professor tried to elicit student input via Socratic questions (e.g.;
What happens to make the spring stretch?, How can we measure how much force we
must apply to make the spring stretch?) The students did not seem to want to engage in
these questions and therefore remained inactive at their seats.

24
The professor described Hookes Law and its relation to Newtons Second Law,

ma .

He discussed that the suspended spring is in equilibrium every time you add

a weight to it. He proceeded to explain that the force down must equal the force up (i.e.,
the weight equals the magnitude of the force from the spring.) The professor notes that
the force from the spring is opposite the gravitational force and there must be a negative
sign in front of Hookes Law, F kx .

The instructor then proceeded to tell the students how to calculate the period of
oscillations for a spring: stretch the spring, release the mass, count ten cycles, and divide
the time for ten cycles by ten to determine the time for one cycle, the period. The
professor stated that the period is independent of displacement and acceleration. This
means when the spring is displaced more, it accelerates more, but it has farther to travel
to reach equilibrium. He asked the students to really think about what he is saying and
not just take his word for it because this principle can help the students understand matter.

Before allowing the students to begin, the professor ran through a few trials with the
apparatus to show the students how to perform the lab. He followed the procedure so that
the students would know what they were doing. He then encouraged them to have fun
and try to uncover some truths about the universe. The professor showed the students
how to tabulate data and how to represent the change in displacement from the
equilibrium positions of the spring. He noted that one measures the position from the
base of the weight hanger for consistency. After 45 minutes, he let the students begin

25
working. The students rushed through the lab without any reflection on what they were
actually doing, finished the experiment and left.

LAB II
For the same lab exercise, a graduate student acted as the lab instructor. He read the
procedure to the students and told them to ask him if they had any questions. As students
entered the classroom, they began working immediately on the lab. The instructor did
not present the students with any background information, nor any discussion on simple
harmonic motion and its significance in explaining the universe.

Many students asked

questions on how to set up the lab, how to measure displacement, and even how to
calculate the force they needed to apply to the spring to measure the spring constant. One
or two students took charge at each lab table. They seemed to understand the procedure
and what the lab handout asked them to do. The other students sat passively watching, or
talking socially, with one another. These students contributed little to the lab procedure
or the collecting of data.

The first instructor opened the lab with a discussion on simple harmonic motion.
However, the students were not engaged, and from observation it is impossible to tell
which students were listening and comprehending what the instructor presented. The
instructors goal was to clarify previous concepts discussed in lecture. One way we can
see what students learn from laboratory exercises is by surveying their views on the
purposes of the exercises. In Figure 4 data is presented which shows a comparison of
student views of traditional laboratory exercises and a scientific community lab created at

26
the University of Maryland in 2003. This shows that almost 90% of students viewed the
main purpose of traditional labs as clarifying concepts in lecture while there is a more
even distribution with the scientific communities lab in which students are asked to
explain their methods. Approximately 30% of students view the main purpose of the
scientific community lab exercises to learn problem solving (Lippmann, 2003.)
Therefore, the science community lab enhances student perception on their ability to
solve problems.

Figure 4. The above table and graph show the percentage of how students view Scientific Communities
and Traditional lab exercises (Lippmann, 2003).

27
The PER-based Laboratory: A modified design

In the modified laboratory design, I seek to engage students in the opening discussion,
allowing them to talk freely with one another. The instructor asks the groups to compile a
list of anything they think acts like a spring. The list should focus the students on the
goal of the lab, which is to understand the necessity for equilibrium in nature. After a
brief discussion on things which act like springs, the groups share what they came up
with, noting similarities, differences, and even questioning one another if any
discrepancies arise. The modified lab also poses no strict procedure for the groups to
follow. The lab groups are expected to discuss with one another a plan of attack for
discovering the spring constant.

This is very different from the procedural-based, traditional lab. The goal of allowing
students to develop their own procedure is to allow the students to uncover the solutions
for themselves rather than mimic a demonstration by a professor and following a recipe.
I argue that when students follow a recipe, they are not actually developing any ideas on
their own. Students learn better from actively engaging themselves in the activities and
that includes developing and analyzing their own procedures.

How to Run the Lab

In traditional laboratory exercises, students perform recipe-based experiments which

verify physical phenomena presented in lecture. There is little time given to students to

28
discuss their ideas with one another and the instructor, leaving the instructor no time to
figure out students misconceptions (Saul, 1998). The semester closes, the students either
pass or fail the course, and there is no evidence that the students posses deep conceptual
understanding of the physics. This method amplifies the view that learning science is
learning facts about the universe rather than making sense of those facts (Saul, 1998).

It may be difficult for student discourse in large introductory courses. However, learning
and discussion fits perfectly into lab courses. Group problem solving helps students
develop their own problem solving skills (Saul, 1998). Along with working together, the
plan of attack for students can be achieved through problem solving strategies as
developed at the University of Minnesota. The lab design is based on a five step strategy
(Heller, 1999):
1) Visualize the problem
2) Qualitative physics description
3) Planning a solution
4) Executing the experiment
5) Check and evaluate data
The lab write-up does not include background theory or very many direct instructions
(Saul, 1998). The development of the procedure is left for the lab groups to discover
based on the physics discussion at the beginning of the lab.

In Appendix A of this paper the reader will see an inquiry based lab. The lab is designed
in such a way as to maximize student participation in the class discourse whether on the

29
small group or plenary level. The students should always be encouraged to ask questions,
question their own and one others beliefs, explain their reasoning, and to find other
methods for problem solving. The goal of the PER-based modified lab, An Introduction
to Simple Harmonic Motion Lab, is for students to understand the spring as a model for
the universe because everything is oscillating.

The instructor begins by discussing the significance of springs, oscillations, and simple
harmonic motion. The instructor should ask the students to compile within their lab
groups a list of anything they think acts like a spring. After a few minutes of discussion,
the groups share their ideas with the rest of class. Does anyone have more ideas on what
acts like a spring? Questioning students is an essential aspect of creating a class
discussion.

The lab groups discuss for 5 minutes their ideas on how they can find their spring
constants. Then, the whole class reconvenes and the instructor leads a discussion by
asking for group volunteers to share their ideas for solving the question "What is the
spring constant of your spring and what does it signify?" The instructor should ask the
students to explain why their procedure for the experiment will help them discover their
spring constant. "Does anyone else have another method of approach?" is an important
question the teacher should ask until the answer from the class is "No." The instructor
should encourage the students to comment on, or question, one anothers ideas. After
approximately 10 minutes of discussion, the groups should begin to carry out the
procedure they developed.

30
At this point, all groups should have a grasp on how to tackle the problem. There may be
many similar, but different, approaches to the procedure and the instructor should verify
that all groups are headed in a productive direction. Most interpretations should reveal
themselves during whole-class discussions but the instructor should walk around the
classroom to answer further questions from the students. While the groups collect data
and determine an effective way to model the data, the instructor should encourage student
discussion by asking periodic questions such as:

What forces are acting on the spring?

What can be said about the state of the system?

How much force stretches the spring 100m?

The students will be curious as how to answer these types of questions because intuition
tells them it the spring coils cannot stretch to be 100m long. The instructor should
encourage the students to explain their thought processes and ask for several
interpretations. When the groups finish data collecting, they will represent their data
appropriately.

Once the groups have finished, the class reconvenes for a summary discussion. This is
when the groups share their results with the class. They should justify their data
measurements, graphs, and the conclusions they found.

By articulating their

methodologies and interpretations, physics students practice discussing how they view
the physical concepts and the physical world. They will, in time, learn new ways of
thinking from one another (Driscoll, 1999). The groups should compare and analyze data,
graphical methods, and discovered physical principles. The students are encouraged to

31
ask one another questions about their methods. The instructor may need to engage the
students by asking them guided questions such as (Driscoll, 1999; Redish 2003):

Why did you collect data in that way?

What are your independent/dependent variables and how do you know?

What rates of change do you notice and what do they signify?

What sort of limitations can be deduced from the experiment?

The questioning from the instructor is essential. In order to elicit deep thinking from the
students, the instructor should ask guiding questions. The students should be asked to
describe any patterns they see and if there is a generalization they can make from the
data. Students should be prompted to reflect on their own as well as their peers ideas.
These reflection questions ask students to explain their thinking, understand their
classmates reasoning, as well as make connections between different approaches. In
order to get the students to see the mathematical relationship developed in lab, the
instructor should ask the students to develop an equation modeling their data, making and
justifying generalizations. An example for how to ask students to make predictions about
physical phenomena pertaining to the lab in Appendix A is If 220g are added to the
spring, how much do you expect the spring to stretch? Explain how you determine this.
By attaching Explain to virtually every question forces the students to justify their
thinking and reason through their own thought processes.

32
Conclusion

As the field of physics education research continues to grow, it is our duty as teachers of
physics to analyze our instructional methods. We should ask ourselves, What gains did
the students make? after every lesson taught. For example, one can collect pre and post
test data of physical concepts understanding from students in traditional and modified
labs. Implications from the data could prove to show the effectiveness. I hope to do this
with the modified lab presented in this paper so that I can improve my instruction.

The PER-based design enhances student recognition of his understanding of physical

concepts. This lab is presented as an alternate approach to traditional exercises which are
procedural-based. The modifications make it explicit for students to articulate their
thoughts and views on physics concepts and learning gains. We want our students to
leave class with an enhanced set of problem-solving skills.

Educators should constantly be looking for better ways to increase student understanding.
With continued work in PER, I hope to sharpen my skills as an instructor through
research and evaluation, curriculum design, and implementation of new, more effective
teaching methods. An analysis devise could be developed in order to measure certain
gains students make after experience with the PER-based design presented in this paper.
Hopefully, with the right support, I will be able to implement the PER-based design to
continue my study of how students come to an understanding of physics phenomena via
laboratory exercises, evaluate those designs, redesign, and practice.

33
Appendix A
An Introduction to Simple Harmonic Motion
Question

What is your groups spring constant? What does it signify? Explain.

Purpose

Students will develop Hookes Law using graphing tool and data collected.
Students will use springs as a model for representing the physical world and
simple harmonic motion.

Materials

Support Rod
Table Clamp
Mass Balance/Scale
2m Stick
Springs
Mass Hanger
Slotted Masses

Procedure

Discuss with your group ideas you have on how to answer the question.
Discuss with the class how your group plans to solve the problem, namely how
your group plans to record data.
Finalize your procedure and get the instructors approval.
Perform your experiment
Draw force diagrams for at least 3 data points.

Analysis
Graph your data and fit a regression curve for that data.
What do the constants in your equations represent?
Can you develop an equation that represents a spring force in general?

34

Appendix B
Observations 10/26/09
Simple Harmonic Motion
DeLoach 205
PHY 101 Lab
InstructorProfessor

Professor began with relating the lab to the class context. So far for the students,
springs represent simple harmonic motion, which is present everywhere.

Professor uses Socratic Method, asking for student input while explaining springs
in the context of Newtons second law, F=ma.

Hookes Law- instructor describes the force as proportional to the compression or

extension of the spring. After describing the formula in words, the professor
explained F=-kx.

Professor described words such as equilibrium, displacement, net force, kinematic

equations and their relations to simple harmonic motion and springs.

Professor points out significance of negative sign in the formula and that it means
the force is an opposing force (in the opposite direction of the gravitational force)

k is a constant with units of Newton/meter. This number is a measurement of the

strength of the spring and of how much force is takes to stretch or compress a
spring 1 meter from equilibrium.

T represents the time period of one cycle of compression and extension. T is

independent of displacement and acceleration.

35

Instructor asks students to think about what he is saying and not just accept what
he has told them.

When the spring is displaced more, it accelerates more because a greater force
within it, but it has to travel further to reach equilibrium

Professor says that springs can help you understand matter.

The professor discusses what to get out of the lab and the goals of the lab
o Find k, the spring constant
o Find T, the period
o Determine effective masses, disregarding spring mass and adding mass to
the end of the spring

The instructor encourages the students to have fun, let them know there was no
pressure, and to understand this is how the universe operates.

The instructor ran through experiment via a class demonstration where the
students gather around the professor at one of the lab tables and watched as he ran
through the fist few steps of the lab so that all of the students could visualize what
they were about to perform.

He showed the equilibrium position and displacement after adding mass to the
end of the spring and adding more mass while noting the displacement.

He took the time for ten cycles after displacing the spring and divided by 10 to
demonstrate how to calculate the period.

The instructor reviewed how to tabulate data and representing the change in the
displacement.

36

The professor asks a few questions such as what causes the spring to elongate and
waits for student responses.

Reviews how to represent data graphically using Microsoft Excel.

InstructorGraduate Student

Students enter the class and work immediately on the procedure.

There was no introduction or background information.

Instructor did not make a contextual connection of the spring lab to what students
are learning in lecture and what applications emerge from the lab.

Instructor did not mention oscillations or the significance of simple harmonic

oscillators.

The instructor read the lab procedure and analysis procedure.

The students paid little attention to the instructor. Some groups started the lab
early.

The students did not gain physics knowledge from the pre-lab discussion.

Many students immediately had questions on the set up of the lab.

One to two students at each lab table worked on the lab while others watched and
contributed little to performing the procedure and collecting data.

37

References
Aarons, A. (1997) Teaching Introductory Physics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. Print.
Beichner, R.J. (2009). An introduction to physics education research. Getting
Started in PER, edited by C. Henderson and K. A. Harper (American Association
of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD), Reviews in PER Vol. 2,
<http://www.per-central.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=8806>.
Driscoll, M. (1999). Fostering algebraic thinking: a guide for teacher grades 6-10.
Portsmouth, NH: Education Development Center, Inc.
Hake, R.R. (1992). Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab. Phys. Teach. 30,
546-552.
Heller, P., K. (1999). Cooperative group problem solving in physics, University of
Minnesota preprint.
Lippmann, R.F. (2003). Students understanding of measurement and uncertainty in the
physics laboratory: social construction, underlying concepts, and quantitative
analysis. Doctor dissertation, University of Maryland. College Park, MD.
McCaskey, T. (2009). Comparing and contrasting different methods for probing student
epistemology and epistemological development in introductory physics. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Maryland. College Park, MD.
Otero, V., Pollock, S., Finkelstein, N. (2010). A physics department's role in preparing
physics teachers: the colorado learning assistant model. American Journal of
Physics, 78(11), 1220-1224.
Redish, E.F. (1994). The implication of cognitive studies fro teaching physics.
American Journal of Physics, 62(6), 796-803.
Redish, E.F. (1999). Millikan Award Lecture (1998): Building a science of teaching
physics. American Journal of Physics, 67(7), 562-573.
Redish, E.F. (2003). Teaching physics with the physics suite. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.

38

Russ, R. S. (2006). A framework for recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student

scientific inquiry. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. College Park,
MD.
Saul, J.M. (1998). Beyond problem solving: Evaluating introductory physics courses
through the hidden curriculum. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
College Park, MD.
Sabella, M. S. (1999). Using the context of physics problem solving to evaluate the
coherence of student knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
College Park, MD.
Wittmann, M. C. (1998). Making sense of how students come to an understanding of
physics: An example from mechanical waves. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Maryland. College Park, MD.