Transforming the Learning Environment of Undergraduate Physics Laboratories to Enhance Physics Inquiry Processes

Gregory P. Thomas; Al Meldrum; John Beamish

doi:10.14712/18047106.754

Vol. 8 (2017): Keynotes and selected papers from the International Conference on Physics Education, ICPE-EPEC 2013 (Special Issue) Selected papers

Transforming the Learning Environment of Undergraduate Physics Laboratories to Enhance Physics Inquiry Processes

Gregory P. Thomas, ¹ Al Meldrum, ² John Beamish, ²

Department of Secondary Education, The University of Alberta, Edmonton
Department of Physics, The University of Alberta, Edmonton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.754

PDF

How to Cite

Thomas, G. P., Meldrum, A., & Beamish, J. (2017). Transforming the Learning Environment of Undergraduate Physics Laboratories to Enhance Physics Inquiry Processes. Scientia in Educatione, 8. https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.754

Download Citation

Abstract

Concerns persist regarding the lack of promotion of students’ scientific inquiry processes in undergraduate physics laboratories. The consensus in the literature is that, especially in the early years of undergraduate physics programs, students’ laboratory work is characterized by recipe type, step-by-step instructions for activities where the aim is often confirmation of an already well-established physics principle or concept. In response to evidence reflecting these concerns at their university, the authors successfully secured funding for this study. A mixed-method design was employed. In the 2011/2012 academic year baseline data were collected. A quantitative survey, the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Learning Environment Scale (UPLLES) was developed, validated, and used to explore students’ perceptions of their physics laboratory environments. Analysis of data from the UPLLES and from interviews confirmed the concerns evident in the literature and in a previous evaluation of laboratories undertaken in 2002. To address these concerns the activities that students were to perform in the laboratory section of the course/s were re/designed to engage students in more inquiry oriented thinking and activity. In Fall 2012, the newly developed laboratory activities and tutorials, were implemented for the first time in PHYS124; a first year course. These changes were accompanied by structured training of teaching assistants and changes to the structure of the evaluation of students’ laboratory performance. At the end of that term the UPLLES was administered (n = 266) and interviews with students conducted (n = 16) to explore their perceptions of their laboratory environments. Statistically significant differences (p<.001) between the students in the PHYS 124 classes of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 across all dimensions were found. Effect sizes of 0.82 to 1.3, between the views of students in the first semester physics classes of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, were also calculated suggesting positive changes in the laboratory inquiry orientation. In their interviews, students confirmed and detailed these positive changes while still noting areas for future improvement.

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

[1] Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Search in Google Scholar

[2] , 39–55. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Beamish, J. et al. (2002). Report to the curriculum committee of the undergraduate Search in Google Scholar

[4] laboratories review committee. Department of Physics, University of Alberta. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Chang, C.Y. & Mao, S.L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes Search in Google Scholar

[6] with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 92, Search in Google Scholar

[7] –346. Search in Google Scholar

[8] Johnson, R.B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research Search in Google Scholar

[9] paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. Search in Google Scholar

[10] Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Search in Google Scholar

[11] Harvard University Press, Cambridge: MA. Search in Google Scholar

[12] Luckie, D.B. et al. (2004). Infusion of collaborative inquiry throughout a biology Search in Google Scholar

[13] curriculum increases student learning: a four-year study of “Teams and Streams.” Search in Google Scholar

[14] Advanced Physiology Education, 28(4), 199–209. Search in Google Scholar

[15] McGinn, M.K. & Roth, W. M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific Search in Google Scholar

[16] practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Search in Google Scholar

[17] Researcher, 28, 14–24. Search in Google Scholar

[18] National Academy of Sciences. (1996) The national science education standards. Search in Google Scholar

[19] Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Search in Google Scholar

[20] National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education Search in Google Scholar

[21] standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: Center for Science, Search in Google Scholar

[22] Mathematics, and Engineering Education. Search in Google Scholar

[23] Russell, C. B. et al. (2008). Student perceptions of the purpose and function of the Search in Google Scholar

[24] laboratory in science: A grounded theory study. International Journal for the Search in Google Scholar

[25] Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2, 1–14. Search in Google Scholar

[26] Thomas, G.P., Meldrum, A. & Beamish, J. (2013). Conceptualization, development and Search in Google Scholar

[27] validation of an instrument for investigating elements of undergraduate physics Search in Google Scholar

[28] laboratory learning environments: The UPLLES (Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Search in Google Scholar

[29] Learning Environment Survey). European Journal of Physics Education, 4(4), 28–40. Search in Google Scholar

[30] Weaver, G.C. et al. (2008). Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in Search in Google Scholar

[31] undergraduate science. Nature chemical biology, 4, 577–580. Search in Google Scholar

[32] Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can Search in Google Scholar

[33] investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Search in Google Scholar

[34] Science Education, 86, 112–143. Search in Google Scholar

Scientia in educatione

Transforming the Learning Environment of Undergraduate Physics Laboratories to Enhance Physics Inquiry Processes

How to Cite

Abstract

References

Downloads

License