The Colorado School of Mines (CSM) has for several years had the first semester of its introductory sequence (Physics I) taking place in a Studio environment. In the past 3 year, we have been converting Physics II, the second semester of calculus-based physics, to a Studio format. This process has been guided both by our experience with Physics I and by innovations made by a number of PER groups. One of our goals has been to study and document the conversion process in sufficient detail to identify factors contributing to and impeding success, in order to maximize our own effectiveness and to inform other similar transitions.
Colorado School of Mines
CSM is a public university located in Golden, Colorado, serving approximately 4000 undergraduates. The school offers science and engineering majors almost exclusively, and all students take the same core of math and science courses. This core includes Physics I and Physics II, the first and second semesters of introductory calculus-based physics.
History of Studio at CSM
In the mid 1990s, CSM constructed a cross-departmental Center for Technology and Learning Media (CTLM) building, and the department successfully lobbied for the creation of a Studio room in that building. Sections of Physics I were immediately converted to a hybrid Studio format including two 50-minute lectures per week, and two two-hour blocks of Studio time.
Retaining a lecture component in the course, rather than switching to a total Studio mode, reduces load on the Studio facilities and has also aided acceptance from more traditional elements of the institution. This mode strongly connects lectures and Studios: Course material can be separated into two-day blocks, where new principles are introduced in the lecture in one day, and students study applications and relevant problems the next day in the Studio.
Studio Physics I resulted in significant student progress, with Force Concept Inventory [1] gains on the order of 50%, compared to 20-25% pre-Studio. In addition, student surveys, course evaluations, and exit interviews demonstrate greater student satisfaction with the Studio than with the traditional format.[2] For several years, space and personnel constraints required Physics II to remain in the traditional format, despite student dissatisfaction with it after exposure to the Studio format in Physics I. Recently these constraints lifted, and in the summer of 2007 we began the initial conversion process to hold all sections of Physics II in the Studio format, using the same basic structure as Studio Physics I.
Environment
The lecture component of our course is held in a 150 capacity, stadium seating room. To avoid having the students simply being passive receptors of information, we have adapted Eric Mazur’s Peer Instruction [3] pedagogy to significantly increase interactive engagement. Using a proprietary clicker system, we have been able to implement concept tests to break up the lecture and explicitly solicit input and rationale from students.
The Studio learning environment has the capacity for 108 students. There are 36 stations around the room, each occupied by a group of 3 students. We have 5 “coaches” in each session, making the student-instructor ratio approximately 20:1. During each 2-hour studio block the students may be working on solving problems, running simulations or animations, or performing experiments or hands-on activities designed to explicitly link concepts to mathematics.
Curriculum Development in the Studio
In the initial implementation of Studio Physics II (Fall 2007), we retained much of the curriculum from the traditional course. Many activities from former labs and recitations now occupy the Studio time slots. This transference-without-update has allowed us to implement Studio over a short time-frame, but leaves many needs for future developments.
While the Studio transformation is incomplete, several research-based course changes have been piloted based on our experiences with Physics I. Among these is the restructuring of students groups in Studio. These groups have three people whenever possible, with a member from each of the top, middle and bottom thirds of the Physics I course as determined from the final course grades. This group configuration allows the weaker students to get assistance from the stronger, and allows the stronger to learn by teaching.[4] We have also attempted to circumvent any potential gender- and culture-related difficulties in group interactions. Any group that has any female members has at least two, and any group that has any international students or students from traditionally underrepresented populations has at least two. This membership structure has been observed to significantly increase engagement among all students and to facilitate favorable group dynamics. Anecdotal evidence indicates that these group assignments have resulted in more consistent performance across the Studio in Physics II as compared to the randomly generated groups used in Physics I.
With the switch to group work, we need more challenging and compelling Studio problems. While developing applied math skills is a major goal of the intro physics sequence, it is well-established that problems involving modeling, estimation, and more authentic contexts can significantly increase interest and performance.[5] Our primary model will be an adaptation of the Context-Rich problems initially developed by the PER group at the University of Minnesota.[6]
The introduction of Context-Rich problems represents an improvement to the content of the activities in our curriculum, but we also need to address the structure of these activities. We have applied an adaptation of the Cognitive Apprenticeship model [7] to the material used in the Studio sessions. We model a problem-solving process during lecture, coach the students through the process during the Studio sessions while they work on the problems, and add scaffolding to the more difficult group problems that is then progressively removed until students are left with problem statements alone. This gradual removal of scaffolding has been shown in other contexts to aid students in learning particularly challenging material.[8] This structure is relatively easy to implement using online content delivery systems, in our case LON-CAPA.[9] Problem parts are revealed in sequence as earlier parts are correctly completed.
Our Studio sessions also feature a variety of hands-on activities and experiments to complement the problem solving. Some of these carried over from the traditional curriculum, which features both stereotypical verification-style labs and more design-based labs, such as one in which students design, build, and test a simple metal detector. We are currently replacing the less successful, more “cookbook” activities with activities drawing on several sources. Some of these are investigative, using simple equipment to answer questions about physical systems and discover relationships. Others use research-based simulations such as Physlets and PhET sims.[10, 11] Still others involve building and testing simple devices. Our goals here are to make Studio more engaging and more representative of what these engineering students will encounter in a professional environment.
For more information on the results of our initial studies of the Studio implementation, please see:
Patrick B. Kohl and H. Vincent Kuo, Chronicling a successful secondary implementation of Studio Physics, American Journal of Physics, 80, 9, 832-839 (2012).
Patrick B. Kohl, Charles Pearl, and H. Vincent Kuo, Direct and Indirect Approaches to Increasing Conceptual Survey Gains, 2010 PERC Proceedings, AIP Con. Proc. 1289, 193-196 (2010).
Patrick B. Kohl and H. Vincent Kuo, Introductory Physics Gender Gaps: Pre- and Post-Studio Transition, 2009 PERC Proceedings, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 173-176 (2009).
Patrick B. Kohl, H. Vincent Kuo, and Todd Ruskell, Documenting the Conversion from Traditional to Studio Physics Formats at the Colorado School of Mines: Process and Early Results, 2008 PERC Proceedings, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 135-138 (2008).
Vince Kuo and Pat Kohl, with Tom Furtak, Todd Ruskell, Alex Flournoy, and Chuck Stone
Last Modified: 01/22/2013
This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation CCLI Grant (DUE#0836937), The Trefny Institute, and the Colorado School of Mines.
References
[1] Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G., The Physics Teacher, 1992. 30: p. 141.
[2] Furtak, T. and Ohno, T., The Physics Teacher, 2001. 39(12): p.11.
[3] Mazur, E., Peer Instruction: A Users Manual. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
[4] Heller, P., Keith, R., and Anderson, S., Am. J. Phys., 1992. 60: p. 627.
[5] Hestenes, D., ed. “Toward a Modeling Theory of Physics Instructions.” The changing role of the physics department in modern universities, ed. E.F. Redish and J.S. Rigden. 1997, American Institute of Physics. 935.
[6] Context-Rich Problems at U. of Minn. http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Research/CRP/crintro.html
[7] Brown, J.S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P., Educational Researcher, 1989. 18(1): p. 32.
[8] Singh, C., Proceedings of the 2003 PERC, 2004: p. 177.
[9] http://www.lon-capa.org
[10] http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Applets/Applets.html
[11] Perkinis, K.K., et al. The Physics Teacher, 2006. 44: p.18.