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.

Highlights

  • The problem facing us at the University of AlbertaUndergraduate science laboratories are major teaching components within university science faculties worldwide

  • Tutorials were added to the laboratory schedule, replacing some experimental sessions, with the main intention to provide a source of questions or problems that would be relevant to modern happenings in the field of physics

  • Description (Extent to which students consider:) . . . that laboratory activities and content are integrated with non-laboratory & theory classes. . . . that students are helpful and supportive of each other and their physics learning. . . . they are asked to engage in inquiry-type investigations and thinking to learn about physics. . . . they are supported and encouraged by laboratory instructors to engage in and improve their physics learning. . . . that the material resources in the physics laboratories are adequate for the performance of the required tasks

Read more

Summary

The problem facing us at the University of Alberta

Undergraduate science laboratories are major teaching components within university science faculties worldwide. Laboratories are a key element of the undergraduate physics learning experience at the University of Alberta. This situation is the same at many universities, worldwide. Contrary to most traditional views, it is increasingly acknowledged that ‘science as inquiry’ should pedagogically guide laboratory-based instruction (National Academy of Sciences, 1996), and that labs should engage students in thinking processes and activities similar to practicing scientists (National Research Council, 2000). At high-school and undergraduate levels, many teachers and students believe, that science advances linearly, following the ‘hypothesis-testing model’ (Windschitl, 2002) In classrooms this is called the scientific method.

The team building process and member roles
The evaluation of the changes made
Material Environment
Instructor Support
Findings
Concluding comments and implications
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call