Perceptions of the Students toward Studio Physics
Abstract
The purpose of this study was not only to report the development process of the studio model, but also to determine the students’ perceptions about the studio model. This model retains the large lecture component but combines recitation and laboratory instruction into studio model. This research was based on qualitative analysis. The data of the study was collected with survey and interview done about studio model during two semesters in Colorado School of Mines, U.S. The results of the study showed that the students found the interactive-engagement method of learning physics to be a positive experience. They liked the integration of homework and laboratory activities, working in groups, and having the opportunity to interact, individually, with lecturers. In short, the teaching-learning method presented here, studio model had made a positive impact on students’ perceptions about the physics course.
References
Beichner, R., Bernold, L., Burniston, E., Dail, P., Felder, R., Gastineau, J., Gjertson, M., & Risley, J. (1999). Case study of the physics component of an integrated curriculum. American Journal of Physics, 67, S16-S24.
Churukian, D. (2002). Interactive engagement in an introductory university physics course: Learning gains and perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas State, Kansas.
Cooper, S. M. A., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1996). Innovation and persistence: The evaluation of the CUPLE studio physics course. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April 12, NY.
Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. American Journal of Physics, 67(7), S38-S44.
Furtak, T. E., & Ohno, T. R. (2001). Installing studio physics. Physics Teacher, 39, 11-15.
Gaffney, J. D., Richards, E., Kustus, M. B., Ding, L., & Beichner, R. J. (2008). Scaling up education reform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 18-23.
Gatch, D. B. (2010). Restructuring introductory physics by adapting an active learning studio model. International Journal for the Scholarship of Technology and Learning, 4(2).
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
Heller, P. M., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem-solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem-solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 627-636.
Hoellwarth, C., Moelfer, M. J., & Knight, R. D (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics Education, 73(5), 459-462.
Kohl, P. B., Kuo, H. V., & Ruskell, T. G. (2008). Documenting the conversion from traditional to studio physics formats at the Colorado School of Mines: Process and early results. Physics Education Research Conference, 1064, 135-138.
Kohl, P., & Kuo, V. (2009). Introductory physics gender gaps: pre- and post- studio transition, Physics Education Research Conference AIP Conference Proceedings, 179, 173-176.
Laws, P. (1991). Workshop physics: Learning introductory physics by doing it. Change Magazine, 23, 20-27.
Lister, B. (2005). Next generation studio: A new model for interactive learning. EDUCAUSE, October 18-21, Orlando-Florida.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned closing
the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59, 301–315.
McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & P. E. Group. (1998). Tutorials in Introductory Physics.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Montelone, B. A., Rintoul, D. A., & Williams, L. G. (2008). Assessment of the effectiveness of the studio format in introductory undergraduate biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7, 234-242.
Perkins, D. (2005). The case for a cooperative studio classroom: Teaching petrology in a different way. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 101-109.
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active- engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Journal of Physics, 6, 45-54.
Redish, E. F., & Steinberg, R (1999). Teaching physics: Figuring out what works. Physics Today, 52, 24–30.
Shieh, R. S., Chang W., & Tang, J. (2010). The impact of implementing technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) in university physics in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(3), 401-415.
Sokoloff, D. R., & Thornton, R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. Physics Teacher, 35, 340-347.
Sorensen, C. M., Churukian, A. D., Maleki, S., & Zollman, D. A. (2006). The new studio format for instruction of introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 74(12), 1077-1082.
Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: a review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59, 891-897.
Wilson, J. M. (1994).The CUPLE physics studio. Physics Teacher, 32, 518-523.
Wilson, J. M., & Jennings, W. C. (2000). Studio courses: How information technology is changing the way we teach, on campus and off. IEEE, 88(1), 72-79.
Young, J. E. (1996). The studio classroom. ASEE Prism, 15.
Churukian, D. (2002). Interactive engagement in an introductory university physics course: Learning gains and perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas State, Kansas.
Cooper, S. M. A., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1996). Innovation and persistence: The evaluation of the CUPLE studio physics course. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April 12, NY.
Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. American Journal of Physics, 67(7), S38-S44.
Furtak, T. E., & Ohno, T. R. (2001). Installing studio physics. Physics Teacher, 39, 11-15.
Gaffney, J. D., Richards, E., Kustus, M. B., Ding, L., & Beichner, R. J. (2008). Scaling up education reform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 18-23.
Gatch, D. B. (2010). Restructuring introductory physics by adapting an active learning studio model. International Journal for the Scholarship of Technology and Learning, 4(2).
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
Heller, P. M., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem-solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem-solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 627-636.
Hoellwarth, C., Moelfer, M. J., & Knight, R. D (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics Education, 73(5), 459-462.
Kohl, P. B., Kuo, H. V., & Ruskell, T. G. (2008). Documenting the conversion from traditional to studio physics formats at the Colorado School of Mines: Process and early results. Physics Education Research Conference, 1064, 135-138.
Kohl, P., & Kuo, V. (2009). Introductory physics gender gaps: pre- and post- studio transition, Physics Education Research Conference AIP Conference Proceedings, 179, 173-176.
Laws, P. (1991). Workshop physics: Learning introductory physics by doing it. Change Magazine, 23, 20-27.
Lister, B. (2005). Next generation studio: A new model for interactive learning. EDUCAUSE, October 18-21, Orlando-Florida.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned closing
the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59, 301–315.
McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & P. E. Group. (1998). Tutorials in Introductory Physics.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Montelone, B. A., Rintoul, D. A., & Williams, L. G. (2008). Assessment of the effectiveness of the studio format in introductory undergraduate biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7, 234-242.
Perkins, D. (2005). The case for a cooperative studio classroom: Teaching petrology in a different way. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 101-109.
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active- engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Journal of Physics, 6, 45-54.
Redish, E. F., & Steinberg, R (1999). Teaching physics: Figuring out what works. Physics Today, 52, 24–30.
Shieh, R. S., Chang W., & Tang, J. (2010). The impact of implementing technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) in university physics in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(3), 401-415.
Sokoloff, D. R., & Thornton, R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. Physics Teacher, 35, 340-347.
Sorensen, C. M., Churukian, A. D., Maleki, S., & Zollman, D. A. (2006). The new studio format for instruction of introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 74(12), 1077-1082.
Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: a review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59, 891-897.
Wilson, J. M. (1994).The CUPLE physics studio. Physics Teacher, 32, 518-523.
Wilson, J. M., & Jennings, W. C. (2000). Studio courses: How information technology is changing the way we teach, on campus and off. IEEE, 88(1), 72-79.
Young, J. E. (1996). The studio classroom. ASEE Prism, 15.
Published
2017-03-01
How to Cite
GOK, Tolga.
Perceptions of the Students toward Studio Physics.
European Journal of Physics Education, [S.l.], v. 2, n. 1, p. 16-33, mar. 2017.
ISSN 1309-7202.
Available at: <https://eu-journal.org/index.php/EJPE/article/view/132>. Date accessed: 18 apr. 2024.
Issue
Section
Articles
The copyright for all articles belongs to the authors. All other copyright is held by the journal.
