An enhanced studio physics model: which technologies are productive?

The notion of problem-based physics laboratories enhanced by computer technology has been coined "studio physics" (Wilson, 1994) and has been practised at various institutions for some time (Cummings, Marx, Thornton, & Kuhl, 1999; Williams, MacLatchy, Backman, & Retson, 1997). In recent years, new technology tools have been available to supplement the standard use of computer probes and data-acquisition software in studio physics. This paper reports on a quantitative/qualitative case study of the implementation of two emerging communication tools: Silicon Chalk and the Graphire[R] Tablet.

WHAT HAPPENS IN A STUDIO PHYSICS LAB?

At Acadia University, all of the approximately 3,600 students lease identical laptop computers. Their classrooms and laboratories are fully wired providing them with access to a range of network software. Lectures and laboratories are delivered with the aid of multimedia tools including digital projectors, laptop docking stations, ELMO[R] projectors, and audio-video consoles.

In the first year physics course at Acadia, several sections are allotted to the studio physics format. The laboratories generally are 2 hours long and conducted twice a week. The technological efficiency of this supplemental time allows the laboratory content to be closely linked to the lecture material; this is quite uncharacteristic of many lab experiences (Hodson, 1993). Course sections typically have 75 students and, as noted above, each student has a laptop computer. Curriculum includes topics as mechanics and motion, friction, rotational inertia, Atwoods Machine, and angular momentum.

During many laboratory sessions, students use Vernier[R] computer probes for data acquisition. The associated Logger Pro[R] software is particularly useful not only for data collection but also for data manipulation and graphical analysis. Previously in traditional lab activities, students collected relevant data and generated a hardcopy lab report that required diagrams, equation derivations, and graphs.

NEW TOOLS AVAILABLE

Our physics laboratories have recently been equipped with two new technology tools and a modified lab submission model. Silicon Chalk[R] is a powerful networking tool that allows students to share data both synchronously and asynchronously. One laptop computer can be set up for data acquisition using the probes while the other laptops can be set up to observe the data collection through the local area network (LAN) afforded by Silicon Chalk[R]. In an asynchronous mode, file sharing is easily accomplished after the data has been saved.

A second tool is the Graphire[R] Tablet. This tablet (and required stylus) easily interfaces with laptops to allow hand-drawn graphs, calculations, diagrams, and annotations to be input into enabled software such as Microsoft Word[R].

The laboratory report format is also electronic. Prior to the laboratory period, students are provided with an electronic file, which is a blank laboratory template for the ensuing lab. Students are able to interact with the electronic lab outline on their laptops, collect data, and insert a variety of objects into their template. The data or graphs from Logger Pro can be shared with Silicon Chalk[R] and pasted into the electronic report. Diagrams, derivations, sketches, and equations can be entered into the electronic lab report using the Graphire[R] Tablet. The ability to interact with the electronic laboratory report shifts the student's energy from generating a standardised report to quickly collecting data and proceeding with conceptual analysis.

REVISITING THE NATURE OF THE LABORATORY ACTIVITIES: A CONSTRUCTIVIST REFIT

The studio physics lab has traditionally used a standard deductive approach. The instructor would introduce topics and associated concepts, explain related equations, and then guide students to re-discover established relationships. For sometime, it has been argued that such approaches neither model real science nor allow for personal construction of meaning (Clough & Clark, 1994a, 1994b).

Recently there has been a renewed interest in situating laboratories in authentic learning experiences that model the tenets of constructivism (Clark, Clough, & Berg, 2000; Clough, 2000; Brooks & Brooks, 1993). There is a commonly held misconception that "hands-on" learning is necessarily constructivist by nature (Clough, 2000). Research on conceptual change (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982) posits that students must be engaged to interact with concepts in ways that challenge them to accommodate new ideas rather than add to or assimilate their existing knowledge.

In preparing to study the impact of new technologies on the studio physics approach, it seemed crucial to revisit the nature of the lab "handout." Quite simply, how could one hope to improve learning through the promotion of technologies if the activities themselves were not constructivist by nature. In an iterative fashion, the physics instructor worked with the first author (a science teacher educator) to build into the labs a more inductive, constructivist, inquiry approach (Ivins, 1983; MacKinnon, 1997; Hew, Hur, Jang, & Tian, 2004). Traditional labs were redesigned to include such features as: accessing prior knowledge, authentic questions, problem-based activities, graphical predictions, accounting for observed results, risk-taking, critical thinking around experimental design, etc. These and other considerations (Hew, Hur, Jang, & Tian, 2004) were implemented based on the "changing emphasis" portion of the National Science Education Standards (NSES, 1996).

STUDYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW TOOLS

The case study/action research (Yin, 1994; Parsons & Brown, 2002) of the technology-enhanced studio physics model involved two university classes of introductory physics students (n=100). The first author was a participant-observer in the laboratory setting of the second author's course and as such collected extensive field notes (Patton, 1990) about the learning environment. An electronic survey (5-pt Likert Scale) was designed (Neuman, 2000) and piloted using five students. The survey was edited for improved clarity and was administered at the end of the semester (after grades had been submitted). The case study is based on a sample of 65 students who responded. The survey results were tabulated and analysed for trends. The interpretation of the survey was shared with a colleague in a peer debriefing session (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) in an effort to ensure objective perceptions. Based on the survey results, a standardised open-ended interview schedule was developed (Berg, 2001; Patton, 1990; Seidman, 1998). Three students were asked to read the interview questions and provide feedback on the clarity of the questions. The interview schedule was edited and five students from each class participated in 1-hour audio-recorded interviews. The interviews were transcribed and the transcriptions returned to the interviewees for editing. The transcriptions were analysed using an iterative coding process (Glesne, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The emergent themes that were identified served to substantiate and clarify the indicators from the survey. The blended results were scrutinized through a peer-debriefing session. Focus groups (Berg, 2001; Morgan, 1997) were established as a means of member-checking (Patton, 1990) the perceived results. Two separate focus group sessions were held with two independent student groups. Each of these groups had equal representation from both the interviewees and those who simply completed the electronic survey. The focus group sessions were useful for further consensus-building around the research results but also served to qualify and extend understandings of this complex classroom communication network.

EMPIRICAL MATERIALS: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE

Prior Experiences

In the survey, students indicated that they possessed good to very good skills in such computer applications as word processing, electronic mail, databases, and spreadsheets, and peripheral devices including printers, scanners, etc. (see Table 1). Students were much less confident about their experience with computer data acquisition probes. In interviews students indicated that most high schools had a limited number of probes, if any.

Students in both the surveys and follow-up interviews stated almost unanimously that they were well prepared in high school physics to address first year university physics content. Despite their preparation, it was no surprise that students were initially intimidated with the studio physics approach, considering the myriad of devices and software at their disposal. Students indicated that they quickly overcame their initial fears, primarily due to excellent classroom support of their activities.

An extensive Pearson Correlation Analysis yielded no significant correlation between students' prior knowledge of computer technologies and their perceived success with or attitude towards the new technologies.

New Tools: Ease of Use

The Vernier[R] computer probes used had USB interfaces and were very easy to connect to the laptop. Students did not share any concerns about attaching the probe to the computer. They did note that some probes were difficult to calibrate. The Logger Pro[R] software for collecting data was moderately difficult to use (Likert Score=3.8) but classroom support was excellent; few students complained of insurmountable problems. In focus groups students alluded to the capability of Logger Pro[R] to tabulate, manipulate, and graph data efficiently.

The Silicon Chalk[R] software was used for sharing the realtime data collection between the probe-interfaced computer and the group-participant laptops. While students found the software relatively easy to use (Likert score =3.0), they offered the following critique. In surveys and interviews, students said that the software was very slow to load and shut down. They also indicated that software multitasking was difficult and that the system would crash occasionally. While Silicon Chalk[R] is quite effective for sharing "data-on-the-fly," focus group participants agreed that in small groups (four or less), it was just as easy for students to observe the data collection on the single probe-interfaced computer. The true power was recognised in the data sharing that occurred when the instructor demonstrated physical phenomena at the front of the class. In this model students saw the data on each of their laptops while the demonstration occurred at the front of the classroom. Silicon Chalk[R] also is able to send completed data files over the Internet. Students were quick to point out that file sharing by email (e.g., ICQ or MSN) was much easier than using that feature of Silicon Chalk[R].

Graphire[R] tablets were interfaced to laptops to allow inputting (into the electronic lab report) of various forms of hand-generated data including diagrams, equations, sketched graphs, and selected annotations. Sampling of student opinion through the survey, interviews, and focus groups offered the following synopsis. The tablets were very easy to interface using USB connectivity. Students articulated a difficulty with hand-eye coordination in using the tablets. Some representative comments included:

"It is difficult to watch what you are writing; you write on the pad but you don't see it on the pad; you have to look up at the laptop screen;"

"In the beginning you feel like you are in grade primary writing with the wrong hand, it is difficult to get it to look good; what you seem to be writing doesn't show up on the screen; the distances, the scale of the drawings are skewed somehow;"

"When and how hard to push the pen is difficult to judge, I honestly felt like I was writing in the dark, I mean I saw the results of my tablet writing very soon after on the screen but the time lag and getting used to looking elsewhere to see the drawing was difficult to get used to;"

"Two weeks of using the tablet and I had it figured out; it really is a different style of communicating; it just takes awhile to get used to;"

"The tablet made it really easy to enter technical symbols into the lab report;"

"The lab support for setting up the tablet was excellent but ultimately you had to master the penmanship yourself."

Students' overall responses to the Graphire[R] tablets were mixed. On five site visits, it was observed that 55-75% of the students used the tablets at some time during the lab. Those students who were diligent in their desire to master the hand-eye coordination challenge found the tablets to be very useful for inputting specialised types of data. An equal number of students were frustrated and abandoned the use of the tablet. This negative group offered the following issues as a case for not using the tablets.

"I found the tablet so difficult to use because I couldn't generate a neat diagram; my equations were not legible and I didn't want to pass in messy work;"

"I didn't have the patience to practise the tablet writing; what I produced was totally unprofessional;"

"Straight lines were much easier to draw in a simple paint program than trying to sketch a force diagram by hand using the tablet;"

"The relative scale of the screens was very disorienting; I mean where your pen point was on the tablet was very different and disjointed from where it was on the laptop screen; all the fidgeting to find your place was not worth the trouble;"

"I found that I could draw better using the mouse and a paint program; I preferred to enter the equations using my keyboard, the subscripts and stuff are tedious but it was better than what I could get with the tablet,... I couldn't write symbols legibly with the tablet;"

"You know to be fair I gave up fairly early; I am not very artistic to begin with but the tablet hand-eye coordination thing made my work illegible ... I did notice many students had great success if they stuck with it."

Students suggested that in many ways the tablet use was necessarily linked to the choice of using and generating an electronic laboratory script/report.

The Electronic Report: A Pivotal Technology

The focus group sessions were particularly useful for judging the relative impact of the technologies used. The survey revealed that over half of the students preferred the electronic format. On a Likert scale (1-strongly agree, 5-strongly disagree), when students (n=65 respondents) were asked about their preference for a paper and pencil report, they scored 3.5 (i.e., mildly disagree).

In interviews and focus groups, almost all students were particularly positive with regard to the electronic laboratory reports. The laboratory activities were redesigned (from previous years) in an effort to increase interactivity, meaningful learning, and critical thought. Students were supplied with an electronic script just prior to their lab sessions. On their laptops they engaged the activities that prompted them to input data transferred from probes and Logger Pro[R] (via Silicon Chalk[R]) and data inputted using the Graphire[R] tablet. The electronic reports were saved on their laptop hard drives. Students completed all labs (n=23) but were asked (randomly) to submit three reports. For instance, to curb plagiarism classmates might be asked to submit different completed lab reports.

Students who chose to use the tablets could input their diagrams, equations, and graphs in a freehand style. Students who chose not to use the tablets reported resorting to the use of the mouse for drawing (Microsoft Word Paint[R]) and Microsoft Word[R] for text entry.

The electronic laboratory report as an approach was received positively as evidenced by the following representative comments:

"It's neat to keep everything together; I don't lose things like I would with stray of pieces of paper in a binder;"

"The lab report kept everything in one spot; you could stick in equations and diagrams and save the whole thing;"

"The electronic lab report saved us a lot of time; we didn't have to write all those traditional headings; we just filled in the appropriate data and information and solved problems and were done ... I think that the lack of formalising a report every time actually saved us

time that we ended up using to do more physics problem-solving;"

"The electronic report was a very efficient way of problem solving and documenting learning without having to labour over a formal report;"

"It was sometimes longer to use the tablet to draw diagrams but in the end it was worth it to have everything together in one electronic file;"

"It was easy to pass in electronic labs and easy to file them in a folder on my laptop ... using a word processor to write reports seems seamless compared to a hand-written report with pasted graphs and stuff;"

"Copying and pasting graphs from Logger Pro[R] into the report was dead easy;"

"The labs were very efficient because all the tools for adding items to the report were readily accessible on the laptop; they were however quite structured; maybe there should be more room for divergent thing."

Students indicated in interviews that they would prefer an evaluation scheme that required them to submit at least four lab reports, if not more. They felt that for the amount work they had done, the laboratory was not weighted heavily enough in their course grade.

Students Perceptions of Redundant Technology

In interviews, students were asked which of the following technology components of the enhanced studio physics model could be removed with the least impact: (a) probes and Logger Pro[R] software, (b) Silicon Chalk[R] software, (c) Graphire[R] tablets, or (d) the laptop computer.

Students were unanimous in suggesting that the basic model of the laptop, using probe-interfaces, was the most important technology with respect to creating a truly unique learning setting. The focus group sessions defined an interesting synergy between the remaining components. It was suggested that the electronic lab report was a very useful format for submitting their work but that it was redundant if "some of" the data required was a mixture of electronically-captured data, handwritten equations, and drawn force diagrams. Said one student, "it seems to me that going with an electronic report presumes you will have a means of inputting data; if we don't have the tablet the data entry will be more arduous ... one sort of assumes the other." In an interview, one student suggested that "the value of the electronic report was that all data could be contained within and that you didn't have to accompany this with separate pieces of paper with graphs and diagrams on it." While the Silicon Chalk[R] software was shown to be effective at sharing "realtime" data, students felt that in the capacity in which it was used, it was the least "necessary" component of the studio physics approach. In focus groups, they reiterated the notion that the real power of Silicon Chalk[R] was in the instructor sharing realtime data with the entire class.

REFLECTIONS, CHALLENGES, AND IMPLICATIONS

At the close of the course, students were asked a series of questions pertaining directly to the impact of their "enhanced studio physics" experience. The results of the student sample (n=65) are reported in Table 2.

The tabulated survey was corroborated in the focus group sessions. Students readily critiqued the weaknesses of individual components of the enhanced studio physics model. They found it more difficult to articulate the relative utility of each of the technologies. It seems important to recognise (from Table 2) that students had a positive experience, and should the technology be readily available, they recommend the same model for incoming students. This speaks to the adaptability of students to new technologies and their willingness to take the "good with the bad." In interviews, students made it clear that, while some of them experienced frustration using the tablet technology, it should nonetheless be made available as an option. Students see these technologies as tools that have potentially appropriate and productive uses. They also recognise that the intended productivity is not always practically realised. Squires (1999) alludes to this predisposition when he speaks of technology users who subvert the intended use of software. The students in this laptop environment are particularly adept at "priming and extracting" the practical utility of technologies. This sample has demonstrated that they are unwilling to abandon technologies; quite conversely, they prefer to have a wide range at their disposal.

This case study was conducted in an effort to define the relative utility of employing new technologies in the instruction of first year physics students. The technologies were made available for a designated population of students and this infrastructure remains a possible choice for future instructors. With the completion of and feedback from this study, the instructor has decided to proceed as follows. The electronic report approach will continue as in the past and will not be optional to students; it is clear that this is a very efficient use of technology, especially in an environment of shrinking resources. The Graphire[R] tablets will be made available to students; however, students will not be required to use this data-entry tool--students will be allowed to choose their preferred means of responding to the prompts in the electronic laboratory file. While other functions of Silicon Chalk[R] have potential, based on student-feedback, it was decided that its relative utility in the aforementioned context did not warrant further use. Other extended capabilities of this software may be explored in future studies.

References

Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.) London: Allyn & Bacon.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Clark, R., Clough, M., & Berg, C. (2000). Modifying cookbook labs: A different way of teaching a standard laboratory engages students and promotes understanding. The Science Teacher, 67(7), 40-43.

Clough, M. (2000). Using the laboratory to enhance student learning. In R. Bybee (Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Clough, M., & Clark, R. (1994a). Cookbooks and constructivism: A better approach to laboratory activities. The Science Teacher, 61(2), 34-37.

Clough, M., & Clark, R. (1994b). Creative constructivism: Challenge your students with an authentic science experience. The Science Teacher, 61(7), 46-49.

Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl., 67(7), S38-S44.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage Publications.

Hew, K., Hur, J., Jang, H., & Tian, L. (2004). The eight events of instruction: An instructional method based on the constructivist paradigm. In D. Willis, J. Price, R. Carlsen, R. Weber, & N. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, (pp. 4110-4115). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.

Hodson, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142.

Ivins, J. E. (1983). What are your labs really teaching? The Science Teacher, 50(5), 56-59.

MacKinnon, G. (1997). Constructing meaning in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(1), 6.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neuman, W. (2000). Social research methods. Needham Heights, MA: Pearson.

NSES. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, National Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

Parsons, R., & Brown, K. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action researcher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 221-227

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Squires, D. (1999). Educational software for constructivist learning environments: Subversive use and volatile design. Educational Technology, 39(3), 48-54.

Williams, P., MacLatchy, C., Backman, P., & Retson, D. (1997). Studio physics at Acadia University. Physics in Canada, 53(2), 96-101.

Wilson, J. (1994). The CUPLE physics studio. The Physics Teacher, 32, 518-23.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research, design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

GREGORY R. MACKINNON AND PETER WILLIAMS 

Acadia University

Canada

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Table 1 Survey Results on Prior Experiences

I judge my competency with the  Likert Score
following to be good
                                Strongly agree = 1;
                                Strongly disagree = 5

Word processing                 1.8
Databases                       2.6
Spreadsheets                    2.8
Email communication             1.6
Peripheral devices              2.1
Computer probes                 3.4

Table 2 Student Reaction to the Enhanced Studio Physics Approach as a
Package

Statement                                          Likert Score
                                                   Strongly agree = 1,
                                                   Strongly disagree = 5

The enhanced studio physics (ESP) model improved   2
  my understanding of fundamental physics
  principles.
The ESP approach made effective use of             1.6
  technology.
The ESP approach made effective use of my time.    2.3
The ESP exercises encouraged me to construct my    2.1
  own understandings
The ESP experience improved my attitude towards    2
  using technology in science education.
The ESP experience has been positive.              2.1
I recommend that the ESP laboratory (as we         2.2
  experienced it) be repeated for next year.