No abstract

Most of the time, instructors of introductory physics limit their goals to students’ acquisition of basic concepts and end-of-the-chapter problem solving efficiency. They overlook the development of students’ science process abilities required for constructing scientific knowledge and approaching complex problems as scientists do. This goal is attainable and very valuable at the same time. This paper describes how learners improved their scientific abilities during the course of one semester and reports on the activities and facilitations that helped students in the process. We investigated how long it takes for novices to develop complex scientific abilities and whether the content and the context of the tasks affect the abilities that students demonstrate. We found that students need to conduct several cycles of scaffolded investigations to gain competence in the application of scientific abilities. Depending on the particular ability, a period of five to eight weeks of work is necessary to achieve it

National studies of science education have unanimously concluded that preparing our students for the demands of the 21st century workplace is one of the major goals. This paper describes a study of student activities in introductory college physics labs, which were designed to help students acquire abilities that are valuable in the workplace. In these labs [called Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE) labs], students design their own experiments. Our previous studies have shown that students in these labs acquire scientific abilities such as the ability to design an experiment to solve a problem, the ability to collect and analyze data, the ability to evaluate assumptions and uncertainties, and the ability to communicate. These studies mostly concentrated on analyzing students’ writing, evaluated by specially designed scientific ability rubrics. Recently, we started to study whether the ISLE labs make students not only write like scientists but also engage in discussions and act like scientists while doing the labs. For example, do students plan an experiment, validate assumptions, evaluate results, and revise the experiment if necessary? A brief report of some of our findings that came from monitoring students’ activity during ISLE and nondesign labs was presented in the Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings. We found differences in student behavior and discussions that indicated that ISLE labs do in fact encourage a scientistlike approach to experimental design and promote high-quality discussions. This paper presents a full description of the study

The paper reports on how educational research informed and supported both the process of refinement of introductory physics laboratory instruction and student development of scientific abilities. In particular we focus on how the action research approach paradigm combined with instructional approaches such as scaffolding and formative assessment can be used to design the learning environment, investigate student learning, revise curriculum materials, and conduct subsequent assessment. As the result of the above efforts we found improvement in students' scientific abilities over the course of three years. We suggest that the process used to improve the curriculum under study can be extended to many instructional innovations.

The Rutgers PAER group developed and implemented ISLE labs in which students design their own experiments being guided by self-assessment rubrics. Studies reported in 2004 and 2005 PERC proceedings showed that students in these labs acquire such scientific abilities as an ability to design an experiment, to analyze data, and to communicate. These studies concentrated mostly on analyzing students' writings evaluated by specially designed scientific abilities rubrics. The new question is whether the ISLE labs make students not only write like scientists but also engage in discussions and act like scientists: plan an experiment, validate assumptions, evaluate results, and revise the experiment if necessary. Another important question is whether these activities require a lot of cognitive and metacognitive efforts or are carried out superficially. To answer these questions we monitored students' activity during labs. (The work was supported by the NSF grants DUE 0241078 and REC 0529065.