2012
DOI: 10.1119/1.4712305
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chronicling a successful secondary implementation of Studio Physics

Abstract: Related ArticlesThinking like a physicist: A multi-semester case study of junior-level electricity and magnetism Am. J. Phys. 80, 923 (2012) An item response curves analysis of the Force Concept Inventory Am. J. Phys. 80, 825 (2012) Rotational kinematics of a particle in rectilinear motion: Perceptions and pitfalls Am. J. Phys. 80, 720 (2012) Function plot response: A scalable system for teaching kinematics graphs Am. J. Phys. 80, 724 (2012) Comparing large lecture mechanics curricula using the Force … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Satisfaction and retention were both much improved [7]. Informally, instructors of other courses began discussing the possibility of expanding Studio as early as 2009, though the availability of space remained an issue.…”
Section: Institutionalization Of Studiomentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Satisfaction and retention were both much improved [7]. Informally, instructors of other courses began discussing the possibility of expanding Studio as early as 2009, though the availability of space remained an issue.…”
Section: Institutionalization Of Studiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studio began at CSM largely through the efforts of one or two physics faculty [6,7]. There was no institutional mandate or major funding.…”
Section: Institutionalization Of Studiomentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Some of these attempts have resulted in the following approaches, which also embrace active learning: workshop classrooms (Laws, 1991(Laws, , 2004, studio classrooms (Cummings, Marx, Thornton, & Kuhl, 1999;Sorensen, Churukian, Maleki, & Zollman, 2006;Hoellwarth, Moelter, & Knight, 2005), peer instruction (Mazur, 1997;Crouch & Mazur, 2001), open laboratory (Mintzes, 2006), hybrid lecture/studio (Furtak & Ohno, 2001;Kohl & Kuo, 2012), Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) (Dori & Belcher, 2005;Beichner, Dori, & Belcher, 2006), interactive lecture demonstrations (Sokoloff & Thorton, 1997), and Transform, Interact, Learn, Engage (TILE) (Van Horne, Murniati, Gaffney, & Jesse, 2012;Florman, 2014). All these innovative approaches have been found to result in increased student learning and to offer advantages in terms of integrating technology into the learning environment.…”
Section: Active Learning Environments For Undergraduate Coursesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although each of the above mentioned innovations has its own pedagogy and curriculum, the physical environment itself can be successfully adopted in a variety of contexts to match the level and goal of the curricula. [7,8] The Colorado School of Mines (CSM) was an early developer of a hybrid-Studio environment in its introductory physics courses. [4] Continued study of our Studio courses led to the development and dissemination of a model for adapting this learning environment to a traditional course in a manageable, reproducible manner.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%