Studio optics: Adapting interactive engagement pedagogy to upper-division physics

Abstract

The use of interactive engagement strategies to improve learning in introductory physics is not new, but have not been used as often for upper-division physics courses. We describe the development and implementation of a Studio Optics course for upper-division physics majors at Kansas State University. The course adapts a three-stage Karplus learning cycle and other elements to foster an environment that promotes learning through an integration of lecture, laboratories, and problem solving. Some of the instructional materials are described. We discuss the evaluation of the course using data collected from student interviews, a conceptual survey, an attitudinal survey, and the instructor's reflections. Overall, students responded positively to the new format and showed modest gains in learning. The instructor's experiences compared favorably with the traditional course that he had taught in the past.

Chronicling a successful secondary implementation of Studio Physics

“…11), few have documented the process and made their experiences public (though there are notable exceptions 12,13 including a particularly noteworthy implementation of Studio in an upper-division course). 14 Given the significant investment involved in implementing Studio Physics, one of our major goals at CSM has been to study and document our secondary implementation process in sufficient detail to identify factors contributing to and impeding success, in order to maximize our own effectiveness and to inform other similar transitions.…”

Student ownership of projects in an upper-division optics laboratory course: A multiple case study of successful experiences

“…Previous research on optics education spans a variety of topics, including the development of multimedia activities [11], online materials [12], and interactive learning strategies meant to be implemented in lecture courses [13] or hybrid lecture-studio courses [14]. In a course for preservice teachers, Atkins and Salter [15] described students' processes for constructing definitions of "blurriness."…”

Transforming a fourth year modern optics course using a deliberate practice framework

“…Other upper-division PER work has investigated the improvement of learning outcomes and student attitudes after a careful re-structuring of large parts of the curriculum or of the learning goals of courses [6][7][8]. Two examples of course transformations are the work to implement active learning in an intermediate optics laboratory at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis [9], and the work at Kansas State University to implement the studio format for instruction in an upper-division optics lecture course [10]. Limitations of both studies are that the sample sizes were very small (7 and 15, respectively), and each study reported the results from a single year with no comparison made with their prereform counterparts.…”