The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating innovation in studio physics
Abstract
In 1993, Rensselaer introduced the first Studio Physics course. Two years later, the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to measure the conceptual learning gain 〈g〉 in the course. This was found to be a disappointing 0.22, indicating that Studio Physics was no more effective at teaching basic Newtonian concepts than a traditional course. Our study verified that result, 〈gFCI,98〉=0.18±0.12 (s.d.), and thereby provides a baseline measurement of conceptual learning gains in Studio Physics I for engineers. These low gains are especially disturbing because the studio classroom appears to be interactive and instructors strive to incorporate modern pedagogies. The goal of our investigation was to determine if incorporation of research-based activities into Studio Physics would have a significant effect on conceptual learning gains. To measure gains, we utilized the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). In the process of pursuing this goal, we verified the effectiveness of Interactive Lecture Demonstrations [〈gFCI〉=0.35±0.06 (s.d.) and 〈gFMCE〉=0.45±0.03 (s.d.)] and Cooperative Group Problem Solving (〈gFCI〉=0.36 and 〈gFMCE〉=0.36), and examined the feasibility of using these techniques in the studio classroom. Further, we have assessed conceptual learning in the standard Studio Physics course [〈gFCI,98〉=0.18±0.12 (s.d.) and 〈gFMCE,98〉=0.21±0.05 (s.d.)]. In this paper, we will clarify the issues noted above. We will also discuss difficulties in implementing these techniques for first time users and implications for the future directions of the Studio Physics courses at Rensselaer.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hake, R. R. (1998) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.18809 · Cited by 6,072
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992) · The Physics Teacher · doi:10.1119/1.2343497 · Cited by 3,235
Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.17118 · Cited by 726
Cited by
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111 · Cited by 9,787
Singer, S., & Smith, K. A. (2013) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20030 · Cited by 835
Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics
Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014) · Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research · doi:10.1103/physrevstper.10.020119 · Cited by 549
Wireless Laptops as Means For Promoting Active Learning In Large Lecture Halls
Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782459 · Cited by 259
Salehi, S., Burkholder, E., Lepage, G. P., Pollock, S., & Wieman, C. (2019) · Physical Review Physics Education Research · doi:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.15.020114 · Cited by 123
Metadata
- Authors
- Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D.
- Venue
- American Journal of Physics
- Published
- 1999-07-01
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- S38-S44
- ISSN
- 0002-9505 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2909
- OpenAlex
- W2071703570
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 25.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating innovation in studio physics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1119/1.19078
- The paper
- Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. American Journal of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19078
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.