Computer Interfaced Teaching Laboratory for Science and Engineering Majors

Session 1526 Computer Interfaced Teaching Laboratory for Science and Engineering Majors Thankappan A.K. Pillai University of Wisconsin - La Crosse, La Crosse, WI 54601 1. Introduction This paper describes a Workshop Physics style laboratory for first year Physics- Engineering Dual Degree majors at the University of Wisconsin - La Crosse (UWL) 1. With the support of an NSF grant 2, we have established a computer interfaced physics laboratory to go along with the calculus based introductory physics course. This course uses networked Microcomputer Based Laboratories (MBL) 3 to acquire and analyze experimental data. The laboratories are done very much in the Workshop Physics 4,5 style, although the formal lecture sessions are kept as well. We completed the first offering of this laboratory (PHY 203 General Physics I ) in the Fall of 1999, and the student responses have been tremendous and retention rates have been increasing. The first offering of the second semester of the laboratory (PHY 204 General Physics II) was also very successful. The student comments were very positive, and 98% of the students strongly recommended to continue the laboratory format for future students. We at the University of Wisconsin - La Crosse have established a Physics-Engineering Dual Degree Program 6 with University of Wisconsin at Madison and Milwaukee campuses, as well as with the Institute of Technology at the University of Minnesota. Under this program, the students will spend their first three years at our campus (University of Wisconsin - La Crosse); then they will be accepted into any of the Engineering Programs at the other campuses. At the end of the five year study program, they will graduate with two degrees, a B.S. degree in Physics from our university(uwl), and a B.S. degree in Engineering from one of the other Universities. The program has been very successful, and attracts a large number of students. Enrollments in this program are increasing. We currently have about 100 dual degree majors. One of the main courses that these entering dual degree majors take during their first year of study is the two semesters of calculus physics, General Physcis I and General Physics II. These laboratories are developed to meet the growing interest of these dual degree Physics/Engineering majors. A majority of these students have already decided to Page 6.288.1

become future scientists and engineers; and that is the reason they are enrolling in PHY 203 and PHY 204, rather than the algebra based service courses (PHY 103, PHY 104). The student learning experience has been tremendous, and our preliminary assessments are promising. 2. The Laboratory The laboratory consists of 10 stations, each station can accommodate two students in their laboratory activities. There is a separate instructor station in the front of the room for the instructor for demonstration purposes, and for developing new laboratory activities. Each station consists of brand new Pentium computers set up to acquire and analyze data. These networked computers are interfaced with Vernier Universal Lab Interface (ULI) boards 7 for data acquisition. Brand new sets of sensors that can be attached to the ULI board for data acquisition are installed. A complete list of these sensors is given in Figure 1. A List of Vernier probes acquired to be used in current and future laboratory activities Low-g Accelerometer Current & Voltage Probe System Direct-Connect Temperature Probe Dual-Range Force Sensor Light Sensor Magnetic Field Sensor Microphone Motion Detector Rotary Motion Sensor Figure 1: A complete list of Vernier sensors installed with the ULI. A sample laboratory station with a Pentium computer interfaced with the Universal Lab Interface (ULI) is shown in Figure 2. These computers are also networked to two HP printers so that students can print out their laboratory reports. There is also a permanent Page 6.288.2

Live Data Acquisition Motion Sensor Universal Lab Interface Figure 2: A sample Laboratory Station (For two students) video computer/data projector fixed to the ceiling of this laboratory, so that students can project their results to the whole class for discussion purposes. 3. The Teaching Philosophy The method of instruction and learning in this laboratory is based on the results of several national efforts in the Physics Community to reform the methods of teaching. "Conference on the Introductory Physics Course" edited by Jack Wilson 8, summarizes these efforts. Traditional methods of physics teaching, often leaves the students discouraged. Research done in the last several years to understand the difficulties that are encountered by students in the introductory physics courses has been summarized by L.C. McDermott 9 and A. Arons 10. The results of this research indicate that the traditional teaching methods are falling short of the goal of facilitating active process of student learning and understanding basic physical principles. Page 6.288.3

3, 11 The Microcomputer Based Laboratory (MBL) is one of the methods by which students may achieve conceptual learning. Ronald K. Thornton of Tufts University has been instrumental in the development of computer software for science education, including the Tools for Scientific Thinking (TST) project, and in the development of testing materials to evaluate the knowledge of students in science concepts. He has demonstrated, "that the majority of college and university students completing introductory Physics course fail to understand the most fundamental concepts upon which classical physics are based." 3 He has shown that the traditional Physics courses, using lectures with textbook problem solving methods, do not really teach physics concepts very well to the overwhelming majority of students. As a consequence, alternate methods have been developed. These methods use the results of cognitive science studies that demonstrate that students learn concepts better if they have concrete experiences with the phenomena that they are studying 3. Along with the concrete experience, the learning cycle is used in order to make the experience produce the maximum cognitive impression. The learning cycle consists of: 1) predicting the outcome of a concrete event, 2) observing of the event, (demonstration, invoke questions about the event), 3) comparing the observation with the prediction and thinking about it, and 4) explaining what has happened. Workshop Physics (WP) 4, 5, which was developed by Priscilla W. Laws of Dickinson College using the TST material, takes this development to the ideal conclusion of eliminating the lecture and doing the entire Physics course in the Laboratory environment. The analytical tools in the software ( TST project and Spreadsheet Physics developed by C. Misner and P. Cooney 11 ) helps the student make the connection between the graphs and the mathematical equations that can be used to describe them, another needed skill. This, then, allows the student to make the essential connection between the mathematical equations and the physical phenomena, unifying his/her knowledge of the scientific principles. R. Thornton has led the development of "The Motion and Force Evaluation Test," 12 a multiple-choice test that examines whether the students know the principles of mechanical motion. The testing involves a pre-test and a post-test for students taking introductory university and college Physics courses, both Calculus and Non-Calculus (Algebra) based. The result of evaluations and testing at 15 colleges and universities with a total of 20,076 students is that: the more the TST MBL (with the learning cycle) experience (including demonstrations) the students have, the better their learning gains are. We at UWL, use the Tools for Scientific Thinking (TST) Microcomputer based Laboratory (MBL), very much following the Workshop Physics Philosophy: "Learning by Doing". The principal goal of the Laboratory is to help the student to understand fundamental concepts in Physics. In the process, the students learn how to design experiments, measure relevant variables, how to draw valid inferences from their findings, and finally how to write professional reports. We require students to write professional style reports for some of the labs. The very first group of students initiated this laboratory during the Fall of 1999. This was the Physics 203 (First Semester Physics) Page 6.288.4

Physics 203 Laboratory Fall 1999 Dr. Pillai Tentative Schedule Thursdays: September 9 Introduction, Computer Interface, Motion sensor September 16 Computer Spreadsheets and graphing using Excel 8.0 September 23 September 30 October 7 October 14 Force, Mass, Acceleration Study of Free Fall using Video Capture Analysis Nature of Forces, Force Sensor Torque, Force sensor October 21 Lab Exam 1October 28 Rotational Dynamics November 4 November 11 November 18 November 23 December 2 Temperature Sensor, Newton s Law of Cooling Specific Heat and Heat of fusion Simple Harmonic Motion Sound, Velocity, Resonance Coupled Spring/Pendulum Chaos lab December 9 Lab Exam 2 Figure 3: List of Experiments developed for Physics 203 (First Semester) of the two semester series Physics 203, 204. A list of experiments is shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the list of experiments for the second semester (Physics 204) which was offered during the Spring of 2000. Figures 5-8 shows students engaged in various activities in these laboratories. 3. Assessment Activities based physics teaching - as envisioned in the Workshop Physics model - enhances student learning. This has been quite evident in our brand new laboratory. Although we will continue to assess student learning outcomes over the next few years, our preliminary results of assessment are very promising. These findings are based mainly on a two pronged assessment approach as described below: Page 6.288.5

Physics 204 Laboratory Spring 2000 Dr. Pillai Tentative Schedule Fridays: January 28 February 4 February 11 February 18 February 25 March 3 Electric Charges and Coulomb force D.C Circuits Oscilloscopes Resistors, Bulbs and Diodes Magnetic Fields Reflection and Refraction of Light March 10 Lab Exam 1 (Spring Break) March 24 March 31 April 7 April 14 April 21 April 28 Radiation Lab Light Sensor, Intensity variation of Light Focal Length of Lenses Diffraction of Light, Gratings Diffraction by a Hair using Laser Light Optical Principles of the Eye May 5 Lab Exam 2 Figure 4: : List of Experiments developed for Physics 204 (Second Semester) Firstly, the student comments were looked at very carefully. The students gave very positive comments about their activities in this state of the art laboratory. A sample of the nature of these comments is given in Figure 9. Students interest in these laboratory activities and physics in general has increased tremendously. Retention rate of these students in physics/engineering programs has also increased. The transferring dual degree physics/engineering majors are doing extremely well in their engineering program, as reported to us by the program coordinators. Page 6.288.6

Typical student comments: This lab did a wonderful job in helping me understand what I have learned in lecture This lab seems to have taught me new ways of looking at things The experiments include variety of physics. I feel that I have learned ways of how to conduct experiments; read data, analyze and interpret, using tools of modern technology. Figure 5: Students engaged in Force, Mass, Acceleration Lab Activitiies Typical student comments: This lab did a wonderful job in helping me understand what I have learned in lecture This lab seems to have taught me new ways of looking at things The experiments include variety of physics. I feel that I have learned ways of how to conduct experiments; read data, analyze and interpret, using tools of modern technology. Figure 6: Students engaged in Friction-Track Experiments Page 6.288.7

Typical student comments: This lab did a wonderful job in helping me understand what I have learned in lecture This lab seems to have taught me new ways of looking at things The experiments include variety of physics. I feel that I have learned ways of how to conduct experiments; read data, analyze and interpret, using tools of modern technology. Figure 7: Students engaged in Momentum Experiment Typical student comments: This lab did a wonderful job in helping me understand what I have learned in lecture This lab seems to have taught me new ways of looking at things The experiments include variety of physics. I feel that I have learned ways of how to conduct experiments; read data, analyze and interpret, using tools of modern technology. Figure 8: Students engaged in Simple Harmonic Motion Experiment Page 6.288.8

Typical student comments: This lab did a wonderful job in helping me understand what I have learned in lecture This lab seems to have taught me new ways of looking at things The experiments include variety of physics. I feel that I have learned ways of how to conduct experiments; read data, analyze and interpret, using tools of modern technology. Figure 9: A sample of student comments Calculus Physics Assessment Percentage of Correct Answers 100 80 60 40 20 0 Percentage of correct answers before course Percentage of correct answers after 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 Question Number Figure 10: Force and Motion Conceptual Assessment Results Page 6.288.9

Secondly, standard assessment tools were used. The results of this formal assessment are very promising. One of the formal assessment tools that we have used is the widely accepted Force and Motion Conceptual Assessment (FMCE) 12 developed by the Workshop Physics architects. The results of this assessment are shown in Figure 10. The red colored bar graphs show the percentage of correct answers before the course, and the green bar graph shows the percentage of correct answers after the course. In almost all the cases, the green bar graphs are taller than the red bar graphs, indicating improvement in the conceptual understanding of basic physics. Our future plans include continuing these assessment for the next few years to monitor student progress, as well as to use the results as feedback information to further improve the course. Future Directions! Continue to develop Assessment tools for the next five years! Use Assessment Information to improve the course! Follow up the career track of dual-degree Engineering Majors! Design Data acquisition and Analysis tools for Engineers of the new Century Figure 11: Summary of future directions 4. Future Plans In light of our experience of offering this course for the first time, several ongoing activities are planned to further enhance the effectiveness of this laboratory. Learning of the very fundamentals of physics has to be assessed in various formats 13. The assessment information should also be used as a feed back for further improvement of the course. In view of the fact that our society is technologically advancing at a rapid rate, we have to train our students to meet the new challenges. Skills such as open ended problem solving, modern experimentation methods, and ability to work in interdisciplinary groups have to be cultivated at the first courses in college, if not earlier. Our future directions to achieve these goals are summarized in Figure 11. 4. Acknowledgements The author would like to gratefully acknowledge NSF for awarding an ILI Grant 2 that made this laboratory possible (Grant #9850496). The support from the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse is also acknowledged. Special thanks to Samuel Sokolik who helped me to set up the computer stations and to evaluate all the experiments. Page 6.288.10

5. References 1. URL: http://www.uwlax.edu 2. Thankappan A. K. Pillai, Frank E. Barmore, and Gubbi R. Sudhakaran, NSF ILI Proposal (Grant no. 9850496): "Computer based Physics Teaching Laboratory for Science and Engineering Majors", 1998. 3. R. K. Thornton, Tools for Scientific Thinking - Microcomputer-Based Laboratories for Physics Teaching", Physics Ed. 22, pp. (1988) 4. P. Laws, Workshop Physics - Replacing Lectures with Real Experience. Proceedings of the Conference on Computers in Physics Instruction, (Reading MA, Addison-Wesley, 1989). 5. P. Laws, "Calculus-Based Physics Without Lectures", Physics Today, 44(12). pp. 24-31, (1991). 6. URL: http://perth.uwlax.edu/physics/dddegr.htm 7. URL: http://www.vernier.com 8. Jack Wilson (editor), Conference on the Introductory Physics course, (New York, John Wiley, 1997) 9. L.C. McDermott, "Research on the Conceptual Understanding in Mechanics", Physics Today,.37(7) pp. 24-32, (1984) 10. A. Arons, A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching, (New York, John Wiley, 1990) 11. Charles Misner & Patrick Cooney, Spreadsheet Physics. (Reading MA, Addison Wesley, 1991). 12. URL: http://physics.dickinson.edu 13. User Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation: Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education (NSF 93-152), 1996. Thankappan A.K. Pillai Thankappan A.K. Pillai is a Professor of Physics at the University of Wisconsin - La Croose. He is actively engaged in teaching reform methods and laboratory modernization. His research interests include Wave Propagation and Scattering, Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE), and Composite Materials. Dr. Pillai received a B.S. degree (1970) from the University of Kerala, India, a M.S. degree(1972) from the University of Kerala, India, and a Ph.D. from the University of Louisville, KY, USA in 1980. Page 6.288.11