Comparing the Effects of Cookbook and Non-Cookbook Based Lab Activities In a Calculus-Based Introductory Physics Course
Abstract views: 231
/ 
PDF downloads: 304
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v13i4.135Keywords:
Calculus-based physics, Cook Book, Lab Activates, Non-Cook BookAbstract
I have compared the effects of Cookbook based lab activities with the impacts of doing lab inquiry based on a small introductory engineering physics course. Performance in lab activities that did and did not require the Cookbook procedure was compared using a final questionnaire from the participating students in that course. The population of students who did the lab in each scenario was the same because they enrolled in the same course. In the course, I planned five lab activities of three different types. The first type, which I call “Cookbook” activities (CB) were prepared and then completed by students. The second type of activities, which I call” Non- Cookbook” (NCB) were inquiry-based and orally guide. The final activity type was called “Both” and was a combination of two other activities. I investigated the activities in two dimensions: “scientific skills” and “general skills”. The results for scientific skills showed in NCB “Predicting” have improved. In CB, “Measuring the quantity” and “Sorting/classifying” have positive points of improving scientific skills. For general skills, in NCB, “Recalling concepts” and “Conceptual understanding” were improved. In CB, “Conceptual understanding” and “Scientific writing skills” and “Self-efficacy” were improved. “Writing the lab report” is a tough skill in NCB, while it is easy for CB.
References
Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P.& Somekh, B. (2013). Teachers Investigate Their Work: An Introduction to Action Research Across the Professions. New York: Routledge.
Amerine, R., Bilmes, J. (1988). Following instructions. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in Scientific Practice (pp. 323-335). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bortner, L.J., Koenig, K., Wood, K.E. (2018). University of Cincinnati Lindsay Owens, Rochester Institute of Technology Lei Bao, The Ohio State University https://www.aapt.org/docdirectory/meetingpresentations/SM18/AAPT%20Summer%202018%20Bortner%20slides.pdf
Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543-547.
Edwards, D.& Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Etkina E. (2015). Millikan award lecture: students of physics—Listeners, observers, or collaborative participants in physics scientific practices? American Journal of Physics, 83(8), 669–679.
Etkina, E.,Van Heuvelen, A. (2007). Investigative Science Learning Environment, A Science Process Approach to Learning Physics. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, http://per-central.org/per_reviews/media/volume1/isle-2007.pdf
Evrim, U. (2016). The Effect of Guided-Inquiry Laboratory Experiments on Science Education Students' Chemistry Laboratory Attitudes, Anxiety and Achievement. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4) http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i4.1395
Germann, P.J., Haskins, S., Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<475::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-O
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: a sixthousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.18809
Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70(256), 33-40.
Holmes N. G., & Wieman C. E. (2018). Introductory physics labs: We can do better. Physics Today, 71(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3816
Holmes, N. G., Wieman, C. E., & Bonn, D. A. (2015). Teaching critical thinking. PNAS, 112(36), 11199–11204. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505329112
Kozminski J., Lewandowski H., Beverly N., Lindaas S., Deardorff D., Reagan A., …& Zwickl B. (2014). AAPT recommendations for the undergraduate physics laboratory curriculum.
Leornad, W. H. (1991). A recipe for uncookbooking laboratory investigations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21(2), 84-87.
Lippmann, R. (2005). Analyzing students’ use of metacognition during laboratory activities. http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/lippmann/meta_lab.pdf
Lochhead, J., & Collura, J. (1981). A cure for cookbook laboratories. The Physics Teacher, 19(1), 46-50.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
Novak, J. D. (1979). The reception learning paradigm. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(6), 481-488.
Peters, E. (2005). Teacher's Toolkit: Reforming Cookbook Labs. Science Scope, 29(3), 16-21.
Pushkin, D. B. (1997). Where do ideas for students come from? Applying constructivism and textbook problems to the laboratory experience. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(4), 238-242.
Raubenheimer C. D., & Myka J. L. (2005). Using action research to improve teaching and student learning in college. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(6), 12.
Roth, W.-M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 197-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310209
Royuk, B. (2002). Interactive-engagement vs. cookbook laboratory procedures in MBL mechanics exercises. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of Nebraska.
Royuk, B., Brooks, D.W. (2003). Cookbook Procedures in MBL Physics Exercises. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 317–324 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025041208915
Salehi, S., Holmes, N. G., & Wieman, C. (2019). Exploring bias in mechanical engineering students’ perceptions of classmates. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e0212477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212477
Seyed Fadaei, A., Daraei, S., Ley, CM. (2013). Interactive multimedia related to real life, a model to teach Physics in high school. Merit Research Journal of Art, Social Science and Humanities, 1(1), 7-12. http://www.meritresearchjournals.org/assh/Content/2013/May/Fadaei%20et%20al.pdf
Trumper, R. (2003). The physics laboratory: A historical overview and future perspectives. Science & Education, 12(7), 645-670.
Van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoilou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00216.x
Walsh, C., Quinn, K. N., Wieman, C., & Holmes, N. G. (2019). Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the physics lab inventory of critical thinking. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 010135. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010135
Wieman, C. (2015). Comparative Cognitive Task Analyses of Experimental Science and Instructional Laboratory Courses. The Physics Teacher, 53, 349-351. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4928349
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Azita Seyed Fadaei
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright © Authors
