skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Investigating students' views about the role of writing in physics lab classes
Writing is an important aspect of experimental physics. Physics laboratory classes typically engage students in scientific documentation and writing in the forms of lab notebooks, reports, or proposals. Instructors of these classes may have a variety of motivations for incorporating writing. We previously developed a framework for thinking about the role of writing in physics lab classes that lists and categorizes possible goals instructors may have for writing. Here, we use that framework as a research tool to investigate students' views about, and experiences with, writing in lab classes, and experimental physics more generally. We present results of an analysis of student responses to weekly reflection questions throughout one semester of an advanced lab class. The results suggest that students think about writing in a variety of ways, and that the context and framing of the course may impact student thinking about the purpose of writing.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1734006 1726045
PAR ID:
10232072
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
2020 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings
Page Range / eLocation ID:
216 to 221
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; (, PLOS ONE)
    Pamucar, Dragan (Ed.)
    Critical thinking is the process by which people make decisions about what to trust and what to do. Many undergraduate courses, such as those in biology and physics, include critical thinking as an important learning goal. Assessing critical thinking, however, is non-trivial, with mixed recommendations for how to assess critical thinking as part of instruction. Here we evaluate the efficacy of assessment questions to probe students’ critical thinking skills in the context of biology and physics. We use two research-based standardized critical thinking instruments known as the Biology Lab Inventory of Critical Thinking in Ecology (Eco-BLIC) and Physics Lab Inventory of Critical Thinking (PLIC). These instruments provide experimental scenarios and pose questions asking students to evaluate what to trust and what to do regarding the quality of experimental designs and data. Using more than 3000 student responses from over 20 institutions, we sought to understand what features of the assessment questions elicit student critical thinking. Specifically, we investigated (a) how students critically evaluate aspects of research studies in biology and physics when they are individually evaluating one study at a time versus comparing and contrasting two and (b) whether individual evaluation questions are needed to encourage students to engage in critical thinking when comparing and contrasting. We found that students are more critical when making comparisons between two studies than when evaluating each study individually. Also, compare-and-contrast questions are sufficient for eliciting critical thinking, with students providing similar answers regardless of if the individual evaluation questions are included. This research offers new insight on the types of assessment questions that elicit critical thinking at the introductory undergraduate level; specifically, we recommend instructors incorporate more compare-and-contrast questions related to experimental design in their courses and assessments. 
    more » « less
  2. (, The Proceedings of 2023 ASEE Annual Conference and Exhibitions)
    This study focuses on the effectiveness of learning transfer-focused or transfer-focused lab report writing instructional modules on engineering undergraduates’ lab report writing in entry-level engineering laboratory courses. The modules are novel due to their shared language to describe and reinforce foundational writing terms used by the writing faculty and are ready for immediate use by engineering lab instructors. Three different universities, consisting of a polytechnical university, a liberal arts-anchored private university, and a branch campus of a research-one land grant university, participated. Student lab report samples from six various sophomore-level engineering courses were collected. For the control group, none of the participating lab instructors accessed the transfer-focused modules (academic years of 2019-2020 and 2020-2021); sixty-four control group lab report samples were collected (n = 64). In the academic year 2021-2022, the lab instructors had access to the transfer-focused modules via the web to be encouraged to update their lab instructions; the experimental group lab report samples were collected from forty-two students (n = 42). Using defined writing outcomes, a panel of engineering lab instructors assessed the participating students’ early (one of the first reports in the class) and late lab reports (written near the end of the course). The lab report assessment analysis indicates that only 30% of the control group students could write their early lab reports at a satisfactory level, while 60% of the experimental group students reached a satisfactory level in their early labs. For both early and late lab reports, the experimental group students outperformed most outcomes over the control group. The notably improved outcomes were related to audience awareness, data presentation, data analysis, and data interpretation. The transfer-focused lab report writing pedagogy enhanced engineering undergraduates’ ability to engage in critical thinking practices, including analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of their lab data/products. Additionally, students appeared to improve their awareness of a technical audience, expecting engineering language, styles, and conventions commonly shared by writers in engineering. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; (, ASEE annual conference exposition)
    This study focuses on the effectiveness of learning transfer-focused or transfer-focused lab report writing instructional modules on engineering undergraduates’ lab report writing in entry-level engineering laboratory courses. The modules are novel due to their shared language to describe and reinforce foundational writing terms used by the writing faculty and are ready for immediate use by engineering lab instructors. Three different universities, consisting of a polytechnical university, a liberal arts-anchored private university, and a branch campus of a research-one land grant university, participated. Student lab report samples from six various sophomore-level engineering courses were collected. For the control group, none of the participating lab instructors accessed the transfer-focused modules (academic years of 2019-2020 and 2020-2021); sixty-four control group lab report samples were collected (n = 64). In the academic year 2021-2022, the lab instructors had access to the transfer-focused modules via the web to be encouraged to update their lab instructions; the experimental group lab report samples were collected from forty-two students (n = 42). Using defined writing outcomes, a panel of engineering lab instructors assessed the participating students’ early (one of the first reports in the class) and late lab reports (written near the end of the course). The lab report assessment analysis indicates that only 30% of the control group students could write their early lab reports at a satisfactory level, while 60% of the experimental group students reached a satisfactory level in their early labs. For both early and late lab reports, the experimental group students outperformed most outcomes over the control group. The notably improved outcomes were related to audience awareness, data presentation, data analysis, and data interpretation. The transfer-focused lab report writing pedagogy enhanced engineering undergraduates’ ability to engage in critical thinking practices, including analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of their lab data/products. Additionally, students appeared to improve their awareness of a technical audience, expecting engineering language, styles, and conventions commonly shared by writers in engineering. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; (, 2020 PERC Proceedings)
    null; null; null (Ed.)
    Prior research has shown that physics students often think about experimental procedures and data analysis very differently from experts. One key framework for analyzing student thinking has found that student thinking is more point-like, putting emphasis on the results of a single experimental trial, whereas set-like thinking relies on the results of many trials. Recent work, however, has found that students rarely fall into one of these two extremes, which may be a limitation of how student thinking is evaluated. Measurements of student thinking have focused on probing students’ procedural knowledge by asking them, for example, what steps they might take next in an experiment. Two common refrains are to collect more data, or to improve the experiment and collect better data. In both of these cases, the underlying reasons behind student responses could be based in point-like or set-like thinking. In this study we use individual student interviews to investigate how advanced physics students believe the collection of more and better data will affect the results of a classical and a quantum mechanical experiment. The results inform future frameworks and assessments for characterizing students thinking between the extremes of point and set reasoning in both classical and quantum regimes. 2020 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; (, European journal of applied sciences)
    James, C (Ed.)
    Effective writing is important for communicating science ideas, and for writing-to-learn in science. This paper investigates lab reports from a large-enrollment college physics course that integrates scientific reasoning and science writing. While analytic rubrics have been shown to define expectations more clearly for students, and to improve reliability of assessment, there has been little investigation of how well analytic rubrics serve students and instructors in large-enrollment science classes. Unsurprisingly, we found that grades administered by teaching assistants (TAs) do not correlate with reliable post-hoc assessments from trained raters. More important, we identified lost learning opportunities for students, and misinformation for instructors about students’ progress. We believe our methodology to achieve post-hoc reliability is straightforward enough to be used in classrooms. A key element is the development of finer-grained rubrics for grading that are aligned with the rubrics provided to students to define expectations, but which reduce subjectivity of judgements and grading time. We conclude that the use of dual rubrics, one to elicit independent reasoning from students and one to clarify grading criteria, could improve reliability and accountability of lab report assessment, which could in turn elevate the role of lab reports in the instruction of scientific inquiry. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email