1|Page

Final Report: Positioning Labatorials in the Physics Pedagogical Landscape

Written by: Nathan Lefsrud, University of Calgary, Student Number: 10004148
Supervisor: Dr. Robert Thompson, University of Calgary
December 3, 2012
I.

Introduction

This is the final presentation of the independent research project carried out by Nathan
Lefsrud, under the supervision of Dr. Rob Thompson and Dr. Joan Forder. The purpose of this
project is to position Labatorials, a small-scale pedagogical learning method for introductory
physics developed at the U of C in the larger physics education community in relation to other
modern variations of small-group physics education teaching techniques developed at a variety
of other post-secondary institutions. Labatorials are a recent development at the University of
Calgary, so it is important to be able to identify aspects of them that are relatable to these
other successful teaching methods to be able to determine their viability as teaching tools and
to improve them further.
This paper will discuss the background of Labatorials, the processes involved with their
inner workings, the motivation behind their development, the methods used to carry out this
investigation, detail the comparators that have been chosen, and examine the differences and
similarities between Labatorials and the comparators.

II.

Background

Many non-physics, science-majors at the University of Calgary are required to take

introductory physics courses for non-majors. These courses introduce the students to the basics
of Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electricity and Magnetism by means of lectures, labs, and
tutorial sessions. Prior to 2008, these courses had developed a very bad reputation for being

2|Page

uninteresting and difficult1. The Department of Physics and Astronomy started to design and
implement a new teaching methodology called Labatorials to make these introductory courses
more effective and enjoyable for the students.
Like the name, Labatorials2 are a mix of both labs and tutorials. Students work in small
groups, and using equipment provided to them under the supervision of Learning Assistants
and Teaching Assistants, conduct experiments to compliment what theyve learned in lectures
and to expand their understanding of physics. The students are marked on a checkpoint system,
and require a supervisors okay to continue on to the next section of the experiment,
ensuring that the students understand the topics and are not just rushing through them.
There was an immediate and noticeable increase in student retention and positive
feedback, indicated by increased Grade Point Averages and student evaluation scores and
comments, indicating that students understood the material better and were better able to
learn with the tools they were provided.

III.

Methods

The brunt of this project was reading. Some of this was done through textbook readings,
acquired through borrowing from University of Calgary PHAS staff, and through the University
of Calgary library. The majority of the reading was accomplished by means of the internet.
Initial searches were conducted through Google, which lead to initial finds and ideas for further
research. The main search engines used were Web of Science, arXiv, and INSPEC, and these
accounted for the finding of most published articles referenced. Any additional required
information was attempted to be retrieved by means of an interview with an important person

3|Page

involved with the methodology in question. The final comparators in this project were then
researched and the information was organized through a large spreadsheet on poster paper.

IV.

Process

The next step was to start looking at where these new Labatorials fit into the pedagogical
landscape of the physics community, and that reasoning is where this project started.
It was decided that for this project, Labatorials should be compared directly to other smallgroup learning exercises developed and implemented at other post-secondary institutions.
Discussions were held regarding what aspects of these methods were most important to look at
for possible comparators. These include the size of the institution utilizing the method, the
course, class, and group sizes of students that were working through the method, the level of
the students physics education, the level of involvement of the students, the implementation
of the experiments, the topics of physics, the number and level of instructors, weekly time
allotment, motivation and goals for the development of the method, the timeline of
development and length of implementation of the method, any major turning points in regards
to student response or grades during the implementation, communication with other
institutions in regards to the development of their method, potential future plans for improving
the method further, type of assessment, learning tools involved, and student response. With
these important features in mind, an initial list of promising comparators was compiled.

4|Page
Possible Comparator
Labatorials
Traditional Labs
Traditional Tutorials
Open-Source Tutorials
Game-Based Learning
Studio Physics
Physics by Inquiry
Tutorials in Introductory Physics
Problem-Solving Labs
Workshop Physics

Institution
University of Calgary
NA
NA
University of Maryland
NA
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Washington
University of Washington
University of Minnesota
Dickinson College

Used/Not Used
Used
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Used
Used
Used

Figure 1: A summary of initial possible comparators.

Of the initial possibilities in this first list, not all were found to be viable comparators, and
even if they had been, the timeframe of this project would not have allowed for all of them to
be properly investigated. It was determined that this list needed to be cut down to three to four
comparators, which would be more thoroughly investigated.
Both Traditional Labs and Tutorials were difficult to obtain information on, as most
anything under these topics are done in ways that have been experienced and moditified
personally by instructors, and as such, little written material is available on any one particular
method.
The University of Maryland has developed materials involving open-source tutorials4, based
on the observation that often lab instructors dont have a thorough-enough understanding of
the lab content to be able to implement them properly. By the same reasoning, students often
dont perform the experiments at the quality that they could. The solution arrived at was to
provide lab- and tutorial-style practice material online and free-to-use to circumvent these
problems. Ultimately, most of the content available online pertains to supervisor preparation as
opposed to student activities and therefore it was discarded as a comparator.*

5|Page

Game-based learning was another option that was considered and then ultimately
discarded. The only published paper that had any bearing on post-secondary physics education
was unavailable due to problems being resolved at its host website, and all other material
found was focused on education of very young students or the benefits of playing video
games.*
Studio Physics (TEAL)10 is centered on an active-learning approach to physics, aimed towards
enhancing students ability to visualize, conceptualize, and develop better intuition about
electromagnetic phenomena. Ideally, the project is done in a classroom with networked computers
where up to thirteen groups of nine students are assembled at tables in the room. There are two twohour classroom sessions and one one-hour problem solving session led by a graduate student TA. The
students are exposed to presentations, desktop experiments, web-based assignments, and computeraided analysis of data. One of the more powerful aspects is the programs ability to provide 2D and 3D
images of electromagnetic and other fields for students to experiment with and to allow them a direct
visual interpretation of the concepts that theyre learning about. Grading is done through in-class
exams, focus groups, questionnaires, focus groups, and pre- and post-testing. While this was found to be
a good potential comparator, the amount of published literature available on its development and
procedures was lacking, and Studio Physics was discarded. In further research into this topic, Studio
Physics would do well as an additional comparator.*
Physics by Inquiry11 is a three-volume set of textbooks published by the University of
Washington detailing laboratory-based modules for introduction to physical sciences. Students start
with their own observations, develop concepts, use and interpret different forms of representations,
and construct models to predict physical interactions with. Physics by Inquiry is designed for emphasis of
discovering over memorizing. The type of instruction allows for small-group and one-on-one discussion
between students and instructors. The text is designed in a way that encourages students to fill in the

6|Page
gaps with active mental engagement. The labs in use at the University of Washington had originally been
chosen as a comparator for this project, but upon implementing a deeper level of research, it was
determined that not enough literature was available to use Physics by Inquiry as a viable comparator
and it was discarded.*
(* These statements were taken and modified from the authors interim report.)
The three final methods that were found to be viable comparators were Problem-Solving Labs,
developed at the University of Minnesota, Tutorials as described in Tutorials in Introductory Physics, by
the University of Washington, and Workshop Physics, developed at Dickinson College, which are
summarized in the next section.
All the reference material available was perused and summarized, and then the gaps in the
spreadsheet were indications of what needed to be asked as interview questions.
Prof. K. Heller at the University of Minnesota, Prof. L. McDermott of the University of
Washington, and Prof. P. Laws of Dickinson College were all contacted with short questionnaires
centered around the needed information in regards to their respective methods, but only Prof. Heller
responded. A phone interview was conducted with him, and he was able to provide the relevant
information.

V.

Summary of Comparators

This section goes into detail on all relevant and available information relating to the four
comparators chosen, organized by institution.

i)

University of Calgary: Labatorials

The University of Calgary is a mid to large institution, with 31 670 undergraduate and graduate
students enrolled in 20115. The introductory physics courses for non-majors (Physics 211/221, 223) are

7|Page
very large courses, with 1200 students enrolled in Fall semesters alone. These students are split into
groups of 300 per lecture, 24 students per Labatorial room, and groups of 4 for an individual
experiment. Overall, a lot of students need to carry out a lot of experiments.
Labatorials are a hybrid of labs and tutorials developed at the University of Calgary, first
implemented in Fall 20093. They were originally designed and implemented for required introductory
physics courses for non-physics majors in response to negative course reputations, low student
evaluations, and the fact that the outcomes of student learning were unclear. As the success of
Labatorials became apparent, they began to be implemented for first year physics majors as well.
The development of Labatorials was in response to low student grades and student evaluations2.
The introductory physics courses had acquired a very bad reputation, and were more oriented towards
methods that would benefit physics majors in their degrees, but were not useful for non-physics
students. The Department of Physics and Astronomy began looking into ways to remedy these issues.
Their goals were to improve the reputation of these courses, increase student engagement and
understanding of physical concepts, and to encourage students to pursue new ways of thinking and to
become fascinated by discovery.
The topics covered by PHYS 211 and 221 fall under Mechanics: motion, kinetics, force, acceleration,
energy, momentum, and torque. PHYS 223 then covers Thermodynamics, and Electricity and
Magnetism3. Labatorials are fully integrated with their lecture components, meaning that they cover the
same content that was recently covered by the lectures. This is designed in a way to reinforce new
information that is still fresh in students minds.
Labatorials are run in two rooms that are connected to each other by a set of doors, and these
rooms have their experiments run concurrently with each other. Each room is assigned one Teaching
Assistant (TA, physics graduate students), and one Learning Assistant (LA, physics 3rd or 4th year
undergraduate student) works between both rooms, providing assistance where needed3.

8|Page
Many learning tools are made available to students to allow them to conduct their experiments.
They are given one computer per group of four, and utilizing its full capabilities with virtual experiments,
video capture, detection interfaces, Vernier systems, and simulations. They are also provided with tests,
worksheets, and demonstrations performed by their lab instructors3.
Depending on the year that Labatorials have been run, students are expected to complete a short,
multiple-choice pre-test on material relating to the lecture and Labatorial. This gives both the students
and their instructors an idea of what areas the students need most help in understanding. The students
are given worksheets consisting of 25 to 40 questions that they need to work on, getting answers both
through experimentation and discussion3. These worksheets are marked on a check-point system. When
a group of students reaches a point indicating that they require a TA or LA to check their work, they
must stop and wait for a TA or LA to come to them. If their work is satisfactory, then they are given the
go-ahead to continue to the next portion of the experiment. If it is not, then they must discuss what
points they do not fully understand and try again. They must try again, and again ask a TA or LA before
they can continue forward. This check-point system is a boon to instructors, as it greatly reduces the
amount of time that they need to spend marking, and increasing their time to spend helping students
with their understanding. The worksheets themselves are designed so that they should be able to be
completed within the time allotment, while not so much that they can rush through them and get out of
the experiment as soon as possible. In the last few minutes of class, the students are required to
perform a post-test (in those years when pre- and post-tests are included), similar to the pre-test they
did at the beginning of the experiment. This is a strategy developed to allow for their instructors to see
where the students have improved since the beginning of the experiment to the end, and in which areas
the students may still require attention.
The increase in positive feedback from students was immediate and very noticeable3. There were
many comments in the student evaluations pertaining directly to how helpful Labatorials were in

9|Page
understanding physical concepts, and the USRI scores for the introductory courses rose from 4.52 to
5.36 (out of 7) from the 2008 to 2009 Fall Semesters3.
Upon the success of Labatorials with non-physics majors, they were expanded upon to be included
in first year courses for physics majors as well. Labatorials have recently been implemented for
introductory physics courses for Engineers, with plans in development for higher level physics-forengineers courses as well19.

ii)

University of Minnesota: Problem-Solving Labs

The University of Minnesota is a very large institution, with 51 853 undergraduate students enrolled
in Fall 20126.
Problem-Solving Labs are run beside, and fully integrated with lectures in the introductory physics
courses for physics majors that they were developed for7. The labs are conducted with sections of 18
students, with students working in groups of two to three. The courses themselves cover Classical
Mechanics, forces, circular motion, energy, momentum, torque, Thermodynamics, and Electricity and
Magnetism.
The main goals of Problem-Solving Labs are to get physics students to confront their own preconceptions of how physical laws work, to teach them how to design an experiment and to appreciate
the difficulty of designing and interpreting that experiment, as well as to simulate a real research
environment for these students.
Before coming to the lab, students are required to complete both a pre-test on a computer,
consisting of four problems, and must get three of those problems correct before they are allowed to
perform the experiment7. The tests are able to be repeated as many times as necessary. They must also
complete warm-up questions and have emailed them to the lab instructor before the lab.

10 | P a g e
The most distinctive feature of Problem-Solving Labs is that the students need to build their own
experiments; there are no step-by-step instructions. The lab manual that students are provided with
pose problems to the students, which they must then discuss within their groups. Instructors are
present to provide insight and to help lead discussion in the right direction, but must leave the
reasoning and solving to the students themselves. Upon discussing the theory and equipment, student
are then required to develop a procedure and to come up with a prediction of their results before they
are allowed to start the lab.
The students are provided with everything that they need to complete the lab successfully, including
their lab manual, a computer, and a variety of apparatus.
Upon completing the experiment that the student designed, more discussion is encouraged, inviting
the student to reflect upon what they found, in what ways they had been incorrect, and confronting
how their perception of physical laws has been influenced by their findings. Their report is then due in
their individual lab journals two days after the completion of the experiment8.
The students spend two hours per week in Problem-Solving Labs, with two problems per lab9.
Grading is done on a checklist system7: the teaching team decides on a 10 to 20 point scale on all
parts of the experiment, including prediction, procedure, results, pre-test results, and the lab journal.
The entire group receives a bonus if all members score above 80%, which increases peer pressure for
everyone to do well. This checklist system reduces the amount of time necessary for grading, which is
necessary for an institution with so many students.
The advantage to having student build their own lab experiments is to reinforce the idea of the
importance of understanding physical concepts, and not just taking data as quickly as possible to get out
of the lab. In addition, none of the necessary theory is given, to encourage the idea that the labs are
integral to the course. This leads to the students becoming much more actively engaged in the activity

11 | P a g e
and are not able to skate by without paying attention. By observing students in this environment,
instructors are better able to find and fix weaknesses in student understanding of physical concepts.
Problem-Solving Labs were implemented around the year 19909, taking around three years or so to
become fully integrated in the introductory physics lectures at the University of Minnesota.
In a phone interview with Prof. Ken Heller at the University of Minnesota9, Ken said that because his
department believes in open-source information, almost all of their work regarding Problem-Solving
Labs is available online through their website, so with that in mind, he doesnt know exactly how many
other post-secondary institutions are using Problem-Solving Labs, but he is always getting told at physics
conferences and via email that there are instructors using this method in their courses.
Student evaluations at the University of Minnesota have shown that students appreciate and
understand the relationships between the Problem-Solving Labs and the course, and that they enjoy and
are challenged by them9. There is no direct data corresponding to how much of students understanding
and grades are influenced by the Problem-Solving Labs at the University of Minnesota, but Prof. Ken
Heller has indicated that that is a point of research for their physics education group in the future.

iii)

University of Washington: Tutorials in Introductory Physics

The University of Washington is yet another very large institution, with 42 570 undergraduate
students enrolled as of August 201212.
The physics education group based in the University of Washington has developed their own labs
and tutorials which are integrated into their courses, running beside their lectures and supplementing
the information conveyed there. The labs theyve developed are available in a three-part textbook series
called Physics by Inquiry, which was originally chosen as a comparator for this project, but was
ultimately rejected due to insufficient information available. The series of tutorials have also been
published by the University of Washington under Tutorials in Introductory Physics. These tutorials are

12 | P a g e
designed for regular and honours sections of calculus- and algebra-based physics courses on topics that
study Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, Waves, Optics, Hydrostatics, Thermodynamics, and
Modern Physics13.
The goals of these tutorials are to improve meaningful learning, and student retention by focusing
on teaching student physical concepts and scientific reasoning rather than just problem-solving. They
are designed to help students realize when they dont understand a concept and how to ask the
appropriate questions to find the answer13. They are also designed specifically to give students practice
in interpreting graphs, formulae, and diagrams.
Each tutorial has a size recommendation of 20 to 24 students, with students working in groups of
three to four. The tutorials are 50 to 60 minutes in length, with one or two tutorials per week, which is
left to the instructors discretion14.
As a tutorial, the learning tools for the tutorials consist of group discussion and two undergraduate
or graduate physics students per tutorial to help students to figure out the answers on their own.
At the start of the tutorial session, students are required to participate in pre-tests, which show
their TAs where they need the most help in understanding the content. The pre-tests are not graded,
but marks are given for participation14. This allows for students to worry less about studying before
coming to the tutorial session and to allow them to focus on solving problems once there. After the
pretest, the students are allowed to work on their tutorial sheets, using each other and their TAs to find
answers.
Students at the University of Washington have rated tutorials as one of the most valuable
components in helping them learn. It was found that tutorials replacing normal problem solving
significantly improves student performance and retention13.
The work put in to Tutorials in Introductory Physics was done through the Physics Education Group
at the University of Washington, while working closely with many other institution to test pilot the

13 | P a g e
tutorials, including the University of Kentucky, Minot State University, the University of Cincinnati,
Harvard University, Miami University, the University of Maryland, Montana State University, Los Angeles
Pierce College, the University of Illinois, and the Ohio State University13.
Prof. L. McDermott at the University of Washington was contacted via email inquiring about a phone
interview with a questionnaire attached pertaining to information about the timeline of development of
the tutorials, major turning points in student response, and what the next step of development might
be, and the distribution of their Tutorials through the physics pedagogical community, but at the time of
this report, no response has been received.
iv)

Dickinson College: Workshop Physics

Dickinson College is not a large post-secondary institution. In the Fall Semester of 2012, they
registered 2386 students15.
Workshop Physics is unique among the comparators of this project in that instead of complimenting
lectures with small-group methods to reinforce topics covered in class, its completely replaced lectures
as a source of information.
These introductory physics courses were designed for both physics and non-physics majors as the
first steps into physical concepts. The courses themselves are completely immersive, forcing the
students to be fully involved in their experiments and learning. Its a guided process where the students
must dismiss and develop their own procedures in topics including Kinematics and Dynamics,
Momentum and Energy, Rotations, Thermodynamics, and Electricity and Magnetism. Workshop Physics
was first implemented in the Fall Semester of 198717.
The coursework involves three 2-hour sessions per week, with classes of 24 to 36 students working
in groups of 2 to 4, supervised by one instructor and two undergraduate TAs who are made available all
evenings and weekends as well16.

14 | P a g e
The goals of Workshop Physics are to eliminate formal lectures and leave students to explore
physics through experiments, to encourage student understanding by analyzing directly observable
phenomena, and to help them to develop experimental experience using computers17.
Students are given access to a very large array of equipment, from paper clips and tape to video
capture software and bumper sensors. But most of the experiments have been designed in ways to be
able to perform the necessary trials and capture them on video using only the most simple of classroom
objects. Computers are the single most important tool at the students disposal. Each group has access
to a computer, which the students use to store and analyze spreadsheets, run simulations, and to run
video capture software. The students also have Activity Guides and calculus textbooks at their
disposal.16
During the work time, the students work in their groups through the experiments laid out in the
Activity Guide in their groups, with their instructors and TAs for help as needed. The students are
encouraged to explore the physical workings of the systems theyre observing on their own and to
develop their understandings of physical laws through their own experience.
The way that the Activity Guides are marked depends on the instructor of the course16. They can
choose to do a mix of quantity grading with random quality checks, total an average mark of the
students in a group, or do a mix of the two. It is recommended that for non-physics majors, marks
should be given based on check points, as opposed to more in-depth answers that would be more
helpful for physics majors.
The staff at Dickinson College have worked with David Sokoloff at the University of Oregon
(RealTime Physics) and Ronald Thornton at Tufts University (Tools for Scientific Thinking Project) on
computer tools and materials related to active learning in introductory physics16.
It was found that students at Dickinson College prefer Workshop Physics over the more traditional
setup of lectures and supplementary methods, though many students admit that they were resistant to

15 | P a g e
the deviation from the norm at first18. Theyve also been shown to have increased retention over
students in the traditional means, and in evaluations many had spoken of how Workshop Physics helped
to make them feel comfortable in the lab environment16.
An added bonus is that with the implementation of Workshop Physics, the developers at Dickinson
College were able to effectively reduce the course content of the introductory physics courses by about
15%16.

VI.

Discussion

There are some very interesting similarities and differences between the comparators chosen for
this project, which will be examined in this section.

To start, all of the methods above have been proven effective and have shown great responses from
students in regards to giving them an effective challenge, and their understanding that these methods
do help them to understand and improve their retention of physical concepts. Information regarding
grade improvements is not as evident, as it is difficult, if not outright impossible to determine how much
of student retention comes from these small-group methods as opposed to a lecturers abilities to
communicate information, individual student commitment, and many other variables.
One item that must be taken into consideration is the size of the institutions that have developed
these methods. The Universities of Calgary, Minnesota, and Washington all have undergraduate
enrollments that number in the tens of thousands, while Dickinson College doesnt even have three
thousand. While its been indicated that smaller institutions should not have an issue implementing
methods that have been developed for very large classes, it would be very impractical to devote the
resources of a post-secondary institution with hundreds of students enrolled in introductory physics
courses to Workshop Physics, which would require that the lecture, which is the main source of passing

16 | P a g e
information to students en mass, be removed for sessions consisting of a much lower number of
students.
Another distinction to be made is that of the methods designed for physics majors as opposed to
non-physics majors. Problem-Solving Labs and the Washington Tutorials are designed specifically for
physics majors, with Workshop Physics aimed at both physics and non-physics majors, with the major
distinction being that non-physics majors arent required to answer questions as qualitatively as their
physics major counterparts. And while Labatorials were initially developed for non-physics majors, upon
their success, they were expanded to be included in introductory physics courses for physics majors as
well. In terms of the scope of this project, the focus definitely appears to be more oriented towards
physics majors than the non-majors. The motivations for this follows the trend that physics majors are
required to develop a better internal understanding of physical laws and systems through their own
reasoning processes, and to be able to be able to continue these learning patterns later in their degrees
and potentially into graduate studies as well, while non-physics majors dont require the same skill sets
to be developed, and are then able to come to the same understandings without needing to come to
them on their own internal logic.
In terms of time commitment, all of comparators seem to be relatively equal. With three hours of
lecture per week, the Universities of Calgary, Minnesota, and Washington all fall between 4 and 6 hours
of course work per week. Dickinson does not utilize lectures, but their sessions take 6 hours per week as
well.
Assessment seems not to follow as strict of a pattern: Labatorials and Problem-Solving Labs use
check point systems that focus on student grasp of concepts over submitted work, while Washington
Tutorials and Workshop Physics utilize a mix of both participation marks and quality grading.
All experiments conducted within the methods above require equipment to perform physics
experiments related to similar topics (with the exception of the Washington Tutorials, but these are

17 | P a g e
supplemented by Physics by Inquiry which does involve conducting experiments), but the two most
heavily-mentioned learning tools are easily computers and interpersonal discussion, both between
individual students and student-instructor interactions.

VII.

Conclusion

It should first be noted that this is not an exhaustive survey, simply an initial comparison to find a
simple understanding of what ways Labatorials compare with its counterparts developed at other postsecondary education institutions.
Overall, Labatorials developed at the University of Calgary are shown, by comparison, to follow
many similar lines of reasoning for development and implementation, as well as common motivation to
improve the undergraduate students understanding of physical laws, as those comparators chosen for
this project, developed at institutions both much larger and much smaller than the University of Calgary.
In their own rights, they have been proven to be beneficial to the understanding of students for physics
education in ways similar to those of its comparators, and an excellent learning tool.

VIII.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Professor Robert Thompson for supervising me on this project and pointing me in all the
right directions.
Thanks to Professor Joan Forder for all her insight into education and for the idea of poster paper for
a giant spreadsheet. That certainly made organization easier.
Thanks to Instructor Jason Donev for lending me so many textbooks.

18 | P a g e
IX.

References

L. Yoheman, Labatorials offer a new way to learn physic, University of Calgary

OnCampus, volume 6, September 2008, accessed September 18, 2012.

D. Ahrensmeier, J.M.K.C. Donev, R.B. Hicks, A.A. Louro, L. Sangalli, R.B. Stafford,

and R.I. Thompson, Labatorials at the University of Calgary: In pursuit of effective

small group instruction within large registration physics service courses. Physics in
Canada, Oct-Dec 2009, 214-216, accessed September 19, 2012.

R.I. Thompson. Labatorials: In pursuit of effective small group instruction within

large registration physics service courses, presented at St. Marys University,

Calgary AB, September 2012.

University of Maryland. Open-Source tutorials integrated with professional

development

materials,

first

accessed

October

9,

2012.

http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/CCLI/index.html

AUCC Website, Enrolment By University, first accessed November 17, 2012.

http://www.aucc.ca/canadian-universities/facts-and-stats/enrolment-by-university/

University of Minnesota. All Enrollment Data for Fall 2012, first accessed

November

16,

2012.

http://www.oir.umn.edu/student/enrollment/term/1129/current/show_all

University of Minnesota Physics Group. Problem-Solving Labs, first accessed

October

11,

http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Research/PSL/LabFAQ.html

2012.

19 | P a g e

University of Minnesota Physics Group. Cooperative Group Problem Solving in

Physics,

first

accessed

October

11,

2012.

http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Research/CGPS/GreenBook.html

10

Prof. Ken Heller, phone interview with author, November 30, 2012.
John W. Belcher, Peter Dourmashkin, David Litster, Transforming Introductory Physics

Courses: From a Large Lecture Classroom to a Student-Centered Active Learning Space, first
accessed

October

8,

2012.

http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/collections/keep/jbelcher/index.html

11

L.C. McDermott and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington,

Physics by Inquiry, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, 1996, ISBN 0471548707

12

University of Washington. Quick facts, first accessed November 2, 2012.

http://admit.washington.edu/quickfacts#enrollment

13

L.C. McDermott, Peter S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the

University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics, First Edition Prentice

Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002, ISBN 0130653640

14

L.C. McDermott, Peter S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the

University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics, Instructors Manual,

First Edition Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003, ISBN 0130662445

15

Dickinson

College,

Enrollment,

first

accessed

http://www.dickinson.edu/about/offices/institutionalresearch/content/Enrollment/

October

12,

2012.

20 | P a g e

16

Dickinson College, Workshop Physics Overview, first accessed October 8, 2012.

http://physics.dickinson.edu/~wp_web/wp_overview.html

17

Priscilla Laws, Calculus-Based Physics Without Lectures, Physics Today

(December 1991): 24.

18

Priscilla Laws. Analytical Mathematical Modeling, presented at 2006 Summer

Meeting of the AAPT in Syracuse, NY.

19

Prof. Rob Thompson, email correspondence with author, December 3, 2012.