The Effects of a DLSCL Approach on Students Conceptual Understanding in an Undergraduate Introductory Physics Lab
Muhammad Riaz 1, 2  
More details
Hide details
Assistant Professor, Department of Physics, Karakorum International University Gilgit. PAKISTAN
Department of Mathematics Education, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, USA
Professor and Program Chair, Department of Mathematics Education, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, USA
Office of Development, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, USA
Online publication date: 2019-10-21
Publication date: 2019-10-21
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2020;16(2):em1813
This study investigated the effects of Discovery Learning Scientific Community Laboratories (DL-SCL) and traditional non-DLSCL laboratories on students’ conceptual understanding in a Physics-1 lab. At many universities, physics programs use a traditional lab style, despite research on the benefits for reform-oriented physics labs. This DL-SCL approach included features of inquiry-based learning (e.g., students generated hypotheses and designed experiments) and scientific community labs (e.g., students discussed designs and findings). This study used a quasi-experimental design with quantitative-method data collection and analysis procedures. Twelve sections of a Physics I lab were assigned to two groups: Treatment (DL-SCL) and Control (non-DL-SCL). In Treatment and Control sections, conceptual understanding was measured pre/post using the Mechanics Baseline Test (MBT) and the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). Study findings indicated that DL-SCL approach in teaching Physics Lab-1 significantly improved students’ conceptual understanding.
Beichner, R. J. (1996). The impact of video motion analysis on kinematics graph interpretation skills. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1272-1277.
Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R. J., Bonham, S. W., Dancy, M. H., & Risley, J. S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 2-39.
Bodner, G. M., Hunter, W. J., & Lamba, R. S. (1998). What happens when discovery laboratories are integrated into the curriculum at a large research university? The Chemical Educator, 3(3), 1-21.
Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. American Journal of Physics, 67(1), 38-44.
Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 10(2), 1-58.
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.
Escalada, L. T. (1995). An investigation on the effects of using interactive digital video in a physics classroom on student learning and attitudes. (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University). Retrieved from
Etkina, E. & Van Heuvelen, A. (2007). Investigative science learning environment–a science process approach to learning physics. Research-Based Reform of University Physics 1(1), 1-48. Retrieved from _reviews/media/volume1/ISLE-2007.pdf.
Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 54-98.
Etkina, E., Murthy, S., & Zou, X. (2006). Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design. American Journal of Physics, 74(11), 979-986.
French, T., & Cummings, K. (2002, Aug). Effectiveness of abridged interactive lecture demonstrations. Paper presented at the Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference 2002, Boise, Idaho.
Gresser, P. W. (2006). A study of social interaction and teamwork in reformed physics laboratories. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland). Retrieved from
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
Hestenes, D., & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 159-166.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
Ivie, R., & Ray, K. N. (2005, Feb). Women in physics and astronomy, American Institute of Physics (AIP) Statistical Research Center. (AIP online published report no R-430.02).
Kung, R. L. (2005). Teaching the concepts of measurement: An example of a concept-based laboratory course. American Journal of Physics, 73(8), 771-777.
Lark, A. (2014). Implementation of scientific community laboratories and their effect on student conceptual learning, attitudes, and understanding of uncertainty. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Toledo). Retrieved from
Lippmann, R. F. (2003). Students’ understanding of measurement and uncertainty in the physics laboratory: Social construction, underlying concepts, and quantitative analysis. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland). Retrieved from
McCullough, L. E. (2000). The effect of introducing computers into an introductory physics problem-solving laboratory. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9972998).
McDermott, L. C. (2001). Oersted medal lecture 2001: Physics Education Research—the key to student learning. American Journal of Physics, 69(11), 1127-1137.
Morote, E. S., & Pritchard, D. E. (2009). What course element correlate with improvement on test in introductory Newtonian mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 77(8), 746-753.
National Research Council (NRC). (2013). Adapting to a changing world: Challenges and opportunities in undergraduate physics education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from
Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching physics with the physics suite CD. New York: Wiley.
Saul, J. M., & Beichner, R. (2001, July). An activity-based curriculum for large introductory physics classes: The SCALE-UP project. Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference 2001, Rochester, NY.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sokoloff, D. R. (2012). RealTime Physics Active Learning Laboratories, Module 4: Light and optics (3rd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sokoloff, D. R., Laws, P. W., & Thornton, R. K. (2007). RealTime Physics: active learning labs transforming the introductory laboratory. European Journal of Physics, 28(3), 83-94.
Sokoloff, D. R., Thornton, R. K., & Laws, P. W. (2011). RealTime Physics Active Learning Laboratories, Module 1: Mechanics. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Sorensen, C., Churukian, A., Maleki, S., & Zollman, D. (2006). The New studio format for instruction of introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 74(12), 1077-1082.
Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858-867.
Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1997, March). Realtime physics: active learning laboratory. Paper presented at the The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities, Vol. 39, (pp. 1101-1118). College Park, MD: AIP Publisher.
Upton, B. M. (2010). Assessing the effectiveness of studio physics at Georgia State University. (Thesis, Georgia State University). Retrieved from