A proposal for an active methodology for physics labs
Suzane F. Pinto, Ronan S. Ferreira, Miguel M.Costa, Agmael M. Silva
AA proposal for an active methodology for physics labs
Suzane F. Pinto , Ronan S. Ferreira ∗ , Miguel M.Costa , and Agmael M. Silva Programa de graduação em Engenharia de Computação, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, 35931-008, Brasil Departamento de Ciências Exatas e Aplicadas, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, 35931-008, Brasil Campus Prof. Antonio Giovanne Alves de Sousa, Universidade Estadual do Piauí, 64260-00, Brasil
Abstract : Active methodologies aim to develop a critical sense of what is learned, relating theoreticalconcepts to the practical environment. In this work, we propose an active teaching-learning methodologyfor laboratory classes in which the student has the autonomy to propose scripts and equipment, instead offollowing a practice roadmap already defined (built by the teacher or made available by manufacturers fortheir science kits), in accordance with the theoretical knowledge acquired. The objective is to encouragethe student to be the protagonist in experimental activities, based on the theoretical knowledge acquiredin the classroom. In this way, we split the method into three parts, namely: ( i ) Theoretical exposition,( ii ) theoretical seminar and proposition of the experimental script and ( iii ) seminar for the exposition ofthe experiment carried out. Each of these steps is guided by one or more professional skills, such as:innovation, creativity, proactivity, protagonism, critical sense and scientific thinking, aiming to bring theacademic environment to the professional environment. Keywords : Physics education, Teaching methodologies, Active methodology.
With countless interactive channels available on socialmedia, proposing new methodologies in the classroomthat encourage the student to change the passive rolefor the protagonist in his own learning is a challengefor the teaching activity [1, 2], particularly on the labenvironment [3, 4]. An important point is that forthis to happen, a two-way flow is suggested: teacherand student. Speeches commonly verbalized by bothteachers and students exemplify why the change needsto occur in two senses. On the one hand, we have tra-ditional methodologies that gain the status of routineclasses, from the teaching point of view, and little in- volving when viewed from the students’ perspective.On the other hand, it is clear that the use of new tech-nological resources, which at first glance would be thepromise for more dynamic classes, in fact do not seemto change this scenario of permanent and collectivedissatisfaction. The application of technology alonedoes not guarantee a high standard of learning [5],although can be used as an ally in the learning pro-cess [4].In addition to this challenge for teaching activity,there is another aspect that is increasingly present: theacademy-business relationship. We can think of it inat least two ways. First, how has the academic envir-onment been preparing its human resources according ∗ [email protected] a r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . e d - ph ] M a y o what the job market has been looking for? Second,how to prepare students so that, even in the academicenvironment, they develop practical skills for the pro-motion of Jr. Companies , Startups and thus draw at-tention and promote partnerships between academyand companies?Jr Companies are non-profit companies whosemain objective is to support practical learning in uni-versity education through projects, learning by man-agement and entrepreneurial culture. Startups arecompanies that develop and provide services andproducts exploring innovative activities in the marketin which they operate. In these companies, technologyand innovation are present at all levels: strategic, oper-ational and tactical. For example, the business model- strategic level - is based on an economic model thataims to reach a considerable number of customers andgenerate profit on a scale without a proportional in-crease in the costs of the operation. Within the Jrand Startups Company, we have agile development en-vironments that are usually built by teams that haveautonomy, seeking objectives and goals that each em-ployee can achieve in his time.Bearing in mind that the search for professionalscapable of acting with autonomy and creativity hasbecome a paradigm, how to prepare the student stillwithin the university? It is here that we can see theimportance of practical and collective work to be de-veloped in the laboratories.On the one hand, the job market has been seek-ing professional skills such as innovation / creativ-ity, proactivity / protagonism, critical sense / scientificthinking , etc. On the other hand, our laboratories arefull of “science kits”: pre-assembled prototypes, sub-stantially immune to human errors and overly detailedscripts about their execution: a kind of infallible guidein order to obtain the best results - therefore, the smal-lest mistake. In this way, the student remains in thepassive role in his own learning, following a merelaboratory algorithm.Active learning methodologies [6, 7] seek to pro-mote meaningful learning that requires, in the first place, a systematization of teaching that is capable ofinvolving the student as a protagonist of their learn-ing. In this way, such methodologies aim to developa critical sense of what is learned, as well as skills torelate theoretical concepts to the real world [8–10]. Itis important to think about methodologies for an edu-cational practice that seeks the formation of an activeprofessional, able to learn to learn .According to Bergamo [11], traditional expositoryclasses are very tiring for both students and teachers,and in most cases they are not accompanied with thepractical part, in order to make a connection betweentheoretical concepts and real situations. In general, wehave a class in which only the teacher acts by expos-ing and sometimes imposing. Therefore, he is the onlyprotagonist and we have, in most cases, a lack of in-teraction by students because they do not absorb thecontent or even the simple lack of interest in the con-tent exposed.To contribute to the proposal of active teachingmethodologies for physics laboratory classes, we pro-pose in this work a method in which the student, in-stead of following a practical script already defined(built by the teacher or made available by manufac-turers for their science kits), has the autonomy to pro-pose experiments (scripts and equipment), in accord-ance with the theoretical knowledge acquired and inthe light of the scientific method.
The methodology we present in this work has as aguide to encourage the student to be the protagon-ist of experimental activities, based on the theoreticalknowledge acquired in the classroom. In this way, wesplit the method into three parts, namely: ( i ) Theoret-ical exposition, ( ii ) Proposal seminar, with the choiceof theme and an experimental design proposition and( iii ) Final seminar for the exposition of the experimentcarried out. In this methodology, only item ( i ) is theresponsibility of the teacher, while items ( ii ) and ( iii )2epend on the protagonism of the students (evidently,with teacher guidance). Note that this methodologydiffers from the commonly used laboratory methodo-logies, since they generally assume the following pro-tocol: ( i ) theoretical exposition, ( ii ) exposition of theexperimental script, ( iii ) execution of the experimentand ( iv ) report of the experimental activity. In thisway, teachers carry out items ( i ) and ( ii ). In the nextsections, we will detail items ( i ), ( ii ) and ( iii ) of ourproposal. It is at the stage of the theoretical exposure that theteacher will take the lead in the student’s learning pro-cess. Since in the classroom environment we find avast diversity of people, each with their own way ofthinking, reasoning, interpreting, and acting, severalpedagogical strategies can be used.As references, we can mention already consol-idated methodologies such as Peer instruction (PI)or Peer learning (AEP), STEAM and ConstructivistSpiral (EC). The AEP allows students to assume theroles of protagonists during classes, in moments of de-bates with colleagues, when they are solving activitiesrelated to the topics under study. The teacher has therole of mediating and guiding the discussions betweenthem [12]. EC is based on the idea of dividing theprocess into stages and carrying them out in a circularmanner. Steps like identifying problems, formulatingexplanations, elaborating questions, constructing newmeanings and evaluating processes and products [13].STEAM is an acronym for
Science, Technology, En-gineering, Arts and Mathematics . It is consideredan integrated and project-based methodology, whichaims to encourage interdisciplinarity and always focuson the practical application of the learning developedwithin the classroom [14].The objective of this stage is to expose the studentto the technical-theoretical knowledge necessary forhim to be able to perform the activities proposed inthe following steps.
This is the stage in which the student must propose anexperiment to verify one or more concepts discussedin the previous stage - section 2.1. In comparisonwith the methodology commonly applied, this stepwould be an alternative to the initial part of a labor-atory activity, in which the student usually receivesthe script for the practical class. For our proposal, thestudent must present the necessary materials, as wellas procedures and methodology to be used. In otherwords, the student must design a project himself in or-der to verify one or more theoretical concepts. Notethat at this point there is an important exchange: Theold “script” takes on a more professional role with theconcept of developing a “project”. At this point, it isalso worth mentioning the link between our proposaland the STEAM methodology. The student may be en-couraged to use knowledge already acquired in otherdisciplines. In effect, the teacher assumes the role oftutor here, encouraging and pointing out the relation-ship of his discipline with others in the curriculum ofthe student’s qualification.In this stage, aspects such as creativity and criticalsense will be in focus, since students must proposematerials / equipment to achieve an outlined object-ive. Students will be able to propose from the tradi-tional equipment of a physics laboratory (scale, meas-uring tape, objects with different masses, calipers, etc.)and even alternative materials / equipment. As an ex-ample, we can mention smartphones, digital cameras,recycled materials, toys etc. Thus, the place to performthe proposed experiment is also flexible. It is worthremembering that the proposal presented by the stu-dents in this seminar will give the teacher conditionsto evaluate possible risks regarding the realization ofthe experiment.Another interesting point is that the physics labor-atory is available to students. They can / should be en-couraged to also discuss with the professional labor-atory technician about their experimental proposals.Again, the role of the teacher at this stage as a tutor3 heoreticalexposure Choice of theme & Experimentaldesign ArgumentativeexposureProposalseminar Finalseminar
Figure 1:
Diagram of the model . Each frame means a stage performed in the proposed methodology. It ishighlighted students’ seminars on activities performed. is highlighted, assisting in activities, solving doubts,assessing the feasibility of the proposed projects andleaving the protagonism of the activity with the stu-dent.
At this stage the student is in full prominence, since itis the stage in which he will defend his experimentalproject, proposed in the previous stage.If compared to a common practice report, this stepwould be what we call “results and discussions”, how-ever, in a dynamic way. Both the results and thediscussions will be thought and commented on in aseminar format, thus opening space for constructivecriticisms about the work developed. Evidently, theteacher assumes the role of mediator, encouraging theparticipation and discussion of all listeners in the class.Aspects such as protagonism, improved orality and thesearch for proactivity are intensified.This gives students the opportunity to experiencean environment in the university in which they will beinserted in the job market in the future. That is whyit is of great importance to encourage them to be prot-agonists, so that they are prepared to deal with envir-onments where the least important thing is to followorders but to perform tasks in a timely manner, withautonomy and responsibility.
To quantitatively estimate the reception and evaluationof students regarding the methodology proposed insection 2, we developed a survey (discussed below)based on a Likert scale fashion. This verification scaleconsists of assuming a construct and developing a setof statements relevant to its definition, for which theinterviewees will state their degree of agreement. Es-sentially, this is a one to five point scale capable of in-ferring more information than using competing meth-ods. It can be defined as a type of “attitude scale”, inwhich the degree of agreement is verified in relationto a given questioning [15, 16]. The typical format ofresponses, from 1 to 5, accessible to the intervieweeis: 1.
Totally disagree ; 2.
Partially disagree ; 3.
Indif-ferent ; 4.
Partially agree ; 5.
Totally agree . AppendixA shows the poll used.The purpose of the statements used in the surveywas to address perception for those skills mentionedin section 1, namely: protagonism, creativity, criticalsense and responsibility. In addition, evaluate a meas-ure of success for the use of the proposed methodo-logy.The survey was submitted to a group of students inthe discipline of Classical Mechanics (Physics vol.1),at the end of the set of steps described in the meth-odology - section 2 - and returned by them anonym-ously. In order to minimize the social effect of stu-dents answering questions fearful of a reevaluation of4heir grades, a second group of students received thesurvey in the semester following the mentioned dis-cipline. The percentage results obtained from the stu-dents’ responses to each item / statement in the surveyare shown below. To divide into two blocks, the res-ults for items 1 to 6 are grouped in figure 2, while thoseabout items 7 to 11 in figure 3.
I. 1 st Block of results - Items 1 to 6
We started our survey with a statement about the ap-plication of a new methodology, in order to know theirperceptions that an active methodology would facil-itate (or not) the fixation of the content seen in theclassroom. The statement was placed as follows: “Theproposed methodology allowed for a greater fixationof the theoretical content presented in the classroom” .The chart
Item 1 , in figure 2, shows the result, with40% of the students answering that they agree par-tially, while 60% of them agree totally.The concept explored in the second statement wasthe creativity. This ability is characterized by the abil-ity to create, invent, innovate, both in the artistic andscientific fields. “As for the proposition that the stu-dent presents a project to verify the theory studied, thiswas important for each one to explore their creativ-ity” . The graph for
Item 2 shows the result for thisstatement, in which 20% of interviewees replied theypartially agree, while 80% totally agree.In the third statement, ”The proposed methodo-logy stimulates the student’s role as a protagonist inthe face of the usual methodologies that use the ap-plication of a pre-determined script” , we try to inferthe students’ perception of the main idea of an activemethodology of taking on the student as a protagonist.As a result, shown in the chart
Item 3 , 20% partiallyagree, while 80% totally agree.In the fourth statement, we approach the topic ofcritical sense: the ability to question and analyze ina rational and intelligent way. With this motivation(knowing the student if his critical sense was stimu-lated), the statement was: “The fact that there was a second seminar, after the experiment was carried out,stimulated the critical sense of the group, in order toargue, in a scientific way , the obtained results” . Asa result, we have the
Item 4 graph, in which 10%answered that they are indifferent to the questioning,20% partially agree and 70% totally agree.Knowing how to present and defend an idea (aposition) is a skill of great value in the job market.The fifth item in the survey, “The methodology usedis closer to the challenges you will encounter in thejob market in terms of proposing and defending a pro-ject” , approaches this concept, in order to know if themethodology could help the student in his preparationfor the leadership of projects in the labor market. The
Item 5 graph shows that only 10% responded to beingindifferent to the questioning, 20% of them partiallyagree and 70% agree completely.In carrying out the project, the student had the free-dom to choose the theme of the work, as well as howand when to do it. What we wanted to evaluate in thenext statement, “The fact that there is a high degree offreedom in carrying out the project can facilitate fail-ures, such as a lack of responsibility” , was whether thestudent was able to associate this high degree of free-dom with the responsibility of executing the projector whether freedom was, at a certain point, a negativefactor for the development of the activity. In the
Item 6 graph, we see that 10% of the interviewees respondedthat they totally disagree with the questioning, 40%that partially disagree, 30% partially agree and only20% totally agreed that excess of freedom was a badfactor, contributing to failures in the project.
II. 2 nd Block of results - Items 7 to 11
Proactivity is one of the most important skills for thesuccess of the methodology, given the oneself conceptof active methodologies. Thus, we present the fol-lowing statement to students: “The proposed method-ology requires that all members of the group have ahigh degree of proactivity” . That is, all members ofthe group must be fully participating in the proposed5
0% 60%
Item 1
Partially agreeTotally agree 20% 80%
Item 2
Partially agreeTotally agree 20% 80%
Item 3
Partially agreeTotally agree10%20%70%
Item 4
IndifferentPartially agreeTotally agree 10%70% 20%
Item 5
IndifferentPartially agreeTotally agree 40% 10% 30%20%
Item 6
Strongly disagreePartially disagreePartially agreeTotally agree
Figure 2: st Block of results . The numbering of each of the graphs in this figure corresponds to the numberingof each question, from 1 to 6, of the applied questionnaire - see Appendix A. project. This type of statement contains a subjectivecharge, suggesting at least two interpretations for theresponses obtained - see graph
Item 7 . The first onetakes into account that everyone in the group was pro-active, so they agreed with the statement. The secondinterpretation would be taking into account that thelack of this proactivity may have occurred and that iswhy the students agreed with the statement. The resultobtained was: 40% answered that they partially agreeand the other 60% that totally agree.The active methodology allows the student choosewhich path to follow in carrying out the activity,providing a stimulus to his critical sense and creativ-ity. It is important to know if the student is motivatingwhen he is treated as a protagonist of his own learn-ing. In this sense, the following statement was made: “The way of carrying out the activities was motivat-ing” . The result obtained, shown in the graph
Item 8 ,shows 90% of the students answering that they totally agree, while only 10% answering that they partiallyagree. Note that this positive result includes studentsfrom the two groups interviewed.A question about time management was asked tostudents through the ninth question, which makes thefollowing statement “Knowing how to manage timeand divide tasks well is fundamental for the successof the project” . The
Item 9 graph shows that the res-ult obtained was that 100% of the students respondedthat they totally agree. This suggests how important itis to have the skill of time management and divisionof tasks, a skill that is widely required in the job mar-ket where the professional works in the model of goalsand delivery of results.The graph
Item 10 refers to the statement: “Greater student interaction in the process of build-ing one’s own knowledge is the main characteristic ofan approach using active teaching methodologies. Thestudent starts to have more control and effective parti- ipation in the classroom, since it requires varied men-tal actions and constructions” . This question aimed toverify whether the student understood that the method-ology used during classes was an active methodology.The result was satisfactory, showing that the studentswere able to understand the purpose of the developedmethodology: 80% totally agree, while the others par-tially agree.A question arose during the writing of this article:Can this method be used in other disciplines? Discip-lines that contain some risk to the student’s physicalintegrity, for example, a practice involving an elec-trical circuit, in which the student will be in contactwith sensitive items or that contain some eminent risk.Looking for answers to our questioning, we took thematter to the students through the following statement: “This type of methodology could be easily adopted inother disciplines” . The result ( Item 11 ) obtained wasthat 10% responded that they partially disagree, 50%that partially agree and 40% that totally agree.The survey also included a space left free for stu-dents to express themselves in a written way. We leavehere as an example, anonymously, the statement of oneof the students who participated in this methodology:“
When the seminar was proposed, al-though I was a little anxious, as it was thefirst academic work I was going to presentat graduation, I thought it was a good ideaand stopping to reflect after completingwhat the job was and what it added to me,I can say that it was of great value to me.As the seminar had the purpose of de-veloping a work from scratch to provea certain topic, it helped me to have abroader view on the topics covered andhow I could put into practice the theoret-ical part that it is passed in class, insteadof just following the steps of the experi-ments offered in the physics lab.There are countless ways for you to beable to demonstrate a certain theme, from the simplest to the most complex, and inthe middle of this way of demonstratingyou end up also deepening your theor-etical basis, learning things you didn’tknow.As for the presentation, I was very tensein the first and a little less in the secondpresentation, I think this is a point where Ineed to improve and with the reservations[of the professor and laboratory techni-cian], just as I think I was better in thesecond presentation than in the first, I in-tend to be better in the next one they pro-pose to me. ” In this work, we proposed a methodology to be ap-plied in Physics laboratories (applied to engineering,in the case studied), as an alternative to the commonlyused protocol: ( i ) theoretical exposition, ( ii ) exposureof the experimental script, ( iii ) execution of the exper-iment and ( iv ) report of the experimental activity. Theguide for proposing this methodology was to encour-age the student to be the protagonist in experimentalactivities, changing the logic and sequencing of thesesteps. Namely, we propose: ( i ) theoretical exposition,( ii ) theoretical seminar and proposition of the exper-imental script and ( iii ) seminar for the exposition ofthe experiment carried out. Each of these steps is pro-posed with one or more professional skills as a guide,those frequently sought by companies and worked atjr Enterprises. and Startups, such as innovation, cre-ativity, proactivity, protagonism, critical sense and sci-entific thinking.We applied our methodology to experimentalphysics classes and then we sought to learn from stu-dents their positions regarding this dynamic proposedthrough a questionnaire, whose objective was to es-timate whether they were able to observe and developthe skills that the method aims to stimulate, in order to7
0% 60%
Item 7
Partially agreeTotally agree 10% 90%
Item 8
Partially agreeTotally agree 100%
Item 9
Totally agree20% 80%
Item 10
Partially agreeTotally agree 10%50% 40%
Item 11
Partially disagreePartially agreeTotally agree
Figure 3: st Block of results . The numbering of each of the graphs in this figure corresponds to the numberingof each question, from 7 to 11, of the applied questionnaire - see Appendix A. approximate the professional’s academic environment.In this sense, the method was able to make studentsthink about the essential skills for an active methodo-logy, even if they did not have prior knowledge aboutit. It is worth highlighting the connection between theproposed model diagram and the bases of the scientificmethod. If we take the fundamental steps of the sci-entific method, we can write that it essentially takesthe steps: ( i ) Observation, ( ii ) Question, ( ii ) Research,( iv ) Hypothesis, ( v ) Experiment, ( vi ) Analysis, ( vii )Conclusion. In connection with our methodology, wecan associate these steps with the diagram shown inthe figure 1 in which we have the stages of TheoreticalExposure associated with ( i ), Choice of theme linkedto ( ii ), Experimental design to steps ( iii - v ) and Argu-mentative Exposure to ( vi ) and ( vii ). Unsurprisingly,the connection with the scientific method is readily aguide to proposals for active methodologies. Our analysis can be extended to other disciplineswith the reservations that the teacher attests to thesafety of the nature of the experiments and that theproposed activities can be fully carried out by the stu-dents, in order to stimulate the protagonism of the stu-dents in their own learning process in the associationbetween theory and practice. Authors would like to thanks ICEA/UFOP. RSFwould like to thank the Auxílio Pesquisador pro-gram/PROPP/UFOP and the National Council for Sci-entific and Technological Development - CNPq, underthe process 424950/2018-9.8
The Survey
For each item from 1 to 11 listed below, the inter-viewee must complete the parenthesis, according to hisjudgment, with the letters: (a)
Strongly disagree ; (b)
Partially disagree ; (c)
Indifferent ; (d)
Partially agree ;(e)
Totally agree .1. ( ) The proposed methodology allowed agreater fixation of the theoretical content presen-ted in the classroom.2. ( ) As for the proposition that the studentpresents a project to verify the studied theory,this was important for each one to explore theircreativity.3. ( ) The proposed methodology stimulates thestudent’s role as a protagonist compared to theusual methodologies that use the application ofa predetermined script.4. ( ) The fact that there was a second seminar,after the experiment was carried out, stimulatedthe critical sense of the group, in order to argue,in a scientific way, the results obtained.5. ( ) The methodology used is closer to the chal-lenges you will encounter in the job market interms of proposing and defending a project.6. ( ) The fact that there is a high degree of free-dom in carrying out the project can facilitatefailures, such as a lack of responsibility.7. ( ) The proposed methodology requires thatall members of the group have a high degree ofproactivity.8. ( ) The way of carrying out the activities wasmotivating.9. ( ) Knowing how to manage time and dividetasks well is fundamental to the success of theproject. 10. ( ) Greater student interaction in the processof building one’s own knowledge is the maincharacteristic of an approach by active teach-ing methodologies. The student starts to havemore control and effective participation in theclassroom, since it requires varied mental ac-tions and constructions.11. ( ) This type of methodology could be easilyadopted in other disciplines.
References [1] V.k. Otero and D.E. Meltzer, Phys. Teach. ,523 (2016).[2] V.K. Otero and D.E. Meltzer, Phys. Today , 50(2017).[3] E.M. Smith, M.M. Stein, and N.G. Holmes,Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. , 010113 (2020).[4] G. Kestin, K. Miller, L.S. McCarty,K. Callaghan, and L. Deslauriers, Phys.Rev. Phys. Educ. , 013101 (2020).[5] D.L. Worthington and D.G. Levasseur, Comput.Educ. , 14 (2015).[6] C. Coll, Psicologia e currículo: uma aproxim-ação psicopedagógica à elaboração do currículoescolar (Ed. Ática, 2000).[7] A. Diesel, A.L.S. Baldez, and S.N. Martins,