Impact of a course transformation on students’ reasoning about measurement uncertainty

Physics lab courses are integral parts of an undergraduate physics education, and offer a variety of opportunities for learning. Many of these opportunities center around a common learning goal in introductory physics lab courses: measurement uncertainty. Accordingly, when the stand-alone introductory lab course at the University of Colorado Boulder (CU) was recently transformed, measurement uncertainty was the focus of a learning goal of that transformation. The Physics Measurement Questionnaire (PMQ), a research-based assessment of student understanding around statistical measurement uncertainty, was used to measure the effectiveness of that transformation. Here, we analyze student responses to the PMQ at the beginning and end of the CU course. We also compare such responses from two semesters: one before and one after the transformation. We present evidence that students in both semesters shifted their reasoning in ways aligned with the measurement uncertainty learning goal. Furthermore, we show that more students in the transformed semester shifted in ways aligned with the learning goal, and that those students tended to communicate their reasoning with greater sophistication than students in the original course. These findings provide evidence that even a traditional lab course can support valuable learning, and that transforming such a course to align with well-defined learning goals can result in even more effective learning experiences.

Figure 1

The RD probe of the PMQ. Reproduced from Ref. [47].

Figure 2

Pre-post shifts at the student paradigm level. (a) Before transformation; (b) after transformation. Error bars are the binomial proportion confidence interval at the 95% confidence level.

Figure 3

Pre-post shifts at the probe paradigm level. (a) Before transformation; (b) after transformation. The horizontal axis represents the proportion of students responding in either the point or set paradigm, on each of four probes along the vertical axis. The shapes at the start of each arrow represent the pre-test proportion, while the location of the arrowhead represent the post-test proportion. Solid shapes represent the set paradigm proportion, while open shapes represent the point paradigm proportion. Star shapes represent a statistically significant pre-to-post shift using Fisher’s exact test at the 95% confidence level; circle shapes represent a shift that is not significant by that same test. Shaded boxes represent the pre-test binomial proportion confidence interval at the 95% confidence level, as a guide to the eye.

Figure 4

Pre-post differences in code counts for the RD probe, for the original course (a) and the transformed course (b). Blue bars are statistically significant differences using Fisher’s exact test at the 95% confidence interval, adjusted using the Holm-Bonferroni method. Orange bars are not significant by that same test. Error bars are the binomial proportion confidence interval at the 95% confidence level.

Figure 5

Pre-post differences in code counts for the UR probe, for the original course (a) and the transformed course (b). (b) Reproduced from Ref. [10]. Blue bars are statistically significant differences using Fisher’s exact test at the 95% confidence interval, adjusted using the Holm-Bonferroni method. Orange bars are not significant by that same test. Error bars are the binomial proportion confidence interval at the 95% confidence level.

Figure 6

Pre-post differences in code counts for the SMDS probe, for the original course (a) and the transformed course (b). Blue bars are statistically significant differences using Fisher’s exact test at the 95% confidence interval, adjusted using the Holm-Bonferroni method. Orange bars are not significant by that same test. Error bars are the binomial proportion confidence interval at the 95% confidence level.

Figure 7

Pre-post differences in code counts for the DMSS probe, for the original course (a) and the transformed course (b). Blue bars are statistically significant differences using Fisher’s exact test at the 95% confidence interval, adjusted using the Holm-Bonferroni method. Orange bars are not significant by that same test. Error bars are the binomial proportion confidence interval at the 95% confidence level.

Figure 8

Contextual information for the PMQ. This information precedes the probes themselves. Reproduced from Ref. [47].

Figure 9

The UR probe of the PMQ. Reproduced from Ref. [47].

Figure 10

The SMDS probe of the PMQ. Reproduced from Ref. [47].

Figure 11

The DMSS probe of the PMQ. Reproduced from Ref. [47].