The influence of physics laboratories on student performance in a lecture course

Abstract

We have studied the lecture course performance of approximately 2500 students enrolled in general physics over a five-year period to determine the influence of laboratory enrollment on lecture course performance. A statistical analysis showed the major determinants of lecture performance to be the SAT math score, overall grade average, and lab enrollment, with a significant interaction between overall grade average and lab enrollment. The results show that grades of good and poor students were influenced very little, while those of intermediate students were helped significantly by concurrent lab enrollment.

Concurrent enrollment in lecture and laboratory enhances student performance and retention

“…Because of the major differences in assessments and grading systems between the studio and other lecture formats, we have excluded the studio students from the main analyses and instead report results for these students in a separate section. Although it is nonideal to use post hoc , observational data to identify outcomes of an educational experience (e.g., due to hindsight bias), we also find support for these descriptive and inferential statistical procedures as common and accepted for empirical studies in this discipline (Creswell, 2008; Fayowski & MacMillan, 2008; Goldstein & Perin, 2008; Long et al, 1986; Shavelson, 1996). Both binary logistic and linear regressions use covariates (independent variables) to predict the value of an outcome variable (dependent variable).…”

“…Practically, it can act to ease students' scheduling conflicts. Oftentimes these general science courses act as service courses for other disciplines, so offering the lecture and laboratory separately can also “benefit” students who are required to take only one of them for a particular course of study (Long, McLaughlin, & Bloom, 1986) and may ease the financial burden of the laboratory on the department (Dubravcic, 1979). Additionally, universities may not have sufficient physical laboratory space for all of the lecture students in a given term to enroll in the laboratory.…”

“…In the community college context, concurrently enrolled general biology students achieved higher learning gains on exams and reported more positive attitudes on attitude inventories than nonconcurrent students (Saunders & Dickinson, 1979). Concurrent enrollment in general physics lecture and laboratory courses was found to increase the lecture grades of students with intermediate grade point averages (GPAs) by approximately one third of a letter grade, though no significant effect was found for students with the highest and lowest GPAs (Long et al, 1986). Here, we sought to understand the impact of concurrent enrollment in general chemistry lecture and laboratory on the withdrawal rates and final grades of students in the lecture at University of Michigan, a large, public university with high undergraduate enrollment.…”

“…As compared to what is currently available in the literature, our data set is unique, covering 6 years and nearly 10,000 students. Of the studies we found specifically pertaining to concurrent versus nonconcurrent enrollment in science lecture and laboratory settings, one observed ∼2,500 students over 5 years, but the other studied only 500 students over a single year, and both studies are dated (Long et al, 1986; Saunders & Dickinson, 1979). Also, much time and attention has recently been paid to reforming “traditional” learning settings into “studio‐style” settings.…”

“…We also specifically examined final grades because exam and overall course grades are routinely used as measures of cognitive outcomes, that is, student performance, achievement, and/or learning (Dubravcic, 1979; Long et al, 1986; Marshall & Dorward, 2000; Saunders & Dickinson, 1979). A student's college grades are also useful as a gauge of how well they have adapted to the college environment, and are a strong predictor of earning a bachelor's degree (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).…”