Effectiveness of Traditional Laboratory Classes to Learn Basic Concepts of Electric Circuits: A Case Study

  • Diana Urbano
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 716)


The main goal of the study here reported is to measure the effectiveness of hands-on laboratory classes to learn basic concepts of electrical circuits. Pre- and post-test methodology is used as an instrument to evaluate knowledge gain. Students of a Chemical Engineering Course answered conceptual tests covering three different electric circuits’ contents before and after performing the laboratory experiments. The results show that a significant change in the number of correct answers occurs in less than half of the questions. Overall, the normalized gain is low. Some significant differences were found in the performance of female and male students in pre- and post-tests. However, there is no such difference in the normalized gain. The results are discussed taking into account the instructional environment, the framework of the course and of the engineering program where the experiments took place.


Laboratory classes Electric circuits Concepts Pre- and Post-tests Gender gap Knowledge gain 


  1. 1.
    Kolb, D.A.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Etkina, E.A., Van Heuvelen, A., Brookes, D.T., Mills, D.: Role of experiments in physics instruction - a process approach. Phys. Teacher 40, 351 (2002). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hake, R.R.: Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory. Phys. Teacher 30, 546 (1992). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feisel, L.D., Rosa, A.J.: The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. J. Eng. Educ. 94(1), 121 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Domin, D.S.: A review of laboratory instruction styles. J. Chem. Educ. 76(4), 543 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hofstein, A., Lunetta, V.N.: The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Rev. Educ. Res. 52(2), 201 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hofstein, A., Lunetta, V.N.: The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Sci. Educ. 88(1), 28 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Association of Physics Teachers: Goals of the introductory physics laboratory. Am. J. Phys. 66(6), 483 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hestenes, D., Wells, M., Swackhamer, G.: Force concept inventory. Phys. Teacher 30, 141 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Redish, E.: Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite. John Wiley&sons (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mazur, E.: Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim, E., Pak, S.-J.: Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. Am. J. Phys. 70, 759–765 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leonard, W.J., Dufresne, R.J., Mestre, J.P.: Using qualitative problem-solving strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge in solving problems. Am. J. Phys. 64, 1495–1503 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., Hmelo-Silver, C.E.: Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: learning in introductory physics laboratories. J. Learn. Sci. 19(1), 54–98 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buffler, A., Allie, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B.: Evaluation of a research-based curriculum for teaching measurement in the first year physics laboratory. In: SAARMSTE (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kung, R.L.: Teaching the concepts of measurement: an example of a concept-based laboratory course. Am. J. Phys. 73(8), 771–777 (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holmes, N.G., Bonn, D.A.: Doing science or doing a lab? Engaging students with scientific reasoning during physics lab experiments. In: Engelhardt, P.V., Churukian, A.D., Jones, D.L. (eds.) PERC Proceedings, Portland, OR (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wielman, C., Holmes, N.G.: Measuring the impact of an instructional laboratory on the learning of introductory physics. Am. J. Phys. 83, 972 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bates, S.P., Galloway, R.K.: Diagnostic tests in the physical sciences: a brief review. New directions. J. High. Educ. Acad. Phys. Sci. Centre 6, 10 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hake, R.: Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66(1), 64 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Engelhardt, P., Beichner, R.: Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. Am. J. Phys. 72(1), 98 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Docktor, J., Heller, K.: Gender differences in both force concept Inventory and introductory physics performance. AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 15 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C., Mazur, E.: Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pollock, S., Finkelstein, N.D., Kost, L.: Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: how sufficient is interactive engagement? Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 1–010107 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miyake, A., et al.: Reducing the gender achievements gap in college science: a classroom study of values affirmation. Science 330, 1234 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LAETA-INEGI, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations