Open-ended Laboratory Investigations in a High School Physics Course: The

difficulties and rewards of implementing inquiry-based learning in a physics lab

Aaron Szott
Citation: The Physics Teacher 52, 17 (2014); doi: 10.1119/1.4849147
View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4849147
View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/tpt/52/1?ver=pdfcov
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers
Articles you may be interested in
Infrared Imaging for Inquiry-Based Learning
Phys. Teach. 49, 368 (2011); 10.1119/1.3628268
Physics Labs with Flavor II
Phys. Teach. 49, 295 (2011); 10.1119/1.3578425
Physics Labs with Flavor
Phys. Teach. 47, 297 (2009); 10.1119/1.3116842
Preliminary Results of Gender Equity Variations in a Large ActiveLearning Introductory Physics Course Due
to Laboratory Activity Instructions
AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 129 (2005); 10.1063/1.2084718
The Frozen Lake: A Physical Model Using Calculator-Based Laboratory Technology
Phys. Teach. 43, 214 (2005); 10.1119/1.1888079

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
129.173.72.87 On: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:24:00

Open-ended Laboratory Investigations

in a High School Physics Course:
The difficulties and rewards of implementing inquiry-based
learning in a physics lab
Aaron Szott, Rundle College Jr. Sr. High, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

raditional physics labs at the high school level are

often closed-ended. The outcomes are known in
advance and students replicate procedures recommended by the teacher. Over the years, I have come to
appreciate the great opportunities created by allowing students investigative freedom in physics laboratories. I have
realized that a laboratory environment in which students are
free to conduct investigations using procedures of their own
design can provide them with varied and rich opportunities
for discovery. This paper describes what open-ended laboratory investigations have added to my high school physics
classes. I will provide several examples of open-ended laboratories and discuss the benefits they conferred on students
and teacher alike.

Open-ended vs closed-ended laboratories

The traditional high school physics course consists primarily of lecture-style classes that are sometimes accompanied by laboratory exercises. In recent years, there have been
significant changes in the teaching of physics toward greater
conceptual understanding.1 But research has suggested that
laboratory experiments fall short when it comes to enhancing
student learning with understanding.2 According to Hackling
and Garnett, many high school physics students have been
found to have poorly developed skills of problem analysis,
planning and carrying out controlled experiments, basing
conclusions only on obtained data, and recognizing limitations in the methodology of their investigations.3 HaagenSchuetzenhoefer suggests that ritualized and restricted lab
procedures leave hardly any opportunity for students to
engage individually, and frequently result in poor quality lab
reports and moderate learning processes.4 Staer, Goodrum,
and Hackling suggest that poor problem-solving skills might
be related to the extent to which laboratory work is open to
inquiry. In closed-ended labs, the teacher selects and prescribes the problem, the apparatus to be used, the procedures,
and expected outcomes. In an open-ended lab, many of these
decisions are left to the students conducting the inquiry. They
found that substantial teacher opposition to open inquiries
is founded primarily on the belief that students cannot work
without procedures set by the teacher.5 While the teachers
surveyed felt that open-ended inquiry-based laboratory investigations would be beneficial for their studentsas they
would promote greater student interest, ownership, motivation, problem-solving skills, creativity, and positive self-esteemthey also thought that implementation and evaluation
of such investigations would be difficult, especially with lower
DOI: 10.1119/1.4849147

achieving students.
Researchers have discussed some of the benefits of openended laboratories in university-level physics courses. Nissani, Maier, and Shifrin state that hands-on experiences
help students to assimilate theoretical concepts they are
introduced to after a lab.6 The University of Maryland Physics Education Research Group has established a teaching
resource known as Scientific Community Labs (SCL), which
are labs designed to give students the experience of participating in a model of a realistic scientific community. In the
SCL, students are given the opportunity to explore problems
through experimentation. They work in groups to design an
experiment, carry it out, analyze it, and present their results
for discussion with the other students in the class.7 In her
doctoral dissertation, Lippmann found that the time students
spent sense-making in the SCL was five times more than in
traditional labs and that these students also adopted more
productive behaviors as a result.8 Using an Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE), Etkina, Murthy, and Zou
demonstrated student improvement in the abilities to design
experiments, choose productive mathematical procedures,
communicate the details of the experiment, and to evaluate
the effect of experimental uncertainties.9 In addition, Etkina
et al. determined that students who consistently engaged in
designing their own laboratory procedures outperformed
the non-design groups while working on novel experimental
tasks.10 Duggan and Gott pointed out that procedural understanding, gleaned from open-ended investigations, might be
just as important as conceptual understanding,11 while Karelina and Etkina found that students developed a scientist-like
approach to experimental design when they designed their
own labs.12
I concur with these conclusions, as my colleague Dave
Carlgren and I have successfully implemented open-ended
inquiry-based laboratory investigations in our high school
physics laboratories. The following is a description of the evolution of our lab program.

The evolution of the open-laboratory idea

The open- ended laboratory program was developed over

a period of two years. At first, we decided to increase the
number of laboratory investigations in our teaching of physics in grades 11 and 12, from about five labs to eight labs (i.e.,
two labs in each of four units) per course. To this end, we created a comprehensive lab manual that resembled those used
at the University of Calgary and the University of Victoria.
We spent a significant portion of one summer writing up lab

The Physics Teacher Vol. 52, January 2014

17

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
129.173.72.87 On: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:24:00

procedures and corresponding analysis questions, testing

each lab, and recording our results to provide a basis for assessment. The lab manual turned out to be beneficial in that
it added a definite structure to the labs. The lab procedures
were precisely detailed, the analysis questions were relevant,
and they focused our students on what we believed to be important learning opportunities. However, we still felt that the
students were replicating extant results and following only
predictable paths prescribed by us. According to Staer et al.4
our students were still engaged in low levels of inquiry. Our
lab manual, no matter how well intended, effectively eliminated the possibility for students to be creative: investigate
what they thought was interesting, design a procedure that
they thought would be useful, and report their results. We
abandoned the lab manual after one year.
In the following year we decided to adopt a new approach.
We introduced students to our lab early in the course, and
showed them the equipment and how it worked. When the
time came for the first lab experiment, which was an investigation of uniform and non-uniform motion, we gathered
different pieces of equipment, some of which would prove
useful and some would not. Students were asked to collect
appropriate data, write up their results, and then analyze and
interpret them. After we stated the problem, the rest was up
to the students.
As might be expected, we were initially concerned that
this approach might be too open-ended and would not lead
to good results. However, within a relatively short period of
adjustment, students began not only to understand what was
expected of them but to approach these investigations with
greater interest and effectiveness. We have seen improvements over closed-ended labs in three important aspects:
statement of experimental procedure, the lab write-up, and
data analysis and interpretation.
Aspect 1: Statement of procedure
Most students were happy with the open structure and
began to engage with the lab equipment to find out which
of it would be useful for the problem at hand. At first, some
students were slower to respond to the challenge, and instead
of attempting to devise a procedure they watched what other
groups were doing. To curb this behavior in future labs, we
chose to assign a pre-lab task for each lab, wherein students
were asked to submit an experimental procedure before they
began to conduct their experiment. We made it clear that the
point of the pre-lab task was not to come up with a foolproof
procedure. Indeed, it was not only acceptable but also desirable to modify the procedures as the experiments proceeded.
We wanted to make sure that the students felt safe when making mistakes and when modifying their actions in response.
We strongly encouraged students to provide descriptive
enough procedures to allow anyone to conduct the experiments. Not surprisingly, many students wrote procedures that
were lacking in detail at first. However, the students written
lab procedures became sufficiently descriptive after several
experiments that entailed many revisions. Figure 1 shows a
18

students written procedure for an experiment to measure

the acceleration of a mass as it is pulled up a frictionless inclined plane by another mass connected to a pulley. The given
procedure is sufficiently detailed to allow almost anyone to
conduct the experiment. Use of words such as dangle in step
10 was not encouraged, but as students became more accustomed to formal lab write-ups, we began to provide more
direct instruction to develop their scientific vocabularies and
report-writing skills.
Lab purpose and description
The purpose of this lab experiment is to calculate the experimental
acceleration of a mass up a frictionless inclined plane of angle q
and to compare it to the theoretical calculation for said value of
acceleration. Through this experiment, we are trying to gain a further understanding of the method for solving Newtons second law
problems using pulleys and inclined planes. The description of the
lab experiment is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.

11.
12.
13.
14.

Measure and record the mass of the air table puck.

Measure and record the mass of the approximately 200-g mass.
Attach one end of a 40-cm long thread to an air table puck.
Attach the other end of the thread to a mass.
Place the carbon paper on the air table and tape it down.
Place the normal paper on top of the carbon paper and tape it down.
Attach the pulley to the edge of the air table.
Place the puck on the air table, which has been raised to an angle of
q.
Place the other puck somewhere on the table to complete the circuit
for the spark timer, keeping the second puck out of the way of the
line between the first puck and the pulley.
Dangle the mass over the edge of the table with the thread draped
over the pulley, keeping the thread relatively taut; hold the first puck
stationary while allowing the mass to hang in place. It should be so
that were you to release the puck, the mass would fall, dragging the
puck up the inclined plane.
Plug in the air table.
Turn on the spark timer, which should be set to 50 Hz, continuing to
hold the puck in the position described in part 8.
Release the puck and allow it to accelerate up the inclined plane
until it is forced to stop by the wall on the side of the air table.
For extra tests, repeat steps 6-11.

Fig. 1. A student-generated lab procedure.

Aspect 2: Lab write-up

After conducting several lab exercises, almost every student seemed to be far more engaged in the labs. Sometimes
the procedures were easy to plan and sometimes they were
rather difficult. On the occasions where all groups seemed
to be having similar problems, without prompting from the
teacher, larger groups formed until the entire class partitioned into two groups or even one group working together
on the same problem. Inevitably, these investigations led to
effective solutions. When the time came for the students to
submit a formal laboratory write-up, we gave students in-

The Physics Teacher Vol. 52, January 2014

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
129.173.72.87 On: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:24:00

structions as to what sections to include in their work and

what kind of information was appropriate for each section.
But we left all of the specifics to be worked out by the students
themselves. It was gratifying to see students make lab-based
decisions on their own. For example, students were often left
to decide what number of data points would be appropriate
to include. More often than not, students erred on the side
of taking more data rather than less data. In one experience,
when I asked why the students decided to use so many data
points (36 points), they replied that they knew that more data
led to more reliable results. This response indicated that the
students were taking pride in their work. In some instances,
students were asked to include a Theory section in their
write-ups. As was the case with the procedures, some students required significant encouragement to produce theory
sections that were sufficiently detailed. Again, this seemed
to be a product of unfamiliarity on the part of the students
with rigorous laboratory writing. It was my experience that
most students were used to performing lab exercises that required minimal writing, and that some experiments simply
required students to fill in blank spaces in the accompanying
worksheets. As such, it took the students several experiments
and several write-ups to become more comfortable with lab
writing.
Figure 2 shows a Theory section that comes from an
optics experiment on reflection. The experiment required
students to determine the focal length of a converging mirror.
Aspect 3: Data analysis and interpretation
Students were encouraged to use technology strategically
in their data analyses. They were permitted to use various
computer programs to graph their data and to perform regressions, when appropriate. We encouraged the students to
reflect on whatever results they got through the use of technology, and to comment on their validity. Figure 3 is a graph
submitted by a student that pertains to the lab on reflection.
The graph is labeled, and a regression line and an equation
are included. The required focal length is the reciprocal of the
y-intercept of the graph. Though the slope of the line does not
pertain directly to the focal length, the student recognized
that the experimental value of -1.78 did not agree with the
theoretical prediction of -1. Hence, the y-intercept was suspect too. The purpose of our lab experiments was never to
ensure that students obtained the correct answer through
experimentation. Instead, the focus was on how the students
interpreted their results and made sense of the possible
sources of error.
When students are given time and freedom to explore during the experiment, they are given the opportunity to make
insightful observations that may have otherwise been missed
in a closed-ended lab setting. Consider the example, depicted
in Fig. 4, of a portion of a conclusion written by a group of
two students who performed an experiment involving circular motion. The device used in the lab consisted of a tube
through which a string is passed. Both ends of the string are
then attached to two different masses and the string is twirled
in a horizontal circle.

Theory


Part I: Reflection.
A concave (or converging) mirror is used in this portion of the
experiment. These mirrors can produce two types of images:
Real images. A real image is such that the light reflected from
the mirror is actually present at the spot the image appears. If
one was to put a screen at this location, the image would be
visible on the screen. The ray diagram below illustrates this
phenomenon. For a real image to occur, the object must be
outside the focal length of the mirror (which is equal to half the
curvature for a spherical mirror).

Virtual images. This kind of image is formed not from the

presence of light at any physical point, but from the eyes
extrapolation of an image in detecting diverging rays. No image
would appear if a screen was placed where the viewer sees
the image. For this kind of image to appear using a converging
mirror, the object must be placed inside the focal length.

There is a third possibility as wellno image. When an object
is placed at the focal point, the reflected rays are parallel, and
thus no image is formed.

Both mirrors and thin lenses can be described with the equation

where f is the focal length of the mirror, di is the images distance from the mirror, and d0 is the objects distance from the
mirror. As well, this equation can take into account phenomena
such as virtual images by accounting for signs. The sign conventions for this equation are:
focal length; f is positive for a converging mirror/lens and
negative for a diverging one.
object distance is always positive within the scope of this
course.
image distance; di is positive for a real image and negative
for a virtual image.
Fig. 2. A student-generated theory section.

The Physics Teacher Vol. 52, January 2014

19

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
129.173.72.87 On: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:24:00

Fig. 3. Student-generated graph.

The design of the lab itself is flawed, in that regardless of

the effort put into spinning the stopper as horizontally as
possible, achieving such is physically impossible. As there
is no other force directing the stopper up and it is not accelerating downward, some angle between the horizontal and
the string must exist so that a vertical portion of tension balances with gravity. This, in addition to the friction between
the string and the tube, is unaccounted for in the calculations, but is assumed to have little enough impact not to
affect calculations adversely. However, its effects will have
some influence on results, and based on the inaccuracy of
those obtained it is likely this problem played some part.
Fig. 4. Portion of a student-generated conclusion.

Prior to our altering lab experiments to be open-ended,

students rarely made insightful analyses about the nature
of the equipment used in a lab or the manner in which data
were collected. The average student typically cites friction
as the unaccountable variable that has led him or her to poor
results. The students who wrote the above example developed
their own method for gathering data and clearly demonstrated a deep level of understanding about the nature of their
experimental methodology.

Implementing open-ended labs: benefits

and challenges

In our two-year experience of conducting open-ended

labs, we have observed many benefits to student learning. To
start, students were enjoying the investigative process and
were far more engaged than in closed-ended labs. The freedom offered by the open-ended model instilled in students
a sense of ownership and pride in their work. As a result,
the quality of the lab write-ups was far superior, and even
exceeded the quality of write-ups I used to receive from my
university-level students.
Looking back at the examples of student work included in
this paper, it is important to note that I had very little input
into this work. It is a true reflection of the students own efforts. We observed that by directing the students less, we were
able to create an environment wherein students produced
better work. The nature of learning changed too. Students
began to ask qualitatively different questions. In searching
20

for answers to a given problem arising in the lab, they did not
look for the big answer to the experimental questions, but
instead only sought guidance on how to move through a specific difficulty. In other words, they did not wish to be spoonfed, and wanted to continue discovering on their own.
Implementing open-ended labs can help students acquire
science process abilities that allow them to construct models
based on observational data, design experiments, solve openended problems, and work collaboratively with their peers.
However, the development of these abilities can be frustrating
for students as they struggle with problems that do not have
one correct approach or solution.13 During inquiry-based
investigations, many students feel overwhelmed, do not know
where to begin, and long for the more familiar lab where the
procedure is written out for them and they simply have to
follow instructions. The experiments take a longer period of
time, and teachers often have difficulty relinquishing control
in the lab.14 Some teachers might be reluctant to invest this
time, as they feel that frontal teaching and closed-labs might
be more efficient in covering the curricular objectives. Battista pointed to the myth of coverage wherein teachers believe that if a topic is taught, it is learned.15 We readily admit
that we were initially also concerned about the time and patience required to conduct open-ended labs. But as more experiments unfolded, and as our students got used to this style
of investigation, we found that it was an effective way to address many curricular objectives. Engagement in open-ended
labs generally instilled a greater sense of interest in students
with respect to the material under investigation.
If they are to succeed, open-ended labs require that students receive significant support and encouragement from
their teachers. This is particularly true when students are just
introduced to this new style of inquiry. When we first implemented this style of laboratory experiment, we also allowed
students to resubmit lab write-ups that were completed poorly. We would provide the students with specific feedback and
instructions for how to alter their work in order to improve
it. Later on, we found that this was not required as students
became very familiar with the open-ended expectations.
They came to understand that the final results of an experiment mattered far less than an insightful interpretation of the
results and the experiences gained through the investigative
process.
The process of implementing open-ended labs not only
changed our students, but also provided transformative
experiences for us as teachers. Providing less direct instruction in the lab made us realize just how averse we were, even
if subconsciously, to allowing students to problem solve on
their own. Instead of providing students with direct and immediate answers to their questions, we learned to question
students in a manner that led them to discover the answers.
We have found that there is no substitute for actual discovery,
and that the greatest learning opportunities exist in moments
when students discover for themselves. Our open-ended labs
provided the opportunity for our students to experience, in
a more authentic way, what it is like to be an experimental
physicist.

The Physics Teacher Vol. 52, January 2014

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
129.173.72.87 On: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:24:00

Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the critical role
played by his friend and colleague Dave Carlgren in the creation and implementation of the open-ended lab activities.
Special thanks also goes to Dr. Moses Renert for his assitance in the preparation of this manuscript.
References
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Beth Ann Thacker, Recent advances in classroom physics,

Rep. Prog. Phys. 66, 18331864 (Sept. 2003).
Kenneth Tobin, Research on science laboratory activities, in
pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning,
School Sci. Math. 90 (5), 403418 (May/June 1990).
Mark Hackling and Patrick Garnett, Primary and secondary
students attainment of science investigation skills, Res. Sci.
Educ. 21, 161170 (1991).
Claudia Haagen-Schuetzenhoefer, Improving the quality of
lab reports by using them as lab instructions, Phys. Teach. 50,
430433 (Oct. 2012).
Helen Staer, Denis Goodrum, and Mark Hackling, High
school laboratory work in Western Australia: Openness to inquiry, Res. Sci. Educ. 28 (2), 219228 (1998).
Moti Nissani, Clifford Maier, and Norma Shifrin, A guided
discovery exercise for introductory physics labs, Phys. Teach.
32, 104107 (Feb. 1994).
Joe Redish, Scientific Community Labs, Physics Education
Research Group, University of Maryland. Retrieved August 30,
2013, from http://umdperg.pbworks.com/w/page/10511229/
Scientific%20Community%20Labs.
R. F. Lippmann, Students Understanding of Measurement
and Uncertainty in the Physics Laboratory: Social Construction, Underlying Concepts, and Quantitative Analysis, PhD
dissertation (2003). Available from http://www.physics.umd.
edu/perg/dissertations/Lippmann/.
Eugenia Etkina, Sahana Murthy, and Xueli Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J.
Phys. 74, 979 (2006).
E. Etkina et al., Design and reflection help students develop
scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories, J. Learn. Sci. 19 (1), 5498 (2010).
Sandra Duggan and Richard Gott, What sort of science education do we really need? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24 (7), 661-679 (2002).
Anna Karelina and Eugenia Etkina, Acting like a physicist:
Student approach study to experimental design, Phys. Rev. ST
Phys. Educ. Res. 3 (2), 020106 (2007).
Eugenia Etkina, Anna Karelina, and Maria Ruibal-Villasenor,
How long does it take? A study of student acquisition of scientific abilities, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020108 (2008).
Kelly Deters, An inquiry lab on inclined planes, Phys. Teach.
43 (3), 177179 (March 2005).
Michael Battista, The mathematical miseducation of Americas youth: Ignoring research and scientific study in education,
The Phi Delta Kappan. 80 (6), 424-433 (Feb. 1999).

Aaron Szott has a BSc and MSc in physics as well as a BEd from the
University of Calgary. He has been teaching high school physics for nine
years and is very passionate about inquiry-based learning in both physics
and mathematics.
szott@rundle.ab.ca

The Physics Teacher Vol. 52, January 2014

21

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
129.173.72.87 On: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:24:00