@inbook{beichner_saul_abbott_morse_deardorff_allain_bonham_dancy_risley_2006, title={Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) project}, booktitle={PER-based reform in university physics}, publisher={College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers}, author={Beichner, R. and Saul, J. and Abbott, D. and Morse, J. and Deardorff, D. and Allain, R. and Bonham, S. and Dancy, M. and Risley, J.}, editor={Redish, E. F. and Cooney, P. J.Editors}, year={2006} }
 @article{abbott_saul_parker_beichner_2000, title={Can one lab make a difference?}, volume={68}, ISSN={["0002-9505"]}, DOI={10.1119/1.19521}, abstractNote={Many studies1 have demonstrated that carefully constructed active learning activities2 can improve student conceptual understanding. However, only a few studies, all involving use of microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL) based mechanics activities, have shown significant improvement resulting from a single isolated treatment in the context of a traditional lecture class.3-6 We wanted to see whether replacing a single traditional laboratory activity with a widely used, non-MBL, research-based activity could produce improved conceptual understanding for a topic in electricity. All students in this study were in the same lecture section of the second semester introductory physics course for engineers at North Carolina State University (NCSU) during the summer of 1999. The lecture section met for 90 minutes, five days a week. The instructor (GWP) lectured for 50 minutes and then led an in-class problem solving session for 30 minutes. One TA taught all lab sections. The two-hour labs met once a week for five weeks. The lab activities are typical of those found in introductory physics courses at many colleges and universities. There was no separate discussion/recitation section. The instruction for all students in the study was the same except for a single two-hour laboratory period. For the DC circuits lab, students were split into two groups based on which lab section they attended. The students in the experimental group (EXP) did a single activity based on the two batteries and bulbs activities from Tutorials in Introductory Physics.7 Instead of a traditional lab report, the EXP students were assigned a worksheet that combines elements of the suggested homework assignments that accompany the two Tutorials.8 The students in the control group (TRD) carried out a more traditional Ohm’s law activity from the NCSU lab manual9 and prepared a standard lab report. An experienced TA familiar with the traditional labs taught all lab sections. To prepare for the Tutorial, the TA met with one of the authors (DSA), took the pretest, and worked through the activity, It is important to note that, while Shaffer and McDermott10 have shown that the DC circuit Tutorials can improve student performance on qualitative problems when used as part of a series of Tutorial activities, individual Tutorials are not intended to be used as “stand alone” activities. Student understanding was measured by performance on items from course tests and a DC circuits pretest (described below). Only students who were enrolled in lab and took all the tests, including the DC circuits pretest, were included in the study. There were 20 students in the EXP group and 18 students in the TRD group.}, number={7}, journal={AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS}, author={Abbott, DS and Saul, JM and Parker, GW and Beichner, RJ}, year={2000}, month={Jul}, pages={S60–S61} }