For many undergraduate students, exploring the complexities of physics for the first time, from wading through advanced mathematics, to absorbing information in a large lecture format, can be a daunting endeavor — one that dissuades many students from continuing their studies. Educators have known for some time that students tend to learn these subjects better in hands-on, or “active learning,” environments — but some are more effective than others. In a paper recently published in Nature Physics, researchers from Drexel University took a closer look at the most successful models for teaching physics. Their findings suggest that group work and lessons based around problem solving could be key to helping students engage with the material.
The study, which drew on video and survey data from 31 introductory courses in physics and astronomy (a course closely related to physics) at 28 institutions across the country, found an association between the type of student-centered activities offered by an instructor and how much the students learned.
"Our findings provide the first set of evidence that some active learning methods may be better for student learning than others,” said Meagan Sundstrom, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in Drexel’s College of Arts and Sciences, who was the study’s lead author. “We also start to narrow down why this might be, which seems to be related to what students and instructors are actually doing during class time.”
Researchers compared four different methods of teaching:
- Peer instruction, which is primarily lecture based teaching.
- Investigative science learning environment (ISLE), which focuses on experiments and scientific processes.
- Student-centered active learning environment with upside-down pedagogies on conceptual learning (SCALE-UP), which blends together lecture, lab and problem solving, often in specific classrooms set up for group work.
- Tutorials in introductory physics, which is an approach where students work together on worksheets.
Instructors participating in the study gathered survey and video data to help the researchers quantify their students’ understanding of content at the beginning and end of semester-long introductory physics and astronomy classes, and to categorize their method of instruction. They also administered a survey at both the beginning and the end of the semester to measure the extent to which students interacted with their peers as part of class.
"A lot of research shows that active learning, where students are engaged with the material and/or their peers, is better for student outcomes than traditional lecturing,” Sundstrom said. “This is the first large-scale study to compare student learning in different kinds of active learning classrooms, with data representing thousands of students at a diverse set of institutions in the United States."
Through this research process, the team was able to get a better look at the aspects of active learning instruction that are most effective. For example, students in courses whose instructor was using the SCALE-UP method of teaching, spent the majority of class time on group work activities such as lab activities or problem solving at whiteboards. While instructors using the Peer Instruction method had students work in small groups to answer questions during lectures prior to the instructor explaining the answers.
In courses where instructors created an Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE) in their classes or labs, students worked in small groups, observing, making predictions and conducting new experiments before revising their explanations upon completion. When using Tutorials, students completed worksheets in small groups intended to elicit, confront and resolve common misconceptions.
Ultimately, the researchers found that students whose instructors were combining group work with lab activities and problem solving, via the SCALE-UP method, performed better on the post-course survey and had meaningful interactions with more of their peers, which is also an indicator of learning success.
“This study represents a shift,” said Eric Brewe, PhD, a professor of physics in the College of Arts and Sciences and its associate dean for Assessment, who was the pricipal investigator and a co-author of the study. “We have long known that what students do in physics classes is really the key to helping them learn and enjoy the subject. But this study helps to establish what are the things that students should be doing and how does that impact their learning and success. Further, focusing on active learning is really going to help us to address challenges that AI will pose in education.”
Additional authors include Justin Gambrell, from Michigan State; Colin Green, PhD, from Bryn Mawr; and Adrienne L. Traxler, PhD, from the University of Copenhagen.
Read the full study here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-026-03307-2