- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Recitation tasks revamped? Students’ perceptions of smartphone-based experimental and programming tasks in introductory mechanics

Simon Zacharias Lahme1,*, Dominik Dorsel2, Heidrun Heinke2, Pascal Klein1, Andreas Müller3, Christoph Stampfer2, and Sebastian Staacks2

  • 1Faculty of Physics, Physics Education Research, University of Göttingen, Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1, 37077, Göttingen, Germany
  • 2Institute of Physics I and II, RWTH Aachen University, 52056, Aachen, Germany
  • 3Faculty of Sciences, Department of Physics, and Institute of Teacher Education, University of Geneva, Boulevard du Pont d’Arve 40, 1211, Genève, Switzerland

  • *Contact author: simon.lahme@uni-goettingen.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020110 – Published 22 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/bwpv-z3xh

Abstract

This exploratory field study investigates the integration of innovative forms of recitation tasks in a first-year introductory mechanics course, focusing on smartphone-based experimental tasks alongside programming and standard recitation tasks. Smartphones, combined with external sensor modules, serve as a gateway enabling students to conduct various low-cost and authentic physics experiments with first-hand data collection outside traditional lab settings. These tasks aim to enhance students’ agency in independent physics experimentation and enrich homework assignments by dissolving boundaries between lectures, recitation sessions, and traditional labs, and thereby linking theoretical and experimental aspects of undergraduate physics education. To explore this potential, we implemented and evaluated a sample set of nine smartphone-based experimental tasks and, for comparison, three programming tasks as weekly exercises in a first-year physics course at RWTH Aachen University. We investigated students’ perceptions of learning with these new tasks through 12 short surveys involving up to 188 participants, focusing on factors such as goal clarity, difficulty, or feasibility at home. In two additional surveys with 108 and 78 participants, students assessed affective responses to the smartphone-based experimental tasks relative to the programming and standard recitation tasks. Our findings indicate that the smartphone-based experimental tasks were generally well suited to the students and tended to outperform the programming tasks in terms of perceptions of learning with the tasks and affective responses. Overall, students responded positively to the new experimental tasks, with perceptions comparable to, or only partly below, those of long-established standard recitation tasks. These results suggest that smartphone-based experimental tasks can be successfully integrated into teaching and contribute to refining traditional recitation tasks. Students’ differentiated perceptions of the three task types investigated offer valuable insights into how students perceived technology-enhanced recitation tasks in terms of feasibility, engagement, and instructional value. This provides a meaningful basis for instructors and researchers aiming to design more effective and student-centered learning environments in undergraduate physics education.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (85)

  1. S. Chen, H.-C. Lo, J.-W. Lin, J.-C. Liang, H.-Y. Chang, F.-K. Hwang, G.-L. Chiou, Y.-T. Wu, S. W.-Y. Lee, H.-K. Wu, C.-Y. Wang, and C.-C. Tsai, Development and implications of technology in reform-based physics laboratories, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020113 (2012).
  2. R. Girwidz, L.-J. Thoms, H. Pol, V. López, M. Michelini, A. Stefanel, T. Greczyło, A. Müller, B. Gregorcic, and M. Hömöstrei, Physics teaching and learning with multimedia applications: A review of teacher-oriented literature in 34 local language journals from 2006 to 2015, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 41, 1181 (2019).
  3. M. Sundgren, Blurring time and place in higher education with bring your own device applications: A literature review, Educ. Inf. Technol. 22, 3081 (2017).
  4. C. Stampfer, H. Heinke, and S. Staacks, A lab in the pocket, Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 169 (2020).
  5. J. Kuhn and P. Vogt, Smartphones and tablet PCs: Excellent digital Swiss pocket knives for physics education, in Smartphones as Mobile Minilabs in Physics, edited by J. Kuhn and P. Vogt (Springer, Cham, 2022), 10.1007/978-3-030-94044-7_1.
  6. L. Sukariasih, Erniwati, La Sahara, L. Hariroh, and S. Fayanto, Studies the use of smartphone sensor for physics learning, Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 8, 862 (2019), https://www.ijstr.org/final-print/oct2019/Studies-The-Use-Of-Smartphone-Sensor-For-Physics-Learning.pdf.
  7. G. Organtini and E. Tufino, Effectiveness of a laboratory course with Arduino and smartphones, Educ. Sci. 12, 898 (2022).
  8. R. Vieyra, C. Vieyra, P. Jeanjacquot, A. Marti, and M. Monteiro, Turn your smartphone into a science laboratory, Sci. Teach. 82, 32 (2015).
  9. J. Kuhn, A. Müller, and P. Vogt, Kontextorientierter Physikunterricht: Konzeptionen, Theorien und Forschung zu Motivation und Lernen [Context-oriented physics teaching: Concepts, theories and research on motivation and learning], Prax. Naturwiss., Phys. Sch. 59, 13 (2010), http://www.mathphys.uni-freiburg.de/physik/filk/public_html/InfoLehramt/FD17_QhxBz/PDN_Kontextorientierung.pdf.
  10. J. Kuhn, Authentische Aufgaben im theoretischen Rahmen von Instruktions- und Lehr-Lern-Forschung: Optimierung von Ankermedien für eine neue Aufgabenkultur im Physikunterricht [Authentic tasks in the theoretical framework of instructional and teaching-learning research: Optimization of anchor media for a new task culture in physics education] (Vieweg + Teubner Research, Wiesbaden, 1st, 2010), 10.1007/978-3-8348-9657-5.
  11. S. Staacks, S. Hütz, H. Heinke, and C. Stampfer, Advanced tools for smartphone-based experiments: Phyphox, Phys. Educ. 53, 045009 (2018).
  12. D. Dorsel, S. Staacks, S. Hütz, H. Heinke, and C. Stampfer, Smartphone-Experimente mit externen Sensoren [Smartphone experiments with external sensors], PhyDid B 393 (2018), http://www.phydid.de/index.php/phydid-b/article/view/883/1019.
  13. J. Kuhn and P. Vogt, Diffraction experiments with infrared remote controls, Phys. Teach. 50, 118 (2012).
  14. Smartphones as Mobile Minilabs in Physics: Edited Volume Featuring More than 70 Examples from 10 Years The Physics Teacher-Column iPhysicsLabs, edited by J. Kuhn and P. Vogt (Springer, Cham, 2022), 1st ed., 10.1007/978-3-030-94044-7.
  15. M. Monteiro and A. C. Martí, Resource letter MDS-1: Mobile devices and sensors for physics teaching, Am. J. Phys. 90, 328 (2022).
  16. G. Organtini, Physics Experiments with Arduino and Smartphones (Springer, Cham, 2021), 10.1007/978-3-030-65140-4.
  17. D. J. O’Brien, A guide for incorporating e-teaching of physics in a post-COVID world, Am. J. Phys. 89, 403 (2021).
  18. T. Wilhelm and J. Kuhn, Für alles eine App [An App for Everything] (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022), 10.1007/978-3-662-63901-6.
  19. Y. Zhao, Smartphone-based undergraduate physics labs: A comprehensive review of innovation, accessibility, and pedagogical impact, arXiv:2504.11363v2.
  20. U. Heublein, C. Hutzsch, and R. Schmelzer, Die Entwicklung der Studienabbruchquoten in Deutschland: DZHW Brief 05—2022 [The development of study drop-out rates in Germany: DZHW letter 05—2022] (2022), https://www.dzhw.eu/pdf/pub_brief/dzhw_brief_05_2022.pdf.
  21. G. Troendle, Mapping physics students in Europe (2004), https://wwwusers.ts.infn.it/~valandro/documenti/parametri%20internazionali/eps_maps_study.pdf.
  22. S. Z. Lahme, P. Klein, A. Lehtinen, A. Müller, P. Pirinen, L. Rončević, and A. Sušac, Physics lab courses under digital transformation: A trinational survey among university lab instructors about the role of new digital technologies and learning objectives, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020159 (2023).
  23. P. Klein, L. Ivanjek, M. N. Dahlkemper, K. Jeličić, M.-A. Geyer, S. Küchemann, and A. Susac, Studying physics during the COVID-19 pandemic: Student assessments of learning achievement, perceived effectiveness of online recitations, and online laboratories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010117 (2021).
  24. V. Borish, A. Werth, N. Sulaiman, M. F. J. Fox, J. R. Hoehn, and H. J. Lewandowski, Undergraduate student experiences in remote lab courses during the COVID-19 pandemic, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020105 (2022).
  25. A. Kaps and F. Stallmach, Tilting motion and the moment of inertia of the smartphone, Phys. Teach. 58, 216 (2020).
  26. S. Z. Lahme, P. Klein, A. Lehtinen, P. Pirinen, A. Sušac, and B. Tomrlin, DigiPhysLab: Digital physics laboratory work for distance learning, PhyDid B 383 (2022), https://ojs.dpg-physik.de/index.php/phydid-b/article/view/1250/1503.
  27. E. Bernardini, M. Carli, M. Y. Elkhashab, A. Ferroglia, M. Fiolhais, L. Gabelli, H. Jessen Munch, D. Krym, P. Mastrolia, G. Ossola, O. Pantano, J. Postiglione, J. S. Poveda Correa, C. Sirignano, and F. Soramel, Using smartphones to innovate laboratories in introductory physics courses, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2750, 012014 (2024).
  28. J. C. Castro-Palacio, L. Velazquez, J. A. Gómez-Tejedor, F. J. Manjón, and J. A. Monsoriu, Using a smartphone acceleration sensor to study uniform and uniformly accelerated circular motions, Rev. Bras. Ensino Fis. 36, 1 (2014).
  29. M. Anni, Quantitative comparison between the smartphone based experiments for the gravity acceleration measurement at home, Educ. Sci. 11, 493 (2021).
  30. E. Ballester, J. C. Castro-Palacio, L. Velazquez-Abad, M. H. Gimenez, J. A. Monsoriu, and L. S. Ruiz, Smart physics with smartphone sensors, in Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Madrid, Spain (IEEE, New York, 2014), pp. 1–4, 10.1109/FIE.2014.7044031.
  31. S. Hütz, S. Kuhlen, C. Stampfer, and H. Heinke, Entwicklung und Evaluation modularer Vorlesungseinheiten mit Smartphone-Einsatz [Development and evaluation of modular lecture units with the use of smartphones], PhyDid B 241 (2017), http://www.phydid.de/index.php/phydid-b/article/view/795/940.
  32. S. Staacks, D. Dorsel, S. Hütz, F. Stallmach, T. Splith, H. Heinke, and C. Stampfer, Collaborative smartphone experiments for large audiences with phyphox, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 055702 (2022).
  33. A. Kaps, T. Splith, and F. Stallmach, Implementation of smartphone-based experimental exercises for physics courses at universities, Phys. Educ. 56, 035004 (2021).
  34. A. Kaps and F. Stallmach, Development and didactic analysis of smartphone-based experimental exercises for the smart physics lab, Phys. Educ. 57, 045038 (2022).
  35. S. Hütz, S. Staacks, C. Stampfer, and H. Heinke, Kleiner Aufwand, großer Nutzen?: Experimentiersets zur Unterstützung experimenteller Übungsaufgaben mit Smartphones [Small effort, big benefit? Experimental kits to support experimental exercises with smartphones], PhyDid B 273 (2019), http://www.phydid.de/index.php/phydid-b/article/view/947/1072.
  36. S. Barro, C. Beguin, D. Brouzet, L. Charosky, L. Darmendrail, and A. Müller, Smartphone experiments in undergraduate research, arXiv:2305.07483.
  37. S. Z. Lahme, P. Klein, and A. Müller, Smartphone-based undergraduate research projects in an introductory mechanics course, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2693, 012008 (2024).
  38. I. Salinas, M. H. Giménez, J. A. Monsoriu, and J. C. Castro-Palacio, Characterization of linear light sources with the smartphone’s ambient light sensor, Phys. Teach. 56, 562 (2018).
  39. R. Pörn and M. Braskén, Interactive modeling activities in the classroom—rotational motion and smartphone gyroscopes, Phys. Educ. 51, 065021 (2016).
  40. S. H. Hawley and R. E. McClain, Visualizing sound directivity via smartphone sensors, Phys. Teach. 56, 72 (2018).
  41. J. Rayner, Using a cell phone to investigate the skin depth effect in salt water, Phys. Teach. 55, 83 (2017).
  42. L. A. Testoni and G. Brockington, The use of smartphones to teach kinematics: an inexpensive activity, Phys. Educ. 51, 063008 (2016).
  43. A. Shakur and J. Kraft, Measurement of coriolis acceleration with a smartphone, Phys. Teach. 54, 288 (2016).
  44. E. Arribas, I. Escobar, C. P. Suarez, A. Najera, and A. Beléndez, Measurement of the magnetic field of small magnets with a smartphone: A very economical laboratory practice for introductory physics courses, Eur. J. Phys. 36, 065002 (2015).
  45. E. Azhikannickal, Sports, smartphones, and simulation as an engaging method to teach projectile motion incorporating air resistance, Phys. Teach. 57, 308 (2019).
  46. B. M. Zwickl, T. Hirokawa, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Epistemology and expectations survey about experimental physics: Development and initial results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010120 (2014).
  47. L. Deslauriers, L. S. McCarty, K. Miller, K. Callaghan, and G. Kestin, Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 19251 (2019).
  48. A. Mazzella and I. Testa, An investigation into the effectiveness of smartphone experiments on students’ conceptual knowledge about acceleration, Phys. Educ. 51, 055010 (2016).
  49. K. Hochberg, J. Kuhn, and A. Müller, Using smartphones as experimental tools: Effects on interest, curiosity, and learning in physics education, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 27, 385 (2018).
  50. T. J. Atherton, Resource letter CP-3: Computational physics, Am. J. Phys. 91, 7 (2023).
  51. R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, Computational physics in the introductory calculus-based course, Am. J. Phys. 76, 307 (2008).
  52. R. E. Teodorescu, C. Bennhold, G. Feldman, and L. Medsker, New approach to analyzing physics problems: a taxonomy of introductory physics problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010103 (2013).
  53. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/bwpv-z3xh for a list of all instruments and items used in this study, as well as the slightly processed dataset.
  54. S. Z. Lahme, P. Klein, A. Lehtinen, A. Müller, P. Pirinen, L. Rončević, and A. Sušac, Evaluating digital experimental tasks for physics laboratory courses, PhyDid B 1, 339 (2023), https://ojs.dpg-physik.de/index.php/phydid-b/article/view/1391.
  55. I. Rauschenbach, R. Keddis, and D. Davis, Poster development and presentation to improve scientific inquiry and broaden effective scientific communication skills, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 19 (2018).
  56. P. Klein, Konzeption und Untersuchung videobasierter Aufgaben im Rahmen vorlesungsbegleitender Übungen zur Experimentalphysik (Mechanik) [Conception and investigation of video-based tasks in the context of lecture-accompanying exercises in experimental physics (mechanics)], Dissertation, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, 2016, https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/document/download/8f76f0f86ffc48a34292baaaddbaead8.pdf/Dissertation%20KLEIN%20Pascal.pdf.
  57. D. Rehfeldt, Erfassung der Lehrqualität naturwissenschaftlicher Experimentalpraktika [Assessment of the Teaching Quality Of Scientific Experimental Labs] (Logos, Berlin, 2017).
  58. H. Fliege, M. Rose, P. Arck, S. Levenstein, and B. F. Klapp, Validierung des “Perceived Stress Questionnaire” (PSQ) an einer deutschen Stichprobe [Validation of the “Perceived Stress Questionnaire” (PSQ) on a German sample], Diagnostica 47, 142 (2001).
  59. J. Baumert, W. Blum, M. Brunner, T. Dubberke, A. Jordan, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, M. Kunter, K. Löwen, M. Neubrand, and Y.-M. Tsai, Professionswissen von Lehrkräften, kognitiv aktivierender Mathematikunterricht und die Entwicklung von mathematischer Kompetenz (COACTIV): Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [Teachers’ Professional Knowledge, Cognitively Activating Mathematics Teaching and the Development of Mathematical Competence (COACTIV): Documentation of the Survey Instruments], Materialien aus der Bildungsforschung Vol. 83 (Max-Planck-Inst. für Bildungsforschung, Berlin, 2008), https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2100057_8/component/file_2197666/content.
  60. M. S. Feser and T. Plotz, Exploring the validity of a single-item instrument for assessing pre-service primary school teachers’ sense of belonging to science, Open Educ. Stud. 5, 20220191 (2023).
  61. C. S. Dweck, Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Psychology Press, New York, 1999).
  62. M. Dresel and R. Grassinger, Changes in achievement motivation among university freshmen, J. Educ. Train. Stud. 1, 159 (2013).
  63. J.-C. Goulet-Pelletier and D. Cousineau, A review of effect sizes and their confidence intervals, part I: The Cohen’s d family, Quant. Methods Psychol. 14, 242 (2018).
  64. C. O. Fritz, P. E. Morris, and J. J. Richler, Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation, J. Exp. Psychol. 141, 2 (2012).
  65. M. A. Ruiz-Primo, D. Briggs, H. Iverson, R. Talbot, and L. A. Shepard, Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning, Science 331, 1269 (2011).
  66. S. Z. Lahme, J. O. Cirkel, L. Hahn, J. Hofmann, J. Neuhaus, S. Schneider, and P. Klein, Enrollment to exams: Perceived stress dynamics among first-year physics students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020127 (2024).
  67. C. Wieman and N. G. Holmes, Measuring the impact of an instructional laboratory on the learning of introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 83, 972 (2015).
  68. A. B. Bauer, Experimentelle Kompetenz Physikstudierender: Entwicklung und erste Erprobung eines performanzorientierten Kompetenzstrukturmodells unter Nutzung qualitativer Methoden [Experimental competence of physics students: Development and initial testing of a performance-oriented competence structure model using qualitative methods] (Logos, Berlin, 2023), 10.30819/5625.
  69. E. Etkina, A. van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. T. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006).
  70. T. S. Volkwyn, S. Allie, A. Buffler, and F. Lubben, Impact of a conventional introductory laboratory course on the understanding of measurement, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010108 (2008).
  71. B. Pollard, A. Werth, R. Hobbs, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of a course transformation on students’ reasoning about measurement uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020160 (2020).
  72. S. Pillay, A. Buffler, F. Lubben, and S. Allie, Effectiveness of a gum-compliant course for teaching measurement in the introductory physics laboratory, Eur. J. Phys. 29, 647 (2008).
  73. N. G. Holmes, C. E. Wieman, and D. A. Bonn, Teaching critical thinking, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11199 (2015).
  74. C. Walsh, K. N. Quinn, C. Wieman, and N. G. Holmes, Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the physics lab inventory of critical thinking, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010135 (2019).
  75. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Students’ epistemologies about experimental physics: Validating the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010123 (2016).
  76. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Developing skills versus reinforcing concepts in physics labs: Insight from a survey of students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010108 (2017).
  77. A. Karelina and E. Etkina, Acting like a physicist: Student approach study to experimental design, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020106 (2007).
  78. American Association of Physics Teachers, Goals of the introductory physics laboratory, Phys. Teach. 35, 546 (1997).
  79. M. Welzel, K. Haller, M. Bandiera, D. Hammelev, P. Koumaras, H. Niedderer, A. Paulsen, K. Robinault, and S. von Aufschnaiter, Teachers’ objectives for labwork: Research tool and cross country results: Working paper 6 (1998), https://physikdidaktik.uni-bremen.de/pubs/Niedderer/1998-LSE-WP6.pdf.
  80. B. M. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, The process of transforming an advanced lab course: Goals, curriculum, and assessments, Am. J. Phys. 81, 63 (2013).
  81. American Association of Physics Teachers. in AAPT recommendations of the undergraduate physics laboratory curriculum: Report prepared by a subcommittee of the AAPT committee on laboratories: Endorsed by the AAPT Executive Board (AAPT, College Park, MD, 2014), https://www.aapt.org/Resources/upload/LabGuidlinesDocument_EBendorsed_nov10.pdf.
  82. S. Z. Lahme, P. Pirinen, L. Rončević, A. Lehtinen, A. Sušac, A. Müller, and P. Klein, A framework for designing experimental tasks in contemporary physics lab courses, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2750, 012016 (2024).
  83. B. Götze, H. Heinke, J. Riese, C. Stampfer, and S. Kuhlen, Smartphone-experimente zu harmonischen Pendelschwingungen mit der App phyphox [Smartphone experiments on harmonic pendulum oscillations with the phyphox app], PhyDid B 233 (2017), http://www.phydid.de/index.php/phydid-b/article/view/775/918.
  84. D. Dorsel, S. Staacks, H. Heinke, and C. Stampfer, Using a smartphone pressure sensor as pitot tube speedometer, Phys. Teach. 60, 273 (2022).
  85. M. Abumezied, D. Dorsel, S. Staacks, C. Stampfer, and H. Heinke, Experiementieraufgaben für eine zeitgemäße Physikausbildung an Hochschulen [Experimental tasks for contemporary physics education at universities], in Proceedings of the Frühe Naturwissenschaftliche Bildung: Jahrestagung in Hamburg 2023, edited by H. van Vorst (2024), pp. 802–805, https://gdcp-ev.de/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2024/06/P066_Abumezied.pdf.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020110– Published 22 July, 2025
  • Received 14 November 2024
  • Accepted 27 May 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation