- 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
  • Open Access

Measuring fidelity of implementation of named active learning methods in physics

Ibukunoluwa Bukola1,*, Meagan Sundstrom1, Justin Gambrell2, Colin Green3, Adrienne L. Traxler4, and Eric Brewe1,†

  • *Contact author: ib396@drexel.edu
  • †Contact author: eb573@drexel.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020142 – Published 2 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/xcdt-txzh

Abstract

Various active learning methods have been developed for introductory physics, and these methods are increasingly being adopted by instructors. However, instructors often do not implement these methods exactly as was originally intended by the developers, as they may face issues related to funding and institutional support for active learning and/or have different instructional contexts (e.g., student populations) and environments (e.g., physical classroom layouts) than the developers. Existing research does not sufficiently capture the range of variation in instructor implementation of established active learning methods, especially in comparison with high-fidelity implementations. In this study, we first identify the critical components (i.e., components without which the active learning method cannot be said to have been implemented) of three named active learning methods: Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-Down Pedagogies (SCALE-UP), Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE), and Tutorials. We then evaluate the fidelity with which 18 different introductory physics instructors implement these methods by analyzing classroom observations and comparing the extent to which these broader implementations use each critical component in their classroom to high-fidelity implementations. We find across all three active learning methods that broader implementations and high-fidelity implementations spend similar amounts of class time on critical components. At the same time, we observe substantial variation in the sequences of activities through which broader implementers operationalize these critical components (e.g., doing a few long activities versus many short activities). Finally, we find no clear relationship between fidelity of implementation (as measured by student and instructor behaviors during class) and student conceptual learning gains for our study’s sample of instructors.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (67)

  1. Scott Freeman, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  2. P. T. Terenzini, A. F. Cabrera, C. L. Colbeck, J. M. Parente, and S. A. Bjorklund, Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: Students’ reported learning gains, J. Eng. Educ. 90, 123 (2001).
  3. J. M. Braxton, W. A. Jones, A. S. Hirschy, and H. V. Hartley III, The role of active learning in college student persistence, New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2008, 71 (2008).
  4. D. Miller, J. Deshler, T. McEldowney, J. Stewart, E. Fuller, M. Pascal, and L. Michaluk, Supporting student success and persistence in STEM with active learning approaches in emerging scholars classrooms, Front. Educ. 6, 667918 (2021).
  5. Eric Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
  6. M. Dancy, C. Henderson, N. Apkarian, E. Johnson, M. Stains, J. R. Raker, and A. Lau, Physics instructors’ knowledge and use of active learning has increased over the last decade but most still lecture too much, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010119 (2024).
  7. Y. Affriyenni, H. Georgiou, and N. Finkelstein, Navigating the adoption of research-based instructional strategies within the complex nature of higher education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020124 (2025).
  8. J. Gess-Newsome, S. A. Southerland, A. Johnston, and S. Woodbury, Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching, Am. Educ. Res. J. 40, 731 (2003).
  9. K. T. Foote, X. Neumeyer, C. Henderson, M. H. Dancy, and R. J. Beichner, Diffusion of research-based instructional strategies: The case of SCALE-UP, Int. J. STEM Educ. 1, 10 (2014).
  10. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020102 (2007).
  11. L. E. Strubbe, A. M. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Beyond teaching methods: Highlighting physics faculty’s strengths and agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020105 (2020).
  12. Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. (Free Press, New York, NY, 2003).
  13. Julia Willison, Erin M. Scanlon, and Jacquelyn J. Chini, Examining faculty choices while implementing the Next Gen PET curriculum through revealed causal mapping, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference (PERC) (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2023), pp. 391–396, 10.1119/perc.2023.pr.Willison.
  14. J. Century, M. Rudnick, and C. Freeman, A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge, Am. J. Eval. 31, 199 (2010).
  15. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  16. C. T. Mowbray, M. C. Holter, G. B. Teague, and D. Bybee, Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation, Am. J. Eval. 24, 315 (2003).
  17. T. M. Andrews, M. J. Leonard, C. A. Colgrove, and S. T. Kalinowski, Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses, CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 10, 394 (2011).
  18. M. Dancy, C. Henderson, and C. Turpen, How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of peer instruction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010110 (2016).
  19. M. Borrego, S. Cutler, M. Prince, C. Henderson, and J. E. Froyd, Fidelity of implementation of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) in engineering science courses, J. Eng. Educ. 102, 394 (2013).
  20. E. Scanlon, B. Zamarripa Roman, E. Ibadlit, and J. J. Chini, A method for analyzing instructors’ purposeful modifications to research-based instructional strategies, Int. J. STEM Educ. 6, 12 (2019).
  21. M. K. Smith, F. H. M. Jones, S. L. Gilbert, and C. E. Wieman, The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices, CBE–Life Sci. Educ. 12, 618 (2013).
  22. K. Commeford, E. Brewe, and A. Traxler, Characterizing active learning environments in physics using network analysis and classroom observations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020136 (2021).
  23. M. Sundstrom, J. Gambrell, C. Green, A. L. Traxler, and E. Brewe, Beyond named methods: A typology of active learning based on classroom observation networks, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010143 (2026).
  24. M. Stains and T. Vickrey, Fidelity of implementation: An overlooked yet critical construct to establish effectiveness of evidence-based instructional practices, CBE–Life Sci. Educ. 16, rm1 (2017).
  25. C. L. O’Donnell, Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research, Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 33 (2008).
  26. B. Harn, D. Parisi, and M. Stoolmiller, Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools?, Exceptional Child. 79, 181 (2013).
  27. R. Gersten, L. S. Fuchs, D. Compton, M. Coyne, C. Greenwood, and M. S. Innocenti, Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education, Exceptional Child. 71, 149 (2005).
  28. S. Anwar and M. Menekse, A systematic review of observation protocols used in postsecondary STEM classrooms, Rev. Educ. 9, 81 (2021).
  29. M. K. Smith, E. L. Vinson, J. A. Smith, J. D. Lewin, and M. K. R. Stetzer, A campus-wide study of STEM courses: New perspectives on teaching practices and perceptions, CBE–Life Sci. Educ. 13, 624 (2014).
  30. K. Commeford, E. Brewe, and A. Traxler, Characterizing active learning environments in physics using latent profile analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010113 (2022).
  31. M. Stains, J. Harshman, M. K. Barker, S. V. Chasteen, R. Cole, S. E. DeChenne-Peters, M. K. Eagan Jr., J. M. Esson, J. K. Knight, F. A. Laski, M. Levis-Fitzgerald, C. J. Lee, S. M. Lo, L. M. McDonnell, T. A. McKay, N. Michelotti, A. Musgrove, M. S. Palmer, K. M. Plank, T. M. Rodela, E. R. Sanders, N. G. Schimpf, P. M. Schulte, M. K. Smith, M. Stetzer, B. Van Valkenburgh, E. Vinson, L. K. Weir, P. J. Wendel, L. B. Wheeler, and A. M. Young, Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities, Science 359, 1468 (2018).
  32. M. Sundstrom, J. Gambrell, C. Green, A. L. Traxler, and E. Brewe, Relative benefits of different active learning methods to conceptual physics learning, Nat. Phys., 1 (2026).
  33. D. Z. Grunspan, B. L. Wiggins, and S. M. Goodreau, Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: A primer for social network analysis in education research, CBE–Life Sci. Educ. 13, 167 (2014).
  34. Eric Brewe, The roles of engagement: Network analysis in physics education research, in Getting Started in PER (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2018), Vol. 2, 10.1119/RevPERv2.5.1.
  35. Madelen Bodin, Mapping university students’ epistemic framing of computational physics using network analysis, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010115 (2012).
  36. J. C. Speirs, M. K. R. Stetzer, and B. A. Lindsey, Utilizing network analysis to explore student qualitative inferential reasoning chains, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010147 (2024).
  37. Robert Beichner, The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007), 10.1119/RevPERv1.1.4.
  38. Robert J. Beichner, Jeffery M. Saul, Rhett J. Allain, Duane L. Deardorff, and David S. Abbott, Introduction to SCALE-UP: Student-centered activities for large enrollment university physics, in Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Engineering Education (ERIC, St. Louis, Missouri, 2000).
  39. Robert J. Beichner and J. Saul, Student-centered activities for large-enrollment university physics (SCALE-UP), in Proceedings of the Sigma Xi Forum on the Reform of Undergraduate Education (Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999), pp. 43–52.
  40. Robert Beichner, The SCALE-UP project: A student-centered active learning environment for undergraduate programs, An invited white paper for the National Academy of Sciences (2008).
  41. Eugenia Etkina, Alan Van Heuvelen et al., Investigative science learning environment–a science process approach to learning physics, Res.-Based Reform Univ. Phys. 1, 1 (2007).
  42. E. Etkina, D. T. Brookes, and G. Planinsic, The investigative science learning environment (ISLE) approach to learning physics, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1882, 012001 (2021).
  43. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J. Phys. 74, 979 (2006).
  44. Eugenio Tufino, Pasquale Onorato, and Stefano Oss, Exploring active learning in physics with ISLE-based modules in high school, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2950, 012021 (2025).
  45. Lillian C. McDermott, Peter S. Shaffer et al., Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002), Vol. 2.
  46. Noah D. Finkelstein and Steven J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
  47. J. L. Docktor and José P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).

  48. https://github.com/ibBukola/FidelityOfActiveLearningMethods.

  49. https://sites.google.com/site/scientificabilities/.

  50. J. P. Adams, E. E. Prather, and T. F. Slater, in Lecture-Tutorials for Introductory Astronomy (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005).
  51. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  52. S. Ramlo, Validity and reliability of the force and motion conceptual evaluation, Am. J. Phys. 76, 882 (2008).
  53. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics 33, 159 (1977).
  54. Cole Walsh, Daniyar Kushaliev, and Natasha G. Holmes, Connecting the dots: Student social networks in introductory physics labs, in PER Conf. (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2020), pp. 557–562, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Walsh.
  55. M. Sundstrom, D. G. Wu, C. Walsh, A. B. Heim, and N. G. Holmes, Examining the effects of lab instruction and gender composition on intergroup interaction networks in introductory physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010102 (2022).
  56. S. Al-Otaibi, N. Altwoijry, A. Alqahtani, L. Aldheem, M. Alqhatani, N. Alsuraiby, S. Alsaif, and S. Albarrak, Cosine similarity-based algorithm for social networking recommendation, Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 12, 1881 (2022).
  57. H. M. Turner III and R. M. Bernard, Calculating and synthesizing effect sizes, Contemp. Issues Commun. Sci. Disord. 33, 42 (2006).
  58. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations, Am. J. Phys. 76, 79 (2008).

  59. https://www.physport.org/methods/Section.cfm?G=SCALE_UP&S=What.

  60. Craig H. Blakely, Jeffrey P. Mayer, Rand G. Gottschalk, Neal Schmitt, William S. Davidson, David B. Roitman, and James G. Emshoff, The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs, in A Quarter Century of Community Psychology: Readings from the American Journal of Community Psychology (Springer, Boston, MA, 2002), pp. 163–179, 10.1007/978-1-4419-8646-7_10.
  61. John P. Kotter, Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail, in Museum Management and Marketing, edited by R. Sandell and Robert R. Janes (Routledge, London and New York, 2007), pp. –, 10.4324/9780203964194.
  62. K. Foote, A. Knaub, C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and R. J. Beichner, Enabling and challenging factors in institutional reform: The case of SCALE-UP, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010103 (2016).
  63. T. J. Lund, M. Pilarz, J. B. Velasco, D. Chakraverty, K. Rosploch, M. Undersander, and M. Stains, The best of both worlds: Building on the COPUS and RTOP observation protocols to easily and reliably measure various levels of reformed instructional practice, CBE–Life Sci. Educ. 14, ar18 (2015).
  64. L. K. Weir, M. K. Barker, L. M. McDonnell, N. G. Schimpf, T. M. Rodela, and P. M. Schulte, Small changes, big gains: A curriculum-wide study of teaching practices and student learning in undergraduate biology, PLoS One 14, e0220900 (2019).
  65. C. Singh and D. Rosengrant, Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts, Am. J. Phys. 71, 607 (2003).
  66. Lin Ding, Designing an energy assessment to evaluate student understanding of energy topics, Ph.D., North Carolina State University, 2007.
  67. E. M. Bardar, E. E. Prather, K. Brecher, and T. F. Slater, Development and validation of the light and spectroscopy concept inventory, Astron. Educ. Rev. 5, 103 (2007).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020142– Published 2 October, 2026
  • Received 19 December 2025
  • Accepted 4 August 2026
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