Although several successful inquiry-based physics and physical science curricula have been developed, little has been published that describes the development of these curricula in terms of their basic design principles. We describe the research-based design principles used in the development of one such curriculum and how these principles are reflected in its pedagogical structure. A case study drawn from an early pilot implementation illustrates how the design principles play out in a practical classroom setting. Extensive evaluation has shown that this curriculum enhances students’ conceptual understanding and improves students’ attitudes about science.
REFERENCES
1.
National Science Education Standards
(National Academy Press
, Washington, DC
, 1996
).2.
AAAS
, Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy
(Oxford U. P.
, New York
, 1993
).3.
4.
Powerful Ideas in Physical Science
, 3rd ed. (AAPT
, College Park, MD
, 2001
).5.
D. P.
Jackson
and P. W.
Laws
, “Workshop physical science: Project-based science education for future teachers, parents and citizens
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the ICUPE
, edited by E. F.
Redish
and J. S.
Rigden
(AIP
, College Park, MD
, 1997
), pp. 623
–630
.6.
Z.
Hrepic
, P.
Adams
, J.
Zeller
, N.
Talbott
, G.
Taggart
, and L.
Young
, “Developing an inquiry-based physical science course for preservice elementary teachers
,” in 2005 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 818
, edited by P.
Heron
, L.
McCollough
, and J.
Marx
(AIP
, Melville, NY
, 2006
), pp. 121
–124
.7.
F.
Goldberg
, S.
Robinson
, and V.
Otero
, Physics and Everyday Thinking
(It’s About Time, Herff Jones Education Division
, Armonk, NY
, 2007
).8.
F.
Goldberg
, S.
Robinson
, V.
Otero
, R.
Kruse
, and N.
Thompson
, Physical Science and Everyday Thinking
, 2nd ed. (It’s About Time, Herff Jones Education Division
, Armonk, NY
, 2008
).9.
L. C.
McDermott
, “What we teach and what is learned: Closing the gap
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 301
–315
(1991
).10.
M.
Jenness
, P.
Miller
, and K.
Holiday
, Physics and Everyday Thinking: Final Evaluation Report
(Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University
, Kalamazoo, MI
, 2008
). The full report includes detailed information about the prepost content test and the impact of PET on the teaching faculty. The full report is available at ⟨petproject.sdsu.edu/PET_Final_Evaluation_Report.pdf⟩ or by writing to the first author.11.
V.
Otero
and K.
Gray
, “Attitudinal gains across multiple universities using the Physics and Everyday Thinking curriculum
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
4
, 020104
(2008
).12.
J. D.
Bransford
, A. L.
Brown
, and R. R.
Cocking
, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School
(National Academies Press
, Washington, DC
, 2003
).13.
E. F.
Redish
, “Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
62
, 796
–803
(1994
).14.
V.
Otero
and M.
Nathan
, “Pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of their students’ prior knowledge of science
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
45
(4
), 497
–523
(2008
).15.
A.
diSessa
, in Constructivism in the Computer Age
, edited by G.
Forman
and P.
Putall
(Erlbaum
, Hillside, NJ
, 1988
), pp. 49
–70
.16.
J.
Minstrell
, “Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction
,” in Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, Proceedings of an International Workshop at University of Bremen
, edited by R.
Duit
, F.
Goldberg
, and H.
Niedderer
(IPN-Kiel
, Germany
, 1991
), pp. 110
–128
.17.
D.
Hammer
, “More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research
,” Am. J. Phys.
64
(10
), 1316
–1325
(1996
).18.
G.
Posner
, K.
Strike
, P.
Hewson
, and W.
Gertzog
, “Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change
,” Sci. Educ.
66
(2
), 211
–227
(1982
).19.
D.
Hammer
, A.
Elby
, R.
Scherr
, and E.
Redish
, in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives
, edited by J.
Mestre
(Information Age Publishing
, Charlotte, NC
, 2004
).20.
We have not discussed the role of explanations in this paper, but throughout the curriculum, the students practiced constructing their own explanations of phenomena and evaluating the explanations written by “hypothetical” students. To guide this process, the curriculum provided a set of evaluation criteria. In the early chapters, students were given significant help in applying the criteria. In later chapters, they were expected to write and evaluate explanations with little or no assistance.
21.
P.
Kohl
and N. D.
Finkelstein
, “Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
4
, 010111
(2008
).22.
23.
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
–74
(1998
).24.
25.
P.
Heller
, R.
Keith
, and S.
Anderson
, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
(7
), 627
–636
(1992
).26.
R.
Driver
, P.
Newton
, and J.
Osborne
, “Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms
,” Sci. Educ.
84
(3
), 287
–312
(2000
).27.
P.
Cobb
and E.
Yackel
, “Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research
,” Educ. Psychol.
31
(3
), 175
–190
(1996
).28.
J.
Tuminaro
and E. F.
Redish
, “Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
3
, 020101
(2007
).29.
F.
Goldberg
, S.
Bendall
, P.
Heller
, and R.
Poel
, Interactions in Physical Science
(It’s About Time, Herff Jones Education Division
, Armonk, NY
, 2006
).30.
The benchmark also includes this sentence: “If the force acts toward a single center, the object’s path may curve into an orbit around the center.” Although we include in the curriculum a homework assignment that deals with nonlinear motion, the main focus of Chap. 2 is on motion in one dimension.
31.
M.
McCloskey
, in Mental Models
, edited by D.
Gentner
and A. L.
Stevens
(Erlbaum
, Hillsdale, NJ
, 1982
).32.
R.
Gunstone
and M.
Watts
, in Children’s Ideas in Science
, edited by R.
Driver
, E.
Guesne
, and A.
Tiberghien
(Taylor & Francis
, London
, 1985
), pp. 85
–104
.33.
The PET developers decided to focus only on speed-time graphs rather than distance-time, velocity-time, and/or acceleration-time graphs because the evidence gathered from speed-time graphs would be sufficient to support the target ideas for the chapter. Also, the Newton’s second law benchmark, around which the chapter was developed, focuses on change in speed, not change in velocity.
34.
The version of PET that the students in the case study used was an earlier draft of the published version of PET. However, the substance of Chap. 2, Act. 1, that the students used was very similar to the final version that was published.
35.
There is no evidence in the full transcript as to why Ashlie ultimately agreed with Amara, although it is possible that she remembered this idea from a previous physics course. She did not bring up this idea in her discussions with the other two members of the group.
36.
The question showed images of the four students whose ideas are described. We omitted the images to save space.
37.
The average normalized gain is defined as the ratio of the actual average gain to the maximum possible average gain (Ref. 23).
38.
W. K.
Adams
, K. K.
Perkins
, N.
Podolefsky
, M.
Dubson
, N. D.
Finkelstein
, and C. E.
Wieman
, “A new instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
2
(1
), 010101
(2006
).39.
K. K.
Perkins
, W. K.
Adams
, N. D.
Finkelstein
, S. J.
Pollock
, and C. E.
Wieman
, “Correlating student attitudes with student learning using the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey
,” in 2004 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 790
, edited by J.
Marx
, P.
Heron
, and S.
Franklin
(AIP
, Melville, NY
, 2005
), pp. 61
–64
.40.
A version of PSET, suitable for large-enrollment classes, was developed with support from NSF (Grant No. 0717791). Information about this Learning Physical Science curriculum is available from the first author.
© 2010 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2010
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
