- 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

Refining a model for understanding and characterizing instructor pedagogy in informal physics learning environments

Michael B. Bennett and Brett Fiedler

Noah D. Finkelstein

  • JILA NSF Physics Frontier Center, 440 UCB, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA and Department of Physics, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA

  • Department of Physics, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020137 – Published 20 November, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020137

Abstract

Public engagement is an important component of the operation of many physics organizations, such as physics departments. However, comparatively little work has been done to systematize the study of pedagogical approaches in these informal environments, which may contain unique affordances and challenges compared to formal settings. A 2016 study took an important step toward a comprehensive understanding of pedagogy in informal environments by developing a model articulating three so-called “modes of pedagogy,” utilizing cultural-historical activity theory to categorize pedagogy of volunteer instructors. To build upon this model, we have conducted a more thorough study at a University of Colorado Boulder-based informal physics education program, following similar methods but expanding upon the methodology to generate more robust insights into instructors’ pedagogy. The study has produced three major results. First, we have broadly corroborated the findings of the 2016 study, observing similar distributions of enacted pedagogical preferences among our volunteer instructors. Second, we have expanded upon recommendations in the 2016 study for methods of instructor preparation; specifically, we find that presemester training is insufficient to effect a lasting change in instructors’ enacted pedagogy. Third, we have refined the pedagogical modes model presented in that work, moving away from a categorical articulation of the modes in favor of a model where instructors’ pedagogy is characterized by combinations of traits and mediated by their overarching objectives for students. These two novel additions to the pedagogical modes framework allow for a more nuanced and comprehensive characterization of the pedagogical techniques used by instructors in informal learning environments, improving both our understanding of the methods of informal pedagogy and our ability to prepare instructors to succeed.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (51)

  1. APS outreach guide.

  2. National Science Foundation, Building the Future: Investing in Discovery and Innovation—NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018–2022 (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 2018).
  3. A. V. Maltese and R. H. Tai, Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 669 (2010).
  4. K. P. Dabney, R. H. Tai, J. T. Almarode, J. L. Miller-Friedmann, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and Z. Hazari, Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in stem, Int. J. Sci. Educ., Part B 2, 63 (2012).
  5. N. Finkelstein, Context in the context of physics and learning, in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, Rochester, NY, edited by K. Cummings, S. Franklin, and J. Marx (AIP, New York, 2001).
  6. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, M. A. Feder et al., Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009).
  7. E. Etkina, Helping graduate assistants teach physics: Problems and solutions, J. Grad. Teach. Assist. Develop. 7, 123 (2000).
  8. 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).
  9. L. McDermott and P. Shaffer, The Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, in Tutorials in Introductory Physics (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1992).
  10. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: Per-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  11. R. R. Hake, Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory, Phys. Teach. 30, 546 (1992).
  12. K. A. Hinko, P. Madigan, E. Miller, and N. D. Finkelstein, Characterizing pedagogical practices of university physics students in informal learning environments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010111 (2016).
  13. M. B. Bennett, K. Hinko, B. Fiedler, and N. Finkelstein, The effect of explicit preparation in pedagogical modes for informal physics educators, in Proceedings of the 2017 Physics Education Research Conference, Cincinnati, OH, edited by L. Ding, A. Traxler, and Y. Cao (AIP, New York, 2017), pp. 52–55.

  14. Partnerships for Informal Science Education in the Community.

  15. CU Boulder Physics Education Group website.

  16. JILA Physics Frontier Center—an NSF Physics Frontier Center.

  17. M. Cole, The Fifth Dimension: An After-School Program Built on Diversity (Russel Sage Foundation, New York, 2006).
  18. L. Vygostky, Mind in Society (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978).
  19. K. D. Gutiérrez, P. Baquedano-López, and C. Tejeda, Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space, Mind Culture Act. 6, 286 (1999).
  20. K. D. Gutiérrez, Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space, Read. Res. Q. 43, 148 (2008).
  21. R. Wulf, K. Hinko, and N. Finkelstein, Promoting children’s agency and communication skills in an informal science program, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 430 (2012).
  22. R. Wulf, K. Hinko, and N. Finkelstein, Comparing mechanistic reasoning in open and guided inquiry physics activities, in Proceedings of the 2013 Physics Education Research Conference, Portland, OR (AIP, New York, 2013), p. 369.
  23. L. M. Mayhew and N. D. Finkelstein, Learning to communicate about science in everyday language through informal science education, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 205 (2009).
  24. K. Hinko, J. Seneca, and N. Finkelstein, Use of scientific language by university physics students communicating to the public, in Proceedings of the 2014 Physics Education Research Conference, Minneapolis, MN (AIP, New York, 2014), p. 115.
  25. K. Hinko and N. Finkelstein, Impacting university physics students through participation in informal science, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 178 (2012).
  26. N. R. Council et al., Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000).

  27. CU Boulder Fall 2019 Census Overall Enrollment Profile.

  28. Collage Construction by Michelle Wittig, from Jonathan Zeledon.

  29. A. C. Barton and K. Yang, The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 37, 871 (2000).
  30. A. C. Barton, Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38, 899 (2001).
  31. C. Fracchiolla, S. Hyater-Adams, N. Finkelstein, and K. Hinko, University physics students’ motivations and experiences in informal physics programs, in Proceedings of the 2016 Physics Education Research Conference, Sacramento, CA (AIP, New York, 2016), pp. 124–127.
  32. A. N. Leontèv, Activity, Consciousness, and Personality (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey USA, 1978).
  33. Y. Engeström, Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning, Learn. Instr. 1, 243 (1991).
  34. V. Davydov and L. Radzikhovskii, Vygotsky’s theory and the activity-oriented approach in psychology, Lev Vygotsky: Crit. Assess. 1, 113 (1999).
  35. V. Kaptelinin and B. A. Nardi, Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006).
  36. M. Cole, Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998).
  37. Y. Engeström, Learning by expanding: An activity, Theoretical Approach to Develomental Research.–Helsinki: Orienta–Konsultit (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1987).
  38. M. B. Bennett, B. Fiedler, and N. Finkelstein, What factors influence pedagogical methods in informal learning spaces?, in Proceedings of the 2019 Physics Education Research Conference, Provo, UT (AIP, New York, 2019).
  39. B. Fiedler, C. Fracchiolla, M. B. Bennett, K. Hinko, and N. Finkelstein, A design-based informal physics program from a youth perspective, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC (AIP, New York, 2018).
  40. B. T. Spike, An investigation of the knowledge, beliefs, and practices of physics teaching assistants, with implications for TA preparation, PhD thesis, 2014 (unpublished).
  41. B. T. Spike and N. D. Finkelstein, Toward an analytic framework of physics teaching assistants’ pedagogical knowledge, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 363 (2012).
  42. B. T. Spike and N. D. Finkelstein, Design and application of a framework for examining the beliefs and practices of physics teaching assistants, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010114 (2016).
  43. Y. Engeström et al., Activity theory and individual and social transformation, Perspectives on Activity Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge England, 1999), p. 199.
  44. M. Cole and Y. Engeström, A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition, in Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, p. 1 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1993).
  45. H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, and S. Ludvigsen, Activity Theory in Practice (Routledge, Oxon, 2010).
  46. L. C. Yamagata-Lynch, Understanding cultural historical activity theory, in Activity Systems Analysis Methods (Springer, New York, 2010), pp. 13–26.

  47. Center for Research and Engagement in STEM Education.

  48. Mobile Making Program.

  49. J. M. Wilson, The CUPLE physics studio, Phys. Teach. 32, 518 (1994).
  50. R. J. Beichner, J. M. Saul, D. S. Abbott, J. J. Morse, D. Deardorff, R. J. Allain, S. W. Bonham, M. H. Dancy, and J. S. Risley, The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project, Research-based Reform Univ. Phys. 1, 2 (2007).
  51. W. E. Lindsay, V. Otero, and S. Belleau, PEER suite: A holistic approach to supporting inductive pedagogy implementation, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC (AIP, New York, 2018).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020137– Published 20 November, 2020
  • Received 17 June 2020
  • Accepted 21 October 2020
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