- 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

Shifting the learning gears: Redesigning a project-based course on soft matter through the perspective of constructionism

Elon Langbeheim1,*, Ariel Abrashkin2, Ariel Steiner2, Haim Edri2, Samuel Safran3, and Edit Yerushalmi2

  • 1Graduate Program of Science and Technology Education, Ben-Gurion University, 8410501 Beer-Sheva, Israel
  • 2Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, 7610001 Rehovot, Israel
  • 3Department of Chemical and Biological Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, 7610001 Rehovot, Israel

  • *elonlang@bgu.ac.il
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020147 – Published 4 December, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020147

Abstract

This article describes the redesign of a project-based course on soft and biological materials to include computational modeling. Including the construction of computational models in the course is described as a shift from constructivism—a theory that characterizes the development of formal reasoning, to constructionism—a theory that focuses on learning while constructing artifacts. This shift ameliorated two drawbacks in the original course: the limited conceptualization of entropy resulting from an unproductive use of the disorder metaphor, and the dependence of most students on the teacher for writing theoretical explanations for their final papers. In the redesigned curriculum, computer simulations provide concrete dynamic representations that students can draw upon for developing nuanced, formal reasoning on entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In addition, core computational models act as a flexible web that can be extended and modified, and allow a significant proportion of the students to build theoretical models on their own. We conclude that while the new design reflects a shift towards constructionism, we did not adopt a fully constructionist approach, rather a blend of constructivist and constructionist approaches.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Curriculum Development: Theory into Design

A special collection on theory and design of curriculum.

Article Text

References (62)

  1. I. E. Harel and S. E. Papert, Constructionism: Research Reports and Essays, 1985–1990 (Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, 1991).
  2. E. Etkina, T. Matilsky, and M. Lawrence, Pushing to the edge: Rutgers astrophysics institute motivates talented high school students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 958 (2003).
  3. C. J. Burke and T. J. Atherton, Developing a project-based computational physics course grounded in expert practice, Am. J. Phys. 85, 301 (2017).
  4. E. Langbeheim, S. Livne, S. A. Safran, and E. Yerushalmi, Introductory physics going soft, Am. J. Phys. 80, 51 (2012).
  5. E. Langbeheim, S. A. Safran, and E. Yerushalmi, Scaffolding students’ engagement in modeling in research apprenticeships for talented high school students, in International Perspectives on Science Education for the Gifted: Key Issues and Challenges, edited by S. Taber Keith and Manabu Sumida (Routledge, New York, 2016).
  6. E. Langbeheim, H. Edri, N. Schulmann, S. A. Safran, and E. Yerushalmi, Extending the boundaries of high school physics: Talented students develop computer models of physical processes in matter, in Research in Science Education (RISE) Series—Vol. 8, Physics Teaching and Learning: Challenging the Paradigm, edited by W. Sunal Dennis (Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2019).
  7. W. Krauth, Statistical Mechanics: Algorithms and Computations (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2006).
  8. R. Duit, M. Komorek, and J. Wilbers, Studies on educational reconstruction of chaos theory, Res. Sci. Educ. 27, 339 (1997).
  9. A. W. Lazonder and R. Harmsen, Meta-Analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance, Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 681 (2016).
  10. National Research Council, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
  11. B. Inhelder and J. Piaget, The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence (Basic Books, New York, 1958), Vol. 22.
  12. K. Sheridan, E. R. Halverson, B. Litts, L. Brahms, L. Jacobs-Priebe, and T. Owens, Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces, Harv. Educ. Rev. 84, 505 (2014).
  13. A. A. DiSessa and P. Cobb, Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments, J. Learn. Sci. 13, 77 (2004).
  14. E. R. Fyfe, N. M. McNeil, J. Y. Son, and R. L. Goldstone, Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: A systematic review, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 26, 9 (2014).
  15. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physic, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).
  16. M. C. Linn and B. S. Eylon, Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction, in Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2nd ed., edited by P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2006), pp. 511–544.
  17. D. Hestenes, Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55, 440 (1987).
  18. T. R. Shultz and M. Coddington, Development of the concepts of energy conservation and entropy, J. Exp. Child Psychol. 31, 131 (1981).
  19. W. J. Friedman, The development of an intuitive understanding of entropy, Child Development 72, 460 (2001).
  20. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases in every spontaneous process. However, this principle of increasing entropy seems to contradict many natural processes such as molecular self-assembly, in which interacting systems (in contact with a thermal reservoir) seem to become more ordered, rather than more disordered. Introductory level learners, seem to adhere to a concrete understanding that underlies the abstract principle and question the applicability of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to cases when the entropy of the system (but not, of course, the system coupled to its surrounding reservoir) seems to decrease. See, for example, M. Sözbilir and J. M. Bennett, A study of Turkish chemistry undergraduates’ understandings of entropy, J. Chem. Educ. 84, 1204 (2007).
  21. B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich, The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning, Rev. Educ. Res. 67, 88 (1997).
  22. F. Keil, Developing an understanding of the limits of knowing in Converging Perspectives on Conceptual Change, edited by T. Amin and O. Leverini (Routledge New York, 2018), pp. 262–267.
  23. E. F. Redish and D. Hammer, Reinventing college physics for biologists: Explicating an epistemological curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 77, 629 (2009).
  24. E. K. Ackermann, Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: what’s the difference?, in Constructivism: Uses and Perspectives In Education Conference Proceedings (Research Center in Education, Geneva, 2001), pp. 1–11
  25. S. Turkle and S. Papert, Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete, Signs J. Women Culture Soc. 16, 128 (1990).
  26. M. Ben-Ari, Constructivism in computer science education, J. Comp. Sci. Math. Teach. 20, 45 (2001), https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/8505/.
  27. A. diSessa, Knowledge in pieces, in Constructivism in the Computer Age, edited by G. Forman and P. B. Pufall (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), pp. 49–70.
  28. A. Feldman, K. Divoll, and A. Rogan-Klyve, Research education of new scientists: Implications for science teacher education, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 442 (2009).
  29. L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Process (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978).
  30. A. Collins, J. S. Brown, and S. E. Newman, Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics, Think. Reas. 8, 2 (1988).
  31. B. Sherin, B. J. Reiser, and D. Edelson, Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts, J. Learn. Sci. 13, 387 (2004).
  32. C. E. Hmelo-Silver, R. G. Duncan, and C. A. Chinn, Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, and Sweller, Educ. Psychol. 42, 99 (2007).
  33. D. Wood, J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross, The role of tutoring in problem solving, J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 17, 89 (1976).
  34. B. J. Reiser, Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work, J. Learn. Sci. 13, 273 (2004).
  35. J. Littlefield, V. R. Delclos, J. D. Bransford, K. N. Clayton, and J. J. Franks, Some prerequisites for teaching thinking: Methodological issues in the study of LOGO programming, Cognit. Instr. 6, 331 (1989).
  36. R. Noss and C. Hoyles, Windows on Mathematical Meanings: Learning Cultures and Computers (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 1996), Vol. 17.
  37. L. D. Edwards, Microworlds as representations, Computers and Exploratory Learning (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995), pp. 127–154.
  38. N. D. Martin, C. D. Tissenbaum, D. Gnesdilow, and S. Puntambekar, Fading distributed scaffolds: The importance of complementarity between teacher and material scaffolds, Instr. Sci. 47, 69 (2019).
  39. F. Lambert, Disorder—A cracked crutch for supporting entropy discussions, J. Chem. Educ. 79, 187 (2002).
  40. D. F. Styer, Insight into entropy, Am. J. Phys. 68, 1090 (2000).
  41. E. T. Jaynes, Gibbs vs Boltzmann entropies, Am. J. Phys. 33, 391 (1965).
  42. H. S. Leff, Removing the mystery of entropy and thermodynamics—part I, Phys. Teach. 50, 28 (2012).
  43. B. D. Geller, B. W. Dreyfus, J. Gouvea, V. Sawtelle, C. Turpen, and E. F. Redish, Entropy and spontaneity in an introductory physics course for life science students, Am. J. Phys. 82, 394 (2014).
  44. J. Haglund, Good use of a ‘bad’ metaphor, Sci. Educ. 26, 205 (2017).
  45. F. Reif, Thermal physics in the introductory physics course: Why and how to teach it from a unified atomic perspective, Am. J. Phys. 67, 1051 (1999).
  46. R. W. Chabay and B. A. Sherwood, Matter and Interactions (John Wiley & Sons New York, 2015).
  47. B. G. de Grooth, A simple model for Brownian motion leading to the Langevin equation, Am. J. Phys. 67, 1248 (1999).

  48. In addition, since the learners were 10th graders and this was their first introduction to physics, we had to introduce Newton’s 2nd law and Hooke’s laws rigorously. A shortened version of this introduction for students who learned introductory Newtonian mechanics beforehand, would last approximately 12 meetings.

  49. This assumption is valid since the diffusion front progresses much more slowly than the particle motions. Thus, the front is quasistatic. For any position of the front, one can count the particle configurations. One then sees that as the front progresses, it is equivalent to thinking of a static system with a box size that is increasing. Increasing the box size decreases the particle density which increases the entropy. Note that it is the density that is important and not the extensive quantities such as the volume of the container or number of particles.

  50. E. Langbeheim, S. A. Safran, S. Livne, and E. Yerushalmi, Evolution in students’ understanding of thermal physics with increasing complexity, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020117 (2013).
  51. S. Justi and J. K. Gilbert, Science teachers knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modeling in learning science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 1273 (2002).
  52. C. Bazerman, Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 1988).
  53. J. D. Novak, Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 27, 937 (1990).
  54. A. M. ODonnell, D. F. Dansereau, and R. H. Hall, Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 14, 71 (2002).

  55. In the lesson phase of the program the flow chart was used as reflective device. In the first lessons, the modeling process soft matter systems was derived by the teacher and then summarized using a PP slide with a flow chart, similar to the one in Fig. 4. In subsequent lessons, students were asked to summarize the modeling process in worksheets with a flow chart of empty rubrics (boxes). Students were asked to fill the rubrics in the flow chart and their responses were then compared with the expected structure of the flow chart in a class discussion.

  56. E. Langbeheim, S. A. Safran, and E. Yerushalmi, Design guidelines for adapting scientific research articles: An example from an introductory level, interdisciplinary program on soft matter, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 23 (2013).
  57. D. Scherer, P. Dubois, and B. A. Sherwood, Vpython: 3d interactive scientific graphics for students, Comput. Sci. Eng. 2, 56 (2000).
  58. F. T. Wall and F. Mandel, Macromolecular dimensions obtained by an efficient Monte Carlo method without sample attrition, J. Chem. Phys. 63, 4592 (1975).
  59. H. Gould and J. Tobochnik, An Introduction to Computer Simulation Methods: Applications to Physical Systems, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1996).
  60. E. Langbeheim, Simulating the Effects of Excluded-Volume Interactions in Polymer Solutions, J. Chem. Edu. 97, 1613 (2020).
  61. J. Kang and T. Keinonen, The effect of inquiry-based learning experiences on adolescents’ science-related career aspiration in the Finnish context, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 39, 1669 (2017).
  62. A. Wagh, K. Cook-Whitt, and U. Wilensky, Bridging inquiry-based science and constructionism: Exploring the alignment between students tinkering with code of computational models and goals of inquiry, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 615 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020147– Published 4 December, 2020
  • Received 8 July 2019
  • Accepted 6 November 2019
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