- 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

Productive faculty resources activated by curricular materials: An example of epistemological beliefs in University Modeling Instruction

Daryl McPadden

Eric Brewe

Camila Monsalve

Vashti Sawtelle

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, 567 Wilson Road, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

  • Physics Department and School of Education, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
  • STEM Transformation Institute, Department of Teaching and Learning, and Department of Physics, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida 33199, USA

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, 567 Wilson Road, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
  • Department of Physics and STEM Transformation Institute, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida 33199, USA

  • Lyman Briggs College and Department of Physics & Astronomy, Michigan State University, 567 Wilson Rd, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020158 – Published 4 December, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020158

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Curriculum Development: Theory into Design.] When disseminating curricula, typically only the physical curriculum materials are transferred from the instructor to another. However, left as artifacts in the curricula are a set of epistemological beliefs held by the creators and designers of the materials. These epistemological beliefs are often underpinning the activity structures and strongly influence how the curriculum materials are implemented in the classroom, particularly when those beliefs differ from those activated by the instructor. In this paper, we articulate three epistemological beliefs that are built into the University Modeling Instruction curriculum that are essential for running the large-group discussions, which are a crucial part of the curriculum. We highlight how these beliefs are built into the student-facing and instructor-facing curricular materials and the influence of these beliefs in the interpretation and implementation of the curriculum materials. Finally, we discuss the implications on curriculum dissemination, on the adoption and adaptation of curriculum materials, and training models for instructors beyond the curriculum designers.

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 (50)

  1. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
  2. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001).
  3. J. M. Wilson, The CUPLE physics studio, Phys. Teach. 32, 518 (1994).
  4. E. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J. Phys. 74, 979 (2006).
  5. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, Investigative science learning environment - A science process approach to learning physics, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics, edited by E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007), Reviews in PER Vol. 1, http://www.per-central.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4988.
  6. L. C. McDermott, Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: Physics education research—The key to student learning, Am. J. Phys. 69, 1127 (2001).
  7. R. W. Chabay and B. A. Sherwood, Matter and Interactions, 3rd ed., edited by S. Johnson (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2011).
  8. R. J. Beichner and J. M. Saul, Introduction to the SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs) project, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Varenna, Italy, http://www.ncsu.edu/per/scaleup.html (accessed 7 June 2005).
  9. 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).
  10. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. Pat Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  11. 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).
  12. M. Dancy and C. Henderson, Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1056 (2010).
  13. 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).
  14. E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. O’Brien, CLASS shifts in modeling instruction, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 75 (2008).
  15. D. Hestenes, Modeling methodology for physics teachers, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education (AIP, New York, 1996), Vol. 399, pp. 935–958, 10.1063/1.53196.
  16. I. A. Halloun, Modeling Theory in Science Education (Springer, New York, 2004), p. 250.
  17. D. Hestenes, Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55, 440 (1987).
  18. N. J. Nersessian, Maxwell and “the method of physical analogy”: Model-based reasoning, generic abstraction, and conceptual change, in Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics, edited by D. B. Malament (Open Court Publishing Company, Peru, 2002), Chap. 6, pp. 129–166.
  19. J. Gouvea and C. Passmore, “Models of” versus “models for”: Toward an agent-based conception of modeling in the science classroom, Sci. Educ. 26, 49 (2017).
  20. E. Brewe, J. E. Bartley, M. C. Riedel, V. Sawtelle, T. Salo, E. R. Boeving, E. I. Bravo, R. Odean, A. Nazareth, K. L. Bottenhorn, R. W. Laird, M. T. Sutherland, S. M. Pruden, and A. R. Laird, Toward a neurobiological basis for understanding learning in University Modeling Instruction physics courses, Front. ICT 5, 10 (2018).
  21. E. Brewe and V. Sawtelle, Modeling instruction for university physics: Examining the theory in practice, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 054001 (2018).
  22. D. Hestenes, Modeling methodology for physics teachers, AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 935 (1997).
  23. E. Brewe, Modeling theory applied: Modeling instruction in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1155 (2008).
  24. E. Brewe, V. Sawtelle, L. H. Kramer, G. E. O’Brien, I. Rodriguez, and P. Pamelá, Toward equity through participation in modeling instruction in introductory university physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010106 (2010).
  25. 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).
  26. E. Brewe, A. Traxler, J. de La Garza, and L. H. Kramer, Extending positive CLASS results across multiple instructors and multiple classes of modeling instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020116 (2013).
  27. A. L. Traxler, J. V. Mahadeo, D. McPadden, and E. Brewe, Multiple representations and epistemic games in Introductory Physics exam solutions, in , 2014 PERC Proceedings, Minneapolis, MN, July 30–31, 2014, edited by P. V. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, and D. L. Jones, pp. 247–250, 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.058.
  28. D. McPadden and E. Brewe, Network analysis of students’ representation use in problem solving, 2015 PERC Proceedings College Park, MD, July 29–30, 2015, edited by A. D. Churukian, D. L. Jones, and L. Ding (American Physical Society, New York, 2016), 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.050.
  29. D. McPadden and E. Brewe, Impact of the second semester University Modeling Instruction course on students representation choices, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020129 (2017).
  30. D. M. Desbien, Modeling discourse management compared to other classroom management styles in university physics, Ph.D. Thesis, Arizona State University, 2002.
  31. J. L. Durden, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, “Implicit action”: Understanding discourse management in modeling instruction, in 2011 PERC Proceedings, Omaha, NE, August 3–4, 2011, edited by N. S. Rebello, P. V. Engelhardt, and C. Singh [AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 187 (2012)], 10.1063/1.3680026.
  32. E. Goffman, Forms of Talk (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1981).
  33. D. Tannen, What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations, in Framing in Discourse (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993), Chap. 1.
  34. W. A. Sandoval, Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry, Sci. Educ. 89, 634 (2005).
  35. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Resources, framing, and transfer BT, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre (Information Age, Greenwich, CT, 2005), pp. 89–120.
  36. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Personal Epistemology, in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Learning, edited by B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2002), pp. 169–190.
  37. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2009).
  38. E. F. Redish and D. Hammer, Reinventing college physics for biologists: Explicating an epistemological curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 77, 629 (2009).
  39. J. Gouvea, V. Sawtelle, and A. Nair, Epistemological progress in physics and its impact on biology, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010107 (2019).
  40. J. Watkins and A. Elby, Context dependence of students’ views about the role of equations in understanding biology, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 274 (2013).
  41. C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of Peer Instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020101 (2009).
  42. A. Olmstead and C. Turpen, Pedagogical sensemaking or “doing school”: In well-designed workshop sessions, facilitation makes the difference, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020123 (2017).
  43. University Modeling Instruction, http://univ-modelinginstruction.com/.
  44. I. A. Halloun, Modeling Theory in Science Education, 1st ed. (Springer, Dordrecht, The Neetherlands, 2006).
  45. D. Stroupe, Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice, Sci. Educ. 98, 487 (2014).
  46. D. McPadden, Examining students’ representation choices in University Modeling Instruction, Ph.D. thesis, Florida International University, 2018.
  47. D. McPadden, J. Dowd, and E. Brewe, Power boxes: New representation for analyzing dc circuits, Phys. Teach. 56, 362–366 (2018).

  48. Note that Fig. 2 has been edited slightly to remove white space so that the worksheet fits on one page.

  49. Note that Fig. 3 has been edited slightly to remove white space so that the instructor guide fits on one page.

  50. Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics, edited by A. D. Robertson, R. E. Scherr, and D. Hammer (Routledge, New York, 2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020158– Published 4 December, 2020
  • Received 9 July 2019
  • Accepted 24 December 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