- 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

Not engaging with problems in the lab: Students’ navigation of conflicting data and models

Anna McLean Phillips1,2,*, Meagan Sundstrom1, David G. Wu1, and N. G. Holmes1

  • 1Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
  • 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA

  • *AnnaPhillips@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020112 – Published 26 August, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020112

Abstract

With the adoption of instructional laboratories that require students to make their own decisions, there is a need to better understand students’ activities as they make sense of their data and decide how to proceed. In particular, understanding when students do not engage productively with unexpected data may provide insights into how to better support students in more open-ended labs. We examine video and audio data from groups within a lab session where students were expected to find data inconsistent with the predictions of two models. In prior work, we examined the actions of the four groups that productively grapple with this designed problem. Here, we analyze the engagement of the three groups that do not. We conducted three phases of analysis: (1) documenting large scale behaviors and time spent in on-topic discussion, (2) analyzing interactions with the teaching assistant, and (3) identifying students’ framing—their expectations for what is taking place—when they were discussing their data. Our phase 1 and 2 analyses show only minor differences between the groups that engaged with the problem and those that did not. Our phase 3 analysis demonstrated that the groups that did not engage with the problem framed the lab activity as about confirming a known result or as a series of hoops to jump through to fulfill assignment requirements. Implications for instruction include supporting teaching assistants to attend to students’ framing and agency within laboratory classrooms.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (66)

  1. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Introductory Physics Labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, No. 1, 38 (2018).
  2. M. P. Clough, Using the laboratory to enhance student learning, in Learning Science and the Science of Learning, edited by R. W. Bybee (National Science Teachers Association, Washington, DC, 2002).
  3. E. Brewe, Modeling theory applied: Modeling Instruction in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1155 (2008).
  4. D. Z. Meyer, A student-centered, inquiry-based approach to Youngs double-slit experiment (and other investigations of lights wave character), Phys. Teach. 55, 159 (2017).
  5. B. M. Zwickl, D. Hu, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Model-based reasoning in the physics laboratory: Framework and initial results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020113 (2015).
  6. D. R. Dounas-Frazer, K. L. Van De Bogart, M. R. Stetzer, and H. J. Lewandowski, Investigating the role of model-based reasoning while troubleshooting an electric circuit, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010137 (2016).
  7. N. G. Holmes, C. E. Wieman, and D. A. Bonn, Teaching critical thinking, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11199 (2015).
  8. P. A. Bartlett and K. Dunnett, Secret objectives: Promoting inquiry and tackling preconceptions in teaching laboratories, arXiv:1905.07267.
  9. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. T. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006).
  10. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, and M. Ruibal-Villasenor, How long does it take? A study of student acquisition of scientific abilities, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020108 (2008).
  11. E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, and N. G. Holmes, Surprise! Shifting students away from model-verifying frames in physics labs, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC, edited by A. Traxler, Y. Cao, and S. Wolf (AIP, New York, 2018).
  12. M. M. Stein, E. M. Smith, and N. G. Holmes, Confirming what we know: Understanding questionable research practices in intro physics labs, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC, edited by A. Traxler, Y. Cao, and S. Wolf (AIP, New York, 2018).
  13. 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).
  14. A. McLean Phillips, J. Watkins, and D. Hammer, Problematizing as a scientific endeavor, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020107 (2017).
  15. Z. E. Buck, H.-S. Lee, and J. Flores, I am sure there may be a planet there: Student articulation of uncertainty in argumentation tasks, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 2391 (2014).
  16. A. McLean Phillips, J. Watkins, and D. Hammer, Beyond asking questions: Problematizing as a disciplinary activity, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 55, 982 (2018).
  17. M. Vonk, P. Bohacek, C. Militello, and E. Iverson, Developing model-making and model-breaking skills using direct measurement video-based activities, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020106 (2017).
  18. M. Michelini, Labs in building a modern physics way of thinking, in The Role of Laboratory Work in Improving Physics Teaching and Learning (Springer, New York, 2018), pp. 15–33.
  19. L. Hardy, C. Dixon, and S. Hsi, From data collectors to data producers: Shifting students relationship to data, J. Learn. Sci. 29, 104 (2020).
  20. M. Sundstrom, A. McLean Phillips, and N. G. Holmes, Problematizing in inquiry-based labs: How students respond to unexpected results, in Proceedings of the 2020 Physics Education Research Conference, virtual conference (AIP, New York, 2020).
  21. D. Tannen, Framing in Discourse (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1993).
  22. R. E. Scherr and D. Hammer, Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics, Cognit. Instr. 27, 147 (2009).
  23. D. Stroupe, Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice, Sci. Educ. 98, 487 (2014).
  24. E. Miller, E. Manz, R. Russ, D. Stroupe, and L. Berland, Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 55, 1053 (2018).
  25. E. Manz, Resistance and the development of scientific practice: Designing the mangle into science instruction, Cognit. Instr. 33, 89 (2015).
  26. E. Manz and E. Suárez, Supporting teachers to negotiate uncertainty for science, students, and teaching, Sci. Educ. 102, 771 (2018).
  27. Y.-C. Chen, M. J. Benus, and J. Hernandez, Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation, Sci. Educ. 103, 1235 (2019).
  28. D. Stroupe, M. D. Caballero, and P. White, Fostering students epistemic agency through the co-configuration of moth research, Sci. Educ. 102, 1176 (2018).
  29. 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).
  30. K. E. Metz, Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school science classroom, Elem. School J. 109, 138 (2008).
  31. K. E. Metz, Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design, Cognit. Instr. 22, 219 (2004).
  32. R. A. Engle and F. R. Conant, Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom, Cognit. Instr. 20, 399 (2002).
  33. R. A. Engle, The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts, and developments, in Design Research on Learning and Thinking in Educational Settings (Routledge, London, 2012), pp. 170–209.
  34. Y.-C. Chen, Dialogic pathways to manage uncertainty for productive engagement in scientific argumentation, Sci. Educ. 29, 2 (2020).
  35. J. Gouvea and K. Parker, Argumentation as inquiry: Students engagement with uncertainty in written arguments, in Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (2020), 10.22318/icls2020.1621.
  36. G. S. Ehrlich and M. A. Selen, Eureka! that’s funny: Problematization and value in two classroom epiphanies, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC, edited by A. Traxler, Y. Cao, and S. Wolf (AIP, New York, 2018).
  37. M. Kapur, Productive failure, Cognit. Instr. 26, 379 (2008).
  38. M. Kapur, Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning, Educ. Psychol. 51, 289 (2016).
  39. E. Manz, Designing for and analyzing productive uncertainty in science investigations, in Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (2018), 10.22318/cscl2018.288.
  40. J. Radinsky, Students’ roles in group work with visual data: A site of science learning, Cognit. Instr. 26, 145 (2008).
  41. L. David Conlin, Building shared understandings in introductory physics tutorials through risk, repair, conflict & comedy, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland-College Park, 2012.
  42. L. D. Conlin and R. E. Scherr, Making space to sensemake: Epistemic distancing in small group physics discussions, Cognit. Instr. 36, 396 (2018).
  43. M.-L. Monica Ko and C. Krist, Opening up curricula to redistribute epistemic agency: A framework for supporting science teaching, Sci. Educ. 103, 979 (2019).
  44. D. Keifert, C. Krist, D. A. Scipio, and A. M. Phillips, Epistemic agency as a members experience, in Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (2018), https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/553.
  45. C. I. Damşa, P. A. Kirschner, J. E. B. Andriessen, G. Erkens, and P. H. M. Sins, Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 143 (2010).
  46. P. Hutchison and D. Hammer, Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom, Sci. Educ. 94, 506 (2010).
  47. D. Tannen and C. Wallat, Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview, Soc. Psychol. Quarterly 50, 205 (1987).
  48. E. Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, England, 1974).
  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. E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, Lets just pretend: Students shifts in frames during a content-reinforcement lab, in Proceedings of the 2020 Physics Education Research Conference, virtual conference, edited by S. Wolf, M. B. Bennett, and B. W. Frank (AIP, New York, 2020).
  51. N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT learning goals for the lab, Phys. Teach. 57, 296 (2019).
  52. N. G. Holmes and D. A. Bonn, Quantitative comparisons to promote inquiry in the introductory physics lab, Phys. Teach. 53, 352 (2015).
  53. https://www.PhysPort.org.
  54. M. Sundstrom, D. G. Wu, C. Walsh, A. Heim, and N. G. Holmes, Patterns of group interactions in introductory physics labs: a network approach (to be published).
  55. O. Friard and M. Gamba, boris: a free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations, Methods Ecol. Evolution 7, 1325 (2016).
  56. S. Hennessy, S. Rojas-Drummond, R. Higham, A. María Márquez, F. Maine, R. María Ríos, R. García-Carrión, O. Torreblanca, and M. José Barrera, Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts, Learning, Culture Social Interact. 9, 16 (2016).
  57. 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).
  58. K. N. Quinn, K. L. McGill, M. M. Kelly, E. M. Smith, and N. G. Holmes, Confirming what we know: Understanding questionable research practices in intro physics labs, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC, edited by A. Traxler, Y. Cao, and S. Wolf (AIP, New York, 2018).
  59. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Hermione and the secretary: How gendered task division in introductory physics labs can disrupt equitable learning, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 035702 (2020).
  60. J. Day, J. B. Stang, N. G. Holmes, D. Kumar, and D. A. Bonn, Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020104 (2016).
  61. A. T. Danielsson, In the physics class: University physics students enactment of class and gender in the context of laboratory work, Cultural Studies Sci. Educ. 9, 477 (2014).
  62. E. Etkina, Weekly reports: A two-way feedback tool, Sci. Educ. 84, 594 (2000).
  63. 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).
  64. J. T. Stanley, W. Su, and H. J. Lewandowski, Using lab notebooks to examine students engagement in modeling in an upper-division electronics lab course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020127 (2017).
  65. L. Atkins Elliott, K. Jaxon, and I. Salter, Composing Science: A Facilitators Guide to Writing in the Science Classroom (Teachers College Press, New York, 2016).
  66. A. McLean Phillips, Problematizing as “doing physics”: The importance of articulating, refining, and motivating problems in classrooms, Ph.D. thesis, Tufts University, 2019.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020112– Published 26 August, 2021
  • Received 2 March 2021
  • Accepted 19 July 2021
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