- 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

Instructing nontraditional physics labs: Toward responsiveness to student epistemic framing

Meagan Sundstrom1,†, Rebeckah K. Fussell1, Anna McLean Phillips2, Mark Akubo1, Scott E. Allen3, David Hammer4,5, Rachel E. Scherr6, and N. G. Holmes1,*

  • 1Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
  • 2School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
  • 3Department of Physics, Cornell University, 245 East Avenue, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
  • 4Department of Education, Tufts University, 12 Upper Campus Road, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA
  • 5Department of Physics & Astronomy, Tufts University, 574 Boston Avenue, Suite 304, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA
  • 6Physical Science Division, School of STEM, University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, Washington 98011, USA

  • *Corresponding author: ngholmes@cornell.edu
  • †mas899@cornell.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020140 – Published 6 October, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020140

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions.] Research on nontraditional laboratory (lab) activities in physics shows that students often expect to verify predetermined results, as takes place in traditional lab activities. This understanding of what is taking place, or epistemic framing, may impact students’ behaviors in the lab, either productively or unproductively. In this paper, we present an analysis of student epistemic framing in a nontraditional lab with the aim of understanding how instructional context, specifically instructor behaviors, may shape student framing. We present video data from a lab section taught by an experienced teaching assistant (TA), with 19 students working in seven groups. We argue that student framing in this lab is evidenced by whether or not students articulate experimental predictions and by the extent to which they take up cognitive authority when constructing knowledge (epistemic agency). We show that the TA’s attempts to shift student frames generally succeed with respect to experimental predictions but are less successful with respect to epistemic agency. In part, we suggest, the success of the TA’s attempts reflects whether and how they are responsive to students’ current framing. This work offers evidence that instructors can shift students’ frames in nontraditional labs, while also illuminating the complexities of both student framing and the role of the instructor in shifting that framing in this context.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Focused Collection on Instructional Labs: Improving Traditions and New Directions

Focused Collection on Instructional Labs: Improving Traditions and New Directions

Article Text

References (84)

  1. N. G. Holmes and Carl E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, No. 1, 38 (2018).
  2. Emily M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, Best practice for instructional labs, Nat. Phys. 17, 662 (2021).
  3. N. G. Holmes, Carl E. Wieman, and Doug A. Bonn, Teaching critical thinking, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11199 (2015).
  4. Benjamin M. Zwickl, Dehui Hu, Noah 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).
  5. Dehui Hu, Benjamin M. Zwickl, Bethany R. Wilcox, and Heather J. Lewandowski, Qualitative investigation of students’ views about experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020134 (2017).
  6. Dehui Hu and Benjamin M. Zwickl, Examining students’ views about validity of experiments: From introductory to Ph. D. students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010121 (2018).
  7. Emily M. Smith, Martin M. Stein, and N. G. Holmes, Surprise! Shifting students away from model-verifying frames in physics labs, presented at PER Conf. (2018), Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Smith.
  8. Emily M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, ‘Let’s just pretend’: Students’ shifts in frames during a content-reinforcement lab, presented at PER Conf. (2020), virtual conference, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Smith_M.
  9. Martin M. Stein, Emily M. Smith, and N. G. Holmes, Confirming what we know: Understanding questionable research practices in intro physics labs, presented at PER Conf. (2018), Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Stein.
  10. Emily M. Smith, Martin 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).
  11. Anna McLean Phillips, Meagan Sundstrom, David 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).
  12. N. G. Holmes and Doug Bonn, Doing science or doing a lab? Engaging students with scientific reasoning during physics lab experiments, presented at PER Conf. (2013), Portland, OR, 10.1119/perc.2013.pr.034.
  13. Abigail M. Bogdan and Andrew F. Heckler, Effects of belief bias on student reasoning from data tables, presented at PER Conf. (2013), Portland, OR, 10.1119/perc.2013.pr.006.
  14. Bahar Modir, John D. Thompson, and Eleanor C. Sayre, Students’ epistemological framing in quantum mechanics problem solving, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 13, 020108 (2017).
  15. Paul W. Irving, Mathew Sandy Martinuk, and Eleanor C. Sayre, Transitions in students’ epistemic framing along two axes, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010111 (2013).
  16. John D. Thompson, B. Modir, and E. C. Sayre, Algorithmic, conceptual, and physical thinking: A framework for understanding student difficulties in quantum mechanics, Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2016 (International Society of the Learning Sciences, Singapore, 2016), https://archive.isls.org/conferences/icls/2016/docs/ICLS2016_Volume_2.pdf.
  17. Deepa N. Chari, Hai D. Nguyen, Dean A. Zollman, and Eleanor C. Sayre, Student and instructor framing in upper-division physics, Am. J. Phys. 87, 875 (2019).
  18. Karl Popper, All Life is Problem Solving (Routledge, New York, NY, 1999).
  19. Kevin G. Helfenbein and Rob DeSalle, Falsifications and corroborations: Karl Popper’s influence on systematics, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 35, 271 (2005).
  20. James Ladyman, Understanding Philosophy of Science (Routledge, London, 2012).
  21. Darrell P. Rowbottom, Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: A resolution at the group level, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A 42, 117 (2011).
  22. Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, England, 1974).
  23. Deborah Tannen, Framing in Discourse (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1993).
  24. Deborah Tannen and Cynthia Wallat, Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview, Soc. Psychol. Q. 50, 205 (1987).
  25. David W. Shaffer, Epistemic frames for epistemic games, Comput. Educ. 46, 223 (2006).
  26. Paul Hutchison and David Hammer, Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom, Sci. Educ. 94, 506 (2010).
  27. Edward F. Redish, A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking, arXiv:physics/0411149.
  28. Andrew Elby and David Hammer, Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies, in Personal Epistemology in the Classroom: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice, edited by L. Bendixen and F. Feucht (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010), pp. 409–434.
  29. Loucas Louca, Andrew Elby, David Hammer, and Trisha Kagey, Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction, Educ. Psychol. 39, 57 (2004).
  30. Seth Rosenberg, David Hammer, and Jessica Phelan, Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle, J. Learn. Sci. 15, 261 (2006).
  31. Leema K. Berland and David Hammer, Framing for scientific argumentation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 68 (2012).
  32. Soo-Yean Shim and Heui-Baik Kim, Framing negotiation: Dynamics of epistemological and positional framing in small groups during scientific modeling, Sci. Educ. 102, 128 (2018).
  33. Kristen B. Wendell, Jessica E. S. Swenson, and Tejaswini S. Dalvi, Epistemological framing and novice elementary teachers’ approaches to learning and teaching engineering design, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 56, 956 (2019).
  34. Jennifer Schellinger, Lama Z. Jaber, and Sherry A. Southerland, Harmonious or disjointed?: Epistemological framing and its role in an integrated science and engineering activity, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 59, 30 (2022).
  35. Brittland K. DeKorver and Marcy H. Towns, General chemistry students’ goals for chemistry laboratory coursework, J. Chem. Educ. 92, 2031 (2015).
  36. Clarissa Keen and Hannah Sevian, Qualifying domains of student struggle in undergraduate general chemistry laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 23, 12 (2022).
  37. Rachel E. Scherr and David Hammer, Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics, Cognit. Instr. 27, 147 (2009).
  38. Hai D. Nguyen, Deepa N. Chari, and Eleanor C. Sayre, Dynamics of students’ epistemological framing in group problem solving, Eur. J. Phys. 37, 065706 (2016).
  39. Bahar Modir, John D. Thompson, and Eleanor C. Sayre, Framing difficulties in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020146 (2019).
  40. Casey E. Murphy, Answer-seeking and Idea-constructing During Collaborative Active-learning Activities in a Physics Laboratory (University of Maine, Orono, Maine, 2011).
  41. Jason M. May and Lauren A. Barth-Cohen, Students’ dynamic framing of epistemic agency, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2021 (International Society of the Learning Sciences, Bochum, Germany, 2021), https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10218318.
  42. P. H. Sneddon, K. A. Slaughter, and N. Reid, Perceptions, views and opinions of university students about physics learning during practical work at school, Eur. J. Phys. 30, 1119 (2009).
  43. Anthony C. K. Leung, Alexandra Terrana, and Stanislaw Jerzak, Students’ opinions on the educational value of physics laboratories: A cross-sectional survey, Can. J. Phys. 94, 913 (2016).
  44. Ian Descamps, Sophia M. Jeon, and David Hammer, A case of productive confirmation framing in an introductory lab, presented at PER Conf. (2022), Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Descamps.
  45. Meagan Sundstrom, Anna McLean Phillips, and N. G. Holmes, Problematizing in inquiry-based labs: How students respond to unexpected results, presented at PER Conf. (2020), virtual conference, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Sundstrom.
  46. Meagan Sundstrom, Rebeckah Fussell, Rachel Scherr, and N. G. Holmes, Students’ varying responses to instructor prompts for frame shifts in physics labs, presented at PER Conf. (2022), Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Sundstrom.
  47. Eugenia Etkina, Alan Van Heuvelen, David T. Brookes, and David Mills, Role of experiments in physics instruction—a process approach, Phys. Teach. 40, 351 (2002).
  48. Mon-Lin Monica Ko and Christina Krist, Opening up curricula to redistribute epistemic agency: A framework for supporting science teaching, Sci. Educ. 103, 979 (2019).
  49. Albert Bandura, Human agency in social cognitive theory, Am. Psychol. 44, 1175 (1989).
  50. Mustafa Emirbayer and Ann Mische, What Is Agency?, Am. J. Sociol. 103, 962 (1998).
  51. Jenny Arnold and David John Clarke, What is ‘Agency’? Perspectives in Science Education Research, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 735 (2014).
  52. Crina I. Damşa, Paul A. Kirschner, Jerry E. B. Andriessen, Gijsbert Erkens, and Patrick H. M. Sins, Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 143 (2010).
  53. M. Scardamalia, Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge, in Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, edited by B. Smith (Open Court, Chicago, IL, 2002), pp. 67–98.
  54. David Stroupe, Marcos D. Caballero, and Peter White, Fostering students’ epistemic agency through the co-configuration of moth research, Sci. Educ. 102, 1176 (2018).
  55. Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter, Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology, in Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2014), pp. 397–417.
  56. Tor Ole B Odden, Devin W Silvia, and Anders Malthe-Sørenssen, Using computational essays to foster disciplinary epistemic agency in undergraduate science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 60, 937 (2023).
  57. David Stroupe, Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice, Sci. Educ. 98, 487 (2014).
  58. Tong Wan, Ashley A. Geraets, Constance M. Doty, Erin K. H. Saitta, and Jacquelyn J. Chini, Characterizing science graduate teaching assistants’ instructional practices in reformed laboratories and tutorials, Int. J. STEM Educ. 7, 30 (2020).
  59. Katherine L. McNeill, Lisa M. Marco-Bujosa, María González-Howard, and Suzanna Loper, Teachers’ enactments of curriculum: Fidelity to Procedure versus Fidelity to Goal for scientific argumentation, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 40, 1455 (2018).
  60. Benjamin T. Spike and Noah 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).
  61. Renee Michelle Goertzen, Rachel E. Scherr, and Andrew Elby, Tutorial teaching assistants in the classroom: Similar teaching behaviors are supported by varied beliefs about teaching and learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010105 (2010).
  62. Melissa Dancy, Charles Henderson, and Chandra Turpen, How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010110 (2016).
  63. Renee Michelle Goertzen, Rachel E. Scherr, and Andrew Elby, Tutorial teaching assistants in the classroom: Similar teaching behaviors are supported by varied beliefs about teaching and learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010105 (2010).
  64. Rosemary S. Russ and Melissa J. Luna, Inferring teacher epistemological framing from local patterns in teacher noticing, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 50, 284 (2013).
  65. Amy D. Robertson, Rachel E. Scherr, and David Hammer, Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics (Routledge, New York, NY, 2016).
  66. N. G. Holmes, Benjamin Keep, and Carl E. Wieman, Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010109 (2020).
  67. Emily M. Smith, Martin M. Stein, Cole Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Direct measurement of the impact of teaching experimentation in physics labs, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011029 (2020).
  68. https://www.physport.org/curricula/thinkingcritically/.
  69. N. G. Holmes and D. A. Bonn, Quantitative comparisons to promote inquiry in the introductory physics lab, Phys. Teach. 53, 352 (2015).
  70. Rachel E. Scherr, Video analysis for insight and coding: Examples from tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020106 (2009).
  71. Emily Miller, Eve Manz, Rosemary Russ, David Stroupe, and Leema Berland, Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 55, 1053 (2018).
  72. Sara Hennessy, Sylvia Rojas-Drummond, Rupert Higham, Ana María Márquez, Fiona Maine, Rosa María Ríos, Rocío García-Carrión, Omar Torreblanca, and María José Barrera, Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts, Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 9, 16 (2016).
  73. Sharon J. Derry, Roy D. Pea, Brigid Barron, Randi A. Engle, Frederick Erickson, Ricki Goldman, Rogers Hall, Timothy Koschmann, Jay L. Lemke, Miriam Gamoran Sherin et al., Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 3 (2010).
  74. Brigitte Jordan and Austin Henderson, Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice, J. Learn. Sci. 4, 39 (1995).
  75. Ying-Chih Chen, Matthew J. Benus, and Jaclyn Hernandez, Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation, Sci. Educ. 103, 1235 (2019).
  76. David Bloome, Pamela Puro, and Erine Theodorou, Procedural display and classroom lessons, Curric. Inq. 19, 265 (1989).
  77. M. Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre, Anxela Bugallo Rodríguez, and Richard A. Duschl, “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics, Sci. Educ. 84, 757 (2000).
  78. Leema K. Berland, Christina V. Schwarz, Christina Krist, Lisa Kenyon, Abraham S. Lo, and Brian J. Reiser, Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 53, 1082 (2016).
  79. Rosemary S. Russ, Janet E. Coffey, David Hammer, and Paul Hutchison, Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking, Sci. Educ. 93, 875 (2009).
  80. Janet E. Coffey, David Hammer, Daniel M. Levin, and Terrance Grant, The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 1109 (2011).
  81. David Hammer, Fred Goldberg, and Sharon Fargason, Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom, Rev. Sci. Math. ICT Educ. 6, 51 (2012), https://dl.tufts.edu/concern/pdfs/xk81jz22n.
  82. Daniel Levin, David Hammer, Andrew Elby, and Janet Coffey, Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science (National Science Teachers Association, Arlington, VA, 2012).
  83. Eve Manz and Enrique Suárez, Supporting teachers to negotiate uncertainty for science, students, and teaching, Sci. Educ. 102, 771 (2018).
  84. Ying-Chih Chen, Epistemic uncertainty and the support of productive struggle during scientific modeling for knowledge co-development, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 59, 383 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020140– Published 6 October, 2023
  • Received 27 April 2023
  • Accepted 21 August 2023
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