A physics instructor’s enactment of three-dimensional learning: Action research

Ozden Sengul

doi:10.29333/ejmste/14121

Full Text (PDF)

Ozden Sengul ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ Faculty of Education, Bogazici University, Istanbul, TÜRKİYE^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This action research study was conducted in a physics education class focusing on electricity and magnetism. The instructor aimed to integrate three-dimensional learning into curriculum, lesson planning, and instruction to understand successes and challenges of teaching through a new approach and students’ perceptions of their learning process. The data collection included instructor’s lesson planning, pre- and post-lesson reflections, student artifacts, and students’ reflections. The qualitative data were analyzed through constant comparative method to identify theory-driven and data-driven codes, determine their frequency to categorize and construct themes. The results were provided with three themes: (1) the instructor’s integration of three-dimensional learning, (2) the strengths and challenges of the implementation, and (3) students’ experiences. These findings suggested the need for focusing on developing teachers’ knowledge in different domains connected to each other such as scientific practices, crosscutting concepts, subject matter knowledge, and nature of science for student conceptions and instructional strategies.

Keywords

three-dimensional learning
action research
physics education

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2024, Volume 20, Issue 1, Article No: em2390

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14121

Publication date: 16 Jan 2024

Article Views: 435

Article Downloads: 326

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Allas, R., Leijen, Ä., & Toom, A. (2020). Guided reflection procedure as a method to facilitate student teachers’ perception of their teaching to support the construction of practical knowledge. Teachers and Teaching, 26(2), 166-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1758053
Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2013). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across professions. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315811918
Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R. J., Bonham, S. W., Dancy, M. H., & Risley, J. S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 2-39.
Berry, A. K., & Milroy, P. (2002). Changes that matter. In J. Loughran, I. Mitchell, & J. Mitchell (Eds.), Learning from teacher research (pp. 196-221). Teachers College Press.
Capobianco, B. M., Eichinger, D., Rebello, S., Ryu, M., & Radloff, J. (2020). Fostering innovation through collaborative action research on the creation of shared instructional products by university science instructors. Educational Action Research, 28(4), 646-667. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2019.1645031
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
Duit, R. (2014). Teaching and learning the physics energy concept. In R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. Nordine, & A. Scheff (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 67-85). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05017-1_5
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
Etkina, E. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020110. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020110
Etkina, E. (2015). Millikan award lecture: Students of physics–Listeners, observers, or collaborative participants in physics scientific practices? American Journal of Physics, 83(8), 669-679. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4923432
Fanning, L. S., & Adams, K. L. (2015). Bridging the three dimensions of the NGSS using the nature of science. Science Scope, 39(2), 66. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/ss15_039_02_66
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425
Feldman, A., & Bradley, F. (2019). Interrogating ourselves to promote the democratic production, distribution, and use of knowledge through action research. Educational Action Research, 27(1), 91-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1526097
Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041-1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188
Haag, S., & Megowan, C. (2015). Next generation science standards: A national mixed-methods study on teacher readiness. School Science and Mathematics, 115(8), 416-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12145
Harris, C. J., Penuel, W. R., D’Angelo, C. M., DeBarger, A. H., Gallagher, L. P., Kennedy, C. A., Cheng, B. H., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1362-1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21263
Huff, K. L. (2016). Addressing three common myths about the next generation science standards. Science and Children, 53(5), 30. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc16_053_05_30
Kaldaras, L., Akaeze, H., & Krajcik, J. (2021). Developing and validating next generation science standards-aligned learning progression to track three-dimensional learning of electrical interactions in high school physical science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(4), 589-618. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21672
Kelly, A. M. (2013). Physics teachers’ perspectives on factors that affect urban physics participation and accessibility. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 9(1), 010122. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010122
Knight, R. D. (2004). Five easy lessons: Strategies for successful physics teaching. Pearson.
Krajcik, J., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? Science and Children, 49(7), 10.
Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the next generation science standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9383-2
Krajewski, S. J., & Schwartz, R. (2014). A community college instructor’s reflective journey toward developing pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science in a non-majors undergraduate biology course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(5), 543-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9390-3
Krakehl, R., Kelly, A. M., Sheppard, K., & Palermo, M. (2020). Physics teacher isolation, contextual characteristics, and student performance. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), 020117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020117
Loughran, J. J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087903657
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction. Prentice Hall.
McDermott, L. C. (1996). Physics by inquiry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
McGregor, D., & Woodhouse, F. (2015). Introducing action research for science teachers. Education in Science, 260, 30-31.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2012). Action research for teachers: A practical guide. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203462393
Milner-Bolotin, M., Egersdorfer, D., & Vinayagam, M. (2016). Investigating the effect of question-driven pedagogy on the development of physics teacher candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020128. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020128
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. National Academies Press.
Nordine, J., Krajcik, J., Fortus, D., & Neumann, K. (2019). Using storylines to support three-dimensional learning in project-based science. Science Scope, 42(6), 86-93. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/ss19_042_06_86
Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty-first century. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75396
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Plummer, J. D., & Small, K. J. (2018). Using a planetarium fieldtrip to engage young children in three-dimensional learning through representations, patterns, and lunar phenomena. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(3), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1438683
Rutberg, J., Jammula, D., & Ahmed, S. (2023). Implementation of an investigative science learning environment-based laboratory course taught by novice instructors. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(2), 020153. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020153
Sengul, O., Enderle, P. J., & Schwartz, R. S. (2020). Science teachers’ use of argumentation instructional model: Linking PCK of argumentation, epistemological beliefs, and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1068-1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09500693.2020.1748250
Sengul, O., & Schwartz, R. (2020). Action research: Using a 5E instructional approach to improve undergraduate physics laboratory instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(4), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231X.2020.12315640
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Smith, J., & Nadelson, L. (2017). Finding alignment: The perceptions and integration of the next generation science standards practices by elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 117(5), 194-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12222
Smith, P. S., & Banilower, E. R. (2015). Assessing PCK: A new application of the uncertainty principle. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 88-103). Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2013). Action research and the academy: Seeking to legitimize a ‘different’ form of research. Teacher Development, 17(2), 288-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2013.793060
Toom, A., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Jyrhämä, R., Byman, R., Stenberg, K., Maaranen, K., & Kansanen, P. (2010). Experiences of a research-based approach to teacher education: Suggestions for future policies. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 331-344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01432.x
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Xiang, L., Goodpaster, S., & Mitchell, A. (2022). Supporting three-dimensional learning on ecosystems using an agent-based computer model. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(4), 473-489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09968-x

How to cite this article

APA

Sengul, O. (2024). A physics instructor’s enactment of three-dimensional learning: Action research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(1), em2390. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14121

Vancouver

Sengul O. A physics instructor’s enactment of three-dimensional learning: Action research. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2024;20(1):em2390. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14121

AMA

Sengul O. A physics instructor’s enactment of three-dimensional learning: Action research. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2024;20(1), em2390. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14121

Chicago

Sengul, Ozden. "A physics instructor’s enactment of three-dimensional learning: Action research". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2024 20 no. 1 (2024): em2390. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14121

Harvard

Sengul, O. (2024). A physics instructor’s enactment of three-dimensional learning: Action research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(1), em2390. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14121

MLA

Sengul, Ozden "A physics instructor’s enactment of three-dimensional learning: Action research". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 20, no. 1, 2024, em2390. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14121