RESEARCH PAPER
A physics instructor’s enactment of three-dimensional learning: Action research
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Faculty of Education, Bogazici University, Istanbul, TÜRKİYE
 
 
Publication date: 2024-01-16
 
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2024;20(1):em2390
 
KEYWORDS
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.
 
REFERENCES (48)
1.
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/10.1080/135406....
 
2.
Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2013). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across professions. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131....
 
3.
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.
 
4.
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.
 
5.
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/10.1080/096507....
 
6.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/978145....
 
7.
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-....
 
8.
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/10.3102/009173....
 
9.
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/PhysRe....
 
10.
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/10.1119/1.4923....
 
11.
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....
 
12.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/875675....
 
13.
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/10.1080/096507....
 
14.
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.21....
 
15.
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.12....
 
16.
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.21....
 
17.
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....
 
18.
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.21....
 
19.
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/PhysRe....
 
20.
Knight, R. D. (2004). Five easy lessons: Strategies for successful physics teaching. Pearson.
 
21.
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.
 
22.
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....
 
23.
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....
 
24.
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/PhysRe....
 
25.
Loughran, J. J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/978908....
 
26.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction. Prentice Hall.
 
27.
McDermott, L. C. (1996). Physics by inquiry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 
28.
McGregor, D., & Woodhouse, F. (2015). Introducing action research for science teachers. Education in Science, 260, 30-31.
 
29.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2012). Action research for teachers: A practical guide. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978020....
 
30.
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/PhysRe....
 
31.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
 
32.
National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. National Academies Press.
 
33.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. National Academies Press.
 
34.
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....
 
35.
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/ejmst....
 
36.
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/s15430....
 
37.
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/10.1080/215484....
 
38.
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.
 
39.
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.
 
40.
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/10.1080/004723....
 
41.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/001318....
 
42.
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.....
 
43.
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.12....
 
44.
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.
 
45.
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/10.1080/136645....
 
46.
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....
 
47.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
 
48.
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....
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top