Download - Constructivist Approach in Physics
Running Head: A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 1
Applying a Constructivist Approach in Introductory Physics
Doug Smith
ETEC530
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 2
Introduction
Physics has a long history of being taught from a traditional methodology. In
introductory secondary and undergraduate courses, classes may focus on formulas and
application to trivial word problems as presented in mainstream textbooks, where word de-
coding provides enough clues for solutions. In contrast to this, I argue for applying
constructivist pedagogy to physics curricula as a means to provide deeper, meaningful learning,
leading to stronger conceptual understandings.
Pedagogical Context
Introductory physics is perhaps an ideal example of how transmission teaching is at times
used in secondary schools. Along with mathematics, physics is seen as a subject that affords
itself to “drill and kill” problems. As Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) point out, these
common types of textbook word problems are not part of authentic learning, and lack context
which would result in enriched learning.
There is a strong desire for a shift in the way that physics is taught, as educators become
more accustomed to constructivist pedagogy and applying a more active-learning model to the
classroom. Mazur’s research into Peer Instruction (Crouch & Mazur, 2001) highlights the
improvements that can be realized through student-centric instruction based on constructivist
ideas. While research appears to show positive outcomes from constructivism in the physics
classroom, it is likely that the traditional classroom is still seen as the standard model. There are
many reasons for why this may be. Pre-service teacher training and lack of pedagogical
knowledge (Nashon, Anderson, & Nielsen, 2009), perceived time constraints, numerous and
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 3
highly detailed learning objectives, may all play a part in the slow shift towards a more
constructivist approach to physics education.
The reasons for applying a constructivist model to physics education can be rationalized
by examining the expansive body of knowledge in terms of misconceptions in physics
(Aufschnaiter & Rogge, 2010; Duit, 2003; Posner, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). Clearly
transmission teaching can result in maintaining misconceptions, as emphasized by Mazur
(Mazur, 1997). Newton’s Third Law, as an example, is particularly difficult to grasp, and the
following quote could be considered typical for physics students (Suppapittayaporn, Emarat, &
Arayathanitkul, 2010):
You said that no matter the object is at rest or moving with a constant speed or with an
acceleration, the magnitude of the force the object exerts on the floor is always equal to
the magnitude of the force the floor exerts on the object. This does not make sense to me
at all! How could this be possible? (page 77)
Several pedagogical models aid teaching within a constructivist environment. In
particular, conceptual change models (CCM) figure prominently in the literature on dealing with
misconceptions in science. CCM can be seen as part of the “Knowledge-As-Theory” tradition
(Özdemir & Clark, 2007, p. 352), which traces back to the work of Piaget, Posner and others
(Özdemir & Clark, 2007), and can be considered to be the basis of trivial constructivism
(Dougiamas, 1998). However, a CCM learning cycle can be further enhanced with other schools
of constructivism to provide wider approach to problem solving in physics education. Examples
of using social constructivist ideas include the above mentioned peer instruction (Mazur, 1997)
along with Muller’s research (Muller, Bewes, Sharma, & Reimann, 2007) on the importance of
dialogue in conceptual remediation.
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 4
Current Explorations
My own experience with using constructivism in my classroom is varied with a few
unproven successes. I have read extensively about modeling techniques, peer instruction, and
CCM. As well, I have tried to identify other teachers in my local educational community who
try to apply constructivism in their physics classroom. In this regard I have not found many
practitioners of constructivism.
To date I have not successfully implemented a complete CCM cycle in science or physics
teaching, mostly due to the fact that this is my first year of full time teaching. I have completed a
unit plan on the Science 8 topic of Water Systems which incorporates three distinct 5e CCM
cycles (Özdemir & Clark, 2007), but have not taught this course since designing it. I hope to
incorporate the 5e model in a more concrete fashion in the future, as I now have a basis of
several unit plans for courses.
Modeling
I have managed to incorporate some social constructivism features in teaching, with
perhaps the most efforts being placed in Modeling Instruction (Jackson, Dukerich, & Hestenes,
2008) and whiteboarding. Modeling relies heavily upon small group activity and cooperative
learning, and has aspects of situated cognition. The modeling cycle is broken into two primary
groupings: model development and model deployment. Model development is where groups of
students observe a phenomenon, such as an object moving at constant velocity, and discuss the
aspects of what they see and observe. Groups then are prompted to initiate their own lab
investigation to explore and test ideas around what they’ve seen. The class then returns together
for a post-lab discussion. Model deployment is where guided work such as worksheets and
formative assessments are used to expand upon the ideas and models that the students developed.
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 5
As a methodology, modeling is a type of situated cognition in that the cognitive understanding of
the physics topic is not separated from the discovery and understanding of the topic. The
modeling cycling does not necessarily contain an authentic learning environment; however, this
is not a restriction of modeling instruction in itself. The level of authenticity is primarily
controlled by the resources available to the instructor and students. While learning new concepts
in physics, there are many benefits to keeping the scenario in a controlled manner so that topics
can be viewed concrete and explicitly with minimal confounding issues. Whiteboarding is
strongly tied to modeling, where groups of students conduct much of their work, including
brainstorming, calculations and presentations, on whiteboards. The whiteboards offer
affordances for collective work and shared exposition and cognition in knowledge and
understandings (Henry, Henry, & Riddoch, 2006).
I personally have followed through three distinct modeling cycles in my practice in
Physics 11. In my opinion it helped the students visualize physics phenomena and strengthen
their observation abilities. Most importantly, it allowed the students a level of discovery learning
and thinking about a phenomenon without first resorting to a formula. This process was likely
aided by the fact that our school does not have a textbook for Physics 11, which allows me to
introduce concepts without the students reading ahead and supplanting formulaic understandings
ahead of conceptual understandings. I do not have data that shows the effectiveness in my
modeling instruction, but I believe the methodology is sound and rationalized in literature
(Cabot, 2008; Jackson et al., 2008).
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 6
Peer Instruction
In conjunction with modeling instruction, I have used peer instruction throughout my
teaching. The formative aspect of peer instruction reveals the effectiveness of peer instruction to
some degree. First of all, the feedback from the students gives a very good indication on the
current level of their understanding. Secondly, the student’s conceptual remediation through
dialogue and social learning is exposed as I monitor the discussions. The students are clearly
using their own ideas, experiences, explanations and scaffolded knowledge in order to explain,
debate and convince others of their ideas.
Despite the success of modeling and peer instruction, they still have limitations. Peer
instruction is better known for its implementation in post-secondary education, with only a small
amount of research done on it in at the secondary school level (Kay & Knaack, 2009). Perhaps
this is partly due to the perceived notion that younger students are not as adept to discovery
learning in physics because the perceived nature of higher academic rigor and mathematical
requirements (Nashon & Nielsen, 2007). In terms of modeling instruction, I had some trouble
with extending the model paradigm to certain topics such as momentum. Furthermore, it is very
difficult to develop models for some topics, such as thermal energy.
Future Explorations
I am extremely interested in implementing some Problem Based Learning scenarios in
my physics classes, as a response to the question of authenticity and capturing the engagement of
my students. Furthermore, I would really like to promote critical thinking and PBL with an
appropriate problem that should provide ample opportunity for inquiry. By using PBL as a
specific manifestation of situated cognition, I hope to further promote the students not as
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 7
receivers of information, but as learners that can construct their knowledge within their own
collaborative groups and agreed upon understanding of the problem (Savery & Duffy, 1995).
My first attempt at PBL will be conducted for a unit on Thermal Energy. This unit has a
small set of prescribed learning objectives, which like other topics in physics may seem a bit
disconnected from authentic science. The problem itself is quite authentic and proposes to
answer the following question, “When does cycling cost more in fuel than driving?” This is
loosely based on the PBL problem put forward by Martinuk (2009). For many of my students
this topic in itself should be of high interest because of their interest in cycling, outdoor pursuits
and the environment. For other students this problem could seem foreign, as their culture may
not be as concerned with the topic of bike advocacy. Nevertheless, I believe this will be the
students’ first exposure to PBL and the process should be new and therefore very engaging.
This PBL task will shadow constructivist ideals by encompassing the following attributes
(Savery & Duffy, 1995)
The learning activity is anchored to a larger problem
The students will take ownership for their learning
The problem is authentic and can be as complex as the students wish to make it
The students will have to embody their own interactions with the problem in order
to arrive at a solution
The task provides a stimulus for learning
The basic structure of the PBL task will involve the classes being split into groups of
approximately five students each. Very little initial scaffolding will be provided; however, I will
guide the classes through our unit plan on energy and highlight the learning objectives that
should be addressed in this PBL. As well, I will gather resources in collaboration with our
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 8
school’s teacher-librarians. Once this process is in place, I am not entirely sure as to what will
happen. In this sense, I will be learning along with the students. Hopefully I can convey this
idea to the students in a meaningful manner, such that my actions also model authentic learning
and the classroom as a whole becomes part of the student’s situated cognition.
Concerns with Constructivism
My essay so far has not touched on von Glasersfeld and his influential work on radical
constructivism. I agree with Matthews (1994) that if a learner is left with solely the principles of
von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism, there are a great many things in the world that they will
have difficulty learning, or not discovering at all. There is an immense body of knowledge that
our students can access in a non-radical yet constructivist manner. Lessons and activities can be
constructed in any number of ways without sacrificing the epistemological premise of
constructivism and we should remember that constructivism is not a method or instruction
technique, nor is it the only way that a learner constructs knowledge (Airasian & Walsh, 1997).
Furthermore, without a specific means by which misconceptions can be identified and
remediated, constructivism can easily give students a view of science and knowledge that
contradicts accepted scientific beliefs and understandings. Finally, I recognize that it can be very
difficult to address specific learning objectives when attempted to solve complex, authentic tasks
within PBL, such as those around energy and efficiency.
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 9
Conclusion
By combining several instructional techniques such as CCM, peer instruction, modeling
instruction and PBL, a constructivist classroom for physics can be realized. There is ample
evidence to show that such an environment should produce positive educational outcomes.
Instilling these models and techniques may be time consuming and may have occasional faults,
but this whole-class experience itself leads to authentic situated cognition where different groups
(students and teachers) work together to explore and solve engaging problems in physics.
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 10
References
Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 444–
49.
Aufschnaiter, C. von, & Rogge, C. (2010). Misconceptions or missing conceptions?. EURASIA
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 3 – 18.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1). Retrieved from
http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/museumeducation/situated.html
Cabot, L. H. (2008). Transforming teacher knowledge: Modeling instruction in physics.
Washington: University of Washington. Retrieved from
http://modeling.asu.edu/thesis/TransformingTchrKnowledge08.pdf
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results.
American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.
Dougiamas, M. (1998). A journey into constructivism. Personal writings. Retrieved February 22,
2012, from http://dougiamas.com/writing/constructivism.html
Duit, R. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and
learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671 – 688.
doi:10.1080/0950069032000076652
Henry, D., Henry, J., & Riddoch, S. (2006). Whiteboarding your way to great student
discussions. Science Scope, 29(7), 50 – 53.
Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2008). Modeling instruction: An effective model for
science education. Science Educator, 17(1), 10–17.
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 11
Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2009). Exploring the use of audience response systems in secondary
school science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 382–
392.
Martinuk, S. (2009). Energy use in cars 6: Gasoline cars vs. bicycles. Physics Teaching for the
21st Century. Web Page. Retrieved from http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/energy-use-cars-6-
gasoline-cars-vs-bicycles
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Constructivism in science and mathematics education. Science
Teaching (p. chapter 7). New York: Routledge.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction - a user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Muller, D. A., Bewes, J., Sharma, M. D., & Reimann, P. (2007). Saying the wrong thing:
improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 24(2), 144–155. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00248.x
Nashon, S. M., & Nielsen, W. S. (2007). Participation rates in physics 12 in BC: Science
teachers’ and students’ views. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and
Technology Education, 7(2-3), 93–106. doi:10.1080/14926150709556722
Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 351–361.
Posner, G. J., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem based learning: an instructional model and its
constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.
Suppapittayaporn, D., Emarat, N., & Arayathanitkul, K. (2010). The effectiveness of peer
instruction and structured inquiry on conceptual understanding of force and motion: A
A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO PHYSICS 12
case study from thailand. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 63 –
79.