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


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.


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.


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).


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


case study from thailand. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 63 –

79.

Documents

Constructivist Approach in Physics