Design, Development and Refinement of a Teaching-Learning Sequence on the Electromagnetic Properties of Materials

  • Nicos Papadouris
  • Costas Constantinou
  • Marios Papaevripidou
  • Michalis Livitziis
  • Argyro Scholinaki
  • Rodothea Hadjilouca

Abstract

We describe a process of designing, developing, and gradually refining a teaching-learning sequence (TLS) on electromagnetic properties of materials (EPM). The design of the teaching-learning sequence draws on principles from the frameworks of inquiry-oriented teaching-learning and learning through technological design. Combining these two frameworks was intended to lead to an instructional context that would likely sustain student interest for the extended time that is necessary to attain conceptual understanding of magnetic interactions and electromagnetic phenomena. Also, it was expected to facilitate the development of students’ epistemological awareness regarding the interconnections and distinction between science and technology. The development process involved a series of six implementation-evaluation-revision cycles (two in upper secondary classes in a school setting, two in a science summer club for highschool students, and two in a science content course for pre-service elementary teachers), with a total of 294 participants. In each implementation, we collected data on students’ learning outcomes through various sources, including open-ended assessment tasks and student-constructed artefacts (e.g., technological products and accompanying posters and written reports). After each implementation, we drew not only on the collected data but also on the feedback provided by the teachers, so as to refine the teaching-learning sequence with the intent to enhance its potential to promote its targeted learning objectives. In this study, we illustrate how the empirical data collected during the implementation of the teaching-learning sequence could serve to guide its refinement. We report on particular instances in which the data on student learning outcomes led us to identify specific limitations of the teaching-learning sequence in terms of its facility to promote certain learning objectives and we elaborate on the revisions we undertook so as to address those limitations.

Keywords

Learning Objective Activity Sequence Magnetic Domain Design Project Ferromagnetic Material 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Professors Mathilde Vicentini and Roser Pinto, who provided valuable feedback for improving the teaching-learning sequence. We also acknowledge Lilian C. McDermott and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington for continued support and collaboration in our curriculum design efforts.

References

  1. Agassi, J. (1980). Between science and technology. Philosophy of Science, 47(1), 82–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arageorgis, A., & Baltas, A. (1989). Demarcating technology from science: Problems and problem solving in technology. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 20(2), 212–229.Google Scholar
  4. Boudreaux, A., Shaffer, P. S., Heron, P. R. L., & McDermott, L. C. (2008). Student understanding of control of variables: Deciding whether or not a variable influences the behavior of a system. American Journal of Physics, 76(2), 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2006). Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 239.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Constantinou and the Learning in Science Group at the University of Cyprus. (2009). Electromagnetic properties of materials – Teachers’ manual. Learning in Science Group, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus: ISBN: 978-9963-689-59-0.Google Scholar
  9. Constantinou, C. P., Hadjilouca, R., & Papadouris, N. (2010). Students’ epistemological awareness concerning the distinction between science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 143–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Custer, R. L. (1995). Examining the dimensions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(3), 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2007). Science Education now, A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  14. Gago, J. M., Caro, P., Constantinou, C. P., Davies, G., Parchmann, I., Rannikmae, M., Sjoberg, S., & Ziman, J. (2004). Europe needs more scientists: Increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe. Report of the High Level Group on Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.Google Scholar
  15. Gardner, P. L. (1993). Textbook representations of science-technology relationships. Research in Science Education, 23, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardner, P. L. (1994). The relationship between technology and science: Some historical and philosophical reflections. Part I. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(2), 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: International Technology Education Association.Google Scholar
  19. Kellogg, W. A. (1990). Qualitative artifact analysis. In: Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT), Cambridge, UK, pp. 193–198.Google Scholar
  20. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McComas, W. F. (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. McDermott, L. C. (1993). How we teach and how students learn – A mismatch? American Journal of Physics, 60(4), 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDermott, L., & The Physics Education Group at the University of Washington. (1996). Physics by inquiry (Vol. I and II). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. NRC. (1996). National science εducation standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  28. NSF. (2003). The science and engineering workforce realizing America’s potential. Arlington: NSF.Google Scholar
  29. OECD. (2006). Women in scientific careers: Unleashing the potential. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  30. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tanel, Z., & Erol, M. (2008). Students’ difficulties in understanding the concepts of magnetic field strength, magnetic flux density and magnetisation. Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, 2(3), 184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicos Papadouris
    • 1
  • Costas Constantinou
    • 1
  • Marios Papaevripidou
    • 1
  • Michalis Livitziis
    • 1
  • Argyro Scholinaki
    • 1
  • Rodothea Hadjilouca
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning in Science GroupUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations