Abstract
Science education in general and physics education specifically have been at the forefront of educational research for at least six decades. Since the early 1960s, there has been a consensus that student science disengagement has long-range, negative ramifications for nations. A number of concerted and well-funded efforts have emerged across the Western world to address this problem. Yet, the vicious circle of student disengagement from science has remained. One of the reasons for this is that, by and large, science teaching hasn’t changed enough to meet student needs during this time. While many novel and innovative science education technologies have emerged lately, few schools are able to take full advantage of them or to support teachers in their implementation. Paradoxically, as students become more engaged with their new digital tools, they become more disengaged from their science learning. In this chapter, we challenge the notion that novel technologies that twenty-first-century students have in their pockets should detract them from learning science. Thus, we discuss how smartphones—a tool many secondary students use daily for their social interactions—can help break the vicious circle of secondary science disengagement. We first propose a pedagogical approach for using smartphones in a science classroom to conduct hands-on inquiry that focuses on experimental design, data collection, and analysis. Second, we describe our experience of using this approach in a secondary physics classroom, as well as during the province-wide annual Physics Olympics event that takes place at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Third, we discuss how science educators can support new and practicing teachers in implementing this novel technology in their classrooms through mentorship and communities of practice.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, D., Milner-Bolotin, M., Santos, R., & Petrina, S. (Eds.). (2021). Proceedings of the 6th international STEM in education conference (STEM 2021) [Conference Proceedings]. University of British Columbia. https://stem2021.ubc.ca/
Antimirova, T., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2009). A brief introduction to video analysis. Physics in Canada, 65(April-May), 74.
Arons, A. B. (1997). Teaching introductory physics. Wiley.
Barron, B. J. S. (1998). Doing With understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311.
Ben-David Kolikant, Y., Martinovic, D., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2020a). Introduction: STEM teachers and teaching in the era of change. In Y. Ben-David Kolikant, D. Martinovic, & M. Milner-Bolotin (Eds.), STEM teachers and teaching in the digital era: Professional expectations and advancement in 21st century schools (pp. 1–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29396-3
Ben-David Kolikant, Y., Martinovic, D., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (Eds.). (2020b). STEM teachers and teaching in the digital era: Professional expectations and advancement in 21st century schools. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29396-3
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309070368
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2021). Curriculum redesign. Canada British Columbia Ministry of Education, Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/rethinking-curriculum
Center for Education Reform. (2018). A nation still at risk? Results from the latest NAEP recall the report from 35 years ago. https://www.edreform.com/2018/04/a-nation-still-at-risk/
Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of factors predicting secondary students’ interest in tertiary STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 366–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1143137
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. Teachers College Press.
Dickson, P. (2001). Sputnik: The shock of the century. Walker Publishing Company.
Donnelly-Hermosillo, A. D., Gerardb, B. L., & Linn, C. M. C. (2022). Designing virtual chemistry visualizations featuring environmental dilemmas to promote equitable knowledge integration. In Y. J. Dori, C. Ngai, & G. Szteinberg (Eds.), Digital learning and teaching in chemistry: An international and inclusive approach. Royal Society of Chemistry.
English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting student self-regulated learning in problem- and project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(2), 128–150.
Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer Instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(April), 206–209.
Feynman, R. P. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out: The best short works of Richard P. Feynman. Helix Books—Perseus Books.
Frelindich, N. (1998). From Sputnik to TIMSS: Reforms in Science Education Make Headway Despite Setbacks: More time is needed for widespread classroom changes The Harvard Education Letter, 14 (September/October 1998). http://www.project2061.org/publications/articles/articles/harvard.htm
Goertz, S. (2018). Entwicklung von Smartphone-Experimenten zu gleichmäßig beschleunigten Bewegungen mit der App phyphox für den Einsatz in der Sekundarstufe II RWTH Aachen]. Aachen, Germany.
Goertz, S., Heinke, H., Riese, J., Stampfer, C., & Kuhlen, S. (2017). Smartphone-Experimente zu gleichmäßig beschleunigten Bewegungen mit der App phyphox. PhyDid B—Didaktik der Physik—Beiträge zur DPG-Frühjahrstagung.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.
Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on students knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 53(64), 1316–1325.
Hawkes, R., Iqbal, J., Mansour, F., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Williams, P. (2018). Physics for scientists and engineers: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Nelson Education.
Jochen, K., & Patrik, V. (2013). Smartphones as experimental tools: Different methods to determine the gravitational acceleration in classroom physics by using everyday devices. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(1), 16–27.
Jones, M. G., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs: Reforming practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 830–847). Routledge.
Liao, T., McKenna, J., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2017). Four decades of High School Physics Olympics Competitions at the University of British Columbia. Physics in Canada, 73(3), 127–129.
Maciel, T. (2015). Smartphones in the classroom help students see inside the black box. APS News, 24(3), 5–6.
Martinovic, D., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2021). Examination of modelling in K-12 STEM teacher education: Connecting theory with practice. STEM Education, 1(4), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2021018
Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199802)35:2<161::aid-tea6>3.0.co;2-q
Mazur, E. (1997a). Peer instruction: Getting students to think in class. Changing role of physics departments in modern universities: Part two: Sample classes. University of Maryland.
Mazur, E. (1997b). Understanding or memorization: Are we teaching the right thing? Conference on the Introductory Physics Course on the Occasion of the Retirement of Robert Resnick New York.
McDemott, L., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(6), 503–513.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2001). The effects of the topic choice in project-based instruction on undergraduate physical science students’ interest, ownership, and motivation [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of TX at Austin]. Austin, TX.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2004). Tips for using a peer response system in the large introductory physics classroom. The Physics Teacher, 42(4), 253–254. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1696604
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems and other technologies. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(4), 477–481. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed1008443
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2016). Promoting deliberate pedagogical thinking with technology in physics teacher education: A teacher-educator’s journey. In T. G. Ryan & K. A. McLeod (Eds.), The physics educator: Tacit praxes and untold stories (pp. 112–141). Common Ground and The Learner.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018a). Evidence-based research in STEM teacher education: From theory to practice. Frontiers in Education: STEM Education, 02(November), 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00092
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018b). Nurturing creativity in future mathematics teachers through embracing technology and failure. In V. Freiman & J. Tassell (Eds.), Creativity and technology in math education (pp. 251–278). Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319723792
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2020). Deliberate pedagogical thinking with technology in STEM teacher education. In Y. Ben-David Kolikant, D. Martinovic, & M. Milner-Bolotin (Eds.), STEM teachers and teaching in the era of change: Professional expectations and advancement in 21st century schools (pp. 201–219). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29396-3
Milner-Bolotin, M., & Zazkis, R. (2021). A study of future physics teachers’ knowledge for teaching: A case of a decibel sound level scale. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 9(1), 336–365. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.9.1.1519
Milner-Bolotin, M., Liao, T., & McKenna, J. (2019). UBC Physics Olympics: Forty-one years of province-wide physics outreach. International Newsletter on Physics Education: International Commission on Physics Education—International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, 70(November), 5–6. https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=173cff9755457424d7b6da150&id=ca7a3ba119&fbclid=IwAR3bfP9VIgSr97YXfhAi3zOxvSbH_qgjQNO84YNCSGwAb3TNbTXP-4COa34
Milner-Bolotin, M., Aminov, O., Wasserman, W., & Milner, V. (2020). Pushing the boundaries of science demonstrations using modern technology. Canadian Journal of Physics, 98(6), 571–578. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2019-0423
Milner-Bolotin, M., Milner, V., Tasnadi, A. M., Weck, H. T., Gromas, I., & Ispanovity, P. D. (2021). Contemporary experiments and new devices in physics classrooms. GIREP—Physics Education Conference 2019 Proceedings. http://fiztan.phd.elte.hu/english/student/devices.pdf
Moore, E. B., Chamberlain, J. M., Parson, R., & Perkins, K. K. (2014). PhET interactive simulations: Transformative tools for teaching chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1191–1197. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed4005084
Moritz, G. (1999). From Sputnik to NDEA: The changing role of science during the Cold War. http://codex23.com/gtexts/college/papers/j3.html
Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(January), 18–23.
Popper, K. (1996). The myth of the framework: In defense of science and rationality. Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Pullen, R., Motion, A., Schmid, S., George-Williams, S., Wilkinson, S., & Leach, S. (2022). Digital tools for equitable in person and remote chemistry learning. In Y. J. Dori, C. Ngai, & G. Szteinberg (Eds.), Digital tools for equitable in person and remote chemistry learning (p. 19). Royal Society of Chemistry.
Staacks, S., Hütz, S., Heinke, H., & Stampfer, C. (2018). Advanced tools for smartphone-based experiments: Phyphox. Physics Education, 53(4), 045009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aac05e
Staacks, S., Hütz, S., Heinke, H., & Stampfer, C. (2019). Simple time-of-flight measurement of the speed of sound using smartphones: Experiments using cell phones in physics classroom education: The computer-aided g determination. The Physics Teacher, 57(2), 112–113. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5088474
Stampfer, C., Heinke, H., & Staacks, S. (2020). A lab in the pocket. Nature Reviews Materials, 5(3), 169–170. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-020-0184-2
Tembrevilla, G., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2019). Engaging physics teacher-candidates in the production of science demonstration videos. Physics Education, 54(2), 025008–025018. http://stacks.iop.org/0031-9120/54/i=2/a=025008
UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy. (2022). UBC Physics Olympics. UBC. Retrieved November 30, from http://physoly.phas.ubc.ca/
Vieyra, R., Vieyra, C., Jeanjacquot, P., Marti, A., & Monteiro, M. (2015). Turn your smartphone into a science laboratory. The Science Teacher, 82(December), 32–40.
Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225–227.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Milner-Bolotin, M., Milner, V. (2023). Breaking the Vicious Circle of Secondary Science Education with Twenty-First-Century Technology: Smartphone Physics Labs. In: Thomas, G.P., Boon, H.J. (eds) Challenges in Science Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18091-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-18092-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)