Designing for insightful learning in mechanics through

Designing for insightful learning in mechanics through labwork Jonte Bernhard Engineering Education Research Group ITN, Campus Norrköping Linköping University SE-60174 Norrköping, Sweden Introduction One of the important aim of education should be to help students acquiring a “functional understanding” of the subject studied. Marton and Tsui (2004) have stated this as: “Developing a learner’s capability of handling novel situations in powerful ways, is considered to be one of the most important educational aims.” In engineering and in science education one implication of this is that students should not only learn theories and models, but also learn to understand the mutual relationship between theories/models and objects/events in the ‘real’ world (cf. e.g. Tiberghien, 1998). Especially engineering students should learn to use (and develop) appropriate models and theories in their engineering practice, i.e. in their handling of objects and events (‘reality’) for example in design. In engineering and science education students are expected in a reflective way link observed data, to either theoretical models, or to the real world they are exploring during labwork. However a large body of research have shown that acquiring a functional understanding is problematic for many students and ‘traditional’ teaching does usually not bring about insightful learning. According to Marton and Tsui (2004) “arranging for learning implies arranging for developing learners’ ways of seeing or experiencing, i.e., developing the eyes through which the world is perceived”. In 1994/95 I started the first project in that should evolve into a series of projects focusing on the design and implementation of ‘conceptual labs’ aimed to develop insightful learning. The main focus has been on courses in mechanics and electric circuit theory and has involved courses for university students studying to become engineers as well as students studying to become teachers. Learning is seen as developing certain abilities and values enabling the learner to handle novel situations in powerful ways. In a similar vein, I have previously (Bernhard, 2003) described a conceptual lab as one that help students to develop fruitful ways of linking concepts, models, objects and events. A conceptual lab is a place of inquiry, where students “ways of seeing or experiencing … the world [are developed]”, i.e. the lab is an arena for further learning and not for unreflected confirmation of theories and formulas. In the projects (Bernhard, in press b), the lab instructions were written in Swedish and the design was inspired by the successful curricula ‘Tools for Scientific Thinking’, ‘RealTime Physics’ and ‘Workshop Physics’ developed by Ron Thornton, David Sokoloff and Priscilla Laws (Thornton, 1987, 1997; Sokoloff, Thornton & Laws, 1987) and implemented at various universities and colleges in USA. These curricula and my design utilises microcomputer based labs (MBL) for measurements and display of experimental data in real-time. The sensor-computer-technology in MBL is also sometimes called ‘probeware’. Systematic variation according to the theory of variation (see below) was introduced in my designs. The research methodology, the research questions and the theoretical framework have evolved over these years. The original question was if the educational ideas behind the labbased innovative curricula such as ‘RealTime Physics’ could be transferred and successfully implemented in a Swedish setting. This original question evolved later into an interest in the following interrelated questions as the learning environment was studied in more detail: - In what different ways do the students approach the learning environment? - How do the different approaches influence the students’ lived object of learning?

- Which aspects of the learning environment direct the students towards the intended object of learning? - How can we further develop these aspects? Theoretical framework The learning environments were designed to facilitate learning by providing the learner with experiences (Dewey, 1925/1981, 1938/1986). In line with this the first project was named Experientially based physics instruction. In the experiential view, conceptions are seen as reflecting human – world relationships. Learning is seen as developing certain abilities and values enabling the learner to handle novel situations in powerful ways. Originally also theories of mediated action influenced the design (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978). In subsequent analysis and designs, our thinking was also influenced by variation theory, activity theory and pragmatic and (post-)phenomenological theories of the philosophy of technology (e.g. Ihde, 1991; see also Bernhard, 2007, in press a, in press b). Ference Marton and co-workers have developed what is known as ‘variation theory’ (Marton & Booth, 1997; Marton & Tsui, 2004). This is an explanatory framework describing conditions necessary for learning. One necessary condition for learning is that students are able to focus on the ‘object of learning’ and that its critical features should be brought into the focal awareness of the learner. A central tenet in this theory is that we learn through the experience of difference, rather than the recognition of similarity. Learning should be understood in terms of discernment, simultaneity and variation. This is useful in refining the design of our labs, as well as analytical tool in our attempts to analyse and describe why some applications of probeware have been successful and others have not. As mentioned above the designs utilises probeware technology for measurements and display of experimental data in real-time. The probeware functions as a mediating tool - we perceive the world and think through technology: Human Technology World. The way technologies are implemented in mediated relations shapes figure-background relationships, i.e. variations that can be discerned and hence if the critical features of the object of learning is brought in the focal awareness. The approach taken in the design and implementation of these innovative curricula concur very well with the emergent paradigm described as ‘design experiments’ (Brown, 1992; Cobb et al., 2003) or ‘design-based research’ (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). Lo et al. (2004) have expressed one of the main features of this approach as: “The benefits of design experiments are that we will be able to contribute to theory development, and improve practice at the same time.” Methodology Quantitative conceptual tests as well as qualitative methods have been used. Initially the projects were evaluated using conceptual tests such as the Force Concept Inventory (FCI: Hestenes, Wells & Swackhamer, 1992) and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE: Thornton & Sokoloff, 1998). In later years students’ courses of action were documented by video recordings and their orientation to, interpretation of, and participation in these labs were analysed (Jordan & Henderson, 1995; Lindwall, 2008). This fine-grained analysis have been inspired by an emerging research tradition that focus on students interaction in science and mathematics education (e.g. Greeno & Goldman, 1998; Lampert & Blunk, 1998; Nemirovsky, Tierney, & Wright, 1998; Roth, 1999). Furthermore the analytical approach taken is also influenced by ethnomethodology (e.g. Garfinkel, 1967; Hester & Francis, 2000), conversation analysis (e.g. Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998) and situative approaches to learning and cognition (e.g. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Greeno & Goldman, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Variation theory (see above) was also an integrated

part of the research methodology. We have focused on central characteristics of learning environments and we have explored what the students do and which resources they use. Findings In table 1 result from mechanics courses developed by us are presented on the basis of the FMCE test and compared other curricula. ‘MBL 1997/98’ was a full implementation of the labs I developed and ‘Physics 02/03 MBL-labs’ was a test including a reduced set of MBLlabs. The data show that we achieved results comparable to some of the best activeengagement curricula in USA. The data from ‘Physics 02/03’ should be especially noted. In this physics course for engineering students two different lab courses were offered: One with the labs (Richardson-labs) normally offered in the course and one with a reduced set of probeware (MBL) labs. The students shared the same large hall lectures and participated in similar problem solving classes. The only difference was 16 h (4 × 4 h) of labs, but as can be seen in table 1 the difference in learning, according to FMCE, was dramatic. Recently the design ideas behind the MBL-labs have been implemented in so-called interactive lecture demonstrations (ILD, Thornton, 1997) instead of labs. As can be seen in table 1 the results from ILDs are better than ‘traditional’ teaching, but not as well as a full fledge implementation of MBL. However ILD use fewer resources than MBL. Teaching Method / Course Workshop physics MBL 1997/98 Physics 02/03 MBL-labs Physics 02/03 Richardson-labs ILD 05/06 Traditional (USA)

Norm. Gain (FMCE) 65% 61% 48% 18% 37% 16%

Reference Saul and Redish (1998) This study This study This study This study Saul and Redish (1998)

Table 1. Learning gains for different courses as measured by the FMCE-test.

However, in a previous study (Bernhard, 2003), I have shown that labs using probeware are not always effective in learning physics, i.e. that this technology also can be implemented in ways that lead to low achievements. Therefore we have continued our earlier studies mostly using pre- and post-testing with a more fine-grained analysis, using data collected by video, looking for critical details. From our analysis of empirical data, recorded by video, we see that students’ courses of action, in MBL, are framed (Goffman, 1974) by encounters with the instructions, the technology, the teacher and other students. When using the technology, students receive immediate feedback. In the process of constructing graphs they can see when they make mistakes. Students intertwine different interpretative resources as well as different experiential domains such as graphical shapes with narrative accounts of past actions. The central aspect of the graph must be focused on and in order to complete the assignments the students have to make certain conceptual distinctions. The instructions for the task specify the process and specify variance and invariance in the learning space. In order to solve the task the students have to deal with certain concepts in certain ways. Teachers not only design the learning environment, chose technology and write instructions, but also scaffold students' activities, including encouraging students to shift their attention to central parts of the graph while downgrading less important aspects. Students have a common perspective on the graph. The students negotiate different interpretations of graphical representation, the experiment and subject-matter. Arguments are made an important component of the process of solving the task. It should be noted that the technology is present in all encounters. A brief analysis of tasks from two different conceptual labs is presented below. In the first example students’ courses of action were analysed and from recordings by video illustrations

resembling a ‘comic strip’ were made. In the second example variation theory was used to analyse task structure. Example 1: In figure 1 a short excerpt is shown from a task were a student is trying to walk a trajectory to match a given velocity vs time graph. While moving the student, and his/her peers, can see the experimental graph produced in real-time. Prior to this, students have solved tasks involving position-time graphs. Before this task they have performed a similar task matching a position vs time graph. In this task the technology do not only give immediate feedback but also it bring velocity to the fore. Other features of the situation, physical as well as non-physical, are not highlighted, i.e. some discernment has already occurred. Velocity is also established as a relationship to objects and events in the world. In order to complete the assignment, students have to understand this and also make important conceptual distinc- Figure 1. Drawings, based on video recordings, tions as is clearly seen in figure 1 there the presented in the form of comic strips, to illustrate courses of action. This illustration by students initially don’t make a clear students’ Lindwall and Ivarsson (in press) is from a MBL-lab in distinction between the position and velocity one of the mechanics courses. concepts. Example 2: Motion with friction. Traditionally in physics teaching the aim is to get as low friction as possible (cf the invention of the air track as a teaching tool) to show the “truth” of the laws of mechanics. In this experiment friction is deliberately introduced and varied, by a special attachment to the cart, with the intention of introducing the frictionless “world” as a model and “limiting case”. By varying the friction students both encounters the cases v ∝ Fexternal and a ∝ Fexternal. Variation is thus brought about different thought models and how friction can be accounted for within a Newtonian framework. Conclusion Our explanations of the reasons why some curricula featuring MBL have been successful differ somewhat from earlier suggestions in the literature. Fine-grained analysis of learning environments are necessary if we want to understand the issues involved and we must go beyond surface descriptions and categories in our analysis. I also conclude that my study show that labs can be designed to be an essential environment for learning and that variation theory is an important tool in this design (For an example from engineering electric circuit theory involving transform methods see Carstensen and Bernhard [2007]). I also argue that the role of the technology, in establishing the experiential human – world relationship, cannot be neglected when designing and studying labs. In science instruments do not merely “mirror reality”, but mutually constitute the reality investigated. As a final point I will put forward that my study is an example of a fruitful symbiosis between ideas and theories stemming from USA and from Europe – ‘border crossing’ is essential for progress. Acknowledgements The Swedish Research Council and the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (Council for Renewal of Higher Education) have supported this work financially.

References Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL): Learning effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool. In D. Psillos & K. P. & V. Tselfes & E. Hatzikraniotis & G. Fassoulopoulos & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society (pp. 313-321). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Bernhard, J. (2007). Thinking and learning through technology - Mediating tools and insights from philosophy of technology applied to science and engineering education. The Pantaneto Forum, 27. Bernhard, J. (in press a). Humans, intentionality, experience and tools for learning: Some contributions from post-cognitive theories to the use of technology in physics education. In L. Hsu, C. Henderson & L. McCullough (Eds.), Cognitive Science and Physics Education Research. College Park: AIP. Bernhard, J. (in press b). Conceptual labs as an arena for learning: Experiences from a decennium of design and implementation. In Proceedings of the SEFI 36th Annual Conference. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42. Carstensen, A.-K., & Bernhard, J. (2007). Critical aspects for learning in an electric circuit theory course - an example of applying learning theory and design-based educational research in developing engineering education. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Research in Engineering Education, Honolulu. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9-13. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5-8. Dewey, J. (1981). Experience and Nature. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works (Vol. 1). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (original work published 1925) Dewey, J. (1986). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works (Vol. 12). Carbondale: Southern Illinios University Press. (original work published 1938) Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice Hall. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row. Greeno, J. G., & Goldman, S. V. (Eds.). (1998). Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158. Hester, S., & Francis, D. (2000). Local educational order: ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: principles, practices and applications. Oxford: Polity. Ihde, D. (1991). Instrumental Realism: The Interface between Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-103. Lampert, M., & Blunk, M. L. (Eds.). (1998). Talking mathematics in school: studies of teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Lindwall, O. (2008). Lab work in science education: Instruction, inscription, and the practical achievement of understanding. Dissertation, Linköping University: Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 426. Lindwall, O., & Ivarsson, J. (in press). Differences that make a difference: Contrasting the local enactment of two technologies in a kinematics lab. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lo, M. L., Marton, F., Pang, M. F., & Pong, W. Y. (2004). Toward a Pedagogy of Learning. In F. Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom Discourse and the Space of learning (pp. 189-225). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Marton, F., & Tsui, A. B. M. (Eds.). (2004). Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning. Mahwaw: Lawrence Erlbaum. Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body Motion and Graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 119-172. Roth, W.-M. (1999). Discourse and Agency in School Science Laboratories. Discourse Processes, 28, 27-60. Saul, J. M., & Redish, E. F. (1998). An Evaluation of the Workshop Physics Dissemination Project. College Park: Dep. of Physics, University of Maryland. Sokoloff, D. R., Thornton, R. K., & Laws, P. (1998). RealTime Physics. New York: Wiley. Thornton, R. K. (1987). Tools for scientific thinking - microcomputer-based laboratories for teaching physics. Physics Education, 22, 230. Thornton, R. K. (1997). Learning Physics Concepts in the Introductory Course: Microcomputer-based Labs and Interactive Lecture Demonstrations. In J. Wilson (Ed.), Proceedings Conference on Introductory Physics Course (pp. 69-86). New York: Wiley. Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66, 338-352. Tiberghien, A. (1998). Labwork activity and learning physics - an approach based on modeling. In J. Leach & A. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in science education (pp. 176-194). Fredriksberg: Roskilde University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.