Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency

Kalender, Z. Yasemin; Stump, Emily M.; Hubenig, Katelynn; Holmes, N. G.

doi:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.17.020128

Cited by 24 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two key features of scientific inquiry distinguish the open outcome and verification frames we identified: uncertainty in outcomes [9] and epistemic agency [10][11][12][13]. This distinction closely resembles the contrast between "doing science" (open outcome) and "doing school" (verification) identified in prior work [34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…While students may hold some initial expectations of the outcome of an experiment, these expectations should be tentative and subject to revision if data suggest another outcome. The second piece is epistemic agency: instructors should make students comfortable with the authority they have to form new and unexpected conclusions [10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such inquiry-based labs promote uncertainty of outcomes by encouraging students to draw conclusions supported by their data, regardless of what outcome they expect based on canonical models [9]. They also foster epistemic agency by giving students authority over the knowledge they construct with their experiments [10][11][12][13]. Students in these labs, however, often expect that lab experiments have a predetermined outcome and do not perceive themselves as having control over the knowledge formed from experimental data [14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Students� varying responses to instructor prompts for frame shifts in physics labs

Sundstrom¹,

Fussell²,

Scherr³

et al. 2022

2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has shown that students in inquiry-based physics labs often expect their experiment to verify a known theory or model, contrary to the goals of the lab. It is important, therefore, to identify ways for instructors to shift students' expectations or epistemic frames to those in line with scientific inquiry. In this paper, we analyze video recordings of one inquiry-based lab session in which the instructor intentionally encourages students to falsify, or disprove, the claim under investigation. We find that students operationalize the instructor's prompt by taking up one of two distinct epistemic frames: open outcome and verification. Students in the open outcome frame initially expect to falsify their claim, but form other conclusions in the face of alternative evidence. Students in the verification frame, however, view falsification as verifying that a claim is false and do not consider other possible outcomes even when they find conflicting data. These results suggest that students may interpret instructor prompts for frame shifts in very different ways. We argue that to shift students to epistemic frames in line with scientific inquiry (e.g., the open outcome frame), instructor prompts should explicitly address uncertainty in outcomes (regarding an experimental result as unknown) and epistemic agency (perceiving oneself as a producer of knowledge).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Students� varying responses to instructor prompts for frame shifts in physics labs

Sundstrom¹,

Fussell²,

Scherr³

et al. 2022

2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We adopt the definition of agency described by Holmes et al (2020) as goal-directed decision-making, specifically focusing on decision-making agency, which is highly relevant to an engineering context, as opposed to epistemic agency (freedom in what questions to ask or how to create new knowledge), which is more relevant to a basic science context. Learning activities which leave room for students to make decisions may support student motivation and increase buy-in, build self-efficacy, and better reflect the conditions of professional work (Kalender et al, 2021).…”

Section: Advances In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Hands-on Guided-inquiry Materials Laboratory that Supports Student Agency

Ford¹,

Fatehiboroujeni²,

Fisher³

et al. 2023

Advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under the new ABET accreditation framework, students are expected to demonstrate "an ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions." Traditional, recipe-based labs provide few opportunities for students to engage in realistic experimental design or develop a sense of agency, and research has cast doubt on their pedagogical benefit. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic forced institutions to move to remote learning. We developed a scaffolded series of remote lab activities for an upper-division mechanics of materials course, culminating in a collaborative guided-inquiry experiment design challenge. In the first iteration of the course, we mailed kits to students with basic supplies for the at-home experiments, while in the second students were expected to make use of readily-available household items. We analyzed 36 lab reports from the second iteration of the guided-inquiry lab and identified 25 unique approaches to the design challenge, an indication of a truly open-ended activity. Student outcomes were measured by post-lab surveys of attitudes and self-efficacy, as well as a standardized conceptual learning assessment. The fraction of students endorsing statements related to a sense of agency increased dramatically over the course of the semester: from 53% to 83% for goal-setting and from 63% to 92% for choice of methods. Self-efficacy increased significantly in the primary targeted skills (designing experiments and making predictions), but there was no significant shift in skills not explicitly targeted by the guided-inquiry lab (equitable sharing of labor, expressing opinions in a group, and interpreting graphs).

show abstract

“…There has been considerable recent interest in agency within Physics Education in laboratory settings (e.g. [30,31]); here we briefly consider the queer implications of such agency.…”

Section: B Agency As An Ingredient For Queering Physicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disciplinary Inq[ee]ry in Computational Physics

Phillips¹,

Gouvea²,

Gravel³

et al. 2022

2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As opposed to practices that reinforce inequitable power structures, disciplinary practices in STEM that converge with themes of resistance (identified through Critical analysis) are better suited to support marginalized students. We identify two instances (within the setting of a computational physics course) where we notice resonance between disciplinary practices and queer theory. We use this queer reading of our learning environment to explore possibilities for queering physics education. We argue that identifying and amplifying STEM practices that are compatible with such themes can support justice-oriented pedagogy and align with efforts to incorporate agency and scientific practices into Physics classrooms.

show abstract

Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency

Cited by 24 publications

References 51 publications

Students� varying responses to instructor prompts for frame shifts in physics labs

Students� varying responses to instructor prompts for frame shifts in physics labs

A Hands-on Guided-inquiry Materials Laboratory that Supports Student Agency

Disciplinary Inq[ee]ry in Computational Physics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About