Lessons from pendulums: A design comparison of three lab activities
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866914511199404032 |
|---|---|
| author | Descamps, Ian Tobin, Roger Wagoner, Paul Hammer, David Holmes, N. G. Scherr, Rachel E. |
| author_facet | Descamps, Ian Tobin, Roger Wagoner, Paul Hammer, David Holmes, N. G. Scherr, Rachel E. |
| contents | We present three versions of a pendulum lab activity to explore how theoretical commitments, motivations, and aspirations reflect in curriculum design. In earlier work, Boudreaux & Elby (2020) discussed how different theoretical perspectives led them to different designs of tutorials. Here, we discuss our finding that even starting from the same theoretical perspective and having similar goals for students can lead to differences of design. We give three interacting reasons why our labs diverge: We have different expectations of students at our respective institutions; we have different ancillary goals; and we draw different implications from our shared theoretical commitments. Our account demonstrates the complexity of the relationship between theory, goals, and curriculum design. In this way, it adds to prior arguments for the importance of designers' articulating the reasoning for their choices as well as for the possible value of instructors' responsive adaptations to curricula. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2512_09781 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Lessons from pendulums: A design comparison of three lab activities Descamps, Ian Tobin, Roger Wagoner, Paul Hammer, David Holmes, N. G. Scherr, Rachel E. Physics Education We present three versions of a pendulum lab activity to explore how theoretical commitments, motivations, and aspirations reflect in curriculum design. In earlier work, Boudreaux & Elby (2020) discussed how different theoretical perspectives led them to different designs of tutorials. Here, we discuss our finding that even starting from the same theoretical perspective and having similar goals for students can lead to differences of design. We give three interacting reasons why our labs diverge: We have different expectations of students at our respective institutions; we have different ancillary goals; and we draw different implications from our shared theoretical commitments. Our account demonstrates the complexity of the relationship between theory, goals, and curriculum design. In this way, it adds to prior arguments for the importance of designers' articulating the reasoning for their choices as well as for the possible value of instructors' responsive adaptations to curricula. |
| title | Lessons from pendulums: A design comparison of three lab activities |
| topic | Physics Education |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09781 |