IOP Concise Physics

Investigative Science Learning Environment

When learning physics mirrors doing physics
Eugenia Etkina, David T Brookes and Gorazd Planinsic

Chapter 2
Examples of ISLE-based learning of traditional
physics topics and examples of ISLE-based
physics problems1

In this chapter, we show how students learn traditional physics topics in the ISLE
classroom and what types of problems they solve.

2.1 Student learning of traditional topics

2.1.1 Newton’s third law
The following example shows an ISLE progression for students learning Newton’s
third law. The main idea of the law is when two objects interact, they exert forces on
each other that are the same in magnitude and opposite in direction (Newton’s third
law pairs). However, not all equal in magnitude and opposite in direction forces are
Newton’s third law pairs. These forces need to describe the same interaction and are
exerted on two different objects. Newton’s third law is a foundational idea of
Newtonian mechanics and all concept inventories assess it (e.g. Hestenes et al 1992,
Thornton and Sokoloff 1998). Research findings show that even after instruction,
students often think that a heavier or faster moving object will exert a larger force on
a smaller slower object when they collide, that Earth exerts a stronger force on a
falling apple than the apple on Earth and that the Sun exerts a stronger force on
Earth orbiting the Sun than Earth on the Sun. Or that the weight of an apple and
normal force exerted by the table on the apple represent Newton’s third law pair. To
help students construct correct conceptual understanding, we use the following steps.
They can be done in a large lecture hall when students observe and discuss in pairs or

1
Most of the examples in this chapter are taken from College Physics: Explore and Apply 2nd edition by
Etkina, Planinsic and Van Heuvelen (2019) (CP:EA). In the textbook, one can find more material and more
problems. ©2019. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, New York.

doi:10.1088/2053-2571/ab3ebdch2 2-1 ª Morgan & Claypool Publishers 2019

 Investigative Science Learning Environment

in a small room setting (instructional lab, high school classroom or a studio

classroom) where they interact with equipment in groups of three. Here, we describe
the situation when students invent Newton’s third law in a studio setting or high
school classroom setting. We chose this example to show how students invent a
correct physics idea but have difficulty believing that the idea applies to all cases.
The students who participate in the activities below have learned kinematics, force
and force diagrams and Newton’s first and second laws (for the ISLE progression
and graphical representations for those topics, see chapters 2 and 3 in CP:EA).
Step 1. Qualitative observational experiment (based on the idea proposed by
Hewitt (1998, p 36)).
Instructions for the students: Extend your fingers and try to bend them back as
much as you can (figure 2.1(a)). Then push with your fingers against the wall and
note how far the fingers bend this time (figure 2.1(b)). Try to explain your
observations.
The students observe that the fingers bend much more when pressed against the
wall (figure 2.1(b)). They discuss in groups possible reasons for this phenomenon. One
of the reasons that comes up is that the wall pushes back on the fingers, bending them.
Another explanation that students propose is that the wall is ‘just in the way’.
The students can test these two explanations by designing a new experiment and
predicting its outcome using both. One of the experiments involves a compressible
spring that replaces the wall (a door spring available in home-improvement stores will
work here). If the first explanation is correct, and you press against the spring it should
compress and the fingers should bend, if the second explanation is correct, the spring
should not compress but the fingers should bend. Once the students reject the second
explanation, they can move to the investigation of the magnitudes of the forces.
Step 2. Quantitative observational experiment:
After the students are convinced that as the fingers are pushing on the wall, the
wall exerts a force on the fingers, we can suggest them to investigate this idea more
systematically.

Figure 2.1. Observational experiment that helps students construct the idea that the wall pushes back on the
hand when the hand pushes on the wall.

2-2
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Instructions for the students: You have two different spring scales with hooks.
Check that both scales are zeroed. Place the scales on the table and hook them
together. Have two people from your group pull on them in as many different ways
as possible, as long as the scales are horizontal and aligned so that they measure the
forces along the same direction (people holding the scales can move). Record the
readings of the scales in each experiment on the whiteboard. Prepare to share the
pattern you found with the class and use the pattern to devise a rule about the forces
that two interacting objects exert on each other.
Step 2. Patterns and hypotheses:
The students perform the experiments in groups and record the data (see the
photo in figure 2.2). After 5–7 min, all groups find out that in each experiment two
scales always have the same reading (the readings vary from an experiment to an
experiment). If one scale reads 5 N, the other one reads 5 N, if one scale reads 7 N,
the other one reads 7 N. Students come up with the pattern that the scales have the
same reading when they interact with each other. They also come up with the
explanation: the readings are the same because the scales exert the same magnitude
forces on each other (we call this a rule). While the students devise this rule with
relative ease, they usually believe that it works for static objects but not for moving
objects, especially when one of them clearly makes the other move in a particular
direction. That is why the next step is to test it.
Step 3. Testing experiments, predictions and outcomes.
Instructions for the students: You have two low friction carts that are equipped
with wireless (Bluetooth) force sensors to which rubber bumpers are attached. You
also have a dynamic track, a set of objects of different masses and a computer with
data-logging software. Use these materials to design experiments to test the rule
regarding the forces that two interacting objects exert on each other. Make sure that
you describe the set up in words and a sketch, and write the prediction of the
outcome based on the hypothesis under test and then compare the outcome to the
prediction. The prediction should be based on the rule you are testing.
The students design several experiments—a moving heavy cart hits a light
stationary cart, a moving heavy cart hits a light cart that moves towards the heavy
cart, a fast-moving cart hits a slow-moving cart, and so forth (https://mediaplayer.
pearsoncmg.com/assets/_frames.true/secs-experiment-video-6). They move carts with
different speeds, add different masses of the carts and no matter what they do, the

Figure 2.2. Two scales in an observational experiment.

2-3
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

outcome always matches the prediction that they make using the rule—the readings of
the force probes are equal every time (see figure 2.3). The graphs from the force probes
show that the carts exert the same magnitude forces on each other at every instant of
time! The students are usually very surprised by this result. They cannot disprove the
rule they themselves created! At the end of the class comes ‘time for telling’. The
instructor tells them that they just discovered what is called Newton’s third law: when
two objects interact they exert
 forces oneach other that are the same in magnitude and
opposite in direction, i.e. FA on B = −FB on A and leads a discussion related to these
forces. Specifically, the fact that these two forces are exerted on two different objects
and cannot be added to find a net force, and that the forces are of the same nature.
Step 4. Application experiments.
Instructions for the students: Examine how you walk. Take one step and carefully
analyze force exerted by the floor on your shoe that allow you to begin the step and
end the step. Identify Newton’s third law pairs and explain how this knowledge
accounts for you beginning and finishing each step (see figure 2.4 for the analysis).
Step 5. Formative assessment:
Here, we provide some examples of formative assessment questions that we ask
our students after they have constructed Newton’s third law. The first question is an
example of a multiple-choice question that you can ask in a large room setting and
the students vote with clickers, the second one is useful for group work and the third
one can be used for group work in class or as homework.

Example 1: A book sits on a tabletop. What force is the Newton’s third law pair to
the force that Earth exerts on the book? Choose the correct answer with the best
explanation.
(a) The force that the table exerts on the book because it is equal and opposite
in direction to the force that Earth exerts on the book
(b) The force that the table exerts on the book because the table and the book
are touching each other
(c) The force that the table exerts on the book because it describes the same
interaction

Figure 2.3. Two carts in a testing experiment.

2-4
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Figure 2.4. Analysis of walking using Newton’s third law.

(d) The force that the book exerts on Earth because it describes the same
interaction
(e) The force that the book exerts on Earth because it is equal and opposite in
direction to the force that Earth exerts on the book

Answer: The correct answer is (d). Students who choose other answers do not
understand that the Newton’s third law pair forces should describe the same interaction
or they think that the sufficient condition for two forces to be Newton’s third law pair is
that they are equal and opposite in direction.

Example 2: Basketball player LeBron James can jump vertically over 0.9 m.
Estimate the force that he exerts on the surface of the basketball court as he jumps.
(a) Compare this force with the force that the surface exerts on James. Describe all
assumptions used in your estimate and state how each assumption affects the result.
(b) Repeat the problem looking at the time interval when he is landing back on
the floor.
Answer: (a) Assuming that the jump interval (from his lowered body to his feet
 we find FPlayer on Surface = 2 × 10 N
3
taking off) lasts for 0.3 s andignoring the air drag
(in a downward direction). FSurface on Player = −FPlayer on Surface . (b) If we ignore air drag
and assume that the time interval to stop is the same as jump interval, then the forces
are the same as in (a).

2-5
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Example 3: Hairdryers contain a small propeller that pushes air away from the
dryer through a nozzle. You place a hairdryer on a scale with the nozzle pointing up,
and it reads 4.40 N (see the figure). When you turn the hairdryer on, so that the
hairdryer is pushing the air upward, the reading of the scale increases to 4.85 N.
Explain the change in the reading qualitatively and quantitatively2.

Answer: When thehairdryer is on, the propeller inside is rotating. It pushes the air
FHDON on Air ; therefore,
up, exerting a force   according to Newton’s third law, the air
should exert a force FAir on HDON = −FHDON on Air on the propeller and consequently on
the whole hairdryer. Using the 2nd Newton’s law, we find FAir on HDON = 0.45 N.

2.1.2 Electromagnetic induction

Below is an example of how students devise the concept of electromagnetic induction
following the ISLE process. Electromagnetic induction is a physical phenomenon
when an electric current is created in a coil of wire without any battery. All that is
needed is a changing magnetic field in the vicinity of the coil. We chose this example
to represent situations when students invent an idea that is only partially correct and
they need to improve it when new data arrive. We also show variations in the cycle
depending on whether it is a studio classroom, if the students start the cycle in a lab
or if the cycle starts in a large room meeting where a large-enrollment course gets
together (lecture format). Below are the set of activities that students do in a lab or in
a studio format classroom. The students participating in the activities have learned
DC circuits and magnetic fields (including the fact that a current carrying coil
produces a magnetic field that looks similar to the magnetic field of a bar magnet).
Note: it is better when the number of turns of the coil, the strength of the magnet and
the galvanometer are such that the typical response of the galvanometer when
pulling the magnet from a coil is small (say one tenth of the scale range). This way
the students will not ‘discover’ how to induce the current by accidentally waving the
magnet near the coil, but only from movements that give the largest response and
are later easiest to interpret. Also, note that digital multimeters are not suitable for
this experiment.

2
These three questions are taken from CP:EA, chapter 3.

2-6
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Figure 2.5. Galvanometer, coil and a magnet for observational experiments.

Step 1. (in a lab or a studio) Observational experiment.

Instructions for the students: Your group has the following equipment: white-
board, markers, a coil with several turns, a bar magnet, and an analogue
galvanometer.
a. Examine the equipment that you have on your desk (see figure 2.5). The
galvanometer registers current through the coil. It needs to be connected
directly to the coil (note, there is no battery). Now that you have connected
the galvanometer to the coil, work with your group members to find out
what you can do to make the galvanometer register current through the coil.
Once you have found one way, look for others so that at the end you can
formulate a pattern for the cases in which the current is induced. Describe
your experiments and findings with words and sketches.
b. Develop a rule: devise a preliminary rule that summarizes the condition(s)
needed to induce a current in a coil.

The students have a difficult time making the current in a coil with no guidance.
However, in any class, there is always a group that accidentally moves the magnet in
such a way that the needle of the galvanometer deflects (see the experiments at
https://mediaplayer.pearsoncmg.com/assets/_frames.true/sci-phys-egv2e-alg-21-1-1).
After the first ‘discovery’, the rest of the class gets the idea and students start
experimenting—changing the orientation of the moving magnet with respect to the
coil, moving the coil instead of the magnet and so forth. They devise the rule that
accounts for all observations—the current is induced when the magnet and the coil
move with respect to each other and the speed of this motion is sufficiently large. The
induced current is largest when the bar magnet is inserted into the coil or pulled out
from it. They can even create a mechanistic model for the case when the coil moves
with respect to the magnet: when charged particles inside the coil wires move in a
magnetic field, there is a force exerted on them and this force can be used to explain
the induced current. The next step is to test this rule.

2-7
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Figure 2.6. Two coils, power supply and a galvanometer for a testing experiment.

Step 2. (in a lab or a studio) Testing experiment.

Instructions for the students: Your group has the following equipment: two coils, a
battery or variable power supply, and a galvanometer (see figure 2.6).
You can connect one coil (coil 1) to a battery/power supply and the other coil (coil
2) to the galvanometer. Work with your group members to perform the following
experiments to test the rule that you invented in Step 1.
Experiment 1. Use the rule to predict what will happen if you move coil 1
(connected to the power supply) relative to coil 2 (connected to the galvanometer).
a. Describe the experiments in words and sketches and make predictions of
their outcomes using the rule you invented in Step 1.
b. Conduct the experiments and record the outcomes.
c. Make a judgment concerning the rule that you’re testing. If necessary, revise
your rule to incorporate your new findings. Note that your revised rule
should be consistent with all of the experiments you’ve conducted up to
this point.

Experiment 2. Use your current rule to predict what will happen if you place coil 2
next to coil 1 so that the axes of the coils coincide and (1) connect coil 1 to the power
supply without moving either coil, then (2) let the current run for a period of time,
and then (3) disconnect coil 1 from the power supply.
a. Describe experiments (1)–(3) with the sketches and use the rule under test to
make predictions of their outcomes.
b. Conduct the experiments and record the outcomes.
c. Make a judgment concerning the rule that you’re testing. If necessary, revise
your rule to incorporate your new findings. Note that your revised rule
should be consistent with all of the experiments you’ve conducted up to
this point.

2-8
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

When the students work on the activity, their prediction based on their newly
invented rule matches the outcome of experiment 1 and they do not need to revise
anything (the moving coil with the current in it is equivalent to a moving magnet).
However, in experiment 2 nothing is moving, thus no current should be induced
according to the rule. And yet, the current appears for a short time when the students
connect and disconnect coil 1 from the power supply. To explain it, the students
need to revise the original rule and devise the new one—the change in the magnetic
field through the coil induces electric current in it. It is a causal explanation, not a
mechanistic one. To create a mechanistic explanation, the students need to learn
about the relationship between changing magnetic and electric fields, which
eventually will be applied to electromagnetic waves. From here, the next steps
would be to construct the idea of magnetic flux and Lenz law so that the students can
devise Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction and eventually arrive at the
mechanism explaining the phenomenon.
Step 3. Application experiment.
Instructions for the students: You have a spool of insulated copper wire (diameter
0.2 mm), a neodymium magnet, a plastic tube and a red LED. The LED lights up
when the voltage across it increases 1.6 V. Using the equipment listed above, design
an experiment that will allow you to make an LED glow.
Here, the students can wrap many turns of wire around the tube, connect the ends
to the LED and place the magnet inside the tube. By shaking the tube with the
magnet inside back and forth, one can light the LED. In advanced courses, the
students can take necessary measurements to estimate the minimum number of turns
needed to light the LED. In lower level courses, the instructor can have a discussion
about the role of the number of turns and the frequency of hand shaking for the
produced emf and suggest that the number of coils that will help light the LED.
Step 4. Formative assessment.
Students work on questions and problems (see examples below) in groups or the
questions/problems are assigned as homework.

Example 1: Your friend thinks that the relative motion of a coil and a magnet is the
only way how to induce current in a coil that is not connected to a battery (assuming
you have other equipment too). Support your friend’s point of view with a physics
argument. Then provide a counterargument and describe an experiment you could
perform to disprove your friend’s idea.
Answer: When there is relative motion between the coil and the magnet, the
magnetic field through the coil is changing, knowing that the magnetic field of the
magnet is not uniform. However, even when there is no relative motion, it is possible to
induce electric current in a coil if we can change the magnetic field through it using
some other means. For example, if, instead of the magnet, we use a coil with the
current through it. When we change that current, the magnetic field of the magnet will
change and therefore current will be induced in the coil of interest. Students, who know
more about the properties of ferromagnetic materials, may suggest heating the magnet
above the Curie temperature or hit the fixed magnet with a massive object.

2-9
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Example 2: Two rectangular loops, A and B, are near each other. Loop A has a
battery and a switch. Loop B has no battery. Imagine that the current starts to
increase in loop A. Will there be a current in loop B? Samir argues that there will be
current. Ariana argues that there will be no current. Describe experiments that
support the claims of both students.
Answer: We assume loop B is made of conducting wire. If the mutual orientation of
the loops is such that the net magnetic flux through loop B produced by loop A is zero,
then there will be no current in loop B. This can happen if the magnetic field produced
by loop A is perpendicular to the loop B axis or if the magnetic flux through the loop B
have negative and positive parts that add up to zero. In all other cases, there is a
nonzero current in loop B.

Example 3: Magnetic field passing through two coils of the same diameter and
length decreases from a magnitude of Bex to zero in the time interval Δt. The first
coil has twice the number of turns of the second. (a) Compare the emfs induced in
the coils. (b) How can you change the experiment so that the emfs produced in them
are the same?
Answer: We assume that the coils’ axes are initially parallel to the direction of Bex.
(a) εin 1 = 2εin 2. (b) You can turn the first coil to make the angle between its axis and
the direction of the magnetic field equal to 60°.

2.1.3 Light emitting diodes (LEDs)

Here, we show the ISLE progression of steps that students take to learn the basic
nature of light emitting diodes. Prior to learning the physics behind the operation of
an LED, the students need to be familiar with the basics of DC circuits including
Ohm’s law (I = ΔV/R). No knowledge of semiconductors is required.
Step 1: Observational experiment.
Instructions for the students: You have two 1.5 V batteries, wires, a small
incandescent lightbulb and a green LED. Your task is to make a light bulb glow
and then the LED glow (not simultaneously). Represent all possibilities in a
table (Etkina and Planinsic 2014).
By working on this task, the students discover that an LED glows only if
connected to two batteries in series in a certain way. Specifically the LED’s long leg
should be connected to a positive terminal of the battery. This finding is in contrast
to the light bulb that glows either with one (dimmer) or two batteries connected
series (brighter), independently of the voltage polarity (figure 2.7).
Step 2: Explanations.
Instructions for the students: Propose causal explanations for the observed
behavior of LEDs.
In our experience, students come up with the following two explanations:

2-10
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Figure 2.7. Students find out that the lightbulb glows independently of the voltage polarity (a), (b) and that an
LED glows only if connected to two batteries in series with its long leg connected to a positive terminal (c), (d).

(A) An LED only lets current through in one direction and when there is a
current, an LED glows (assuming enough voltage);
(B) An LED allows current in both directions but only glows when current is in
one direction (assuming enough voltage).

Step 3: Testing experiments.

Instructions for the students: Propose experiments to test your explanations. Use
the explanations that you proposed in Step 2 to make predictions of the outcomes of
these experiments before you perform them. Write them here.
Perform the experiments and record the outcomes.
Compare the outcomes with the predictions and make a judgment about both
explanations.
There are usually two experiments that the students propose. Testing experiment
1: put an ammeter in the circuit. The students make the following predictions: if
explanation A is correct, then there will be no current registered and no LED glow
when the long leg of the LED is connected to the negative terminal of the battery;
there will be current and the LED will glow when the long leg is connected to the
positive terminal. If explanation B is correct, then the ammeter will register current
for both connections of the LED. When the students run the experiment, the
outcome matches the predictions based on explanation A (figures 2.8(a) and (b)).
This experiment allows them to reject explanation B.
However, some students propose a different experiment. Testing experiment 2:
put a light bulb in series with the LED and use it as an indicator of current. Their
prediction is that if explanation A is correct, the bulb will only glow when the long
leg of the LED is connected to the positive terminal of the battery and if explanation
B is correct then the bulb will glow for both connections but the LED will only glow
for one correct orientation. To their surprise, the outcome of the testing experiment
shows that the LED glows but the bulb does not (figure 2.9(b)). This puzzling
outcome leads them to examine the assumption that they made—that the bulb glows
when ANY current is through it. They might test this assumption by adding more
batteries to make both the bulb and the LED glow (figure 2.9(c)). This modified
experiment allows them to use the lightbulb as an indicator of current and to reject
explanation B (figure 2.9(d)).
The students then proceed to a quantitative investigation by measuring the
current-versus-voltage characteristic I(ΔV) of an LED and a lightbulb (figure 2.10).

2-11
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Figure 2.8. Outcome of testing experiment 1: (a) the longer leg of the LED is connected to the negative pole of
the battery, ammeter shows 0.0 mA; (b) the longer leg of the LED is connected to the positive pole of the
battery, ammeter shows 13.3 mA.

Figure 2.9. Outcome of the testing experiment 2 (a), (b) and the outcome of the improved version (c), (d).

Figure 2.10. I(ΔV) graph for a lightbulb (left) and for a green and red LED (right).

Analyzing these graphs, the students see that their measurements are consistent
with what they found out earlier in qualitative investigation. In addition, they
discover that the I(ΔV) graph for the lightbulb is symmetrical and for the LED is
asymmetrical. They also discover that the LED starts glowing at a certain voltage
around 2 V (called opening voltage) and that this voltage is different for different
color LEDs.
Step 4. Application experiments:
Students can compare the electric power of a white LED and small incandescent
lightbulb (by measuring voltage across and current through a light source) and find

2-12
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

that at approximately the same brightness, a white LED needs about 10 times less
electric power than the lightbulb.
As you can see from the above, no knowledge of semiconductors is needed for the
students to learn some of the most important features of LEDs that will make this
device more familiar to them. However, if you wish that your students learn the
mechanism of how LEDs produce light, a few more steps that require abstract
thinking are needed. They are described in chapter 27 of CP:EA (pp 872–3). However,
before going into these steps, the students need to have an image of the internal
structure of an LED. They can get this image by watching a video at https://
mediaplayer.pearsoncmg.com/assets/_frames.true/secs-egv2e-inside-an-led. For more
information on learning about LEDs, also see the list of resource papers at the end of
chapter 7.

2.2 Developing mathematical relations

Another issue deserves attention here. So far, we have been discussing how ISLE
students develop qualitative explanations. But we have not yet addressed how
students develop operational definitions of physical quantities and cause effect
relations and subsequently use these relations in problem solving. As much as
possible, students start with performing an observational experiment and analyzing
the data that they collected (similar to the example with Newton’s third law above).
When equipment or time do not permit, the students either collect and analyze data
in a video experiment (Brookes and Etkina 2010) or analyze the data that were
collected by somebody else in an experiment that students observe. To analyze data,
the students use graphs and other representations. The analysis leads them to an
 Δv ⃗
operational definition of a quantity (such as a = ) or a cause-effect relation (such
 Δt
 ΣF
as a = ).
m
For example, in an algebra-based physics course, the students invent the opera-
tional definition of acceleration through the following steps. They use a ball, a meter
stick, and a motion detector.
Instructions for the students:
a. Use the available equipment to design an experiment to record position-
versus-time data for a ball falling from the height of about 2 m. It helps to
position the motion detector above the falling ball, not below.
b. Perform the experiment and collect data. If you are using a motion detector,
the data will be represented as a graph right away. If you are analyzing a
video, you will need to figure out how to collect position and time data from
it. Repeat the experiment a few times. What can you say about the motion of
the ball based on the data you collected?
c. Draw a motion diagram for the ball.
d. Draw a position-versus-time graph for the ball. Discuss whether the graph
resembles a position-versus-time graph for an object moving at constant velocity.

2-13
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

e. Determine the scalar component of the average velocity for the ball for each
time interval by completing the following table.

Time interval Displacement Average time Average velocity

Δx
Δt = tn − tn−1 Δx = xn − xn−1 (tn + tn−1)/2
Δt

f. Plot this average velocity vx on a velocity-versus-time graph. The time

coordinate for each average velocity coordinate should be in the middle of
the corresponding time interval (the average time for that time interval).
Draw a best-fit line for your graph.
g. Discuss with your group the shape of the graph: how does the speed change
as time elapses? Suggest a name for the slope of the graph.

The students quickly come up with the ‘speeding up’ quantity or ‘acceleration’
name for the slope of the graph. The above example illustrates how the students
develop an operational definition of acceleration. However, this definition does not
explain why the acceleration has a specific value (for example, why free fall
acceleration is about 9.8 m s−1 s−1). The cause effect relation for acceleration is
Newton’s second law, which students, again, develop through data analysis.
However, in this case, data collection is tedious and we offer them the results of
an experiment that somebody else performed. Students observe experiments online:
https://mediaplayer.pearsoncmg.com/assets/_frames.true/sci-phys-egv2e-alg-3-5-1a
and video experiment 2; https://mediaplayer.pearsoncmg.com/assets/_frames.true/
sci-phys-egv2e-alg-3-5-1b to have an image of the set-up
Instructions for the students:
a. On a whiteboard, draw a force diagram for the cart in experiment 1 and
another for the cart in experiment 2.

Analysis of video experiment 1 Analysis of video experiment 2

Acceleration (m s−2) Sum of the forces (N) Acceleration (m s−2) Mass (kg)

0.38 0.2 0.27 0.56

0.74 0.3 0.20 0.76
1.67 0.5 0.15 0.96
2.8 0.75 0.13 1.16
4.3 12 0.10 1.36

2-14
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

b. Then use the data in the table above to devise a relationship that shows how
each cart’s acceleration depends on the cart’s mass and on the net force
exerted on the cart by the string or fan, Earth, and the track. Note: when
doing such an analysis, devise a relationship for each independent variable
one at a time and for the dependent variable (for example, use some of the
data to see how the acceleration depends on the net force exerted and then
use other parts of the data to see how the acceleration depends on the mass of
the cart). Then combine these relationships to get a final relationship.

From the above two examples, one can see how different representations (real
experiments, video experiments, data tables, graphs and algebraic functions) work
together to help students see ‘where the equations come from’. More examples for
the invention of operational definitions of many physical quantities and cause-effect
relations among the quantities can be found in CP:EA.

2.3 Problem solving

Research shows that students often start solving problems by searching for an
equation that has variables listed in the givens (Van Heuvelen 1991). To help them
develop expert solving strategies, we introduce a myriad of nontraditional types of
problems that cannot be solved by searching for an equation. These are listed in the
table below. The problems develop specific reasoning skills. Research shows that
these problems promote higher levels of cognition and improve conceptual under-
standing and problem-solving skills (Shekoyan 2009, Shekoyan and Etkina 2007,
Warren 2010). Table 2.1 below describes the new types of problems and table 2.2
shows examples of every type.

2.4 Role of the textbook

We differ from some other active engagement approaches in that we expect students
to read the textbook after they devised ideas in class. We believe that the quality
learning time in class should be used for students to engage in the inquiry process
where they learn to think like physicists instead of reading ready concepts in the
book and learning from authority. After the process of exploration is complete, the
textbook can be used for the purposes of summarizing ideas, pulling ideas together,
or for studying worked examples. One of the useful reading comprehension
strategies is elaborative interrogation. This intervention requires the students to
‘interrogate’ sentences from the text by using information in the text to explain why
the given sentences are true (Smith et al 2010). Research has suggested that
answering elaboration questions can produce semantically deep levels of processing
(Levin 2008). When we adopted Smith et al’s interrogation approach (Zisk et al
2014), we added another dimension to it, specifically when we chose sentences from
the text (sometimes we modified those), we ask our students if this sentence is true or
false and how they would convince somebody else in their opinion. Below are several
examples of such sentences (including the instructions for the student) that we assign
as a part of homework.

2-15
 Table 2.1. Types of non-traditional problems.

Type of problem Keywords Description

Ranking tasks Rank, compare Students have to rank the values of a certain physical quantity for different
situations, in descending or ascending order.
Choose answer and Students have to choose the correct answer and the correct matching
explanation explanation (cause-effect or mechanistic) in order to get full credit.
Choose measuring Procedure, method Students have to choose (or propose) the correct (or the best) experimental
procedure procedure that will allow them to measure/determine a certain quantity.
Evaluate reasoning or Evaluate, your friend says…, agree, Students have to critically evaluate the reasoning of some (imaginary) people
solution reconcile, comment on, how will or evaluate the suggested solution to a problem (given either in words,
the answer change, discuss, how do graphs, diagrams, or as an equation). Students have to recognize
we know, compare and contrast productive ideas (even when they are embedded in incorrect answers) and
differentiate them from unproductive ideas.
Make judgment (based Decide, reject, do the data…, justify, Students have to make a judgment about one or more hypotheses, based on
on data) (in)consistent, hypothesis data or other forms of evidence that are given in the problem, sometimes

2-16
taking uncertainties into account.
Linearization First, students have to write an equation that describes the relevant situation.
Then they have to rearrange the equation to obtain a linear function (note
that the independent and the dependent variables in this function can be
any function of data given in the problem). Students then draw the graph,
Investigative Science Learning Environment

plot the best-fit line, and determine the unknown quantities using the best-
fit line. These problems help students combine knowledge of physics, the
ability to ‘read and write’ with graphs, the ability to manipulate
equations, and the ability to recognize linear dependence in non-standard
situations.
Multiple possibility Tell all, say everything you can, make Students have to list as many quantities as they can that can be determined
problems a list, as many, give (three) based on data given in the problem, or tell everything they can about the
examples, what can you infer, physical attributes of the objects that appear in the text, or the relations
relevant between them. Normally, students are required to determine the values
for only few of the quantities that they identify. These problems allow all
students to feel successful.
 Jeopardy problems Jeopardy, invent a problem, pose a Students have to convert a representation of a solution into a problem
problem statement. If the solution is given in the form of an equation, they need to
understand the meaning of the quantities and their units. Such problems
emphasize the value of units.
Design an experiment or Design, invent, write your own, pose, Students have to design an experiment, an experimental procedure, or a
pose a problem describe experiments, devise device that will allow them to measure/determine certain physical
quantities or that would meet specific requirements. Students have to pose
a problem that involves certain objects with given characteristics. Often
there is an additional requirement that solving the problem should involve
the use of a particular physics topic, law, or principle. Students may also
need to do an additional literature search.
Problem based on real Students have to solve problems that are based on real data, obtained in real-
data life situations, often using easily available equipment and/or equipment
that is typically used in student labs. The types of problems may be
traditional or any of the types presented above. Students need to deal with
uncertainties, anomalous data and assumptions, and to propose

2-17
meaningful models.
Investigative Science Learning Environment
 Table 2.2. Examples of non-traditional problems. Image Credit: Etkina E, Planinsic G and Van Heuvelen A 2019 College Physics: Explore and Apply 2nd ed ©2019.
Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, New York.

Type of problem Example

Ranking tasks A squirrel jumps off a roof in the horizontal direction. The origin of the coordinate system is at the point where the squirrel
leaves the roof. Complete the table below by drawing crosses in the cells that correctly connect the physical quantities in
the first column that describe the motion of the squirrel and the descriptions of what is happening to these quantities
while the squirrel is in flight. Consider the squirrel as a point-like object and assume that the resistive force exerted by
the air is negligible.

Physical quantity
describing motion Remains Increases Decreases Increases, Decreases,
of the frog constant Is changing only only then decreases then increases

x coordinate magnitude

2-18
y coordinate magnitude
Direction of velocity
Magnitude of velocity
Direction of acceleration
Magnitude of
acceleration
Investigative Science Learning Environment

Choose answer and A book sits on a tabletop. What force is the Newton’s third law pair to the force that Earth exerts on the book? Choose the
explanation correct answer with the best explanation.
(a) The force that the table exerts on the book because it is equal and opposite in direction to the force that Earth exerts
on the book.
(b) The force that the table exerts on the book because the table and the book are touching each other
(c) The force that the table exerts on the book because it describes the same interaction
(d) The force that the book exerts on Earth because it describes the same interaction
(e) The force that the book exerts on Earth because it is equal and opposite in direction to the force that Earth exerts on
the book
 Choose measuring You want to determine the temperature in a freezer using the following equipment: an empty plastic bottle with a cap, a
procedure graduated measuring cylinder, and a bowl of water. You also know your room temperature TR . (a) Which of the
procedures described below will give data from which you can determine the temperature in the freezer? (b) For the
procedure that you have chosen in part (a), derive the expression for the temperature in the freezer as a function of
relevant physical quantities. Indicate any assumptions that you made.
I. Put the open plastic bottle into the freezer for half an hour. Take the bottle out, turn it upside down into the water,
and measure the volume of the water sucked into the bottle.
II. Put the open plastic bottle in the freezer for half an hour. Take the bottle out and close it tightly with a cap. Wait until
the bottle’s shape stops changing. Turn the bottle upside down into the water, open the cap, and measure the volume
of the water that entered the bottle.
III. Put the closed plastic bottle in the freezer for half an hour. Take the bottle out, turn it upside down into the water,
and then open the cap. Measure the volume of the water sucked into the bottle.
IV. Put the closed plastic bottle in the freezer for half an hour. Take the bottle out, open the cap, and turn the bottle
upside down into the water. Measure the volume of the water sucked into the bottle.

2-19
Evaluate reasoning An elevator is pulled upwards by a cable so that it moves at a constant upward speed. Maria draws the (unlabeled) force
diagram for the elevator shown on the right and says, ‘if the elevator is moving upwards at a constant rate, the forces
exerted on it must be balanced.’ Joe disagrees. Looking at the force diagram, he says ‘the way you’ve drawn the force
Investigative Science Learning Environment

diagram, the elevator will stop moving because there is no net force exerted on the elevator.’ (a) Correctly label the force

diagram. (b) Who do you agree with and why? For the statement you disagree with, how would you convince him/her
that he/she is incorrect?

(Continued)
 Table 2.2. (Continued )

Type of problem Example

Evaluate solution Your friend Devin has to solve the following problem: ‘You have a spring with spring constant k. You compress it by
distance x and use it to shoot a steel ball of mass m into a sponge of mass M. After the collision, the ball and the sponge
move a distance s along a rough surface and stop (see figure below). The coefficient of friction between the sponge and
the surface is μ. Derive an expression that shows how the distance s depends on relevant physical quantities.’ Devin
derived the following equation:

kmx 2
s= .
2(m + M )2 μg
Without deriving it, evaluate the equation that Devin came up with. Is it reasonable? How do you know?

2-20
Evaluate assumptions Students were using a small spring to launch a marble vertically up from a table. Brian presents the following analysis of
the experiment: the system consists of the marble and Earth. The spring is external to the system and does work on it. The
Investigative Science Learning Environment

initial state is when the marble rests on a compressed spring. The final state is when the marble reaches the highest point
above the table (see sketch on the left). The work-energy bar chart for this process is shown on the right.
 In the analysis I assumed the following: (1) I ignored air resistance, (2) I assumed the mass of the spring is negligible and
(3) I assumed the table is very hard so that it does not deform.
(a) Which of the assumptions are relevant for Brian’s analysis and which are irrelevant? Explain why.
(b) Is Brian’s work-energy bar chart consistent with the relevant assumptions? Explain.
(c) Describe how Brian can validate the relevant assumptions.

Make judgment A truck transporting chemicals has crashed, and some dangerous liquid has spilled onto the ground and possibly entered a
(based on data) water well. An inspector fixes a pressure sensor to the end of a long string and lets the sensor slowly descend from the
top of the well to the bottom. Using this device, he obtains the graph on the right that shows how the pressure P in the
well changes with distance d measured from the top of the well. (a) Explain what features of the graph support the idea
that there is another liquid in the well in addition to water. (b) Determine the density of the unknown liquid. Is the liquid
above the water or below the water? (c) Determine the depth of the water, the depth of the unknown liquid, and the
depth of the well.

2-21
Investigative Science Learning Environment

Make judgment Your friend Juan is presented with the following problem. Two blocks, masses m1 = 3 kg and m2 = 5 kg , hang over light
(based on data) frictionless pulleys from a string of negligible mass (see the figure). Find the acceleration of the system. After some

(Continued)
 Table 2.2. (Continued )

Type of problem Example

calculating, Juan comes up an acceleration of 16 m s−2 for the system. Without solving the problem from scratch, is
Juan’s solution reasonable or not? Use your knowledge of physics to construct a clear argument why his solution is
reasonable or not reasonable.

Linearization A small object of unknown mass and charge is tied to an insulating string that is connected to a sensitive force sensor. The
object is placed between two large conducting plates, and the string is kept taut by charging the plates as shown in figure
below. The mass of the string is 0.030 g, and the distance between the plates is 15.0 cm. As the potential difference
between the plates increases, the force exerted by the force sensor on the string changes as shown in the table. Determine

2-22
the mass and charge of the particle (note: this is a problem that requires linearization of data).

ΔV (V) FFS on S(10−3 N)

5000 52
Investigative Science Learning Environment

5500 67
6000 82
6500 97
7000 110
 Multiple possibility As we worry about a looming energy crisis, designers have come up with a way to do something useful with those
problem stationary exercise bicycles at the gym. They are going to use the exercise bike to generate electricity! The spinning
wheel has a ring of magnets attached that pass by a fixed coil. A light bulb is attached to the coil. The current induced in
the coil as the magnets pass by causes the light bulb to light up, thus converting the exerciser’s energy into useful lighting
for the gym. There is however one key problem with this design. There is only one ‘load.’ Come up with a modified
design that would allow the exerciser to switch between different loadings at the touch of a button or the flip of a switch.
You are free to modify the actual machine and/or the external circuit in any way you want except for one restriction: the
variable loading should convert more or less energy to power the gym. In other words, adding a friction belt to the wheel
would be considered ‘cheating.’ Describe and explain how your design would work using words and pictures.

2-23
Multiple possibility You have a V-shaped transparent empty container such as shown in figure on the right. When you shine a laser pointer
problem horizontally through the empty container, the beam goes straight through and makes a spot on the wall. (a) What
happens to this spot if you fill the container with water just a little above the level at which the laser beam passes
through the container? (b) What happens if you fill the container to the very top? Indicate any assumptions used and
Investigative Science Learning Environment

draw a ray diagram for each situation. Note: this is a multiple-possibility problem.

(Continued)
 Table 2.2. (Continued )

Type of problem Example

Multiple possibility When a switch is closed, a compass needle deflects from the initial to final direction, as shown in figure. Say everything
problem (Tell all you can about this experimental setup.
problem)

Equation Jeopardy Describe in words a problem for which the following equation is a solution and draw a force diagram that is consistent
problem with the equation (specify the direction of the axis):
196 N − FP on O

2-24
2.0 m / s 2 =
20 kg

Image Jeopardy problem The figure shows the primary axis of a lens; the path of ray A, as it approaches the lens, gets refracted, and continues to
travel; and the path of ray B before it hits the lens. (a) Determine the type of lens (concave or convex) and its location,
Investigative Science Learning Environment

(b) determine the location of both focal points of the lens, and (c) draw the path of ray B after it passes through the lens.

Design an experiment Describe an experiment that you will design to find out whether the resistance of a particular circuit element is
independent of the voltage across it. Make sure that you describe the experiment and how you will make a judgment
clearly enough so some other person can repeat the experiment and understand the judgment.
 Design an experiment Describe two experiments to determine the speed of propagation of a transverse wave on a rope. You have the following
tools to use: a stopwatch, a meter stick, a mass-measuring scale, and a force-measuring device. Use whatever other items
you need for your experiments.
Pose a problem Write and solve a problem that requires using the law of conservation of momentum in which it is important to know that
momentum is a vector quantity.
Problem based on real You place a long wire next to your mobile phone on a table as shown in figure. You run an application that allows you to
data measure the time dependence of the component of the B field that is perpendicular to the screen of the phone (let’s call it
Bz ). While recording the magnetic field, you repeat the following steps: connect the wire to an AA battery, disconnect
the battery, flip the battery (to swap + and − terminals), again connect the wire to the battery… and so on. Using an
ammeter, you also determine the current through the wire. Average values of your measurements are summarized in the
table. (a) Estimate the distance between the magnetic field sensor in your phone and the wire. (b) If the experiment was
performed in New Jersey, determine the direction of the current in the wire (up or down with respect to the phone) when
the magnetic field reading is − 19 × 10−6 T . Explain your reasoning. Indicate any assumptions that you made.

2-25
Investigative Science Learning Environment

Connection I(A) Bz (T)

Battery (+,−) 4.9 122 × 10−6
No battery 0 52 × 10−6
Battery (−,+) 4.9 − 19 × 10−6
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Instructions for the student: As you read the text, you will encounter the following
sentences (or similar sentences). After reading, if you think the sentence is true, write
a response that would convince a classmate that the sentence is indeed true using
information from the text. If you think the sentence is not true, write a sentence that
would convince a classmate that the sentence is not true.
1. A moving ball’s velocity always points in the direction of the sum of the
forces that other objects exert on it (incorrect statement).
2. It is possible for a car to have simultaneously a zero velocity and a non-zero
acceleration or a non-zero velocity and zero acceleration (both are correct).
3. The impulse-momentum equation is sometimes more useful than the work-
energy equation for analyzing certain kinds of collisions (correct statement).

2.5 Interlude: the tyranny of coverage

‘By concentrating on what, and leaving out why, mathematics is reduced to an empty
shell. The art is not in the ‘truth’ but in the explanation, the argument. It is the
argument itself which gives the truth its context, and determines what is really being
said and meant. Mathematics is the art of explanation. If you deny students the
opportunity to engage in this activity—to pose their own problems, make their own
conjectures and discoveries, to be wrong, to be creatively frustrated, to have an
inspiration, and to cobble together their own explanations and proofs—you deny
them mathematics itself. So no, I’m not complaining about the presence of facts and
formulas in our mathematics classes, I’m complaining about the lack of mathematics
in our mathematics classes.’ (p 5)
The Mathematician’s Lament by Paul Lockhart:
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
I am not sure who first coined the phrase ‘tyranny of coverage’ but it is a fairly
common phrase in the ‘scholarship of teaching and learning’ (SoTL) literature. This
is how I see it: one of the most common comments or questions I get when I tell
people about ISLE goes something like this:

‘I like your ideas about promoting critical thinking by having the students
engage in inquiry learning instead of telling them what they need to know. But
how am I going to cover all the topics my students need to know so that they
can (for example) pass the physical science portion of the MCAT®?

The Medical College Admission Test® (MCAT) is a significant entrance exam that
students in the United States need to do well in to be admitted to medical school.
The test has some physics questions in it and almost all students who go to medical
school must take two semesters of physics before they take the MCAT and enter
medical school.
In summary, this is the tyranny of coverage:

‘Inquiry learning is cool, but it can’t stand in the way of what I really need to
do, which is cover topics X, Y, and Z by the end of the semester.’

2-26
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Maybe you’ve been thinking the same thing yourself after reading the last chapter?
So let me get one thing out of the way first. If you do ISLE, you will not cover as
many physics topics as you used to when you were doing a significant amount of
talking in your classroom while your students listened to you and took notes. You
cannot have students actively engaged in the process of doing physics and cover the
same quantity of material.
The tyranny of coverage is ubiquitous and pervasive. Not for the first time, I
observe that I have been using ISLE for almost 20 years and the conversation with
other professors and teachers hasn’t changed much from 20 years ago.
For example, I was once on the receiving end of an aggressive phone call from one
of my colleagues in biology who told me in no uncertain terms that I was ethically
and morally failing my students by not covering every physics topic in the MCAT.
I was under sustained pressure from my department head for over a year to cover
‘just a few more topics’ than I currently did in my introductory physics course. This
was coming from someone who appeared to hold fairly ‘progressive’ views about
education in the sense that they claimed they really saw the value of students
learning scientific reasoning abilities; what we could term the ‘critical thinking skills’
of physics.
The next point I want to make is that 20 years after meeting Professor Etkina, I
find that I am still struggling with the ‘tyranny of coverage.’ I have two ideas why
that is, but I will discuss that later since they are the key points of this chapter. I
don’t want anyone to get the impression that I have somehow conquered this
problem of coverage and that I’m going to offer you a solution to it. Just last
semester, I was still worrying about whether I was covering enough topics in my
physics class and as a direct consequence of that, I neglected the centrality of the
process of doing science. In trying to keep up with a schedule of topics that I had laid
out at the beginning of the semester, I neglected many of the aspects I will talk about
in subsequent chapters. Things like fostering a strong learning community and
helping students develop a sense of science identity. The result was not pretty. A
good fraction of my students hated the class and I did not enjoy teaching it. Even
though I intellectually understand the arguments that I will lay out in this interlude, I
still find myself falling back into old habits of thinking. For me, the struggle between
coverage and scientific process continues.
For the rest of this interlude, I am going to discuss two reasons why I believe the
tyranny of coverage is so difficult to break free from. They are:
a. We treat knowledge as a physical object and we fundamentally lack the
language to describe knowledge and knowing more accurately in terms of a
process.
b. Our educational and social systems are built around the concept of
objectifying knowledge.

I will conclude by suggesting that to break free of the tyranny of coverage, we

need to undergo radical conceptual change of the type where we recategorize
knowledge as an ontological process rather than an ontological object.

2-27
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Knowledge is a process, not an object

The realization that knowledge is a process, not an object, happened for me in the
space of one afternoon while I was doing my laundry. It was the single most
significant transformative experience of my life and I remember that afternoon as
clearly as if it happened yesterday. It was probably some time in October 2001. I was
a physics graduate student, roughly 2 years into my PhD. I had made the decision to
study physics education research and I was struggling with the fundamental
philosophical conflicts between the positivist and constructivist views of science
and reality. While this may seem pointless or abstruse, much of science education
has firmly placed its eggs in the constructivist basket and these were totally new ideas
to me. As a practicing scientist, I believed that there was an underlying physical
reality and it was the job of scientists to uncover and objectively describe that reality
(the positivist view). The constructivist view, on the other hand, claims that our view
of the world is inherently subjective, and biased by the observer. In short, we make
our reality, irrespective of whether an objective reality exists or not.
Anyway, there I was in the laundromat with a photocopy of a book chapter I had
acquired from the university library entitled ‘The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of
Frame Conflict in our Language about Language’ by Michael Reddy (Reddy 1993).
It is a rather ‘dense’ paper and so I’d been procrastinating about reading it, but I had
finally decided to conquer it, ready with my pen, planning to add a lot of notes in the
margins. In his paper, Reddy argues that there is a problem (a frame conflict or
‘semantic pathology’) with how we talk about and conceive of information and
knowledge. We talk about information as being ‘contained in a book,’ or the
‘meaning is in the words.’ We think of knowledge as an object that can be
transmitted to students or acquired by students. Our entire system is built around
knowledge categorized as an object, contained within words, the book, or the library
being conveyed from one location to another. This is what he called the ‘conduit
metaphor’ and it is ubiquitous. He then described a thought experiment in which a
set of individuals are isolated from each other in different environments and can
only communicate through drawings. In this thought experiment, one person
(person A) invents a rake to rake leaves since his environment is full of trees. He
draws a picture of his rake and sends it to person B. But person B lives in a rocky
environment with no trees and reinterprets it as a rock-pick, useful for digging up
large rocks. He draws his two-pronged, long-tined rock-pick and sends the diagram
back to A. A realizes that his rake design has been misinterpreted and sends back a
more detailed diagram of his rake. This communication goes back and forth over
numerous iterations until each has come to the realization that their physical
environments are different from each other and so a mutually shared understanding
is built. The other important point is that it took persistence and time for this shared
understanding to be established.
While this example may appear contrived, it is true of all human communication.
As I was reading it, I realized that when I say ‘force’ to my physics students, they
hear a word that activates a set of associations that are fundamentally different from
my ‘expert physicist’s’ associations. When I say force, my students hear ‘power’ or

2-28
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

‘energy,’ or what big, heavy objects have that makes them hurt when they hit us.
And when I ask my students ‘what happens to an object when there’s no force
exerted on it,’ they say ‘it stops moving.’ And I mistakenly interpret this as an
impetus misconception because I’m looking at their reasoning from the perspective
of physics. The problem we’re having is one of miscommunication and it is coming
from both sides. The problem isn’t that students have an impetus misconception; it is
that I and they are talking past each other, using a word drawn from two totally
different contexts and failing the negotiate meaning with each other.
Our understanding of our world is fundamentally constructed and negotiated.
Whether ‘force’ is a thing that objectively exists in nature is no longer relevant because
all that we have access to is our representational constructs (words, drawings, etc)
which are inherently subjective and context-dependent. Consequently, learning cannot
be an act of conveying information or knowledge, it is an act of co-constructing shared
meaning through multiple iterations, (potential) frustration, and persistence over time.
What I’ve described is a process. There is no knowledge ‘object’ that is conveyed, only
a process of coming to know. That is all that there is.
By this time, the Sun was setting. My clothes had long-since finished their cycle in
the dryer, but I was still sitting there, furiously scribbling these ideas down in the
margins of the photocopy. My world was utterly transformed and there was simply
no way of going back.
Why am I writing this story that sounds like a quasi-religious conversion
experience? I believe it is impossible to surpass the tyranny of coverage without a
new conception of knowledge. If you read almost any course catalog, you will see
that we describe our physics courses by a list of topics that are covered (quantity of
knowledge). When writing tests, we worry about whether we have asked enough
questions that cover enough of the topics that have been learned. Everything we’re
doing is based on a model of knowledge as an object. For change to happen, I
believe we need to start by reconceptualizing knowledge as a process. Physics is a
way or a process of knowing about the world.
I am frustrated with the glacial pace at which educational change seems to
happen. It seems that the ‘old way’ of doing things is stubbornly entrenched in
people’s minds, even in those who know there is a problem and want to change. The
hope is that by writing a first-person account of that change, it might provide at least
myself, and maybe even some readers, a bit of perspective on the difficulties, the
challenges, and the possibility of change.

Systemic change
The pathology of knowledge as an object is embedded everywhere in our culture. It
is epitomized by the American TV game show ‘Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader?’
In it, adult contestants are pitted against a ‘class’ of 5th graders, answering questions
purportedly taken from 5th grade textbooks. If the adult contestant drops out or
cannot answer a question, they have to address the camera and say ‘My name is…,
and I am not smarter than a 5th grader.’ According to Wikipedia, only two

2-29
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

contestants in the history of four seasons have made it to the million dollar prize and
not had to utter the words of shame.
Here is what is interesting: all questions on the show are factual. For example,
‘what US state is home to Acadia National Park?’ You either remember it or you
don’t. Or if you’ve never heard of Acadia National Park, you simply have no way of
getting to an answer.
This is the cultural baggage we’re struggling against: for too long the purpose of
education has been to teach conformity, to segregate society; to teach passive
acceptance of authority and dissuade active criticism (Postman and Weingartner,
1969). If knowledge is an object, you either ‘get’ it or you don’t. If you don’t, it is
your fault since that piece of knowledge should be objectively clear. It is easy to write
a test that measures how much knowledge each student possesses by having them
recite what they know, thus separating the worthy from the unworthy. In short, it is
much easier to measure the end product (‘knowledge’) than the process of knowing.
It is easier to ask what you know than how you know it. And if everyone could
adequately answer how they know something it would subvert everything because
those in power could no longer hide behind logical fallacies and weak or
unsubstantiated claims.
But now, the power structures of old are changing and the world we are preparing
our children for requires less conformity and more innovation and independent
thinking. We are preparing our children for jobs whose existence we can’t even
conceptualize yet. Our children will need to tackle crises that represent an existential
threat to life as we know it. Today’s companies no longer want factory workers, they
want people who can think dynamically and learn on the job (Duggan and Gott
2002).
The other day, I was on a training ride on my bicycle, riding with a retired CEO
of a tech start-up. Our conversation drifted to the nuts and bolts of the electrical
engineering problems they had to overcome in building certain products. In
particular they were pushing the size limits of micro to nano-scale electronics and
he commented that at that level, every connecting wire not only has a resistance, but
also has a capacitance and self-inductance that needed to be taken into account.
More pointedly, he commented to me how hard it was to find good electrical
engineering graduates to employ. He said that he would give an arm and a leg to be
able to hire someone who understood from the get-go without extra on-the-job
training, that a resistor as we learn about it in physics class is just a model of real life
and has implicit assumptions (like we normally ignore the self-inductance of a
resistor or the capacitance of a resistor until we get to certain size-scales). He
(rightly) saw this as a problem of how we teach physics as factual knowledge rather
than a process of thinking.

Freedom from the tyranny of coverage

Let me conclude by describing the best class I ever taught: my students were working
on understanding friction. We had progressed to the point where they had
established a model for static friction: f ⩽ μN, when one student asked me a

2-30
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

question: ‘In American football, the players are taught to get down low and push
upwards to push the other guy backwards. Does that have something to do with
friction?’ For a moment, I froze like a deer in the headlights because I had no idea if
I could adequately answer his question. Then I thought, ‘We won’t get through all
the stuff I planned to cover today.’ Then I thought, ‘who cares?’ I mentally ripped up
my lesson plan and sent all the students to their desks with instructions to draw force
diagrams for two football players pushing each other, but with an angle to the push.
‘See if you can explain why it would be advantageous to get down low and push
upwards,’ I said. They worked together on whiteboards in their groups of three as we
always do. It was the best lesson of my life because, for the next hour, I did physics
with them. At the time I had no idea if even I could come up with an adequate
explanation, but I decided to take a chance. The diagrams and explanations we
created involved everything my students and I understood (Newton’s second law,
Newton’s third law and our basic friction model), and required them to extend those
models beyond their current understanding. (The direction of static friction exerted
by the surface on the player was particularly challenging for them because as the
player pushes back and downwards against the surface, the surface pushes up and
forwards on the player.) After about 1 h, we held a final class meeting with groups
presenting their work to each other and we were able to conclude why it would make
sense to ‘get down low and push upwards’ to reduce the frictional force that the
ground exerted on your opponent, while simultaneously increasing the frictional
force that the ground exerts on you. That is an example of what it is like to be
temporarily free of the tyranny of coverage and what is possible when I had the
courage to discard my lesson plan and do physics with my students.

References
Brookes D T and Etkina E 2010 Physical phenomena in real time Science 330 605–6
Duggan S and Gott R 2002 What sort of science education do we really need? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24
661–79
Etkina E 2010 Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res. 6 020110
Etkina E and Planinsic G 2014 Light-emitting diodes: exploration of underlying physics Phys.
Teacher 52 212–8
Etkina E, Planinsic G and Van Heuvelen A 2019 College Physics: Explore and Apply 2nd edn (San
Francisco, CA: Pearson)
Hewitt P G 1998 Instructors Manual Conceptual Physics 8th edn (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley)
Hestenes D, Wells M and Swackhamer G 1992 Force concept inventory Phys. Teach. 30 141–58
Levin J R 2008 The unmistakable professional promise of a young educational psychology
researcher and scholar Educ. Psychol. 43 70–85
Postman N and Weingartner C 1969 Teaching as a Subversive Activity (New York: Delacorte
Press)
Reddy M J 1993 The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language
Metaphor and Thought ed A Ortony 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp
164–201

2-31
 Investigative Science Learning Environment

Shekoyan V and Etkina E 2007 Introducing ill‐structured problems in introductory physics

recitations Proc. 2007 Physics Education Research Conf. vol 951 ed L Hsu, C Henderson and
L McCullough pp 192–5
Shekoyan V 2009 Using multiple-possibility physics problems in introductory physics courses
PhD Thesis The State University of New Jersey (https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-
lib/25628/)
Smith B L, Holliday W G and Austin H W 2010 Students’ comprehension of science textbooks
using a question-based reading strategy J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47 363–79
Thornton R K and 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 Am. J. Phys. 66 338–52
Van Heuvelen A 1991 Learning to think like a physicist: a review of research-based instructional
strategies Am. J. Phys. 59 891–7
Warren A 2010 Impact of teaching students to use evaluation strategies Phys. Rev. Spec.
Top. Phys. Educ. Res. 6 020103
Zisk R, Resnick E and Etkina E 2014 Exploring the use of elaborative interrogation in an
introductory physics course Learning and Becoming in Practice: Int. Conf. of the Learning
Sciences (ICLS) 2014 ed J L Polman, E A Kyza, D K O’Neill, I Tabak, W R Penuel, A S
Jurow and L D’Amico vol 3 (Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences),
pp 1501–2

2-32