Research Article

Physics teaching via dialogic discussions about circus activities

Alexander Volfson 1 , Haim Eshach 1, Yuval Ben-Abu 2 *
More Detail
1 Department of Science Education & Technology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, ISRAEL2 Department of Physics and Project Unit, Sapir Academic College, Sderot, Hof Ashkelon, ISRAEL * Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), April 2023, ep413, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12964
Published Online: 16 February 2023, Published: 01 April 2023
OPEN ACCESS   1205 Views   971 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Circus art excites amazes and delights. Most of circus genres are based on the principles of classical physics. Dialogic discussions are known as an instrument to identify conceptual barriers (misconceptions) and facilitate their further revision. The present study integrates the three worlds: physics education, dialogic teaching and circus art; and provides a research foundation for experiential physics teaching through dialogic discussions about circus tricks (DDCT) in formal and informal setups. It aims at examining the potential of DDCT as a tool for identifying misconceptions and facilitating conceptual change regarding physics concepts. The study encircles about 40 DDCT provided in the Israeli KESHET circus. In total, about 5,500 people watched the shows. From them, about 400 actively participated in the DDCT. We analyze in details four typical DDCT relating (a) circular motion, (b) moment of inertia, (c) torque, and (d) heat transfer. For each DDCT we demonstrate the way it pinpoints participants’ knowledge and its implementation in circus devices’ analysis. Further we examine whether and how the DDCT could facilitate developing physics knowledge and/or going through a meaningful conceptual change regarding each of these concepts. Due to our results DDCT seems to be an original and promising approach to bring advanced physics ideas to the general public, in ways that are interesting, experiential and relatively easy to understand. We finish with practical recommendations for physics educators (as well as circus artists) who would like to implement DDCT in their classes (shows).
Keywords: physics education, dialogic teaching, informal teaching, misconceptions, conceptual change, circular motion, moment of inertia, torque, heat transfer

CITATION (APA)

Volfson, A., Eshach, H., & Ben-Abu, Y. (2023). Physics teaching via dialogic discussions about circus activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), ep413. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12964

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2010). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1289-1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.512369
  2. AEE. (2011). Association for Experiential Education. http://www.aee.org/
  3. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Characterizing children’s spontaneous interests in science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 803-826. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038389
  4. Ben-Abu, Y. (2018). A time for introducing the principle of least potential energy in high school physics. Energies, 11(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11010098
  5. Ben-Abu, Y., Wolfson, I., Eshach, H., & Yizhaq, H. (2018). Energy, Christiaan Huygens, and the wonderful cycloid–theory versus experiment. Symmetry, 10(4), 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10040111
  6. Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61-82). Erlbaum.
  7. Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36, 1-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x
  8. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007013
  9. Craig, C., You, J., Zou, Y., Verma, R., Stokes, D., Evans, P., & Curtis, G. (2018). The embodied nature of narrative knowledge: A cross-study analysis of embodied knowledge in teaching, learning, and life. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 329-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.01.014
  10. Demirci, N. (2005). A study about students’ misconceptions in force and motion concepts by incorporating a web assisted physics program. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), 7.
  11. Dilshad, R. M., & Latif, M. I. (2013). Focus group interview as a tool for qualitative research: An analysis. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 33(1), 191-198.
  12. Ding, L., Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2013). How do students in an innovative principle-based mechanics course understand energy concepts? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 722-747. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21097
  13. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2/3), 105-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
  14. diSessa, A. A. (2018). A friendly introduction to “knowledge in pieces”: Modeling types of knowledge and their roles in rearning. In G. Kaiser, H. Forgasz, M. Graven, A. Kuzniak, E. Simmt, & B. Xu (Eds.), Invited lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 65-84). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72170-5_5
  15. Donskoy, D., & Shoyhet, K. (1981). Biomechanical justification of acrobatic exercises technique. In V. Korkin (Ed.), Sportive acrobatics. Fizkultura i Sport.
  16. Ernest, P. (1993). Mathematical activity and rhetoric: Towards a social constructivist account. In N. Nohda (Ed.), Proceedings of PME-17. University of Tsukuba.
  17. Eshach, H. (2009). Analysis of conceptual flow patterns and structures in the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 451-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802635247
  18. Eshach, H., & Schwartz, J. L. (2006). Sound staff? Naive materialism in middle-school students’ conceptions of sound. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 733-764. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500277938
  19. Eshach, H., Lin, T., & Tsai, C. (2017). Misconception of sound and conceptual change: A cross sectional study on students’ materialistic thinking of sound. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 664-684. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21435
  20. Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). Learners’ knowledge in optics: Interpretation, structure and analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 57-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900290000
  21. Gorghiu, G., & Ancuta Santi, E. (2016). Applications of experiential learning in science education non-formal contexts. In Proceedings of the ICEEPSY 2016: 7th International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology (pp. 320-326). https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2016.11.33
  22. Gurevich, Z. (1977). About the genres of Soviet circus. Art.
  23. Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2014). Fundamentals of physics. Wiley.
  24. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, M. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
  25. Janda, L. H. (2008). Psychological testing: Theory and applications. The Open University.
  26. Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. SAGE.
  27. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research. SAGE.
  28. Lehesvuori, S. (2013). Towards dialogic teaching in science challenging classroom realities through teacher education [PhD dissertation, University of Jyvaskyla]. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.768
  29. Ornek, F., Robinson, W. R., & Haugan, M. P., (2008). What makes physics difficult? International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(1), 30-34.
  30. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE.
  31. Perelman, Y. I. (1994). Entertaining tasks and experiments. VAP.
  32. Ponnambalam, M. (2012). Popularization of physics–the Jamaican experience. Latin America Journal of Physics Education, 6, 390-393.
  33. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  34. Rabee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655-660. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2004399
  35. Roche, J. (2001). Introducing motion in a circle. Physics Education, 36, 399. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/36/5/305
  36. Roth, W. M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interactions: The case of interactive physics™. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 329-347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320404
  37. Rowlands, S., & Graham, T. (2005). What is conceptual change in mechanics? In D. Hewitt, & A. Noyes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th British Congress of Mathematics Education (pp. 144-151).
  38. Rowlands, S., Graham, T., Berry, J., & McWilliam, P. (2007). Conceptual change through the lens of Newtonian mechanics. Science & Education, 16, 21-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-1339-7
  39. Samovarski, S. (1987). Physics thought coming into being. Bialik Institute.
  40. Schlender, S. (2013). Scientist circus performers make physics fun. https://www.voanews.com/a/scientist-circus-performers-make-physics-fun/1632653.html
  41. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. J. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
  42. Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: Striking a balance between ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ classroom talk. School Science Review, 88, 77-83.
  43. Superintendent of Public Instruction (2018). Educational technology learning standards: Grades 9-12. Washington, DC.
  44. Volfson, A. (2013). Safe and correct grouping. Wingate Institute. https://www.wingate.org.il/Index.asp?ArticleID=6288&CategoryID=267
  45. Volfson, A. (2018). Physics behind acoustical devices: Development of a diagnostic instrument for examining the understanding of the underlying physics principles explaining how simple acoustic apparatuses work [PhD dissertation, Ben-Gurion University].
  46. Volfson, A., Eshach, H., & Ben-Abu, Y. (2018). Development of a diagnostic tool aimed at pinpointing undergraduate students’ knowledge about sound and its implementation in simple acoustic apparatuses’ analysis. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14, 020127. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020127
  47. Volfson, A., Eshach, H., & Ben-Abu, Y. (2019). Introducing the idea of entropy to the ontological category shift theory for conceptual change: The case of heat and sound. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15, 010143. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010143
  48. Volfson, A., Eshach, H., & Ben-Abu, Y. (2020a). Identifying physics misconceptions at the circus: The case of circular motion. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16, 010134. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010134
  49. Volfson, A., Eshach, H., & Ben-Abu, Y. (2020b). When technology meets acoustics: Students’ ideas about the underlying principles explaining simple acoustic devices. Research in Science Education, 51, 911-938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09913-w
  50. Volfson, A., Eshach, H., & Ben-Abu, Y. (2021). Preliminary development of a simple statistical tool for estimating mental model states from a diagnostic test. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17, 023105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023105
  51. Volfson, A., Eshach, H., & Ben-Abu, Y. (2022). History of science based dialogues on sound waves: From sound atoms to phonons. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18, 010123. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010123
  52. Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vousniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 11-30). Routledge.
  53. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, F. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00038-4
  54. Vyas, P. (2012). Misconception in circular motion. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 3, 12.
  55. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  56. Weisberg, S., & Newcombe, N. (2017). Embodied cognition and STEM learning: Overview of a topical collection in CR:PI. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(38), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0071-6
  57. Wells, G. (1999). Putting a tool to different uses: A reevaluation of the IRF sequence. In G. Wells (Ed.), Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education (Chapter 5). Cambridge University Press.
  58. Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379-428. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3
  59. Young, M., Caudill, E. M., & Murphy, J. W. (2008). Evaluating experiential learning activities. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 13, 28-40.
  60. Yuruk, N. (2007). A case study of one student’s metaconceptual processes and the changes in her alternative conceptions of force and motion. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 305-325. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75411
  61. Zharskih, M. (1965). Study the effectiveness of various instructional methods for teaching children 7-12 years acrobatic exercises [PhD thesis, The State Pedagogical Institute in Voronezh].