Summary: Goldberg, et al.Summary of “Design principles for effective physics instruction:
A case from physics and everyday thinking,” Fred Goldberg, Valerie Otero,
and Stephen Robinson, pp. 33–45.This article describes a curriculum (Physics and Everyday
Thinking, PET) and its implementation in a course for elemen-
tary school teachers. PET incorporates fi ndings from research
in cognitive science and science education which indicate that,
in order to have signifi cant impact on student learning, teachers
must create learning environments in which students are actively
engaged in the construction of science concepts. This article
illustrates how such instruction can be modeled effectively for
teachers so as to deepen their understanding of basic physics
concepts as well as enhance their attitudes about science.
Physics and Everyday Thinking is a semester-long,
guided inquiry-based curriculum that focuses on the themes
of interactions, energy, forces, and fi elds. It is intended for
broad use in general education physics courses and more
specifi cally in courses for prospective and practicing ele-
mentary teachers. There are two major goals. The fi rst is
a content goal: to help teachers develop a set of physics
ideas that can be applied to explain a wide range of phe-
nomena, in particular, those that are typically included in
elementary school science curricula. Each of the chapters
in PET is designed to address one or more of the big ideas
in physics contained in the National Science Education
Standards and the AAAS Benchmarks for Science Literacy.
Each big idea (e.g., the Law of Conservation of Energy
or Newton’s Second Law) is broken down into a series of
smaller sub-ideas, which serve as targets for one or more
individual activities in that chapter. The second major goal
of PET focuses on learning about learning: to help teachers
become more aware of how their own physics ideas change
and develop, how children think about science ideas, and
how knowledge is developed within a scientifi c commu-
nity. About three quarters of the activities in PET are aimed
at achieving the content goal. The remainder specifi cally
target learning about learning.
The structure of the PET curriculum, the structure of each
activity, and the pedagogical approach to teaching and learning
were informed by fi ve major design principles derived from
results from research in cognitive science and science educa-
tion. These principles are built on the idea that teachers must
create learning environments in which students articulate,
defend, and modify their ideas as a means for actively con-
structing the main ideas that are the goals of instruction. The
paper describes the design principles and illustrates how they
are integrated into the structure of the curriculum. Case studies
of teachers working through the activities illustrate how the
principles play out in the classroom. (Note: In the paper and in
the following discussion, the “students” are preservice elemen-
tary school teachers in a university course based on PET.)I. DESIGN PRINCIPLESThe fi rst design principle is that learning builds on prior
knowledge. Prior knowledge may come in the form of experi-
ences and intuitions as well as ideas (both correct and incor-
rect) that were previously learned in formal education settings.
Incorrect prior knowledge is often strongly held and resistantto change, but it also has valuable aspects that can serve as
resources for further learning.
Each activity in PET consists of four sections: Purpose,
Initial Ideas, Collecting and Interpreting Evidence, and
Summarizing Questions. The Purpose section places the
material to be introduced in the context of what students have
learned before, while the Initial Ideas section is designed to
elicit students’ prior knowledge about the central issue of
the activity. Both within the small groups and in the whole-
class discussion that follows, students usually suggest ideas
and raise issues that are later explored in the Collecting and
Interpreting Evidence section. The sequence of questions in
the latter section prompts students to compare their experi-
mental observations with their predictions. As often happens,
the experimental evidence supports some of their initial ideas
but not others, prompting students to reconsider their initial
ideas. Finally, the questions in the Summarizing Questions
section, which address aspects of the key question for the
activity, help students recognize what they have learned in
the activity and how their fi nal ideas might have built on, and
changed from, their initial ideas.
The second design principle is that learning is a complex
process requiring scaffolding.
During the learning process students move from the ideas they
have prior to instruction toward ideas that are consistent with
generally accepted principles and concepts with more explana-
tory power. This view of learning thus assumes that students’
knowledge develops gradually and that this process takes time.
Such a learning process can be facilitated by providing a high
degree of guidance and support (referred to as “scaffolding”) for
students as they take their fi rst tentative steps in modifying their
initial ideas. However, as they move toward mastering a certain
concept or skill, the degree of related scaffolding provided can be
gradually diminished.
In the PET curriculum guidance is provided within the
structure of each activity. The Initial Ideas section helps stu-
dents make connections between what they are going to learn
and what they already know. The Collecting and Interpreting
Evidence section consists of a carefully designed sequence
of questions that ask students to make predictions, carry out
experimental observations, and draw conclusions. Guidance
is especially provided to help students make sense of unex-
pected observations. Finally, in the Summarizing Questions
section students are guided to synthesize what they had
learned during the activity.
The third design principle is that learning is facilitated
through interaction with tools.
Within the scientifi c community, various tools such as labo-
ratory apparatus, simulations, graphical representations, and
specialized language are used in the development and commu-
nication of scientifi c ideas. In the PET classroom, similar tools
are used to facilitate the articulation and development of sci-
entifi c ideas. For example, students often work with computer
simulations following laboratory experimentation. The simula-
tions serve as visualization tools, using representations such as
graphs, speed and force arrows, energy bar representations andAPS-AJP-11-1001-Book.indb 17APS-AJP-11-1001-Book.indb 17 27/12/11 2:56 PM27/12/11 2:56 PM