Effects of Phenomenon-Based Instruction on Student Use of Supportive Reasoning in Explanatory Responses Regarding Force Phenomena in Physics by Sean W. Fetherston A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah April 5, 2023 Approved Stephanie Speicher, Ph.D. Ryan Cain, Ph.D. Adam Johnston, Ph.D. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 2 Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Nature of the Problem ................................................................................................................ 4 Literature Review....................................................................................................................... 7 Students Using Evidence and Reasoning to Support Explanations ............................................ 7 Problem: Importance of Students Using Supportive Reasoning in Arguments .......................... 8 Potential Solution: Phenomenon-Based Instruction .................................................................... 9 Method .....................................................................................................................................14 Scope and Curriculum ............................................................................................................... 14 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 18 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Results ......................................................................................................................................21 Teaching Methodology Results................................................................................................. 21 Student Response Results ......................................................................................................... 24 Discussion.................................................................................................................................30 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................32 Appendix A: Teaching Philosophy and Initial Instructional Intentions.......................................40 Appendix B: Pre-Instruction Prompt and Rubric for Primary Phenomenon................................42 Appendix C: Post-Instruction Assessment with Primary and Analogous Phenomena .................44 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 3 Abstract High school physics students’ written responses and instructional methodology were analyzed to determine the effects of Phenomenon-Based Instruction (PhBI) on studentconstructed explanations/arguments with special focus on the use of evidence to support claims in a qualitative study. Auto-ethnographic coding on instructional methods from instructor field notes, structural and holistic coding on student responses, and assessing student proficiency preand post-instruction data were utilized to determine correlation of influences from instruction and results on student communication. Changes were seen in response content where students utilized more scientific vocabulary with a slight increase in the utilization of evidence to support causation claims for both primary and analogous phenomena. Discussion responses showed how students elaborated and extended explanations from prior knowledge which was also seen in assessment responses. Overall PhBI showed to provide means of extending understanding by with qualitative exploration of phenomena and enhancing argument construction by use of supporting evidence. Keywords: phenomenon-based instruction, high school physics, phenomenological, constructivist PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 4 Nature of the Problem Language and communication are central to scientific literacy, especially in developing comprehension and skills (Osborne, 2002). This includes comprehension of concepts, the acquisition, and interpretation of data, problem-solving, and communication of knowledge. Assessing students in scientific communication most often addresses the accuracy of claims supported by evidence, in the form of data and warrants, in addition to justifications to act as backings for the evidence (Sampson & Clark, 2008; Sampson et al., 2017). Instruction that focuses on the development of student communication to include explanations of phenomena requires moving beyond descriptions of the phenomena to provide claims of causation and to also state reasoning as to why such claims are correct. Constructing arguments and explanations requires some prior knowledge in order for students to produce high-quality arguments (von Aufschnaiter et al., 2007). However, when students engage in argumentation and construct explanations for scientific phenomena, overall comprehension is improved with multiple connections utilized with language, mathematics, and critical thinking. Direct descriptions are often used initially by students to describe new experiences that are then related to abstract concepts or unobservable phenomena after further information is gathered. It then places new experiences and conceptualizations within their descriptive framework in which students can utilize prior knowledge in which to connect and integrate their understanding. Further conceptual development can be assessed by constructing detailed arguments or explanations with a high correlation to conceptual understanding and critical thinking (Sandoval, 2003). The use of prior knowledge is necessary for students to construct high-quality arguments, even if there are some errors in previous conceptualizations. Research has shown that student learning in science education is not a process of simply confronting errors PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 5 and replacing them with instructor-based knowledge; it is shown more to be an elaboration and extension of students’ initial ideas in order to gain more familiarity thereby resulting in further sense-making and quality student explanations (Campbell et al., 2016; Smith III et al., 1994). Further sense-making requires a solid understanding of the use of evidence to support explanations in order to communicate and deliberate with others, which is supported by phenomenon-based instruction and learning. Phenomena-based instruction (PhBI) and learning (PhBL) utilizes a constructivist and phenomenological approach with teacher-guided exchanges between students that seeks to use the explicit description of subjective observations to refine student epistemology (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016). Students start from prior knowledge and continue to acquire and revise their own representation of knowledge and experiences depending on cognitive development (Bruner, 1964). Viewing a phenomenon or problem and then attempting to holistically explain it using prior knowledge and available information in addition to conducting student-designed experiments allows students to derive their own mental models and explanations without undue bias from what the instructor provides. The students can use language in which they are familiar and refine their communication through deliberation to extend understanding; utilizing multiple forms of abstraction and models beyond initial descriptions to provide a comprehensive understanding of an event. After observing a phenomenon and collecting information, the students then discuss in a purposeful way to deliberate the interpretation of the evidence by providing possible explanations with the evidence and supporting reasoning. Mental models can be developed and shared in this way with explicit instruction highlighting the limitations of all models and how they are useful in explaining and predicting aspects of phenomena. The intent is the development of multiple models that can PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 6 predict and explain the phenomenon and similar, analogous phenomena based upon holistic and contextualized explanations. The applicability of mental models to new information can determine the viability of the model and students can determine any changes required to enhance its precision and accuracy based upon reliable evidence. The application to analogous phenomena is also used as a metric for understanding which measures the appropriate use and effective comparison and contrasting of models to empirical data. However, the manner in which students demonstrate this knowledge is key in determining understanding. Providing claims with evidence, and supporting reasoning is the most common method of explaining one’s interpretation and can include abstractions, models, numerical and qualitative observations, and first-principle reasoning. The primary goal of this study is to determine the influence of Phenomenon-Based Instruction on the development and use of reasoning or empirical evidence to support claims in student-constructed scientific arguments in the author’s classroom. Specific questions addressed: 1. Does the use of direct phenomena exploration (via direct observation, simulation, text, or experimental manipulation) and social deliberation (discussion, deliberation, or argument) provide an opportunity to systematically develop an adaptable and reliable method of communication within a learning community? 2. Does student language change when exposed to PhBI to include supportive reasoning and evidence? PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 7 Literature Review Students Using Evidence and Reasoning to Support Explanations Science education utilizes many different techniques to describe familiar along with new experiences and to convey abstract ideas or phenomena that are not directly observable. These techniques utilize observational descriptions, scientific modeling, data collection, mathematics, and metaphors, which align with those used in professional science and engineering practices (Danforth & Naraian, 2007; Ouzounis & Maziere, 2006). If direct sensory observation is insufficient or prohibitive due to resources or unobservable nature of phenomena, scientific modeling based on prior experiences, evidence, and reasoning are necessary to construct explanations. The goal of these, for students and teachers, being the sense-making of encountered phenomena and the systematic description of phenomena for our benefit. An example of a concept that can be conceptually extended with new information is force. The term force is used colloquially in everyday language, and generally has intuitive physical understanding based upon prior knowledge from observation of regularly occurring interactions between objects. However, force can also be incorrectly correlated to speed instead of a change in speed, or acceleration.; Speed and velocity can be considered synonymous in common usage given linear translational motion in one direction. Discussing how speed represents motion and how forces cause a change in motion would then require time to distinguish defined terms for velocity, force, and acceleration. The utilization of models to show how a single force can be comprised of multiple forces acting together on an object, how forces act as the primary means of matter interactions, and how forces can alter the inertial states of systems is difficult for students to grasp without prior knowledge of concepts or experience with scientific modeling practices. Especially since the modeling techniques are abstractions to describe a wide range of PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 8 phenomena. Raw data and mathematics, as examples, can be inaccessible to students who are not familiar or have difficulty with the use and interpretation of such analyses (Eshach, 2014; Lai et al., 2016). Students may have difficulty connecting the models with the phenomena, leading to erroneous applications of models toward predictions or explanations. However, when students engage in argumentation from evidence they can determine the validity of their models and engage in the “most cognitively effective way of learning” (National Research Council, 2012). The focus then turns to effectively developing scientific argumentation skills in students within the context of phenomena, both familiar and unfamiliar. Problem: Importance of Students Using Supportive Reasoning in Arguments The nature of science includes the ability to adapt and change with new information and interpretations and to support claims based on this new information. Through student-constructed arguments, ideas and models formed by students will carry beyond the course of study and remain apparent in post-secondary work and education, despite corrective instruction methods should they be inaccurate (Vosniadou & Skopeliti, 2017). Accurate conceptualization is a goal of science education, however, communication, problem-solving skills, and processes that serve to enhance scientific literacy are necessary to construct relevant arguments. The use of supporting evidence and reasoning in an explanation or argument has become one of the skills that Utah SEEd standards seek to develop in students (USBE 2019, p. 12; also see Table 1). Students who typically seek to answer questions correctly often do so by stating a claim and do not usually communicate their reasoning, unless called upon explicitly. Given major standardized assessments, scientific argumentation through constructed response is usually not part of multiple choice or short answer questions (ACT, n.d.; Utah Aspire Plus, n.d.). This places emphasis on what is claimed to be the correct response PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 9 without assessing the use of reasoning as to how the claim connects to evidence and principles. Granted, questions are constructed with the intention that students utilize reasoning to arrive at the correct answer, but the assessment of the reasoning process itself is not present. This does not reliably denote understanding of the concept but is more evident of information acquisition. Within the Utah SEEd Standards, developed from the National Research Council’s A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas (2012), there are expectations and instructional methods focusing on science and engineering practices, one of which is engaging in argument from evidence. When determining the specific nature of how students should engage in argument, the National Research Council’s framework states that by grade 12, students should “[r]ecognize that the major features of scientific arguments are claims, data, and reasons and distinguish these elements in examples” (National Research Council, 2012, p. 73). Developing and utilizing this skill requires practice that can result in attempts that do not align with intended objectives. Determining an effective instructional method that creates opportunities for intentional practice, feedback over multiple time-frames, and community collaboration among students will provide the necessary development for students to engage in argument from evidence. Potential Solution: Phenomenon-Based Instruction Overview of PhBI Phenomenon-Based Learning and Instruction was developed in Finland as part of the redevelopment of its core curriculum for basic education in 2014 and focuses on the use of holistic, real-world phenomena that are then explored by students (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016). It is a multi-disciplinary approach that can connect different disciplines via the same phenomena through different disciplinary perspectives in order to achieve a holistic integration PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 10 of knowledge and skills as they would be in an applicable real-world context. PhBI within a science education context focuses on the mechanics of natural phenomena and how they can be explained using a number of qualitative and quantitative methods. This method of instruction and learning forms a processing and research framework in which students can utilize prior knowledge and extend it through various forms of guided and unguided inquiry. There are two major philosophical underpinnings that comprise PhBI which include constructivist meaning-making from students and also gathering information for integration through a phenomenological lens. In a constructivist view, students are seen as active participants that build knowledge collaboratively in a social-cultural interaction from many pieces of information into a whole through inquiry and problem-solving (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016, p. 37). The constructivist view dictates that disciplinary boundaries be crossed to include multiple knowledge bases and skill sets, in addition to integrating the social dynamic and support of peers and knowledgeable others within the zone of proximal development. The phenomenological view describes how we observe and interact with phenomena as well as the phenomenon of learning in itself to inform an important philosophical underpinning for educators. A phenomenon is rarely if ever, seen in its entirety and what we see are observable characteristics of the phenomenon that can then possibly relate to unobservable characteristics in order to build an understanding of the phenomenon’s complexity (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016, p. 39). The constructivist and phenomenological lenses combine together in an overarching framework to produce an environment within which activities such as labs, demonstrations, discussions, lectures, problems, and projects can operate to accomplish goals of multidisciplinary competency. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 11 Characteristics of PhBI include: “holisticity, authenticity, contextuality, problem-based inquiry learning and learning process” (Symeonidid & Schwarz, 2016, p. 36). Symeonidid & Schwarz (2016) also include characteristics of appropriate phenomena to be studied within this framework to be authentic phenomena studied as complete events or objects in their original context. The phenomena are also to be considered as a framework for concepts to be learned while also acting as a possible source of motivation to center learning. This can also be described as a concrete experience followed by reflective observation, abstraction, active experimentation, and community discussion regarding the phenomenon (Santhalia & Yuliati, 2021). The benefits of PhBI provide an active role for students and a process of sense-making that capitalizes on their own observations and deliberation with others. Since phenomenon-based instruction is also multidisciplinary, conclusions from this process can also be applied to analogous phenomena while having real-world applicability so long as the phenomenon of study is of personal interest to stakeholders involved (Francis et al., 2012; Kangas & Rasi, 2021). This allows for the possibility of multiple disciplines to satisfy educational standards and create crosscurricular opportunities for students by studying the same phenomenon from different disciplinary perspectives. PhBI has been shown to be effective in enhancing student knowledge and skills in a series of research studies. Positive effects have been documented in increasing scientific literacy, problem-solving skills, and concept acquisition (Santhalia et al., 2020; Santhalia & Yuliati, 2021; Yuliati et al., 2020). Capitalizing on these studies, the determination of how students communicate their ideas and how that changes with the implementation of PhBI within the Utah SEEd framework is valuable. An approach that utilizes real-world phenomena to capitalize on a student’s individual sense-making, social educational discussion, active experimentation, and PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 12 potentially multidisciplinary expansion of study provides a robust instructional-process framework for comprehensive understanding and continued sense-making. Especially since these characteristics build upon students’ prior experiences and connect naïve conceptualization with scientific findings to supplement understanding and refine precision of language for greater clarity. Implementation of PhBI Phenomena-based instructional models can be used within Utah’s SEEd standards framework. An overview of Utah’s SEEd standards includes a three-dimensional model of science instruction which combines science and engineering practices (SEPs), crosscutting concepts (CCCs), and disciplinary core ideas (DCIs). PhBI directly relates to parts of the overall instructional framework in the SEEd standards. This study will focus on how it relates specifically to the SEPs “Engaging in argument from evidence” and “obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information,” and will also provide opportunities to explore multiple CCCs (excluding “Scale, proportion, and quantity” and “energy and matter”) and how they align to affect student-derived explanations (USBE, 2019, p. 12). Table 1 Articulation of SEPs, CCCs, and DCIs in Utah SEEd Standards Science and Engineering Practices Crosscutting Concepts Disciplinary Core Ideas Asking questions or defining problems: Students engage in asking testable questions and defining problems to pursue understandings of phenomena. Patterns: Students observe patterns to organize and classify factors that influence relationships. Physical Sciences: (PS1) Matter and Its Interactions (PS2) Motion and Stability: Forces and Interactions (PS3) Energy (PS4) Waves Developing and using models: Students develop physical, conceptual, and other models to represent relationships, explain Cause and effect: Students investigate and explain causal relationships in order to make tests and predictions. Scale, proportion, and quantity: Life Sciences: (LS1) Molecules to Organisms (LS2) Ecosystems (LS3) Heredity PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES mechanisms, and predict outcomes. Planning and carrying out investigations: Students plan and conduct scientific investigations in order to test, revise, or develop explanations. Analyzing and interpreting data: Students analyze various types of data in order to create valid interpretations or to assess claims/conclusions. Using mathematics and computational thinking: Students use fundamental tools in science to compute relationships and interpret results. Constructing explanations and designing solutions: Students construct explanations about the world and design solutions to problems using observations that are consistent with current evidence and scientific principles. Students compare the scale, proportions, and quantities of measurements within and between various systems. Systems and system models: Students use models to explain the parameters and relationships that describe complex systems. Energy and matter: Students describe cycling of matter and flow of energy through systems, including transfer, transformation, and conservation of energy and matter. 13 (LS4) Biological Evolution Earth and Space Sciences: (ESS1) Earth’s Place in the Universe (ESS2) Earth’s Systems (ESS3) Earth and Human Activity Engineering Design: (ETS1.A) Defining and Delimiting an Engineering Problem (ETS1.B) Developing Possible Solutions (ETS1.C) Optimizing the Design Solution Structure and function: Students relate the shape and structure of an object or living thing to its properties and functions. Stability and change: Students evaluate how and why a natural or constructed system can change or remain stable over time. Engaging in argument from evidence: Students support their best explanations with lines of reasoning using evidence to defend their claims. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information: Students obtain, evaluate, and derive meaning from scientific information or presented evidence using appropriate scientific language. They communicate their findings clearly and persuasively in a variety of ways including written text, graphs, diagrams, charts, tables, or orally. Note. Taken from 2019 Utah Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) Standards (p. 12). Utah State Board of Education. https://schools.utah.gov/file/3eea5b86-efbb-4a8e-9aa8-e63cc3078588 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 14 Much like PhBI, Utah SEEd standards specify the expectation of presenting students with an authentic phenomenon related to the course subject in an explorable format (text, photo, video, simulation, demonstration, or student experiment). Students then deliberate about the phenomenon with guidance from the teacher to aid in explanatory attempts and to capitalize on students’ innate inquiry and prior knowledge. Additional information can be given at strategic times throughout the discussion to further deliberation, depending upon the phenomenon or time frame of each class session. But the intent is for students to utilize presented information, observations, empirical data, and gathered resources to provide an explanation on a phenomenon of interest. This can result in a model which can then be subjected to experiment to determine the efficacy of the model in predicting behavior and determining relationships between variables or design an engineered solution. Experiments are expected to be student-designed based upon the information, with guidance from the instructor in designing experiments should students not have prior experience in experimental design. Method Scope and Curriculum The study took place over the course of several class periods in the month of October 2022 with the participation of 27 students in 11th and 12th grade who are enrolled in a general physics course at a rural high school in Utah during the 2022-2023 academic year. These students volunteered for the study out of the 60 physics students who are enrolled in total. The researcher also took part in the study as the physics instructor for these students and provided auto-ethnographic information regarding instructional methods. All students were informed of the intent and scope of the study and allowed to ask questions directly related to the research. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 15 The identities of the students and any identifying characteristics in responses were removed before analysis and grading to mitigate bias, whether it be intentional or unintentional. The science curriculum developed for the physics students at the high school was based upon the Utah SEEd Standards and the instructional models associated with them, which are influenced by the NGSS. There are four main ideas: forces and interactions of matter, energy, fields, and waves. Given the intended time frame of this study, the topic and phenomena of focus was force and matter interactions. The instructional strategies during this study included the following to varying degrees: lecture-based instruction, experimentation, guided discussion, modeling, projects, engineering design, and argument-driven inquiry. These were implemented based upon the framework and intent of PhBI of which all the mentioned strategies fit, with the possible exception of lecture as that is seen as more teacher-centered. However, short lectures were of use to provide some background and vocabulary for students to incorporate. A sample lesson plan is below with connections to Utah SEEd standards and PhBI respectively. Table 2 Example of SEEd Standard and Lesson Framework Used During Study Utah SEEd Standard Sub-Unit Overview Standard PHYS.1.1 Analyze and interpret data to determine the cause and effect relationship between the net force on an object and its change in motion as summarized by Newton’s Second Law of Motion. Emphasize onedimensional motion and macroscopic objects moving at non-relativistic speeds. Examples could include objects subject to a net unbalanced force, such as a falling object, an object sliding down a ramp, or a moving object being pulled by a constant force. (PS2.A, PS2.C) (Each standard is a student performance expectation that includes all three dimensions of science.) NGSS Correlation: HS-PS2-1 PHYS.1.1 Concepts and Skills to Master Science and Engineering Practice (SEP) Engaging in argument from evidence: Students engage in argument evaluating the claims, evidence, and reasoning for the wave and particle models of electromagnetic radiation. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 16 Students do and use this Science and Engineering Practice (SEP) by: ● Apply scientific ideas, principles, and/or evidence to solve design problems, taking into account possible unanticipated effects. ● Design, evaluate, and/or refine a solution to a complex real-world problem, based on scientific knowledge, student-generated sources of evidence, prioritized criteria, and trade off considerations. Compare and evaluate competing arguments in light of currently accepted explanations, new evidence, limitations (e.g., trade-offs), constraints, and ethical issues. ● Evaluate the claims, evidence, and/or reasoning behind currently accepted explanations or solutions to determine the merits of arguments. ● Respectfully provide and/or receive critiques on scientific arguments by probing reasoning and evidence and challenging ideas and conclusions, responding thoughtfully to diverse perspectives, and determining what additional information is required to resolve contradictions. ● Construct, use, and/or present an oral and written argument or counter-arguments based on data and evidence. ● Make and defend a claim based on evidence about the natural world that reflects scientific knowledge, and student generated evidence. Crosscutting Concepts (CCC) Cause and Effect: Empirical evidence can establish the mathematical relationship that the net force over the object’s mass causes the acceleration of an object. Students think and connect this Crosscutting Concept (CCC) to reason that: ● Empirical evidence is required to differentiate between cause and correlation and make claims about specific causes and effects. ● Cause and effect relationships can be suggested and predicted for complex natural and human designed systems by examining what is known about smaller scale mechanisms within the system. Disciplinary Core Idea (DCI) (PS2.A): Forces and Motion (PS2.C): Stability and Instability in Physical Systems Students know and apply the Science Disciplinary Core Idea (DCI) of PS2.A Forces and Motion in their thinking and reasoning to communicate that: ● Newton’s second law accurately predicts changes in the motion of macroscopic objects. Revision is required for subatomic scales or speeds close to the speed of light. (No details of quantum physics or relativity are included at this grade level.) ● The mathematical expression F=ma (net force=mass multiplied acceleration) accurately predicts changes in motion of a single macroscopic object. Students know and apply the Science Disciplinary Core Idea (DCI) of PS2.C Stability and Instability in Physical Systems in their thinking and reasoning to communicate that: ● Systems often change in predictable ways; understanding the forces that drive the transformations and cycles within a system, as well as the forces imposed on the system from the outside, helps predict its behavior under a variety of conditions. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 17 Main Phenomena Studied in Lessons ● Low-friction cart on incline coupled with Atwood Machine (e.g., using 5g to raise 1500g up incline). ● Fan cart with and without “sail” obstruction (how can the cart move with/without the sail?) ● Project: Effect of parachute surface area on rate of falling (Guiding Question: How does the surface area of a parachute affect the acceleration of a falling object, and the force due to air resistance?) ● Friction forces and comparison of objects rolling and sliding on multiple surfaces (connections to driving and forensic science) ● Periodic motion of a pendulum and what causes oscillatory motion. What does it look like to demonstrate proficiency on this standard? Organizing Data Students organize and describe data (e.g., via tables, graphs, charts, vector drawings) that represents: ● the net force on an object, its mass (which is held constant), and its acceleration (e.g., via tables, graphs, charts, vector drawings). Identifying Relationships Students use tools, technologies, and/or models to analyze the data and identify and describe relationships in the datasets, including: ● How different masses experiencing the same net force accelerate differently. ● How different net forces on a given object produce different accelerations. ● How gravitation is a constant acceleration as evidenced by the fact that the ratio of net force to mass remains constant. Interpreting Data Students use the analyzed data as: ● Evidence to describe that the relationship between the observed quantities is accurately modeled across the range of data by the formula a = Fnet/m (e.g., double force yields double acceleration, etc.). ● Empirical evidence to distinguish between causal and correlational relationships linking force, mass, and acceleration. ● Empirical evidence to express the relationship Fnet=ma in terms of causality, namely that a net force on an object causes the object to accelerate. Note. Adapted from HS-Physics Core Guide (pp. 13-14). https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Clj4hyxXbOj0t0dLQPnVDvsunO7FeRqxR8peI2X1GAE/ edit. Throughout the course of the month of October, students engaged in scientific demonstrations, experiments, data analysis, written argument development, and discussion. These activities focused on describing phenomena through the lens of force and included phenomena investigations of objects on inclines, objects accelerated horizontally by external PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 18 forces such as a fan, parachutes and terminal velocity, friction forces and resultant motion, and periodic motion of a bowling ball hung from the ceiling. In addition to analyzing and interpreting data as stated within the SEEd Standard (Table 2), instruction also included focus on engaging in argument from evidence and the specified in Table 2. Data Collection Pre-Instruction Data Students completed a short writing task that was part of a pretest at the beginning of the academic year in late August. The assessment included questions pertaining to subjects that will be explored throughout the year, but the responses for the writing task were retrieved after official consent was given. The writing task asked for a constructed explanation of a primary phenomenon scenario focusing on force, specifically comparing the trajectory of a falling basketball with a falling basketball that is spinning (see Appendix B). The primary difference being that the spinning basketball experiences differing interactions with air resistance due to the Magnus effect. Post-Instruction Data After instruction, the primary phenomenon scenario used in the baseline was presented to the participants, again, along with a secondary analogous phenomenon seeking explanation of why a box experiencing an applied force is moving at a constant speed. The primary cause being due to a friction force between the box and the ground. The post-instruction writing tasks were part of a larger assessment that posed additional questions specific to the primary phenomenon; this included information and prompts regarding graphical representation, pictorial modeling, mathematical calculations, and qualitative ranking of outcomes in relation to changes of variables (See Appendix C). PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 19 Self-Reported Instructor Data A teaching philosophy and methodological intentions were self-reported at the beginning of the academic year (see Appendix A). Field notes for lessons during the study and video recordings were then ethnographically analyzed and compared to the teaching philosophy. The comparison and the findings of the lessons were then utilized to more precisely determine the degree that PhBI was utilized during the study and instructional influences on student responses. Analysis Teaching Methodology Analysis The stated teaching philosophy (see Appendix A), field notes, and videos were concurrently analyzed post-instruction using qualitative ethnographic methods to determine how well the intended methodology and resultant practice coincided. A more precise narrative regarding instructional methodology could then be determined and used to address influences on student responses while mitigating biases during response analysis. Student Response Analysis All student responses were analyzed using three separate methods of qualitative coding. Structural themes classified the manner and tone of each response. Holistic themes focused on the content of responses and coded major themes that related to phenomena directly. Accuracy of responses were assessed using a rubric (Appendix B and C) and given a score of emerging (score=1), partially proficient (score=2), or proficient (score=3). Primary and analogous phenomena each contained different holistic themes that pertained specifically to each phenomenon. The accuracy of each response was then determined according to a pre-established rubric (see Appendices B & C) and graded according to communicated proficiency (Emerging, Partially Emerging, and Proficient). PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 20 Structural analysis addressed the form and how each response was presented. Common structural themes were developed and can be applied to all responses regardless of phenomenon. It was determined that students were presenting ideas in the following forms by using Description only, Claim only, or Explanation. Communicating scientific observations and ideas carries multiple levels of complexity and depth and the method does not always signify understanding but does exemplify how well understanding is communicated. Regarding student proficiency in skills, performance of skills does not necessarily require communication proficiency in which this study analyzed. In relation to this study, these students should have the ability to write and speak to the extent that their observations are made known. How eloquently a student presents themselves was not the focus regarding the structural themes. These themes addressed the primary mode in which observations and evidence were provided. Description only responses gave direct observational data of which most was retrieved directly from the phenomenon prompt (e.g., the ball was spun, and the motion changed). Claim only responses provided a cause/effect connection between an aspect of the phenomenon scenario and related it to the described result to satisfy the prompt (e.g., the change in motion was caused by the ball spinning). Explanation provides a cause/effect much like claim only but also includes reasoning to support the claim made by the cause/effect connection (e.g., spinning caused a change in motion because of the ball’s interaction with air resistance). Each theme signifies a form of presenting evidence and displaying student understanding of the phenomenal meaning they interpreted. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 21 Results Teaching Methodology Results Auto-ethnographic analysis of teaching methodology in Table 3 shows the summary of instructional activities utilized and the resulting student participation. Table 3 Ethnographic Summary of Lesson Methods and Resulting Student Participation Lesson Instructional Methods Student Participation No. Active Q&A, manipulated variables, developed prediction models, students stated difficulty in describing scientific vs “common-sense” concepts, connections to prior experiences evident in student language. 1 Whole Class Setting. Teacher Demonstration: cart on ramp, Atwood machine, fan on cart 2 Small Group Setting. Design and Focus on construction and performance, less on cause/effect. Compared/contrasted Experiment: Students tasked performance of different designs. Tone of with constructing parachutes competition emerged from students. Students of varying surface areas and provided accurate qualitative determining effect on speed predictions/conceptualizations about and acceleration when dropped from height. relationship between surface area and fall rate 3 Difficulties connecting graphs to the qualitatively Individual Work: Data observed phenomenon, qualitative Modelling and Analysis of descriptions spontaneously occurred via Parachute Data: Students discussion which were then reinforced by tasked with entering data into pre-programmed spreadsheet graphs. Some students found zero acceleration and analyze data to determine of objects and through discussion realized graphical relationship between connection to terminal velocity, i.e., zero net surface area and force. acceleration/fall rate of parachute object. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 22 4 Whole Class: Demonstration and Students easily identified most forces on objects, Lecture: postmortem of multiple instances of teacher omitting info experiment and connection to regarding net force from component forces, friction phenomena i.e., constant force equating to constant speed without explicitly stating friction force. 5 Whole Class: Demonstration and Easily described periodic motion relating to Lecture: periodic motion of gravity, after teacher identified tension students easily described relative magnitude bowling ball hung in and direction, easily described points of zero classroom. Included net force and why motion continues without introduction to momentum net force. Definition of momentum introduced and review of inertia relating to mass. 6 Whole Class: Review: included concepts, calculations, definitions, and graphical analysis. Played Kahoot! Students assisting each other throughout game, students had difficulty with calculations and graphical representations. 7 Assessment Equations and calculators provided for assessment. Most students responded to phenomena through dialogue, hypothesizing, and qualitatively testing predictions. When communicating their insights, students favored qualitative descriptions without emphasis on scientific vocabulary. Through the progression of lessons, students utilized scientific vocabulary that coincided with vocabulary students already used prior to instruction. When there were misalignments between vocabulary and scientific definitions (e.g., acceleration being called speed) students were encouraged to contemplate vocabulary used, but it was difficult maintain such adjustments in language precision throughout the study. Forces on objects were easily described by students to move objects and change motion but force was also equated to the speed of an object. This suggests that speed and velocity are more visually ubiquitous in common experiences while acceleration is felt and more commonly described using force without using defined acceleration. However, this did result in a PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 23 misconception that was introduced, or reinforced, through instruction. During lesson 4, friction force was discussed by the instructor which included pushing a desk across carpet. The applied force and friction force were emphasized individually without placing greater emphasis and focus on how they combine to a zero net force that results in a constant speed. This occurred multiple times throughout the lesson which reinforced the communication of constant force equating to constant speed. This oversight of focusing on constituent parts without relating it back to the whole phenomenon deviates from PhBI by encouraging a divergence from the holistic nature of the phenomenon. The possible evidence of this oversight can be seen in postinstruction responses for the analogous phenomenon, which equated a constant force as the primary reason for the constant speed of an object. Students began the process of scientific communication by using qualitative descriptions with language commonly used daily and developed from naïve understanding which was then related to scientific vocabulary to provide a connection to scientific communication. Students were unfamiliar with mathematical and graphical analysis of physical phenomena and discussions about these forms of modeling favored qualitative conceptualizations to establish connections of seen motion and how to visualize it numerically. A lesson was devoted to graphical analysis but emphasis on description and understanding was re-emphasized by the instructor. When focus was placed on how the data describes the phenomena, students supplemented their own descriptions by making a claim and relating it to characteristics on a graph. Students using qualitative descriptions to establish a link in analyzing quantitative data can be seen as establishing contextuality within PhBI (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016). During experiments and open discussions, student responses were more voluntary and included a rich description of phenomena which included connections to possible causes and predicted outcomes PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 24 not seen at the beginning of the unit, as well as establishing connections to other phenomena through active discussion and hypotheses. During lectures, student responses to questions matched instructor language and did not contain the depth of naïve understanding seen during demonstrations and experiments. Students seemed to state their understandings and include prior knowledge while utilizing instructor language. This does not suggest that students do not have the understanding but that the form of communication was unfamiliar resulting in a focus on the communication instead of the explanation. There were also fewer voluntary responses possibly indicating that students took on a passive role during the class period, resulting in teachercentered instruction. Student Response Results Pre-instruction responses favored more direct descriptions, providing claims without supporting evidence, and some scientific vocabulary while post-instruction responses exhibited more vocabulary, supporting claims with laws, theories, and mathematical/graphical modeling. Holistic Theming of Student Responses The holistic themes that emerged specifically for the primary phenomenon prompt shown in Appendix B centered on what would cause a change in motion to explain why the motion of one object is different from the other. Spinning of the ball, air resistance, and use of the term force were common themes in various combinations that students used to describe/explain the differences in motion. Pre- and post-instruction responses, as seen in Table 4, focused on statements relating to a change in motion of the objects. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 25 Table 4 Holistic Themes and Frequency of Student Responses for Primary Phenomenon Prompt Themes No. of students Pre-Instruction Post-Instruction Explicitly used the term force 6 11 Provided causes of motion change 22 27 Spinning causes motion change 5 11 Air resistance causes motion change 5 1 Spinning interacts with force causing motion change 10 10 Unspecified force causes motion change 2 5 Included scientific law, theory, or equation 1 2 Included of data, graphs, and calculations 0 8 Most student responses included this pre-instruction which increased to all students, postinstruction. Many students responded that the spinning of the ball interacted with another force to cause a change in motion with no change in frequency between pre- and post-instruction. The next most common pre-instruction responses either stated that the spinning caused the change in motion without relating it to other forces or that air resistance caused a change in motion without relating it to the spinning motion of the ball. Post-instruction responses showed an increase in stating the spinning caused a change in motion without reference to other forces as well as an increase in stating an unspecified force as the cause for motion change. This may suggest that students are focusing on the use of the term force and not labeling the force for greater clarity. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 26 Note that only six students explicitly used the term force in pre-instruction responses which nearly doubled in post-instruction responses. This suggests that students utilized their own descriptions of force which required greater detail in naming characteristics to convey ideas before explicit instruction on the term was given. The connection to, or mention of scientific laws, theories, or equations were minimal with all responses pre- and post-instruction with a small increase post-instruction that was not statistically significant. There were errors in mis-naming Newton’s Laws, however with each mention there was a description that did align with the whole of the student’s response (i.e., citing Newton’s 3rd Law then describing Newton’s 1st Law). There was a dramatic increase in the inclusion of data, graphs, and calculations between pre- and post-instruction responses. Holistic themes that emerged from responses to the analogous phenomenon prompts centered around friction, surface of interaction, and speed of the box. The most common directly addressed the prompt in determining why the box was moving at a constant speed with a constant force applied. Seen in Table 5, nearly all students explicitly used the term force which is a dramatic increase from the primary phenomenon responses. This could be due to the prompt itself which explicitly uses the term to describe the interaction with the box. Table 5 Holistic Themes and Frequency of Student Responses for Analogous Phenomenon Prompt Themes No. of students Explicitly used the term force 24 Explicitly equated zero net force to constant speed 4 Mentioned friction or surface influence 3 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES Did not mention friction or surface influence 27 1 Equated constant force with constant speed 20 Mentioned friction or surface influence 5 Did not mention friction or surface influence 15 Included scientific law, theory, or equation 3 The most common theme in responses equated the constant force on the box to its constant speed. This is an inaccurate explanation made by twenty student participants that was most likely influenced by discussions focusing on one force at a time in that scenario without relating it to how all the forces combine to influence resultant motion, resulting in the misconception. However, out of those twenty students, five students included additional statements to include other influences in addition to the applied force on the block that implicitly results in zero net force which is accurate in the given phenomenon. An important theme that was not in the majority was an explicit statement that related zero net force to constant speed. Four students gave explicit statements equating constant speed to zero net force while three of those students included additional factors such as friction or surface interaction. This is important because explicit statements show a more precise communication of thoughts that are less likely to be misinterpreted or misrepresented. Implicit reasoning, though still valid to a point, increases the level of ambiguity that can easily give rise to the propagation of misconceptions through misinterpretation unless the listener has equal or greater knowledge of the phenomenon. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 28 Structural Theming of Student Responses The structural thematic data in Table 6 shows that student pre-instruction responses favored giving a direct claim for the change in motion without providing further explanation to support the claim. Table 6 Structural Themes and Frequency of Student Responses for All Phenomenon Prompts Response theme No. of responses Analogous Primary Phenomenon Phenomenon Pre-Instruction Post-Instruction Description Only 3 3 3 Claim Only 16 12 10 Explanation 8 11 13 Post-instruction frequency of providing claim without supporting evidence decreased while explanation utilizing further information for support increased. There were minimal number of students who only provided a description of the outcome without providing a reason for that outcome; the frequency of this did not change post-instruction but did not completely correspond to the same students. Structural themes for the analogous phenomenon prompt showed a similar number of claims without evidence along with supported explanations. There was a slight increase in explanations as compared to the post-instruction primary phenomenon responses which may be PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 29 due to the nature of the analogous phenomenon and how it was presented. However, the comparison of frequency between post-instruction primary and analogous phenomenon responses shows that students tended to maintain their manner of communication across different phenomenon prompts. Assessment of Student Response Accuracy The responses assessed using the established rubrics in Appendix B and C showed that most students showed emerging proficiency in their responses (score=1) as seen in Figure 1. Figure 1 Frequency of Proficiency Scores for Student Responses with Statistical Information The responses showed a slight increase in proficiency regarding the primary phenomenon, but the change was not significant enough to be considered indicative of growth in conceptual understanding with the study participants, overall. In comparison, the analogous phenomenon responses showed a larger number of responses as emerging (score=1) with four students being partially proficient (score=2) and four students being proficient (score=3). PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 30 The bubble graph in Figure 2 shows individual student scores for pre- and postinstruction primary phenomenon responses were compared and tallied to show individual progress. Most student participants had no change to their response scores, accounting for 46% of the participants overall. There were 23% of students who had a decrease and 31% of the participants who had an increase in response proficiency scores. Figure 2 Comparison of Individual Student Response Scores for the Primary Phenomenon Prompt Discussion The overall change to student communication centered around an increase in the inclusion of supporting evidence for claims in response to writing prompts. Structural analysis revealed an increase in the use of explanation to answer writing prompts and a proportional PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 31 decrease in only providing a claim in post-instruction student responses when compared to preinstruction responses. There was also a similar number of student responses using supported explanation for the post-instruction analogous phenomenon prompt. This suggests that more students supported their claims with evidence versus only providing a claim for causation of phenomena behavior. Holistic analysis revealed that the majority of students who supported their claims with evidence for the primary phenomena did so with the use of data, graphs, and/or calculations. The primary cause of this could possibly originate from the questions that preceded the prompt in the post-instruction assessment given to students which included data and graphical information for the primary phenomenon, along with tasks requiring students to complete calculations shown in Appendix C. These questions were not included with the preinstruction prompt. However, students were prompted throughout instruction to explain their thinking even when the answer is generally accepted as correct or considered common knowledge by the students. Also, the analogous phenomenon portion of the post-instruction assessment did not include questions involving data or graphical information. Student preference to utilize data or reasoning was dependent on the context of the writing prompts in relation to the assessment as a whole and if there were associated questions relating directly to the writing prompts, i.e., the primary phenomenon had numerical and graphical questions preceding it while there were no such questions for the analogous phenomenon. This correlation suggests that students utilized available evidence, either given or previously known, to support their claims. Assessment of individual student responses indicates that conceptual proficiency was maintained without major change when comparing pre- and post-instruction assessments. There were nearly equal number of responses showing increased accuracy as there were showing decreased accuracy. The content of each student response changed most significantly when PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 32 revisiting phenomena. There appeared to be an attempt in aligning communication more with discussion practices formed during lessons, which included students shifting away from providing responses in their own qualitative language to the utilization of scientific vocabulary. This is unfortunate considering that the utilization of scientific vocabulary would have provided greater precision to help extend their explanations, if combined with their own qualitative responses. Students did express that giving explanations was easiest without feeling the need to include physics-specific vocabulary which may have detracted from the confidence and familiarity students have with scientific vocabulary versus students’ pre-instruction vocabulary. Throughout the unit of instruction, students had more opportunities to express their initial understanding in a manner of casual, spontaneous communication with less emphasis on sciencespecific communication. Considering the post-instruction, analogous-phenomenon prompt, significantly more students gave responses resulting in an emerging proficiency score (score=1). This indicates a lack of understanding with that specific phenomenon possibly due to misconceptions developing from unintentional omissions, during instruction; specifically in relating individual characteristics to the larger whole of similar scenarios during instruction. Specifically discussing how applied force or friction force were associated with constant speed and reinforced by observation without providing a frictionless comparison or emphasizing how friction and applied force combine into a zero net force resulting in zero acceleration, i.e., constant speed. Further deliberation regarding authentic phenomena with increasing complexity may provide more holistically appropriate contexts to address such misconceptions. Conclusions PhBI provided a method of exploring familiar and new phenomena to elaborate on prior knowledge and improve the quality of student explanations, coinciding with previous research on PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 33 learning in science education (Campbell et al., 2016; Smith III et al., 1994). Any improvements to proficiency coincided with a change of tone from only providing claims of causation between motion and variables to providing further evidence and connections to support claims in explanations. The correlation of proficiency improvement with change in explanation quality suggests a connection between the comprehension and communication skills necessary for high quality arguments (von Aufschnaiter et al., 2007; Sandoval, 2003). However, it seemed that student explanations were impacted by the increased use of scientific vocabulary in that some of the depth of explanations when students utilized their pre-instruction vocabulary were reduced. The responses suggest that new knowledge is oriented to coincide with existing understanding, and are communicated in a way that explicitly includes what was practiced in the classroom at that time in addition to their prior communication style; suggesting an extension and refining of prior knowledge and including additional communication methods (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016). When engaging in demonstrations and experiments, student explanations were accurate and contributed to greater dialogue. However, during lectures and individual work, student responses matched the instructor’s use of language which omitted a depth of explanation observed in students’ verbal descriptions from direct observational engagement suggesting that the mode of engagement did not align with personal interest (Francis et al., 2012; Kangas & Rasi, 2021), or the PhBI framework as described by Santhalia & Yuliati (2021). When responding to prompts of different force phenomena, students did not see each phenomenon through the holistic lens of force but treated each phenomenon independently utilizing concepts developed specifically for each phenomenological scenario. This resulted in disparate frequency of vocabulary usage from one phenomenon to another, and relating one phenomenon directly to instruction rather than comparing two phenomena by utilizing PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 34 understanding of the common underlying features. In the case of friction, a misconception was inadvertently encouraged during instruction indicating that constant force equated to constant speed without also explicitly identifying the other forces acting on an object. However, there was an overall increase in the use of evidence and reasoning to support claims made by students in both the primary and analogous phenomena suggesting concept acquisition from instruction and increased literacy from increased and accurate use of scientific vocabulary (Santhalia et al., 2020; Santhalia & Yuliati, 2021; Yuliati et al., 2020). This supports the influential effect of instruction on concept acquisition and how resulting conceptualization can be maintained beyond the timeframe of the course (Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1991; Butler et al., 2015; Vosniadou & Skopeliti, 2017). Careful reflection on the instruction reinforces the criteria PhBI requires for phenomena to include richer complexity in which to explore and explain in a variety of ways and at multiple developmental levels (Symeonidid & Schwarz, 2016, p. 36). When the phenomena are authentic with guided discussion, the experiences lend themselves to differentiation in a community setting, especially when paired with appropriate tasks in which students produce artifacts for assessment that are quality examples of the alignment between their abilities and curriculum objectives. Also, to bring explicit attention not only to skills in constructing arguments but also in recognizing the whole phenomena and the various forms in which insights can be applied. Limitations and Considerations Limitations in the study include sample and population size, longitudinal data collection, and possible influences from assessments and instruction not realized by the researcher. Increasing the population size and comparing data over multiple units of study will provide more definitive data through recording progression of skill and conceptual understanding in the PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 35 context of varying physics concepts. Considerations for future research could include crossreferencing the effects of PhBI when studying the same phenomenon within the context of multiple subjects or disciplines (e.g., biology, chemistry, Earth science, social studies, math, fine arts, etcetera). The design of proximal tasks is also an important avenue when determining students’ application of knowledge and requires additional consideration for adequate alignment (Penuel et al., 2019). PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 36 References ACT. (n.d.). The Act Science Practice Test Questions. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation/sciencepractice-test-questions.html?page=0&chapter=0 Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1991). Misconceptions in first-year undergraduate science students about energy sources for living organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 25(3), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1991.9655208 Bruner, J.S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19, 1-15. Butler, J., Mooney Simmie, G., & O’Grady, A. (2015). An investigation into the prevalence of ecological misconceptions in upper secondary students and implications for pre-service teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.943394 Campbell, T., Schwarz, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). What we call misconceptions may be necessary stepping-stones toward making sense of the world. Science Scope, 039(07). https://doi.org/10.2505/4/ss16_039_07_19 Danforth, S., & Naraian, S. (2007). Use of the machine metaphor within autism research. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-007-9061-9 Eshach, H. (2014). The use of intuitive rules in interpreting students’ difficulties in reading and creating kinematic graphs. Canadian Journal of Physics, 92(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2013-0369 Francis, C., Breland, T. A., Østergaard, E., Lieblein, G., & Morse, S. (2012). Phenomenon-based learning in agroecology: A prerequisite for transdisciplinarity and responsible action. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 37 Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 120911083006009. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.717905 Kangas, M. & Rasi, P. (2021) Phenomenon-Based learning of multiliteracy in a Finnish upper secondary school. Media Practice and Education, 22(4), 342-359, DOI: 10.1080/25741136.2021.1977769. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2021.1977769 Lai, K., Cabrera, J., Vitale, J. M., Madhok, J., Tinker, R., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Measuring graph comprehension, critique, and construction in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9621-9 National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165 NGSS Lead States. (2022, February 10). Next generation science standards. NextGenScience. Retrieved February 22, 2022, from https://www.nextgenscience.org/ Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147559 Ouzounis, C., & Mazière, P. (2006). Maps, books and other metaphors for systems biology. Biosystems, 85(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2006.02.007 Penuel, W. R., Turner, M. L., Jacobs, J. K., Horne, K., & Sumner, T. (2019). Developing tasks to assess phenomenon‐based science learning: Challenges and lessons learned from building proximal transfer tasks. Science Education, 103(6), 1367–1395. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21544 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 38 Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current Perspectives and recommendations for Future Directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276 Sampson, V., Hutner, T. L., & Fitzpatrick, D. (2017). Argument-driven inquiry in physics: Mechanics lab investigations for grade 9-12nvolume 1. NSTApress. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and Epistemic Aspects of Students’ Scientific Explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466633 Santhalia, P. W., & Yuliati, L. (2021). An exploration of scientific literacy on physics subjects within phenomenon-based experiential learning. Jurnal Penelitian Fisika Dan Aplikasinya (JPFA), 11(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.26740/jpfa.v11n1.p72-82 Santhalia, P. W., Yuliati, L., & Wisodo, H. (2020). Building students’ problem-solving skill in the concept of temperature and expansion through phenomenon-based experiential learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1422(1), 012021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1422/1/012021 Smith III, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1 Symeonidis, V., & Schwarz, J. F. (2016). Phenomenon-based teaching and learning through the pedagogical lenses of phenomenology: The recent curriculum reform in Finland. Forum Oświatowe, 28(2), 31–47. Retrieved from http://forumoswiatowe.pl/index.php/czasopismo/article/view/45 Utah Aspire Plus. (n.d.). Utah Aspire Plus score interpretation guide - pearsonaccess next. Utah Aspire Plus Score Interpretation Guide. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 39 http://utah.pearsonaccessnext.com/resources/additionalservices/UAPlusScoreInterpretationGuide.pdf Utah State Board of Education. (n.d.). HS-Physics Core Guide. Retrieved August 15, 2022, from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Clj4hyxXbOj0t0dLQPnVDvsunO7FeRqxR8peI2X 1GAE/edit Utah State Board of Education. (2019). Utah Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) Standards. Utah State Board of Education. Retrieved February 21, 2022, from https://schools.utah.gov/file/3eea5b86-efbb-4a8e-9aa8-e63cc3078588 von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2007). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213 Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2017). Is it the Earth that turns or the Sun that goes behind the mountains? Students’ misconceptions about the day/night cycle after reading a science text. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2027–2051. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1361557 Yuliati, L., Nisa’, F., & Mufti, N. (2020). Acquisition of projectile motion concepts on phenomenon based physics’ experiential learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1422(1), 012007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1422/1/012007 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 40 Appendix A: Teaching Philosophy and Initial Instructional Intentions My aim in methodology and instructional strategies revolve around students engaging in phenomena and dialogue with others as well as making their own meaning directly from experience. Teacher demonstrations, formal lab experiments, physical observations, or virtual observations (reading/watching videos) can be modes of engagement with phenomena. Discussions, writing, peer review, students teaching others, and taking a large text and dividing it among groups of students to be presented to the whole are modes of engagement to develop communication of scientific concepts from spontaneous concepts originating from naïve understanding. Students’ inherent lexicon of spontaneous models are then supplemented with scientific models to further develop their own meaning-making. Lecturing is a valid form of content acquisition in strict moderation but only if engaging the students throughout. Having groups of students read various portions of planned text allows them the opportunity to engage in phenomena with a specific focus through deliberation of validity and how it coincides with their own understanding. They can then share their experiences with others, discuss connecting insights, and learn from a more knowledgeable other while at times being that knowledgeable other. Instruction in communication will be important to this end because beyond discussions and informal presentations there is scientific writing that is quite a distinctive style compared to expository or literary writing. Specific formats are presented with time spent in gaining understanding the terminology used and the importance of each aspect of the writing. A full and robust rubric that is directly applicable will be introduced at the beginning of the curriculum and adhered to throughout the academic course time. Peer and teacher feedback is meant to facilitate consistent improvement through students receiving feedback and thinking about their own writing during the process of giving feedback. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 41 Assessments will be similar in form and include more traditional modes (multiple selection, word problems, lab reports) as well as more abstract ways to demonstrate understanding (student selected projects, art exhibitions, cross-disciplinary endeavors, and student directed discussions). The assessment objectives will revolve around the standards of science, mathematics, and writing with emphasis placed on practices used in science, utilizing processes of finding knowledge, and developing models to describe phenomena. The learner impact should be improvement of scientific thinking, communication, and practice. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 42 Appendix B: Pre-Instruction Prompt and Rubric for Primary Phenomenon Adapted from USBE HS-Physics Core Guide Standard 1.1 Stimulus (please read and respond to the writing prompt after diagrams) Two students hold identical basketballs over the edge of a cliff. Both basketballs are dropped off the cliff. Basketball A is released while Basketball B is spun as it is released. The paths of both Basketballs are diagrammed below. Writing Prompt: Please explain what causes the motion of Basketball A to be different from the Motion of Basketball B. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 43 Rubric (Teacher Facing) Proficient Student Explanation: The spinning of the basketball puts a horizontal force on the basketball from the air. This horizontal force causes the ball to accelerate horizontally in a direction that depends on the direction of spin. Partially Proficient Student Explanation: The spinning of the basketball pushes against the air. This push causes the ball to move away from the wall. Emerging Student Explanation: The air pushes on the spinning basketball more than the basketball that isn’t spinning. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 44 Appendix C: Post-Instruction Assessment with Primary and Analogous Phenomena Writing prompts used for analysis are questions 9 and 10 at the end of the assessment. The rubric for the primary phenomenon remains unchanged form Appendix B, and the rubric for the analogous phenomenon is directly after question 10. Name: __________________________________________________________________ Date: ________ Stimulus Two students hold identical basketballs over the edge of a cliff. Both basketballs are dropped off the cliff. Basketball A is released while Basketball B is spun as it is released. The paths of both Basketballs are diagrammed below. Using technology, position and time data is collected for both of the basketballs and organized into graphs. PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 45 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 46 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 47 Your Task In the questions that follow, you will analyze and interpret data to determine what causes the difference in the motion of the two balls. Question 1 Which graphs illustrate a change in motion for the ball? Select all that apply. ● Graph A ● Graph B ● Graph C ● Graph D Question 2 Which graphs illustrate the motion for their ball in the x-dimension (horizontal) and the ydimension (vertical)? Select all that apply. X-Dimension Y-Dimension (horizontal) (vertical) ● ● Graph A Graph A ● Graph B ● Graph B ● Graph C ● Graph C ● Graph D ● Graph D Question 3 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 48 Spinning Basketball B causes what to occur that doesn’t happen to Basketball A? 1. The basketball puts a horizontal force on the air around it 1. The gravitational pull on the basketball from the Earth increases 1. The gravitational pull on the basketball from the Earth decreases 1. The person dropping the basketball varies their force on the ball. Question 4 Newton’s Third Law of Motion States that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. How does the Third Law of Motion apply as a result of the answer selected in question 3? 1. The air puts an equal force back on the basketball. 1. The gravitational pull on the Earth from the basketball equally increases. 1. The gravitational pull on the Earth from the basketball equally decreases. 1. The basketball puts a varying force on the person dropping the ball. Question 5 Draw models (free body diagrams) for both Basketball A and Basketball B representing the forces acting on both Basketballs after they are released. Question 6 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 49 Suppose a ball with more mass (e.g. a basketball filled with water) was dropped instead of a regular basketball. Draw how graph C would be affected. Question 7 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 50 Three balls of different masses are dropped and spun off the cliff. The table below gives some data on the forces, masses, and acceleration each ball experiences in both the x-Dimension (horizontal) and y-Dimension (vertical). Fill in the data table with the missing information. Ball Mass (kg) 1 4 Acceleration X (m/s2) 2 3 1 3 2 Acceleration y (m/s2) Force X (N) 10 2 10 Force Y (N) 20 6 Question 8 Basketballs A and B are both dropped off the cliff while spinning along with a more massive Basketball filled with water (Basketball W). Basketballs B and W are spun at the same speed and thereby receive the same horizontal force. Meanwhile, Basketball A is spun at double the speed of the other balls and thereby receives a greater force. Rank the horizontal accelerations that each ball experiences. Greatest _________________ > ________________ > _________________ Least Justify your answer. Question 9 PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 51 Using data as evidence, explain what causes the motion of Basketball A to be different from the Motion of Basketball B. Question 10 Stimulus (writing prompt will be after diagrams) A student pushes on a box with constant force. The box moves at a constant speed and does not gain speed or slow down while the student pushes on the box. The box, student, and direction of the student’s pushing are diagrammed below. Writing Prompt: Please explain in what causes the box to continue at a constant speed while not speeding up or slowing down. Rubric (Teacher Facing) PhBI EFFECTS ON PHYSICS STUDENT RESPONSES 52 Proficient Student Explanation: The friction forces the box experiences counteracts the force due to the student pushing. Since both forces are equal and opposite, there is no net force to change the speed of the box. Partially Proficient Student Explanation: Friction slows down the box while the student keeps pushing to move it. The student pushes with more force than friction which keeps the box moving. Emerging Student Explanation: The student keeps pushing it so it doesn’t slow down.