Abstract
In this chapter, we use two case studies of high school and undergraduate students interacting with a two-dimensional sandbox modelling software, Algodoo, to show how physics students can make use of the mathematical representations offered by the software in unconventional yet meaningful ways. We show how affordances of the technology-supported learning environment allow the emergence of student creative engagement at the intersection of mathematics and physics. In terms of learning, the activities studied here are relevant in two central ways: (1) they open up alternative conceptual learning pathways for students by allowing them to access and engage with the content in original, self-directed and creative ways; (2) in doing this, the studied activities carry significant potential to motivate students and support their intrinsic interests.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Playful is used in this chapter to mean voluntary, intrinsically motivating (pleasurable for its own sake) and/or creativity-driven (inspired by Rieber 1996).
- 2.
The data collection session for Case 1 originally took place in Slovenian, but we have translated the speech into English for the purposes of this chapter.
- 3.
- 4.
For Case 2, the sessions were conducted in English, though the native language of both of the students was Swedish.
References
Abelson, H., & Disessa, A. A. (1980). The computer as a medium for exploring mathematics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.
Arnone, S., Moauro, F., & Siccardi, M. (2017). A modern Galileo tale. Physics Education, 52(1), 1–5.
Bezemer, J., & Mavers, D. (2011). Multimodal transcription as academic practice: A social semiotic perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.563616.
Clements, D. H. (1986). Effects of Logo and CAI environments on cognition and creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.78.4.309.
Clements, D. H. (1990). Metacomponential development in a Logo programming environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.141.
Dancy, M., Christian, W., & Belloni, M. (2002). Teaching with Physlets: Examples from optics. The Physics Teacher, 40(8), 494–499. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1526622.
diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. E. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.1159/000342945.
Etkina, E. (2015). Millikan award lecture: Students of physics—Listeners, observers, or collaborative participants in physics scientific practices? American Journal of Physics, 83(8), 669–679. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4923432.
Euler, E., & Gregorcic, B. (2018). Exploring how physics students use a sandbox software to move between the physical and the formal. In 2017 physics education research conference proceedings (pp. 128–131). American Association of Physics Teachers. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2017.pr.027.
Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gesture. In S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E. T. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the dynamical dimension of language: Essays in honor of David McNeill (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gregorcic, B. (2015a). Exploring Kepler’s laws using an interactive whiteboard and Algodoo. Physics Education, 50(5), 511–515. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/50/5/511.
Gregorcic, B. (2015b). Investigating and applying advantages of interactive whiteboards in physics instruction. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.
Gregorcic, B. (2016). Interactive whiteboards as a means of supporting students’ physical engagement and collaborative inquiry in physics. In L. Thoms & R. Girwidz (Eds.), Proceedings from the 20th international conference on multimedia in physics teaching and learning (pp. 245–252). Mulhouse: European Physical Society.
Gregorcic, B., & Bodin, M. (2017). Algodoo: A tool for encouraging creativity in physics teaching and learning. The Physics Teacher, 55, 25–28.
Gregorcic, B., Etkina, E., & Planinsic, G. (2015). Designing and investigating new ways of interactive whiteboard use in physics instruction. In P. V. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, & D. L. Jones (Eds.), 2014 physics education research conference proceedings (pp. 107–110). American Association of Physics Teachers. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2014.pr.023.
Gregorcic, B., Etkina, E., & Planinsic, G. (2017a). A new way of using the interactive whiteboard in a high school physics classroom: A case study. Research in Science Education, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9576-0.
Gregorcic, B., Planinsic, G., & Etkina, E. (2017b). Doing science by waving hands: Talk, symbiotic gesture, and interaction with digital content as resources in student inquiry. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020104.
Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732–748.
Hestenes, D. (1995). Modeling software for learning and doing physics. In C. Bernardini, C. Tarsitani, & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Thinking physics for teaching (pp. 25–65). Boston: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1921-8_4.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368.
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality (First). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: A case study on students’ understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & Education, 36(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00059-2.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90004-7.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Lehrer, R., Randle, L., & Sancilio, L. (1989). Learning preproof geometry with LOGO. Cognition and Instruction, 6(2), 159–184.
Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806–812. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.806.
McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503.
Mellingsæter, M. S., & Bungum, B. (2015). Students’ use of the interactive whiteboard during physics group work. European Journal of Engineering Education, 40(February), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.928669.
Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 305–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)00007-5.
National Research Council. (2011). In M. A. Honey & M. L. Hilton (Eds.), Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(83)90034-X.
Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(84)90018-7.
Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2150754.
Plass, J. L., & Schwartz, R. N. (2014). Multimedia learning with simulations and microworlds. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd Edi, pp. 729–761). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rådahl, E. (2017). Responsive teaching using simulation software: The case of orbital motion. Uppsala University.
Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300540.
Rieber, L. P. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and microworlds. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 549–568). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rosengrant, D., Van Heuvelen, A., & Etkina, E. (2009). Do students use and understand free-body diagrams? Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5(1), 010108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010108.
Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the mergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction, 12, 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00023-8.
Sweller, J., Kirshner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426.
Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1020–1028. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12298.
Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 49(3), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12525.
Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 891–897.
Volkwyn, T. S., Airey, J., Gregorcic, B., Heijkensköld, F., & Linder, C. (2018). Physics students learning about abstract mathematical tools when engaging with “invisible” phenomena. In 2017 physics education research conference proceedings (pp. 408–411). American Association of Physics Teachers. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2017.pr.097.
White, B. Y. (1984). Designing computer games to help physics students understand Newton’s laws of motion. Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 69–108.
Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161948.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Euler, E., Gregorcic, B. (2019). Algodoo as a Microworld: Informally Linking Mathematics and Physics. In: Pospiech, G., Michelini, M., Eylon, BS. (eds) Mathematics in Physics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04626-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04627-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)