Lessons from pendulums: A design comparison of three lab activities

David Hammer; Ian Descamps; N. G. Holmes; Paul Wagoner; Rachel E. Scherr; Roger Tobin

arxiv: 2512.09781 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-10 · ⚛️ physics.ed-ph

Lessons from pendulums: A design comparison of three lab activities

Ian Descamps , Roger Tobin , Paul Wagoner , David Hammer , N. G. Holmes , Rachel E. Scherr This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ed-ph

keywords pendulum labcurriculum designphysics educationtheoretical commitmentslab activitiesdesign comparisoninstitutional factorsancillary goals

0 comments

The pith

Even with shared theory and goals, three pendulum lab designs differ due to institutional expectations, ancillary aims, and varying theory implications.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares three versions of a pendulum lab activity created by different teams. All teams began with the same theoretical perspective on how students learn and held similar goals for what students should gain from the activity. Despite those common starting points, the labs ended up with noticeable differences in structure and emphasis. The authors trace the divergences to three interacting causes: different expectations for what students can accomplish at each institution, distinct additional objectives such as skill-building or local priorities, and separate conclusions each team drew about what the shared theory requires in practice. This case study illustrates that moving from theory and goals to actual curriculum involves many choices whose reasoning is worth making explicit so others can understand and adapt the designs.

Core claim

Even starting from the same theoretical perspective and having similar goals for students can lead to differences of design. The three labs diverge because the teams hold different expectations of students at their respective institutions, pursue different ancillary goals, and draw different implications from their shared theoretical commitments. This account demonstrates the complexity of the relationship between theory, goals, and curriculum design.

What carries the argument

Comparison of three pendulum lab activities as concrete cases that expose how institutional expectations, ancillary goals, and theory interpretations shape curriculum choices.

Load-bearing premise

The observed design differences among the three labs can be fully explained by the three stated reasons without unaccounted institutional or personal factors.

What would settle it

An independent review finding that the three lab activities are pedagogically equivalent once student expectations at each institution are matched would challenge the claimed sources of divergence.

read the original abstract

We present three versions of a pendulum lab activity to explore how theoretical commitments, motivations, and aspirations reflect in curriculum design. In earlier work, Boudreaux & Elby (2020) discussed how different theoretical perspectives led them to different designs of tutorials. Here, we discuss our finding that even starting from the same theoretical perspective and having similar goals for students can lead to differences of design. We give three interacting reasons why our labs diverge: We have different expectations of students at our respective institutions; we have different ancillary goals; and we draw different implications from our shared theoretical commitments. Our account demonstrates the complexity of the relationship between theory, goals, and curriculum design. In this way, it adds to prior arguments for the importance of designers' articulating the reasoning for their choices as well as for the possible value of instructors' responsive adaptations to curricula.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Even starting from the same theory and goals, the three pendulum labs diverge because of institutional context, extra aims, and how the theory gets applied in practice.

read the letter

The paper's core observation is straightforward: three pendulum labs, all built by the authors from roughly the same theoretical starting point and with overlapping student goals, still ended up with noticeable design differences. The authors trace this to three factors—institutional expectations about what students can handle, ancillary goals like fostering collaboration or specific skills, and the different ways they each read implications out of the shared theory. They walk through concrete choices in each lab to show how these played out, which makes the account easy to follow and grounded in actual design decisions rather than abstract claims. This extends the Boudreaux & Elby reference by staying inside one perspective instead of contrasting different ones, and the examples are specific enough to illustrate the interactions without overgeneralizing. The writing stays honest about the scope as lessons from their own cases. The main limitation is that everything rests on the authors' post-design reflections with no student performance data, no external checks, and no attempt to see whether the same factors explain differences in other groups' work. That keeps the conclusions at the level of plausible accounts rather than tested mechanisms, but the paper does not pretend otherwise. This is useful reading for physics education researchers and instructors who design or adapt labs, especially anyone who has wondered why similar-sounding curricula turn out differently in practice. It would benefit from peer review to tighten the examples and clarify how far the three reasons travel beyond these cases.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents three versions of a pendulum lab activity designed by the authors. It claims that even when starting from the same theoretical perspective and holding similar goals for student learning, differences in design still arise. The authors identify three interacting reasons for these divergences: differing institutional expectations of students, distinct ancillary goals, and different implications drawn from the shared theoretical commitments. The account is explicitly reflective and qualitative, building on Boudreaux & Elby (2020) to illustrate the complexity of the relationship between theory, goals, and curriculum design while advocating for explicit articulation of design reasoning and responsive adaptations by instructors.

Significance. If the observations hold, the work contributes to physics education research by supplying concrete, accessible examples of how non-theoretical factors shape laboratory design even under aligned starting conditions. The reflective comparison of the three pendulum labs demonstrates that design is underdetermined by theory and goals alone, reinforcing prior arguments for transparency in curriculum development. This qualitative approach offers practical insights for designers and instructors that complement more quantitative studies, though the absence of student performance data limits claims about learning outcomes.

minor comments (2)

§3: The detailed narrative descriptions of the three labs would be strengthened by the addition of a concise comparison table summarizing key design choices (e.g., equipment, student prompts, and assessment focus) to make the differences more immediately visible to readers.
Introduction: The reference to Boudreaux & Elby (2020) is appropriate but would benefit from a brief parenthetical reminder of the specific theoretical perspective shared across the three labs to aid readers who have not consulted the prior work.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of the manuscript, recognition of its contributions to physics education research, and recommendation to accept. We appreciate the acknowledgment that the reflective comparison illustrates how non-theoretical factors shape laboratory design.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a qualitative reflective account comparing three author-designed pendulum lab activities. Its central claim—that identical theoretical starting points and similar student goals can still yield design differences—is directly instantiated by presenting the three specific cases and the authors' own post-design analysis of three reasons (institutional expectations, ancillary goals, and differing implications from theory). No derivations, equations, quantitative predictions, fitted parameters, or self-referential models appear; the reasoning draws from concrete examples rather than reducing any result to its inputs by construction. Self-citations are minimal and non-load-bearing, with the account remaining self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that design differences arise primarily from the three listed factors, with no free parameters or new entities introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Theoretical commitments, motivations, and aspirations shape curriculum design choices
Invoked as the starting point for comparing the three labs and explaining their divergence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5455 in / 1083 out tokens · 30063 ms · 2026-05-16T23:24:42.985223+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We give three interacting reasons why our labs diverge: We have different expectations of students at our respective institutions; we have different ancillary goals; and we draw different implications from our shared theoretical commitments.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We all take a resource-based view of student knowledge, reasoning, and framing

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 98 canonical work pages

[1]

Please take care to be honest about your data and your findings!

studied this and claimed the period of a pendulum does not depend on amplitude, or on the mass of the weight (called the ‘bob’). The challenge today is to study these questions: To the precision you are able to measure, does the amplitude (angle) affect the period? Does the mass of the bob?” This is the spring 2024 version of the instruction sheet. Ev- er...

work page 2024
[2]

Boudreaux and A

A. Boudreaux and A. Elby, How curriculum developers’ cog- nitive theories influence curriculum development, Physical Re- view Physics Education Research 16, 020144 (2020)

work page 2020
[3]

Galilei, Dialogues concerning two new sciences (1638)

G. Galilei, Dialogues concerning two new sciences (1638)

work page
[4]

E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, and N. G. Holmes, Surprise! shift- ing students away from model-verifying frames in physics labs, in Physics Education Research Conference 2018, PER Confer- ence (Washington, DC, 2018)

work page 2018
[5]

E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, and N. Holmes, How expectations of confirmation influence students’ experimentation decisions in introductory labs, Physical Review Physics Education Re- search 16, 010113 (2020), publisher: American Physical Soci- ety

work page 2020
[6]

let’s just pretend

E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, “let’s just pretend”: Students’ shifts in frames during a content-reinforcement lab, in Physics Education Research Conference 2020 , PER Conference (Vir- tual Conference, 2020) pp. 484–489

work page 2020
[7]

Sundstrom, A

M. Sundstrom, A. M. Phillips, and N. G. Holmes, Problematiz- ing in inquiry-based labs: how students respond to unexpected results, in Physics Education Research Conference 2020 , PER Conference (Virtual Conference, 2020) pp. 539–544

work page 2020
[8]

A. M. Phillips, M. Sundstrom, D. G. Wu, and N. Holmes, Not engaging with problems in the lab: Students’ navigation of conflicting data and models, Physical Review Physics Educa- tion Research 17, 020112 (2021)

work page 2021
[9]

I Guess My Question is Like

S. Jeon, I. Descamps, and D. Hammer, “I Guess My Question is Like”: Problematizing in an Introductory College Physics Lab, in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - ICLS 2023 (2023) publisher: International Society of the Learning Sciences

work page 2023
[10]

Sundstrom, R

M. Sundstrom, R. K. Fussell, A. M. Phillips, M. Akubo, S. E. Allen, D. Hammer, R. E. Scherr, and N. Holmes, Instructing nontraditional physics labs: Toward responsiveness to student epistemic framing, Physical Review Physics Education Re- search 19, 020140 (2023), publisher: American Physical So- ciety

work page 2023
[11]

Descamps, S

I. Descamps, S. Jeon, N. Holmes, R. E. Scherr, and D. Ham- mer, Dynamics of productive confirmation framing in an intro- ductory lab, Physical Review Physics Education Research 20, 020111 (2024)

work page 2024
[12]

Hammer, A

D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre (Informa- tion Age Publishing, 2005) pp. 89 – 119

work page 2005
[13]

A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognition and Instruction 10, 105 (1993)

work page 1993
[14]

Tannen, Framing in discourse (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993)

D. Tannen, Framing in discourse (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993)

work page 1993
[15]

R. E. Scherr and D. Hammer, Student Behavior and Epis- temological Framing: Examples from Collaborative Active- Learning Activities in Physics, Cognition and Instruction 27, 147 (2009)

work page 2009
[16]

L. M. Goodhew, A. D. Robertson, P. R. L. Heron, and R. E. Scherr, Students’ context-sensitive use of conceptual re- sources: A pattern across different styles of question about mechanical waves, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010137 (2021)

work page 2021
[17]

Ford, The game, the pieces, and the players: Generative resources from two instructional portrayals of experimentation, Journal of the Learning Sciences 14, 449 (2005)

M. Ford, The game, the pieces, and the players: Generative resources from two instructional portrayals of experimentation, Journal of the Learning Sciences 14, 449 (2005)

work page 2005
[18]

B. W. Frank and R. E. Scherr, Interactional processes for sta- bilizing conceptual coherences in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020101 (2012)

work page 2012
[19]

D. G. Wu, A. B. Heim, M. Sundstrom, C. Walsh, and N. Holmes, Instructor interactions in traditional and nontradi- tional labs, Physical Review Physics Education Research 18, 010121 (2022)

work page 2022
[20]

R. E. Scherr, R. S. Russ, T. J. Bing, and R. A. Hodges, Initia- tion of student-ta interactions in tutorials, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020108 (2006)

work page 2006
[21]

L. D. Conlin and R. E. Scherr, Making Space to Sensemake: Epistemic Distancing in Small Group Physics Discussions, Cognition and Instruction 36, 396 (2018)

work page 2018
[22]

Zhang, K

M. Zhang, K. Ansell, and E. Kuo, Navigating moments of uncertainty and socio-emotional risks in small-group work, in 2021 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (2021) pp. 468–473

work page 2021
[23]

Watkins, D

J. Watkins, D. Hammer, J. Radoff, L. Z. Jaber, and A. M. Phillips, Positioning as not-understanding: The value of show- ing uncertainty for engaging in science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 55, 573 (2018)

work page 2018
[24]

Appleby, V

L. Appleby, V . Dini, L. Withington, E. LaMotte, and D. Ham- mer, Disciplinary significance of social caring in postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Physical Review Physics Education Research 17, 023106 (2021)

work page 2021
[25]

Gouvea, L

J. Gouvea, L. Appleby, L. Fu, and A. Wagh, Motivating and Shaping Scientific Argumentation in Lab Reports, CBE—Life Sciences Education 21, ar71 (2022)

work page 2022
[26]

It’s Scary but It’s Also Exciting

J. Radoff, L. Z. Jaber, and D. Hammer, “It’s Scary but It’s Also Exciting”: Evidence of Meta-Affective Learning in Science, Cognition and Instruction 37, 73 (2019)

work page 2019
[27]

Dini and D

V . Dini and D. Hammer, Case study of a successful learner’s epistemological framings of quantum mechanics, Physical Re- view Physics Education Research 13, 010124 (2017), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

work page 2017
[28]

Holmes, D

N. Holmes, D. Kumar, and D. Bonn, Toolboxes and handing students a hammer: The effects of cueing and instruction on getting students to think critically, Physical Review Physics Education Research 13, 010116 (2017)

work page 2017
[29]

K. N. Quinn, M. M. Kelley, K. L. McGill, E. M. Smith, Z. Whipps, and N. Holmes, Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide, Physical Review Physics Edu- cation Research 16, 010129 (2020)

work page 2020
[30]

Doing the lesson

M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, A. Bugallo Rodríguez, and R. A. Duschl, “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics, Science Education 84, 757 (2000)

work page 2000
[31]

Z. Y . Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. Holmes, Re- structuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency, Physical Review Physics Education Research 17, 020128 (2021)

work page 2021
[32]

Scardamalia and C

M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Higher Levels of Agency for Children in Knowledge Building: A Challenge for the Design of New Knowledge Media, The Journal of the Learning Sci- ences 1, 37 (1991)

work page 1991
[33]

R. E. Scherr and N. Holmes, Quantifying uncertainty and dis- tinguishing data sets in introductory physics, CourseSource 10 10.24918/cs.2023.44 (2023)

work page doi:10.24918/cs.2023.44 2023
[34]

Holmes, J

N. Holmes, J. Olsen, J. L. Thomas, and C. E. Wieman, Value 16 added or misattributed? A multi-institution study on the educa- tional benefit of labs for reinforcing physics content, Physical Review Physics Education Research 13, 010129 (2017), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

work page 2017
[35]

E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, Best practice for instructional labs, Nature Physics , 1 (2021), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

work page 2021
[36]

Robertson, R

A. Robertson, R. Scherr, and D. Hammer, eds., Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics (Routledge, 2015)

work page 2015
[37]

L. S. Shulman, Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching, Educational Researcher 15, 4 (1986)

work page 1986
[38]

Shulman, Knowledge and Teaching:Foundations of the New Reform, Harvard Educational Review 57, 1 (1987)

L. Shulman, Knowledge and Teaching:Foundations of the New Reform, Harvard Educational Review 57, 1 (1987)

work page 1987
[39]

D. L. Ball and D. K. Cohen, Reform by the Book: What Is - or Might Be - the Role of Curriculum Materials in Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform?, Educational Researcher 25, 6 (1996)

work page 1996
[40]

E. A. Davis and J. S. Krajcik, Designing Educative Curricu- lum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning, Educational Re- searcher 34, 3 (2005)

work page 2005
[41]

D. B. Harlow, Structures and improvisation for inquiry-based science instruction: A teacher’s adaptation of a model of mag- netism activity, Science Education 94, 142 (2010)

work page 2010
[42]

Elby and S

A. Elby and S. Yerdelen-Damar, Rethinking the relationship between instructors and physics education researchers, Phys- ical Review Physics Education Research 16, 020151 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2020
[43]

A. D. Robertson, K. E. Gray, C. E. Lovegren, K. L. Killough, and S. T. Wenzinger, Curricular Knowledge as a Resource for Responsive Instruction: A Case Study, Cognition and Instruc- tion 39, 149 (2021)

work page 2021
[44]

V . K. Otero and D. E. Meltzer, The past and future of physics education reform, Physics Today 70, 50 (2017), publisher: American Institute of Physics

work page 2017
[45]

Reif and M

F. Reif and M. St. John, Teaching physicists’ thinking skills in the laboratory, American Journal of Physics 47, 950 (1979)

work page 1979
[46]

R. K. Thornton, Tools for scientific thinking-microcomputer- based laboratories for physics teaching, Physics Education 22, 230 (1987)

work page 1987
[47]

J. M. May, Historical analysis of innovation and research in physics instructional laboratories: Recurring themes and future directions, Physical Review Physics Education Research 19, 020168 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2023
[48]

Etkina, A

E. Etkina, A. Karelina, M. Ruibal-Villasenor, D. Rosengrant, R. Jordan, and C. E. Hmelo-Silver, Design and Reflection Help Students Develop Scientific Abilities: Learning in Introductory Physics Laboratories, Journal of the Learning Sciences 19, 54 (2010)

work page 2010
[49]

E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, C. Walsh, and N. Holmes, Direct Measurement of the Impact of Teaching Experimentation in Physics Labs, Physical Review X 10, 011029 (2020)

work page 2020
[50]

B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of instruc- tional approach on students’ epistemologies about experi- mental physics, in 2016 Physics Education Research Confer- ence Proceedings (American Association of Physics Teachers, Sacramento, CA, 2016) pp. 388–391

work page 2016
[51]

B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities:Impact on students’ beliefs about experi- mental physics, Physical Review Physics Education Research 12, 020132 (2016), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2016
[52]

B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Students’ views about the nature of experimental physics, Physical Review Physics Edu- cation Research 13, 020110 (2017)

work page 2017
[53]

Walsh, H

C. Walsh, H. Lewandowski, and N. Holmes, Skills-focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimenta- tion views for all students, Physical Review Physics Education Research 18, 010128 (2022), publisher: American Physical So- ciety

work page 2022
[54]

D. R. Sokoloff, P. W. Laws, and R. K. Thornton, RealTime Physics: active learning labs transforming the introductory lab- oratory, European Journal of Physics 28, S83 (2007)

work page 2007
[55]

R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools, Ameri- can Journal of Physics 58, 858 (1990)

work page 1990
[56]

D. T. Brookes, E. Ektina, and G. Planinsic, Implementing an epistemologically authentic approach to student-centered in- quiry learning, Physical Review Physics Education Research 16, 020148 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2020
[57]

N. G. Holmes and D. A. Bonn, Doing Science or Doing a Lab? Engaging Students with Scientific Reasoning during Physics Lab Experiments, in 2013 Physics Education Research Con- ference Proceedings (2013) pp. 185–188

work page 2013
[58]

N. G. Holmes, J. Day, A. H. K. Park, D. A. Bonn, and I. Roll, Making the failure more productive: scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in inven- tion activities, Instructional Science 42, 523 (2014)

work page 2014
[59]

N. G. Holmes, J. Ives, and D. A. Bonn, The Impact of Tar- geting Scientific Reasoning on Student Attitudes about Exper- imental Physics, in 2014 Physics Education Research Confer- ence Proceedings (American Association of Physics Teachers, Minneapolis, MS, 2015) pp. 119–122

work page 2014
[60]

N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT Learning Goals for the Lab, The Physics Teacher 57, 296 (2019)

work page 2019
[61]

H. J. Lewandowski, D. R. Bolton, and B. Pollard, Initial im- pacts of the transformation of a large introductory lab course focused on developing experimental skills and expert episte- mology, in Physics Education Research Conference 2018, PER Conference (Washington, DC, 2018)

work page 2018
[62]

Werth, C

A. Werth, C. G. West, and H. Lewandowski, Impacts on student learning, confidence, and affect in a remote, large- enrollment, course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Physical Review Physics Education Research 18, 010129 (2022), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2022
[63]

Funkhouser, W

K. Funkhouser, W. M. Martinez, R. Henderson, and M. D. Caballero, Design, analysis, tools, and apprenticeship (DATA) Lab, European Journal of Physics 40, 065701 (2019)

work page 2019
[64]

Holmes, B

N. Holmes, B. Keep, and C. E. Wieman, Developing sci- entific decision making by structuring and supporting stu- dent agency, Physical Review Physics Education Research 16, 010109 (2020)

work page 2020
[65]

Brewe, L

E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. O’Brien, Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with CLASS, Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Ed- ucation Research 5, 013102 (2009)

work page 2009
[66]

Biggs, Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment, Higher Education 32, 347 (1996)

J. Biggs, Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment, Higher Education 32, 347 (1996)

work page 1996
[67]

H. J. Lewandowski, R. Hobbs, J. T. Stanley, D. R. Dounas- Frazer, and B. Pollard, Student reasoning about measurement uncertainty in an introductory lab course, inPhysics Education Research Conference 2017, PER Conference (Cincinnati, OH,

work page 2017
[68]

Pollard, R

B. Pollard, R. Hobbs, J. T. Stanley, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of an introductory lab course on students’ understanding of measurement uncertainty, in Physics Education Research Conference 2017 , PER Confer- ence (Cincinnati, OH, 2017) pp. 312–315

work page 2017
[69]

Pollard and H

B. Pollard and H. J. Lewandowski, Transforming a large in- troductory lab course: impacts on views about experimental physics, in Physics Education Research Conference 2018, PER Conference (Washington, DC, 2018)

work page 2018
[70]

Pollard, A

B. Pollard, A. Werth, R. Hobbs, and H. Lewandowski, Impact of a course transformation on students’ reasoning about mea- surement uncertainty, Physical Review Physics Education Re- search 16, 020160 (2020), publisher: American Physical Soci- ety

work page 2020
[71]

Sandoval, Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research, Journal of the Learning Sciences 23, 18 (2014)

W. Sandoval, Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research, Journal of the Learning Sciences 23, 18 (2014)

work page 2014
[72]

P. Cobb, Putting philosophy to work: Coping with multiple theoretical perspectives, in Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (Information Age Pub- lishing, 2007)

work page 2007
[73]

Dancy, C

M. Dancy, C. Henderson, and C. Turpen, How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of peer instruction, Physical Review Physics Educa- tion Research 12, 010110 (2016), publisher: American Physi- cal Society

work page 2016
[74]

Turpen and N

C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, The construction of differ- ent classroom norms during peer instruction: Students perceive differences, Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Educa- tion Research 6, 020123 (2010), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2010
[75]

Affriyenni, H

Y . Affriyenni, H. Georgiou, and N. Finkelstein, Navigating the adoption of research-based instructional strategies within the complex nature of higher education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020124 (2025)

work page 2025
[76]

B. M. Zwickl, V . Ikoro, and S. Allie, Characterizing Lab En- vironments Using Activity Theory, in The International Hand- book of Physics Education Research: Teaching Physics , edited by M. F. Ta¸ sar and P. R. L. Heron (AIP Publishing LL- CMelville, New York, 2023) pp. 10–1–10–30

work page 2023
[77]

D. B. Harlow, V . K. Otero, A. E. Leak, S. Robinson, E. Price, and F. Goldberg, Learning about teaching and learning while learning physics: An analysis of 15 years of responsive cur- riculum development, Physical Review Physics Education Re- search 16, 020155 (2020)

work page 2020
[78]

L. C. McDermott, M. L. Rosenquist, and E. H. Van Zee, Stu- dent difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics, American Journal of Physics 55, 503 (1987)

work page 1987
[79]

I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Common sense concepts about motion, American Journal of Physics 53, 1056 (1985)

work page 1985
[80]

A. B. Arons, Achieving wider scientific literacy, Daedalus112, 91 (1983), publisher: The MIT Press

work page 1983

Showing first 80 references.

[1] [1]

Please take care to be honest about your data and your findings!

studied this and claimed the period of a pendulum does not depend on amplitude, or on the mass of the weight (called the ‘bob’). The challenge today is to study these questions: To the precision you are able to measure, does the amplitude (angle) affect the period? Does the mass of the bob?” This is the spring 2024 version of the instruction sheet. Ev- er...

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Boudreaux and A

A. Boudreaux and A. Elby, How curriculum developers’ cog- nitive theories influence curriculum development, Physical Re- view Physics Education Research 16, 020144 (2020)

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Galilei, Dialogues concerning two new sciences (1638)

G. Galilei, Dialogues concerning two new sciences (1638)

work page

[4] [4]

E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, and N. G. Holmes, Surprise! shift- ing students away from model-verifying frames in physics labs, in Physics Education Research Conference 2018, PER Confer- ence (Washington, DC, 2018)

work page 2018

[5] [5]

E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, and N. Holmes, How expectations of confirmation influence students’ experimentation decisions in introductory labs, Physical Review Physics Education Re- search 16, 010113 (2020), publisher: American Physical Soci- ety

work page 2020

[6] [6]

let’s just pretend

E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, “let’s just pretend”: Students’ shifts in frames during a content-reinforcement lab, in Physics Education Research Conference 2020 , PER Conference (Vir- tual Conference, 2020) pp. 484–489

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Sundstrom, A

M. Sundstrom, A. M. Phillips, and N. G. Holmes, Problematiz- ing in inquiry-based labs: how students respond to unexpected results, in Physics Education Research Conference 2020 , PER Conference (Virtual Conference, 2020) pp. 539–544

work page 2020

[8] [8]

A. M. Phillips, M. Sundstrom, D. G. Wu, and N. Holmes, Not engaging with problems in the lab: Students’ navigation of conflicting data and models, Physical Review Physics Educa- tion Research 17, 020112 (2021)

work page 2021

[9] [9]

I Guess My Question is Like

S. Jeon, I. Descamps, and D. Hammer, “I Guess My Question is Like”: Problematizing in an Introductory College Physics Lab, in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - ICLS 2023 (2023) publisher: International Society of the Learning Sciences

work page 2023

[10] [10]

Sundstrom, R

M. Sundstrom, R. K. Fussell, A. M. Phillips, M. Akubo, S. E. Allen, D. Hammer, R. E. Scherr, and N. Holmes, Instructing nontraditional physics labs: Toward responsiveness to student epistemic framing, Physical Review Physics Education Re- search 19, 020140 (2023), publisher: American Physical So- ciety

work page 2023

[11] [11]

Descamps, S

I. Descamps, S. Jeon, N. Holmes, R. E. Scherr, and D. Ham- mer, Dynamics of productive confirmation framing in an intro- ductory lab, Physical Review Physics Education Research 20, 020111 (2024)

work page 2024

[12] [12]

Hammer, A

D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre (Informa- tion Age Publishing, 2005) pp. 89 – 119

work page 2005

[13] [13]

A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognition and Instruction 10, 105 (1993)

work page 1993

[14] [14]

Tannen, Framing in discourse (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993)

D. Tannen, Framing in discourse (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993)

work page 1993

[15] [15]

R. E. Scherr and D. Hammer, Student Behavior and Epis- temological Framing: Examples from Collaborative Active- Learning Activities in Physics, Cognition and Instruction 27, 147 (2009)

work page 2009

[16] [16]

L. M. Goodhew, A. D. Robertson, P. R. L. Heron, and R. E. Scherr, Students’ context-sensitive use of conceptual re- sources: A pattern across different styles of question about mechanical waves, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010137 (2021)

work page 2021

[17] [17]

Ford, The game, the pieces, and the players: Generative resources from two instructional portrayals of experimentation, Journal of the Learning Sciences 14, 449 (2005)

M. Ford, The game, the pieces, and the players: Generative resources from two instructional portrayals of experimentation, Journal of the Learning Sciences 14, 449 (2005)

work page 2005

[18] [18]

B. W. Frank and R. E. Scherr, Interactional processes for sta- bilizing conceptual coherences in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020101 (2012)

work page 2012

[19] [19]

D. G. Wu, A. B. Heim, M. Sundstrom, C. Walsh, and N. Holmes, Instructor interactions in traditional and nontradi- tional labs, Physical Review Physics Education Research 18, 010121 (2022)

work page 2022

[20] [20]

R. E. Scherr, R. S. Russ, T. J. Bing, and R. A. Hodges, Initia- tion of student-ta interactions in tutorials, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020108 (2006)

work page 2006

[21] [21]

L. D. Conlin and R. E. Scherr, Making Space to Sensemake: Epistemic Distancing in Small Group Physics Discussions, Cognition and Instruction 36, 396 (2018)

work page 2018

[22] [22]

Zhang, K

M. Zhang, K. Ansell, and E. Kuo, Navigating moments of uncertainty and socio-emotional risks in small-group work, in 2021 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (2021) pp. 468–473

work page 2021

[23] [23]

Watkins, D

J. Watkins, D. Hammer, J. Radoff, L. Z. Jaber, and A. M. Phillips, Positioning as not-understanding: The value of show- ing uncertainty for engaging in science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 55, 573 (2018)

work page 2018

[24] [24]

Appleby, V

L. Appleby, V . Dini, L. Withington, E. LaMotte, and D. Ham- mer, Disciplinary significance of social caring in postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Physical Review Physics Education Research 17, 023106 (2021)

work page 2021

[25] [25]

Gouvea, L

J. Gouvea, L. Appleby, L. Fu, and A. Wagh, Motivating and Shaping Scientific Argumentation in Lab Reports, CBE—Life Sciences Education 21, ar71 (2022)

work page 2022

[26] [26]

It’s Scary but It’s Also Exciting

J. Radoff, L. Z. Jaber, and D. Hammer, “It’s Scary but It’s Also Exciting”: Evidence of Meta-Affective Learning in Science, Cognition and Instruction 37, 73 (2019)

work page 2019

[27] [27]

Dini and D

V . Dini and D. Hammer, Case study of a successful learner’s epistemological framings of quantum mechanics, Physical Re- view Physics Education Research 13, 010124 (2017), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

work page 2017

[28] [28]

Holmes, D

N. Holmes, D. Kumar, and D. Bonn, Toolboxes and handing students a hammer: The effects of cueing and instruction on getting students to think critically, Physical Review Physics Education Research 13, 010116 (2017)

work page 2017

[29] [29]

K. N. Quinn, M. M. Kelley, K. L. McGill, E. M. Smith, Z. Whipps, and N. Holmes, Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide, Physical Review Physics Edu- cation Research 16, 010129 (2020)

work page 2020

[30] [30]

Doing the lesson

M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, A. Bugallo Rodríguez, and R. A. Duschl, “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics, Science Education 84, 757 (2000)

work page 2000

[31] [31]

Z. Y . Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. Holmes, Re- structuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency, Physical Review Physics Education Research 17, 020128 (2021)

work page 2021

[32] [32]

Scardamalia and C

M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Higher Levels of Agency for Children in Knowledge Building: A Challenge for the Design of New Knowledge Media, The Journal of the Learning Sci- ences 1, 37 (1991)

work page 1991

[33] [33]

R. E. Scherr and N. Holmes, Quantifying uncertainty and dis- tinguishing data sets in introductory physics, CourseSource 10 10.24918/cs.2023.44 (2023)

work page doi:10.24918/cs.2023.44 2023

[34] [34]

Holmes, J

N. Holmes, J. Olsen, J. L. Thomas, and C. E. Wieman, Value 16 added or misattributed? A multi-institution study on the educa- tional benefit of labs for reinforcing physics content, Physical Review Physics Education Research 13, 010129 (2017), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

work page 2017

[35] [35]

E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, Best practice for instructional labs, Nature Physics , 1 (2021), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

work page 2021

[36] [36]

Robertson, R

A. Robertson, R. Scherr, and D. Hammer, eds., Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics (Routledge, 2015)

work page 2015

[37] [37]

L. S. Shulman, Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching, Educational Researcher 15, 4 (1986)

work page 1986

[38] [38]

Shulman, Knowledge and Teaching:Foundations of the New Reform, Harvard Educational Review 57, 1 (1987)

L. Shulman, Knowledge and Teaching:Foundations of the New Reform, Harvard Educational Review 57, 1 (1987)

work page 1987

[39] [39]

D. L. Ball and D. K. Cohen, Reform by the Book: What Is - or Might Be - the Role of Curriculum Materials in Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform?, Educational Researcher 25, 6 (1996)

work page 1996

[40] [40]

E. A. Davis and J. S. Krajcik, Designing Educative Curricu- lum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning, Educational Re- searcher 34, 3 (2005)

work page 2005

[41] [41]

D. B. Harlow, Structures and improvisation for inquiry-based science instruction: A teacher’s adaptation of a model of mag- netism activity, Science Education 94, 142 (2010)

work page 2010

[42] [42]

Elby and S

A. Elby and S. Yerdelen-Damar, Rethinking the relationship between instructors and physics education researchers, Phys- ical Review Physics Education Research 16, 020151 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2020

[43] [43]

A. D. Robertson, K. E. Gray, C. E. Lovegren, K. L. Killough, and S. T. Wenzinger, Curricular Knowledge as a Resource for Responsive Instruction: A Case Study, Cognition and Instruc- tion 39, 149 (2021)

work page 2021

[44] [44]

V . K. Otero and D. E. Meltzer, The past and future of physics education reform, Physics Today 70, 50 (2017), publisher: American Institute of Physics

work page 2017

[45] [45]

Reif and M

F. Reif and M. St. John, Teaching physicists’ thinking skills in the laboratory, American Journal of Physics 47, 950 (1979)

work page 1979

[46] [46]

R. K. Thornton, Tools for scientific thinking-microcomputer- based laboratories for physics teaching, Physics Education 22, 230 (1987)

work page 1987

[47] [47]

J. M. May, Historical analysis of innovation and research in physics instructional laboratories: Recurring themes and future directions, Physical Review Physics Education Research 19, 020168 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2023

[48] [48]

Etkina, A

E. Etkina, A. Karelina, M. Ruibal-Villasenor, D. Rosengrant, R. Jordan, and C. E. Hmelo-Silver, Design and Reflection Help Students Develop Scientific Abilities: Learning in Introductory Physics Laboratories, Journal of the Learning Sciences 19, 54 (2010)

work page 2010

[49] [49]

E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, C. Walsh, and N. Holmes, Direct Measurement of the Impact of Teaching Experimentation in Physics Labs, Physical Review X 10, 011029 (2020)

work page 2020

[50] [50]

B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of instruc- tional approach on students’ epistemologies about experi- mental physics, in 2016 Physics Education Research Confer- ence Proceedings (American Association of Physics Teachers, Sacramento, CA, 2016) pp. 388–391

work page 2016

[51] [51]

B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities:Impact on students’ beliefs about experi- mental physics, Physical Review Physics Education Research 12, 020132 (2016), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2016

[52] [52]

B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Students’ views about the nature of experimental physics, Physical Review Physics Edu- cation Research 13, 020110 (2017)

work page 2017

[53] [53]

Walsh, H

C. Walsh, H. Lewandowski, and N. Holmes, Skills-focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimenta- tion views for all students, Physical Review Physics Education Research 18, 010128 (2022), publisher: American Physical So- ciety

work page 2022

[54] [54]

D. R. Sokoloff, P. W. Laws, and R. K. Thornton, RealTime Physics: active learning labs transforming the introductory lab- oratory, European Journal of Physics 28, S83 (2007)

work page 2007

[55] [55]

R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools, Ameri- can Journal of Physics 58, 858 (1990)

work page 1990

[56] [56]

D. T. Brookes, E. Ektina, and G. Planinsic, Implementing an epistemologically authentic approach to student-centered in- quiry learning, Physical Review Physics Education Research 16, 020148 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2020

[57] [57]

N. G. Holmes and D. A. Bonn, Doing Science or Doing a Lab? Engaging Students with Scientific Reasoning during Physics Lab Experiments, in 2013 Physics Education Research Con- ference Proceedings (2013) pp. 185–188

work page 2013

[58] [58]

N. G. Holmes, J. Day, A. H. K. Park, D. A. Bonn, and I. Roll, Making the failure more productive: scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in inven- tion activities, Instructional Science 42, 523 (2014)

work page 2014

[59] [59]

N. G. Holmes, J. Ives, and D. A. Bonn, The Impact of Tar- geting Scientific Reasoning on Student Attitudes about Exper- imental Physics, in 2014 Physics Education Research Confer- ence Proceedings (American Association of Physics Teachers, Minneapolis, MS, 2015) pp. 119–122

work page 2014

[60] [60]

N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT Learning Goals for the Lab, The Physics Teacher 57, 296 (2019)

work page 2019

[61] [61]

H. J. Lewandowski, D. R. Bolton, and B. Pollard, Initial im- pacts of the transformation of a large introductory lab course focused on developing experimental skills and expert episte- mology, in Physics Education Research Conference 2018, PER Conference (Washington, DC, 2018)

work page 2018

[62] [62]

Werth, C

A. Werth, C. G. West, and H. Lewandowski, Impacts on student learning, confidence, and affect in a remote, large- enrollment, course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Physical Review Physics Education Research 18, 010129 (2022), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2022

[63] [63]

Funkhouser, W

K. Funkhouser, W. M. Martinez, R. Henderson, and M. D. Caballero, Design, analysis, tools, and apprenticeship (DATA) Lab, European Journal of Physics 40, 065701 (2019)

work page 2019

[64] [64]

Holmes, B

N. Holmes, B. Keep, and C. E. Wieman, Developing sci- entific decision making by structuring and supporting stu- dent agency, Physical Review Physics Education Research 16, 010109 (2020)

work page 2020

[65] [65]

Brewe, L

E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. O’Brien, Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with CLASS, Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Ed- ucation Research 5, 013102 (2009)

work page 2009

[66] [66]

Biggs, Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment, Higher Education 32, 347 (1996)

J. Biggs, Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment, Higher Education 32, 347 (1996)

work page 1996

[67] [67]

H. J. Lewandowski, R. Hobbs, J. T. Stanley, D. R. Dounas- Frazer, and B. Pollard, Student reasoning about measurement uncertainty in an introductory lab course, inPhysics Education Research Conference 2017, PER Conference (Cincinnati, OH,

work page 2017

[68] [68]

Pollard, R

B. Pollard, R. Hobbs, J. T. Stanley, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of an introductory lab course on students’ understanding of measurement uncertainty, in Physics Education Research Conference 2017 , PER Confer- ence (Cincinnati, OH, 2017) pp. 312–315

work page 2017

[69] [69]

Pollard and H

B. Pollard and H. J. Lewandowski, Transforming a large in- troductory lab course: impacts on views about experimental physics, in Physics Education Research Conference 2018, PER Conference (Washington, DC, 2018)

work page 2018

[70] [70]

Pollard, A

B. Pollard, A. Werth, R. Hobbs, and H. Lewandowski, Impact of a course transformation on students’ reasoning about mea- surement uncertainty, Physical Review Physics Education Re- search 16, 020160 (2020), publisher: American Physical Soci- ety

work page 2020

[71] [71]

Sandoval, Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research, Journal of the Learning Sciences 23, 18 (2014)

W. Sandoval, Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research, Journal of the Learning Sciences 23, 18 (2014)

work page 2014

[72] [72]

P. Cobb, Putting philosophy to work: Coping with multiple theoretical perspectives, in Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (Information Age Pub- lishing, 2007)

work page 2007

[73] [73]

Dancy, C

M. Dancy, C. Henderson, and C. Turpen, How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of peer instruction, Physical Review Physics Educa- tion Research 12, 010110 (2016), publisher: American Physi- cal Society

work page 2016

[74] [74]

Turpen and N

C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, The construction of differ- ent classroom norms during peer instruction: Students perceive differences, Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Educa- tion Research 6, 020123 (2010), publisher: American Physical Society

work page 2010

[75] [75]

Affriyenni, H

Y . Affriyenni, H. Georgiou, and N. Finkelstein, Navigating the adoption of research-based instructional strategies within the complex nature of higher education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020124 (2025)

work page 2025

[76] [76]

B. M. Zwickl, V . Ikoro, and S. Allie, Characterizing Lab En- vironments Using Activity Theory, in The International Hand- book of Physics Education Research: Teaching Physics , edited by M. F. Ta¸ sar and P. R. L. Heron (AIP Publishing LL- CMelville, New York, 2023) pp. 10–1–10–30

work page 2023

[77] [77]

D. B. Harlow, V . K. Otero, A. E. Leak, S. Robinson, E. Price, and F. Goldberg, Learning about teaching and learning while learning physics: An analysis of 15 years of responsive cur- riculum development, Physical Review Physics Education Re- search 16, 020155 (2020)

work page 2020

[78] [78]

L. C. McDermott, M. L. Rosenquist, and E. H. Van Zee, Stu- dent difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics, American Journal of Physics 55, 503 (1987)

work page 1987

[79] [79]

I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Common sense concepts about motion, American Journal of Physics 53, 1056 (1985)

work page 1985

[80] [80]

A. B. Arons, Achieving wider scientific literacy, Daedalus112, 91 (1983), publisher: The MIT Press

work page 1983