|
To engage college students with electromagnetic waves and quantum physics, connecting course content to their everyday lives and to promote “photonics awareness,” a 12-week group research project on a photonics-based Nobel prize was developed. The project uses an inquiry-based approach and is designed as a five-part activity, each with a specific scaffold helping guide students regulate their inquiry. |
1.IntroductionLearning about electromagnetic waves and quantum physics is a challenging endeavor for many college science students. Connecting the class content to their everyday lives and to their future careers is not completely obvious. Furthermore, when surveyed and asked, “Do you know what photonics is? If yes, describe it,” 92% of 113 Vanier College students do not know what photonics is or cannot describe it correctly on the first day of their Waves and Modern Physics class. This situation needs to be addressed—not only is photonics a central concept that encompasses much of the course content but it is also ubiquitous in everyday life. Therefore, to engage the college students with course content, connecting it to their everyday lives and to promote “photonics awareness,” a group research project on a photonics-based Nobel prize was developed. The project is set in a Québec (Canada) college-level Waves and Modern Physics course taken by all students pursuing studies in the natural sciences (including health science and pure and applied science).1 This course is equivalent to a freshman-year physics course elsewhere in North America. A semester is 15 weeks, with 5 h of class time per week—3 h for lecturing and active learning activities, and 2 h for laboratory experiments, demonstrations, and tutorials. Typical class sizes range in between 30 and 40 students. All colleges in Québec share the same general framework for the Waves and Modern Physics course, which dictates the specific course content. It includes kinematics and dynamics of vibrations; longitudinal and transverse waves; progressive and stationary waves, resonance; sound waves; geometric and physical optics (which includes interference and diffraction of light); and elements of modern physics (which can include special relativity, quantum physics, and/or nuclear physics). Geometric and physical optics and quantum physics are the content that link to photonics, and hence, are relevant to a chosen Nobel prize. Since there is no specific reference to which elements (or topics) of modern physics must be presented in class, the different college physics departments and their teachers can choose what elements to present and assess in class. In the context of the project to be described, teachers can even allow for groups of students to engage with different elements of modern physics, thus, for this project, allowing students to choose what elements of quantum physics they wish to engage with. The project uses an inquiry-based (IB) approach. That is, students choose the Nobel prize of interest, the questions to investigate (i.e., the research questions), the elements of the Nobel prize to present to classmates, and their final presentation style. The project is designed as a five-part activity, each with a specific scaffold, including individual and group worksheets, and a final presentation assessment rubric. These scaffolds guide students to regulate their inquiry, stay organized and on-task, and manage the time constraints (i.e., timeline). The final presentation assessment rubric supports the students’ capacity to evaluate the quality of their work before submitting the final product. Teacher feedback, which is also a scaffold for students, is provided at the end of each step and students are encouraged to seek help and advice when necessary. This allows the students to engage with, and even go deeper, with electromagnetic waves and quantum physics content that is typically more challenging to teach, and understand, than in a regular freshman college classroom setting. IB instruction in the field of optics and/or photonics education have been reported for high school2 and community college3 laboratory contexts. In each example, a series of standalone IB activities was developed. The novelty of what we present is how the scaffolding in the inquiry can foster both individual and group engagement with complex ideas related to electromagnetic waves and quantum physics in a multiweek project. A background on IB instruction and the use of scaffolds to help guide the inquiry is provided in Sec. 2. Section 3 presents the group research project, including the timeline, the student and group tasks, the scaffolds provided, and the deliverables for each part of the project. Last, in Sec. 4, we discuss the quality of the final presentations and the student learning reflections. 2.Inquiry-Based Instruction and the Use of Scaffolds2.1.Inquiry-Based Instruction as a Student-Centered Active Learning TechniqueEmpirical studies of implementations of student-centered active learning approaches show benefits such as increases in learning and reduced dropout rates.4–6 Research shows that student-centered active learning approaches encourage students to take on a more meaningful approach to learning, with implications on strategies used in the process of knowledge construction.7 Typically, this is because such instruction focuses on deep approaches versus surface approaches.8,9 In addition, active learning approaches positively impact students’ attitudes and motivation toward learning.10,11 It has been shown to have positive influences on students’ self-efficacy particularly as it relates to gender differences and minoritized individuals in STEM.12 This said, we caution that this field of study contains conflicting results primarily because of the differences in the contexts and descriptions of active learning. Our efforts here are to help start the process of clarifying and identifying what are the key elements in one of the approaches, that is, IB instruction. IB instruction is situated within the context of investigating authentic problems.13–18 It promotes the use of high-level cognitive skills—analysis, decision-making, and evaluation—and scientific thinking, including the importance of rigor, reliability, and use of evidence to justify claims. IB is distinct from discovery learning in that guidance, also known as scaffolding, is a critical and essential component of the instructional approach.19 Supporting learners’ management of the inquiry and decision-making, scaffolds are strategically built into the lesson activities.20 Meanwhile, just-in-time scaffolds provided by teachers’ feedback, in situ, regulate, and keep the learning on track. Like problem-based learning (PBL, e.g., Refs. 21 and 22), IB can be classified as a type of active learning that is grounded in sociocognitive and sociocultural theories of learning.23 We elaborate briefly on what this means. Growing out of the fields of educational psychology, cognitive sciences, and learning sciences, sociocognitive and sociocultural models describe how knowledge construction and learning are social processes, these include situated cognition,24–26 distributed cognition,27,28 and group cognition.29 These paradigms view learning as a process mediated by social interactions (e.g., Refs. 25, 26, and 30). Knowledge and knowing are highly dependent on content and context.24,31 Furthermore, the theory of situated cognition informs us about the process of learning and highlights the need for learning activities to be contextualized and embedded in authentic activity—i.e., realistic and/or typical to the domain. For instance, learning physics is more than mere concepts, it is also learning about the discipline’s practices and the epistemology embedded in its inscriptions and tools. The goal of instruction, therefore, should not only be cognitive development, but it should also be to familiarize students with the language, tools, norms, and standards of a discipline. In a way, this means students become members of a discipline’s community as they engage in authentic activity—i.e., their thinking and understanding of the concepts, tools, and traditions is shaped.32,33 This social paradigm relies heavily on forms of group work that fall into two categories: collaborative learning34 and cooperative learning.35 While there are differences between these approaches,36 they both foster the students’ use of disciplinary knowledge. In addition, they both provide students to work within a setting that has been referred to as a zone of proximal development,30 which defines the working limits of a student’s capabilities and knowledge. On one side of this zone, students are capable of working on their own, within this zone students need support of an adult or a more knowledgeable other, and beyond this zone students are lost even with help. Research shows that when students are given the opportunity to work together, with targeted scaffolding and group organization, their learning outcomes are increased, and the quality of that learning is richer.35 2.2.ScaffoldsScaffolding involves supporting the learner to complete a task or achieve a goal they are not yet capable of doing on their own without assistance. Originally identified as ways the adult or expert helps children solve complex problems,37 it has come to describe the support of learning at all levels. Scaffolds reduce the cognitive load of complex tasks, thereby allowing the novices to concentrate on elements of the task that are within their reach. As such, it is closely associated with ideas of the zone of proximal development described earlier. Instructional scaffolds aim to offer types of support that fall into categories, such as focusing the learner, simplifying the task by reducing the degrees of freedom, managing task frustration, guiding competition by highlighting critical problem features, demonstrating or models ideal solutions, etc.37 Originally, scaffolds referred to human tutors, however, the metaphor now extends to tools, resources, and even curricula that include strategies that make thinking visible.38 Thus, scaffolds can be such things as worksheets, templates, and rubrics,39 and as well as the designed technological resources (i.e., software) embedded into instruction to pace and prompt (i.e., scripts) the learning.40 Because scaffolds are intended to be removed, known as fading, learners should be made aware explicitly of the role they play and what aspects of the learning they support. As such, the removal of scaffolds is associated with the development of the learners’ self-regulation skills as their capacity to take on more responsibility for their knowledge acquisition and task completion. 3.Project Timeline, Tasks, and DeliverablesWhat follows is the description of the project based on IB instruction and its use of scaffolds. [Note that all materials produced by the authors (i.e., the scaffolds, including individual and group worksheets, and the final presentation assessment rubric) are available for sharing. The materials can be tailored by other teachers to fit their course content and learning objectives. Please contact the lead author. However, since students did not sign consent forms, the authors cannot share any of the student work or final presentations.] The project can be implemented in different teaching modalities. The first iteration of the project began in a prepandemic, in-person setting that transitioned into a fully online, asynchronous setting after the mid-term break (winter 2020 semester). The following two iterations of the project were done completely in an online setting (fall 2020 and winter 2021 semesters). Much of the work was done asynchronously as homework, but some of the work was done synchronously online during class (e.g., weekly group meetings and Q&A with the teacher). Students were provided with an online group space for video conferencing and document sharing. To respect the ponderation and the general framework of the course, some of the synchronous meetings were done during lab periods (eliminating some lab experiments) and the final presentation replaced two full lab reports. The project overview, as shown in Fig. 1, is first presented to the class. Students are informed of the multiple parts, the timeline, the individual and group tasks, and deliverables, and the final presentation assessment rubric. In their final presentation, groups must be able to describe the physics of a photonics-based Nobel prize and be able to connect it to course content and to their everyday lives. Making these connections, refining, and elaborating them are deliverables for each step of the project as students progress with course content during the semester. Part 1 consists of an introduction and a short task. Students are introduced to the term “photonics”; it is defined, applications are presented (e.g., key components in a fiber-based communication link1), and the teacher presents an overview of his photonics research linked to telecommunications. The students are then presented with a list of photonics-based Nobel prizes, from 1964 (Maser-Laser Principle) to the present, like Fig. 2 of Ref. 41. The teacher provides a worksheet in which each student must choose and rank three Nobel prizes and provide a short description for each. They begin listing keywords/ideas and connecting them to course content and to everyday applications. For instance, when choosing the 2014 blue light-emitting diode (LED)-based Nobel prize, students typically write something similar to, “Blue light means blue waves and/or photons, and these LEDs are used in graphical displays and for white light generation.” The teacher then forms groups of three to four students, trying to respect each student’s Nobel prize preference while minimizing project repetition. In part 2, as an individual task, students are prompted to propose at least four “primary” questions they wish to research and answer. These questions are usually broad and more general. For example, continuing with the blue LED-based Nobel prize, students ask: What is a diode? How can it emit light? Why are blue LEDs Nobel prize-worthy and not the other LEDs? How are they used in graphical displays? and so forth. The students provide detailed answers to their questions, include references, and are to propose new “secondary” questions that are to be answered later in part 3. These “secondary” questions are usually more specific and refer to terms foreign to most students, for example, here: semiconductors, p-types, n-types, band gaps, etc. The students also refine and elaborate their list of connections between keywords/ideas and course content and to everyday applications. Figure 2 shows the worksheet for part 2 (this page is repeated three more times). The teacher reviews the questions, answers, and references and provides written feedback to each student. For part 3, each group prepares a synthesis of all their individual work from part 2. They peer review each other’s contributions. They then compile all their questions (primary and secondary), answers, and references and complete their list of connections between keywords/ideas and course content and to everyday applications. The worksheet provided for part 3 is similar to that for part 2. In addition, they must propose a final presentation plan. This includes the medium—most groups do a narrated slideshow video or a documentary style video. The target time is between 9 and 12 min for a group of three and 12 and 15 min for a group of four, and their audience are their classmates. The plan must also include their individual and group roles for part 4, and they are to indicate if they have more research to conduct. The teacher reviews the synthesis and final presentation plan and provides written feedback to the groups. The groups then have several weeks to complete and deliver their final presentation in part 4. By this stage, it is common for groups to have too much material to present and/or need guidance to shorten their final presentation. The groups can revise their final presentation plan and are encouraged to seek teacher feedback if necessary. At the end of this part, the teacher compiles all presentations and shares them with the class for viewing. The individual task for part 5, includes completing (1) self and peer assessments based on their contributions and quality of work during the project and (2) a learning reflection about the project. The goal with the self and peer assessments is to help students manage the group dynamic and the division of work. The students are presented with the assessment questions at the start of the project and hence better understand what the expectations are with regards to individual and group roles. The learning reflection document has two roles. First, it is an evidence-based technique that helps students deepen, critique, and document their learning.42,43 It allows students to reflect on how their project helped them to learn physics and to better understand its role in their everyday lives. Second, it provides feedback to the teacher. The questions associated to both tasks are presented in Fig. 3. Last, each group has one final meeting with the teacher. Students must provide a rationale for their final presentation, i.e., the presentation style and medium, and how/why they chose specific elements to present, connections to elaborate, etc. They must also answer questions that relate to course content. As stated previously, the final presentation assessment rubric (see Fig. 4) acts as a scaffold for the groups when completing their final presentation. It indicates the criteria that will be assessed and the level of proficiency expected for each. The common group grade component of the final presentation is worth 75% and includes the following criteria: (1) general description of the Nobel prize (10%), (2) physics description of the Nobel prize (20%), (3) ability to connect to course content (15%), (4) ability to connect to everyday applications (15%), and (5) production quality of final product (15%). The final 25% individual component for each student in the group is based on how well they answered their questions during the final group meeting with the teacher (10%) and on their overall self and peer assessment scores (15%). 4.Project Quality and Learning Reflection FeedbackThe final presentation assessment rubric, along with the teacher feedback, allows students to better evaluate the quality of their work before they submit the final project. Including the three cohorts (winter 2020, fall 2020, and winter 2021), the overall average project grade was 87% with a standard deviation of 12%. The projects were of great quality, creative, informative, and appreciated by classmates. As stated before, narrated slideshow and documentary-style videos were the most common presentation styles. For these videos, some chose a more traditional approach, as if they were presenting a slideshow in class. However, some groups chose to give each other roles in the video—some videos flowed like a classroom setting between a teacher and students asking questions, and some were interview style, between an expert and the interviewer. During the last meeting between the teacher and each group, students had to orally answer questions that linked their project to course content. The average of this individual grade on a 10-point scale was 7.5, with a standard deviation of 2.5. Unfortunately, no grade comparison was made between students who engaged in the project to those who did not. A quantitative study comparing the two sets of students is intended for future implementations of this project. Regarding the student learning reflection, 93 of the 100 students who completed it agreed that this project setting was a good one to better learn and understand complex topics associated with EM Waves and Quantum Physics. Students who elaborated listed reasons that made their learning experience positive. The most popular reasons were working in a group setting (the social aspect of group video meetings during pandemic online learning and the peer instruction involved when explaining their work to groupmates), being engaged in a research setting (i.e., being able to research and learn about a topic as opposed to relying on lectures, the textbook, and rote laboratory experiments), and understanding the course content via their applications in science and everyday life. Other reasons for agreeing with the statement include being able to choose their project topic and research questions and having the ability to work at their own pace. Clearly, using IB instruction with individual and group work elements played a positive role in the student’s perception of their learning. Question 5 of the learning reflection ties in with the survey done at the start of the semester when too few students were able to correctly describe photonics. By the end of the semester, everyone was able to identify what photonics was and to make multiple connections between it and their everyday lives. 5.ConclusionWe have presented a 12-week group project centered on researching and presenting a photonics-based Nobel prize in a college classroom setting. The project uses IB instruction and is designed as a five-part activity, each with a specific scaffold helping guide students regulate their inquiry. By researching a photonics-based Nobel prize, students engage with content that is part of the Waves and Modern Physics course, especially, electromagnetic waves and quantum physics. This approach promotes the use of high-level cognitive skills as students tackle complex ideas associated with electromagnetic waves and quantum physics. As the students individually and then collectively construct and refine their knowledge about electromagnetic waves and quantum physics, they also connect the course content, and photonics in general, to their everyday lives. This approach to teaching and learning, and the materials produced, can be adapted by other teachers at different levels of education (e.g., upper K-12 and postsecondary) to fit their course content and learning objectives. AcknowledgmentsThe authors acknowledge funding from the following Québec grant agencies: Programme d’aide à la recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage (PAREA, Grant No. 2020-11223) and the FRQNT Programme de recherche collégiale (Grant No. 2021-CO-288978). The authors thank colleagues within the Supporting Active Learning and Technological Innovation in Studies of Education (SALTISE) research group and community of practice. ReferencesR. Adams and L. R. Chen,
“Engaging college physics students with photonics research,”
Proc. SPIE, 10452 104522W
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2257357 PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar
N. Cords et al.,
“Teaching optics with an intra-curricular kit designed for inquiry-based learning,”
Phys. Educ., 47
(1), 69
(2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/47/1/69 PHEDA7 0031-9120 Google Scholar
C. Broadbridge et al.,
“An inquiry-based course in nanophotonics,”
Proc. SPIE, 7783 77830M
(2010). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.859955 PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar
S. Freeman et al.,
“Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,”
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 111
(23), 8410
–8415
(2014). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Google Scholar
M. Prince,
“Does active learning work? A review of the research,”
J. Eng. Educ., 93
(3), 223
–231
(2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x JEEDEQ 1069-4730 Google Scholar
E. J. Theobald et al.,
“Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math,”
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 117
(12), 6476
–6483
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117 Google Scholar
C. E. Wieman,
“Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message,”
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 111
(23), 8319
–8320
(2014). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407304111 Google Scholar
N. J. Entwistle and P. Ramsden, Understanding Student Learning, Croom Helm, London
(1983). Google Scholar
The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education, 2nd ed.Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh
(1997). Google Scholar
D. C. Owens et al.,
“Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices,”
Res. Sci. Educ., 50 253
–277
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1 0157-244X Google Scholar
P. Zhang, L. Ding and E. Mazur,
“Peer instruction in introductory physics: a method to bring about positive changes in students’ attitudes and beliefs,”
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 113 010104
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.113.010104 PRSTCR 1554-9178 Google Scholar
C. J. Ballen et al.,
“Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning,”
CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 16
(4), ar56
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0344 Google Scholar
P. C. Blumenfeld et al.,
“Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning,”
Educ. Psychol., 26
(3-4), 369
–398
(1991). https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139 Google Scholar
D. C. Edelson et al.,
“Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design,”
J. Learn. Sci., 8
(3–4), 391
–450
(1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1999.9672075 JLSBE3 1050-8406 Google Scholar
M. W. Aulls and B. M. Shore, Inquiry in Education, volume 1, The Conceptual Foundations for Research as a Curricular Imperative, Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates(2008). Google Scholar
M. Pedaste et al.,
“Phases of inquiry-based learning: definitions and the inquiry cycle,”
Educ. Res. Rev., 14 47
–61
(2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003 1747-938X Google Scholar
M. R. Blanchard et al.,
“Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction,”
Sci. Educ., 94 577
–616
(2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20390 SEDUAV 0036-8326 Google Scholar
M. Oliver, A. McConney and A. Woods-McConney,
“The efficacy of inquiry-based instruction in science: a comparative analysis of six countries using PISA 2015,”
Res. Sci. Educ., 51 595
–616
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09901-0 0157-244X Google Scholar
C. E. Hmelo-Silver et al.,
“Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark,”
Educ. Psychol., 42
(2), 99
–107
(2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368 Google Scholar
A. W. Lazonder and R. Harmsen,
“Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of guidance,”
Rev. Educ. Res., 86
(3), 681
–718
(2016). https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366 REDRAB 0034-6543 Google Scholar
J. Hilliard-Clark, P. Gilchrist and S. Allgood,
“Case study findings of PHOTON problem-based learning (PBL) with high school photonics outreach programs,”
Proc. SPIE, 7429 74290P
(2009). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.828689 PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar
N. M. Massa, J. F. Donnelly and G. J. Mullett,
“Problem-based learning in advanced photonics manufacturing: bringing real-world applications to the classroom,”
Proc. SPIE, 11143 111431J
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2523803 PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar
R. Cassidy, E. S. Charles and J. D. Slotta,
“Editorial: active learning: theoretical perspectives, empirical studies, and design profiles,”
Front. ICT, 6 3
(2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2019.00003 Google Scholar
J. S. Brown, A. Collins and P. Dugid,
“Situated cognition and the culture of learning,”
Educ. Res., 18
(1), 32
–42
(1989). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032 EDURAE 0013-189X Google Scholar
J. G. Greeno,
“The situativity of knowing, learning, and research,”
Am. Psychol., 53
(1), 5
–26
(1998). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5 AMPSAB 0003-066X Google Scholar
J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press(1991). Google Scholar
E. Hutchins, Distributed Cognition, Elsevier Science(2000). Google Scholar
G. Salomon, Distributed Cognitions, Cambridge University Press, New York
(1993). Google Scholar
G. Stahl, Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge, MIT Press(2006). Google Scholar
L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(1978). Google Scholar
R. Duschl,
“Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals,”
Rev. Res. Educ., 32 268
–291
(2008). https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371 0091-732X Google Scholar
J. Roschelle and W. J. Clancey,
“Learning as social and neural,”
Educ. Psychol., 27
(4), 435
–453
(1992). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2704_3 Google Scholar
B. Rogoff, Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press(1990). Google Scholar
J. Roschelle and S. D. Teasley,
“The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving,”
in Proc. Comput. Supported Collab. Learn.,
69
–97
(1995). Google Scholar
D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson and K. A. Smith,
“Cooperative learning returns to college. What evidence is there that it works?,”
Change: Mag. Higher Learn., 30
(4), 26
–35
(1998). https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629 Google Scholar
P. Dillenbourg,
“What do you mean by collaborative learning?,”
Collaborative-Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1
–19 Elsevier, Oxford
(1999). Google Scholar
D. Wood, J. S. Bruner and G. Ross,
“The role of tutoring in problem solving,”
J. Child Psychol. Psychiatr., 17 89
–100
(1976). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x JPPDAI 0021-9630 Google Scholar
S. Puntambekar and R. Hubscher,
“Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: what have we gained and what have we missed?,”
Educ. Psychol., 40
(1), 1
–12
(2005). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1 Google Scholar
S. M. Brookhart,
“Appropriate criteria: key to effective rubrics,”
Front. Educ., 3 22
(2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00022 Google Scholar
C. Quintana et al.,
“A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry,”
J. Learn. Sci., 13
(3), 337
–386
(2004). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4 JLSBE3 1050-8406 Google Scholar
J. M. Dudley,
“Light, lasers, and the Nobel prize,”
Adv. Photonics, 2
(5), 050501
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.AP.2.5.050501 AOPAC7 1943-8206 Google Scholar
D. Denton,
“Reflection and learning: characteristics, obstacles, and implications,”
Educ. Philos. Theory, 43
(8), 838
–852
(2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00600.x Google Scholar
S. L. Ash and P. H. Clayton,
“Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: the power of critical reflection in applied learning,”
J. Appl. Learn. Higher Educ., 1 25
–48
(2009). Google Scholar
BiographyRhys Adams is a physics professor at Vanier College and photonics researcher at McGill University, both in Montreal, Canada. He is a member of the SPIE Education & Outreach Committee (2020–2022), and the SALTISE research group and community of practice. His teaching awards include the EdCan Network Ken Spencer Award for Innovation in Teaching and Learning (2018), the Canadian Association of Physicists Award for Excellence in Teaching (2016) and the SALTISE Best Practices & Pedagogical Innovators Award (2015). Elizabeth S. Charles is a faculty-researcher at Dawson College, Montreal, Canada. She is the co-director of SALTISE, a community of practice that supports over 1500 educators, including practitioners and researchers. She has a PhD in educational technology from Concordia University, a postdoctorate in learning sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, and was a visiting researcher with the Virtual Math Teams project, Drexel University, Philadelphia. Her research includes interests includes physics education, conceptual change, active learning instruction, and future learning spaces. |
