liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The same physics studied or not?: A study of the role of technology and the ‘enacted’ and the ‘lived’ ‘object of learning’ in three different lab setups.
Linköping University, Department of Science and Technology, Physics and Electronics. Linköping University, The Institute of Technology. (Ingenjörsvetenskapens didaktik)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7708-069X
2010 (English)Conference paper, Published paper (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

One necessary condition for learning is that students are able to focus on the object of learning and discern its critical features. According to Marton and Pang (2008, p. 538) “‘new’ phenomenography … [also] involves the study of variation … among the critical aspects of the phenomenon as experienced or seen by the experiencer”. However as pointed out by for example Bohr (1958, p. 27) “it is … impossible to distinguish sharply between the phenomena themselves and their conscious perception”. Bohr continues (p. 73) ”it is indeed more appropriate to use the word phenomenon to refer only to observations obtained under circumstances whose description includes an account of the whole experimental arrangement”. Prior research has shown that it is difficult for most students, even at university level, to discern and learn to use motion concepts such as velocity and acceleration. Many students believe that the acceleration always is in the direction of motion and that zero velocity implies zero acceleration. Motion of an object on an inclined plane is commonly studied in physics teaching laboratories and in this study three different common physical setups are studied. It is shown that the differences led to the establishment of different experiential human–instrument–world relationship due to the differences in instrumentation. It is shown that the technology in some setups does not afford critical variation and discernment and hence the ‘enacted objects of learning’ are different although on the surface the same physics is studied. Indeed students ‘lived object of learning’ is different in the different set-ups as shown in their activities during the labs recorded by video. I conclude that my study supports variation theory, but I also argue that the role of the technology cannot be neglected.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010.
National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-65603OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-65603DiVA: diva2:397181
Conference
Nätverket för fenomenografi och variationsteori, Göteborg
Available from: 2011-02-12 Created: 2011-02-12 Last updated: 2013-09-12

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Authority records BETA

Bernhard, Jonte

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bernhard, Jonte
By organisation
Physics and ElectronicsThe Institute of Technology
Didactics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 50 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf