Teachers’ Disciplinary Boundedness in the Implementation of Integrated Computational Modeling in Physics

This study explored teachers’ conceptualizations of integrated computational modeling in secondary physics by exposing twelve experienced physics teachers to programming and then analyzing interview responses. Responses revealed that teachers fell along a spectrum of disciplinary boundary–stretching...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of science education and technology 2022-04, Vol.31 (2), p.153-165
Hauptverfasser: Vieyra, Rebecca, Himmelsbach, Joshua
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 165
container_issue 2
container_start_page 153
container_title Journal of science education and technology
container_volume 31
creator Vieyra, Rebecca
Himmelsbach, Joshua
description This study explored teachers’ conceptualizations of integrated computational modeling in secondary physics by exposing twelve experienced physics teachers to programming and then analyzing interview responses. Responses revealed that teachers fell along a spectrum of disciplinary boundary–stretching mentalities. This paper presents a preliminary conceptual framework for exploring both horizontal (interdisciplinary) and vertical (intradisciplinary) boundary stretching, as well as for identifying bounded mentalities as teachers consider integration. Horizontal boundary stretchers envisioned opportunities to use computational modeling to shift their curriculum or pedagogical approaches in physics to help students enhance skills underlying multiple fields, while vertical boundary stretchers considered how computing might allow students to explore physics concepts more deeply. Teachers with more boundary-stretching indicators at the outset of an integrated curriculum development workshop were more likely to persist in the implementation of computational modeling–integrated materials in their physics classrooms than those who expressed more bounded thinking. These findings emphasize the importance of considering teachers’ perceptions about how their own science discipline is connected to similar fields and provide implications about how to identify potential adopters of innovative teaching approaches.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10956-021-09938-9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2640577357</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A707083272</galeid><ericid>EJ1329890</ericid><sourcerecordid>A707083272</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-71af03a9abfa7f8dbe648b7a961e084e80d26929f19623ed663d834e4821fa9e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFu1DAURSMEEmXgB5CQLLFOebaT2F6WocCgVu2irC1P_DzjUWIHO7Pojt_o7_EleBpUdpUXtt71uXq6t6reUzinAOJTpqDargZGa1CKy1q9qM5oK3hNJVcvyxtaVQNt2tfVm5wPAKCkgrPqcIem32PKf34_kC8-934afDDpnnyOx2DRBsyZ-EDmPZLNOA04YpjN7GMg0ZFNmHGXzIyWrOM4HRfFDOQ6WixGuxN6u7_Pvs9vq1fODBnf_btX1c-vl3fr7_XVzbfN-uKq7hvWzLWgxgE3ymydEU7aLXaN3AqjOoogG5RgWaeYclR1jKPtOm4lb7CRjDqjkK-qj4vvlOKvI-ZZH-IxlaWyZl0DrRC8BLOqzpdfOzOg9sHFOZm-HIuj72NA58v8QoAAyZlgBWAL0KeYc0Knp-THkpSmoE8l6KUEXUrQjyVoVaAPC4TJ90_A5Q_K2Sn_ovNFz0ULO0z_d33G9S9gjJVz</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2640577357</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Teachers’ Disciplinary Boundedness in the Implementation of Integrated Computational Modeling in Physics</title><source>SpringerLink (Online service)</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Vieyra, Rebecca ; Himmelsbach, Joshua</creator><creatorcontrib>Vieyra, Rebecca ; Himmelsbach, Joshua</creatorcontrib><description>This study explored teachers’ conceptualizations of integrated computational modeling in secondary physics by exposing twelve experienced physics teachers to programming and then analyzing interview responses. Responses revealed that teachers fell along a spectrum of disciplinary boundary–stretching mentalities. This paper presents a preliminary conceptual framework for exploring both horizontal (interdisciplinary) and vertical (intradisciplinary) boundary stretching, as well as for identifying bounded mentalities as teachers consider integration. Horizontal boundary stretchers envisioned opportunities to use computational modeling to shift their curriculum or pedagogical approaches in physics to help students enhance skills underlying multiple fields, while vertical boundary stretchers considered how computing might allow students to explore physics concepts more deeply. Teachers with more boundary-stretching indicators at the outset of an integrated curriculum development workshop were more likely to persist in the implementation of computational modeling–integrated materials in their physics classrooms than those who expressed more bounded thinking. These findings emphasize the importance of considering teachers’ perceptions about how their own science discipline is connected to similar fields and provide implications about how to identify potential adopters of innovative teaching approaches.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1059-0145</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1839</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10956-021-09938-9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Computation ; Computer applications ; Computer simulation ; Computer-generated environments ; Curricula ; Curriculum Development ; Education ; Educational Technology ; Instructional Innovation ; Integrated Curriculum ; Interdisciplinary Approach ; Physics ; Programming ; Science Education ; Science Teachers ; Secondary School Science ; Stretchers ; Stretching ; Students ; Teachers ; Teaching Methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of science education and technology, 2022-04, Vol.31 (2), p.153-165</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-71af03a9abfa7f8dbe648b7a961e084e80d26929f19623ed663d834e4821fa9e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-71af03a9abfa7f8dbe648b7a961e084e80d26929f19623ed663d834e4821fa9e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7720-6558</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10956-021-09938-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10956-021-09938-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1329890$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vieyra, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Himmelsbach, Joshua</creatorcontrib><title>Teachers’ Disciplinary Boundedness in the Implementation of Integrated Computational Modeling in Physics</title><title>Journal of science education and technology</title><addtitle>J Sci Educ Technol</addtitle><description>This study explored teachers’ conceptualizations of integrated computational modeling in secondary physics by exposing twelve experienced physics teachers to programming and then analyzing interview responses. Responses revealed that teachers fell along a spectrum of disciplinary boundary–stretching mentalities. This paper presents a preliminary conceptual framework for exploring both horizontal (interdisciplinary) and vertical (intradisciplinary) boundary stretching, as well as for identifying bounded mentalities as teachers consider integration. Horizontal boundary stretchers envisioned opportunities to use computational modeling to shift their curriculum or pedagogical approaches in physics to help students enhance skills underlying multiple fields, while vertical boundary stretchers considered how computing might allow students to explore physics concepts more deeply. Teachers with more boundary-stretching indicators at the outset of an integrated curriculum development workshop were more likely to persist in the implementation of computational modeling–integrated materials in their physics classrooms than those who expressed more bounded thinking. These findings emphasize the importance of considering teachers’ perceptions about how their own science discipline is connected to similar fields and provide implications about how to identify potential adopters of innovative teaching approaches.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Computation</subject><subject>Computer applications</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Computer-generated environments</subject><subject>Curricula</subject><subject>Curriculum Development</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational Technology</subject><subject>Instructional Innovation</subject><subject>Integrated Curriculum</subject><subject>Interdisciplinary Approach</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Programming</subject><subject>Science Education</subject><subject>Science Teachers</subject><subject>Secondary School Science</subject><subject>Stretchers</subject><subject>Stretching</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><issn>1059-0145</issn><issn>1573-1839</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcFu1DAURSMEEmXgB5CQLLFOebaT2F6WocCgVu2irC1P_DzjUWIHO7Pojt_o7_EleBpUdpUXtt71uXq6t6reUzinAOJTpqDargZGa1CKy1q9qM5oK3hNJVcvyxtaVQNt2tfVm5wPAKCkgrPqcIem32PKf34_kC8-934afDDpnnyOx2DRBsyZ-EDmPZLNOA04YpjN7GMg0ZFNmHGXzIyWrOM4HRfFDOQ6WixGuxN6u7_Pvs9vq1fODBnf_btX1c-vl3fr7_XVzbfN-uKq7hvWzLWgxgE3ymydEU7aLXaN3AqjOoogG5RgWaeYclR1jKPtOm4lb7CRjDqjkK-qj4vvlOKvI-ZZH-IxlaWyZl0DrRC8BLOqzpdfOzOg9sHFOZm-HIuj72NA58v8QoAAyZlgBWAL0KeYc0Knp-THkpSmoE8l6KUEXUrQjyVoVaAPC4TJ90_A5Q_K2Sn_ovNFz0ULO0z_d33G9S9gjJVz</recordid><startdate>20220401</startdate><enddate>20220401</enddate><creator>Vieyra, Rebecca</creator><creator>Himmelsbach, Joshua</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7720-6558</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220401</creationdate><title>Teachers’ Disciplinary Boundedness in the Implementation of Integrated Computational Modeling in Physics</title><author>Vieyra, Rebecca ; Himmelsbach, Joshua</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-71af03a9abfa7f8dbe648b7a961e084e80d26929f19623ed663d834e4821fa9e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Computation</topic><topic>Computer applications</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Computer-generated environments</topic><topic>Curricula</topic><topic>Curriculum Development</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational Technology</topic><topic>Instructional Innovation</topic><topic>Integrated Curriculum</topic><topic>Interdisciplinary Approach</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Programming</topic><topic>Science Education</topic><topic>Science Teachers</topic><topic>Secondary School Science</topic><topic>Stretchers</topic><topic>Stretching</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vieyra, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Himmelsbach, Joshua</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><jtitle>Journal of science education and technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vieyra, Rebecca</au><au>Himmelsbach, Joshua</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1329890</ericid><atitle>Teachers’ Disciplinary Boundedness in the Implementation of Integrated Computational Modeling in Physics</atitle><jtitle>Journal of science education and technology</jtitle><stitle>J Sci Educ Technol</stitle><date>2022-04-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>153</spage><epage>165</epage><pages>153-165</pages><issn>1059-0145</issn><eissn>1573-1839</eissn><abstract>This study explored teachers’ conceptualizations of integrated computational modeling in secondary physics by exposing twelve experienced physics teachers to programming and then analyzing interview responses. Responses revealed that teachers fell along a spectrum of disciplinary boundary–stretching mentalities. This paper presents a preliminary conceptual framework for exploring both horizontal (interdisciplinary) and vertical (intradisciplinary) boundary stretching, as well as for identifying bounded mentalities as teachers consider integration. Horizontal boundary stretchers envisioned opportunities to use computational modeling to shift their curriculum or pedagogical approaches in physics to help students enhance skills underlying multiple fields, while vertical boundary stretchers considered how computing might allow students to explore physics concepts more deeply. Teachers with more boundary-stretching indicators at the outset of an integrated curriculum development workshop were more likely to persist in the implementation of computational modeling–integrated materials in their physics classrooms than those who expressed more bounded thinking. These findings emphasize the importance of considering teachers’ perceptions about how their own science discipline is connected to similar fields and provide implications about how to identify potential adopters of innovative teaching approaches.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10956-021-09938-9</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7720-6558</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1059-0145
ispartof Journal of science education and technology, 2022-04, Vol.31 (2), p.153-165
issn 1059-0145
1573-1839
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2640577357
source SpringerLink (Online service); EBSCOhost Education Source
subjects Analysis
Computation
Computer applications
Computer simulation
Computer-generated environments
Curricula
Curriculum Development
Education
Educational Technology
Instructional Innovation
Integrated Curriculum
Interdisciplinary Approach
Physics
Programming
Science Education
Science Teachers
Secondary School Science
Stretchers
Stretching
Students
Teachers
Teaching Methods
title Teachers’ Disciplinary Boundedness in the Implementation of Integrated Computational Modeling in Physics
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T13%3A33%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Teachers%E2%80%99%20Disciplinary%20Boundedness%20in%20the%20Implementation%20of%20Integrated%20Computational%20Modeling%20in%20Physics&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20science%20education%20and%20technology&rft.au=Vieyra,%20Rebecca&rft.date=2022-04-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=153&rft.epage=165&rft.pages=153-165&rft.issn=1059-0145&rft.eissn=1573-1839&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10956-021-09938-9&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA707083272%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2640577357&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A707083272&rft_ericid=EJ1329890&rfr_iscdi=true