Lessons from pendulums: A design comparison of three lab activities

TL;DR

This paper compares three pendulum lab activities to understand how theoretical perspectives, goals, and institutional contexts influence curriculum design choices.

Contribution

It highlights the complex relationship between theory, goals, and curriculum design, emphasizing the importance of articulating design reasoning and responsiveness.

Findings

Different designs emerge even from similar theoretical starting points.

Institutional expectations influence curriculum design choices.

Articulating design reasoning can improve curriculum responsiveness.

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.