Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 362–368 | Cite as

Self Reflections of Undergraduate Students on Using Web-Supported Counterintuitive Science Demonstrations

  • David Devraj Kumar
  • Jessica Dunn


Analysis of self-reflections of undergraduate education students in a project involving web-supported counterintuitive science demonstrations is reported in this paper. Participating students (N = 19) taught science with counterintuitive demonstrations in local elementary school classrooms and used web-based resources accessed via wireless USB adapters. Student reflections to seven questions were analyzed qualitatively using four components of reflection (meeting objectives/perception of learning, dynamics of pedagogy, special needs accommodations, improving teaching) deriving 27 initial data categories and 12 emergent themes. Overall the undergraduates reported meeting objectives, engaging students in pedagogically relevant learning tasks including, providing accommodations to students with special needs, and gaining practice and insight to improve their own teaching. Additional research is needed to arrive at generalizable findings concerning teaching with web-supported counterintuitive science demonstrations in elementary classrooms.


Counterintuitive science Discrepant event Teaching Learning Demonstration Web Analysis Self-reflection 



Views expressed are not that of the funding sources.

Funding Information

The project reported in this paper was supported in part by a Tech Fee Grant from Florida Atlantic University and 4G WiMax USB adapters and free airtime from FAU/Clearwire Communications of Florida.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

The research reported in this article was subjected to Florida Atlantic University Social, Behavioral and Educational Research Institutional Review Board in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. A Call to Action: Redefining Teacher Education for Digital Age Learners (n.d.) Available at:
  2. Balta, N, & Eryilmaz, A (2015) Counterintuitive dynamics test. Intl J of Sci and Math Educ Published online: 06 November (DOI
  3. Brewer, W F & Nakamura, G V (1984) The nature and functions of schemas. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading. Cambridge, Mass..: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Dani, D. E., & Koenig, K. M. (2008). Technology and reform-based science education. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 204–211. Scholar
  5. Everett, L. J., & Pennathur, A. (2007). A design process for conceptually based, counterintuitive problems. Paper presented at the annual conference of the ASEE. Hawaii: Honolulu.Google Scholar
  6. Hofwolt, C A, Kumar, D D, Johnson, J, Carson, S, & Altman, J E (1992–1993) Hyperscience. (An interactive video) Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  7. Kumar, D. D. (2003). Technology in science teacher education: Discussion of selected applications with insights for research. School Science Review, 84(309), 99–104.Google Scholar
  8. Kumar, D. D. (2004). Analysis of laptop computers in science. Science Education International, 15(3), 201–208.Google Scholar
  9. Kumar, D. D. (2010). Approaches to video anchors in problem-based science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kumar, D D (2014) Counterintuitive science instruction supported with wireless web. A Virtual Presentation at SITE ‘14 Conference, Jacksonville, Florida.Google Scholar
  11. Kumar, D. D. (2017). Teaching counterintuitive science. Primary Science, 148, 33–35.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, G., & Byun, T. (2011). An explanation for the difficulty of leading conceptual change using a counterintuitive demonstration: The relationship between cognitive conflict and responses. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 943–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maylone, N. J. (2000). Using counterintuitive problems to promote student discussions. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(8), 542–546.Google Scholar
  14. McCormack, A. J., & Bybee, R. W. (1971). Piaget and the training of elementary science teachers: Theory into practice. Science Education, 55(2), 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Report to the President. Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Author.Google Scholar
  16. Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66, 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.STEM Education Laboratory, College of EducationFlorida Atlantic UniversityDavieUSA
  2. 2.The Victory Center for Autism and Related DisabilitiesNorth Miami BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations