Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Algodoo as a Microworld: Informally Linking Mathematics and Physics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Mathematics in Physics Education

Abstract

In this chapter, we use two case studies of high school and undergraduate students interacting with a two-dimensional sandbox modelling software, Algodoo, to show how physics students can make use of the mathematical representations offered by the software in unconventional yet meaningful ways. We show how affordances of the technology-supported learning environment allow the emergence of student creative engagement at the intersection of mathematics and physics. In terms of learning, the activities studied here are relevant in two central ways: (1) they open up alternative conceptual learning pathways for students by allowing them to access and engage with the content in original, self-directed and creative ways; (2) in doing this, the studied activities carry significant potential to motivate students and support their intrinsic interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Playful is used in this chapter to mean voluntary, intrinsically motivating (pleasurable for its own sake) and/or creativity-driven (inspired by Rieber 1996).

  2. 2.

    The data collection session for Case 1 originally took place in Slovenian, but we have translated the speech into English for the purposes of this chapter.

  3. 3.

    This process of transforming meaning from one mode of expression to another is sometimes referred to as transduction in multimodality circles (Jewitt et al. 2016). For a discussion of how transduction may be a key concept in physics learning, see Volkwyn et al. (2018).

  4. 4.

    For Case 2, the sessions were conducted in English, though the native language of both of the students was Swedish.

References

  • Abelson, H., & Disessa, A. A. (1980). The computer as a medium for exploring mathematics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnone, S., Moauro, F., & Siccardi, M. (2017). A modern Galileo tale. Physics Education, 52(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezemer, J., & Mavers, D. (2011). Multimodal transcription as academic practice: A social semiotic perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.563616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H. (1986). Effects of Logo and CAI environments on cognition and creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.78.4.309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H. (1990). Metacomponential development in a Logo programming environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dancy, M., Christian, W., & Belloni, M. (2002). Teaching with Physlets: Examples from optics. The Physics Teacher, 40(8), 494–499. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1526622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. E. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.1159/000342945.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E. (2015). Millikan award lecture: Students of physics—Listeners, observers, or collaborative participants in physics scientific practices? American Journal of Physics, 83(8), 669–679. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4923432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Euler, E., & Gregorcic, B. (2018). Exploring how physics students use a sandbox software to move between the physical and the formal. In 2017 physics education research conference proceedings (pp. 128–131). American Association of Physics Teachers. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2017.pr.027.

  • Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gesture. In S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E. T. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the dynamical dimension of language: Essays in honor of David McNeill (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gregorcic, B. (2015a). Exploring Kepler’s laws using an interactive whiteboard and Algodoo. Physics Education, 50(5), 511–515. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/50/5/511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregorcic, B. (2015b). Investigating and applying advantages of interactive whiteboards in physics instruction. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregorcic, B. (2016). Interactive whiteboards as a means of supporting students’ physical engagement and collaborative inquiry in physics. In L. Thoms & R. Girwidz (Eds.), Proceedings from the 20th international conference on multimedia in physics teaching and learning (pp. 245–252). Mulhouse: European Physical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregorcic, B., & Bodin, M. (2017). Algodoo: A tool for encouraging creativity in physics teaching and learning. The Physics Teacher, 55, 25–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregorcic, B., Etkina, E., & Planinsic, G. (2015). Designing and investigating new ways of interactive whiteboard use in physics instruction. In P. V. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, & D. L. Jones (Eds.), 2014 physics education research conference proceedings (pp. 107–110). American Association of Physics Teachers. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2014.pr.023.

  • Gregorcic, B., Etkina, E., & Planinsic, G. (2017a). A new way of using the interactive whiteboard in a high school physics classroom: A case study. Research in Science Education, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9576-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregorcic, B., Planinsic, G., & Etkina, E. (2017b). Doing science by waving hands: Talk, symbiotic gesture, and interaction with digital content as resources in student inquiry. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D. (1995). Modeling software for learning and doing physics. In C. Bernardini, C. Tarsitani, & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Thinking physics for teaching (pp. 25–65). Boston: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1921-8_4.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality (First). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: A case study on students’ understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & Education, 36(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00059-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90004-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., Randle, L., & Sancilio, L. (1989). Learning preproof geometry with LOGO. Cognition and Instruction, 6(2), 159–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806–812. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellingsæter, M. S., & Bungum, B. (2015). Students’ use of the interactive whiteboard during physics group work. European Journal of Engineering Education, 40(February), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.928669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 305–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)00007-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). In M. A. Honey & M. L. Hilton (Eds.), Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(83)90034-X.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(84)90018-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2150754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., & Schwartz, R. N. (2014). Multimedia learning with simulations and microworlds. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd Edi, pp. 729–761). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rådahl, E. (2017). Responsive teaching using simulation software: The case of orbital motion. Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and microworlds. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 549–568). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosengrant, D., Van Heuvelen, A., & Etkina, E. (2009). Do students use and understand free-body diagrams? Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5(1), 010108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the mergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction, 12, 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00023-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Kirshner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1020–1028. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 49(3), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 891–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkwyn, T. S., Airey, J., Gregorcic, B., Heijkensköld, F., & Linder, C. (2018). Physics students learning about abstract mathematical tools when engaging with “invisible” phenomena. In 2017 physics education research conference proceedings (pp. 408–411). American Association of Physics Teachers. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2017.pr.097.

  • White, B. Y. (1984). Designing computer games to help physics students understand Newton’s laws of motion. Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 69–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Physics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Elias Euler & Bor Gregorcic

Authors
  1. Elias Euler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bor Gregorcic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elias Euler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Gesche Pospiech

  2. DCFA - Section of Mathematics and Physics, University of Udine, Udine, Italy

    Marisa Michelini

  3. The Weizmann Institute of Science Rehovot, Israel

    Bat-Sheva Eylon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Euler, E., Gregorcic, B. (2019). Algodoo as a Microworld: Informally Linking Mathematics and Physics. In: Pospiech, G., Michelini, M., Eylon, BS. (eds) Mathematics in Physics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04627-9_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04626-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04627-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation