Design tactics in curriculum development: Examples from the Paradigms in Physics ring cycle

Mary Bridget Kustusch,Edward Price,Corinne Manogue

doi:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.16.020145

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Curriculum Development: Theory into Design.] A level of curricular design, called design tactics, is identified to fill a gap in the research literature between the broad principles that guide curriculum development and the detailed writing of specific activities and lessons. The use of design tactics is illustrated with a case study using a sequence from middle-division undergraduate electromagnetism, the ring cycle, developed as part of the Paradigms in Physics project at Oregon State University. A retrospective analysis of the curriculum development process identified ten design tactics, related to content, sensemaking, and classroom practice. Further analysis of secondary implementations at DePaul University and California State University San Marcos illustrates how design tactics can also be used to make adaptations to local settings and contexts. Design tactics can serve as a productive bridge between higher-level design principles and activity development.Received 9 July 2019Accepted 7 February 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020145Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.Published by the American Physical SocietyPhysics Subject Headings (PhySH)Research AreasConcepts & principlesInstructional materials developmentInstructional strategiesPhysics Education Research

Highlights

Physics educators and physics education researchers have developed and popularized many curricula and instructional techniques
We refer to this missing level as design tactics, which we define as practical instructions that guide developers in designing curricular materials in order to meet their specific learning goals
Our analysis was self-focused, in that we are each functioning as both researcher and participant; researcher visible, in that our goal is to make more visible our thoughts, processes, and commitments during curriculum development; context conscious, in that we are grounding our experiences in our particular local environments; critically dialogic, in that there is an ongoing dialogue between our roles as researcher and participant; and interactive, in that our analysis of self is enhanced by the questioning and probing of the other

Summary

Introduction

Physics educators and physics education researchers have developed and popularized many curricula and instructional techniques (see PhysPort [1] for many examples). Creating curriculum or classroom activities requires decisions about goals, topics, modalities of instruction, and many other factors In making these decisions, developers’ may draw on and respond to learning goals, institutional context, and research on student learning about specific topics. Developers’ may draw on and respond to learning goals, institutional context, and research on student learning about specific topics They may use design principles and models for curriculum development that are based in research on student learning of science and instruction design. The field of instructional design presents several models that are intended to guide the process of instructional design In characterizing ADDIE and the SEI approach as high-level models, we mean that while they prescribe an overall process, they do not guide the development of specific classroom activities. The SEI model advocates for research-based instructional practices and interactive techniques, but is a fairly general model

Objectives

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion