Lessons from pendulums: A design comparison of three lab activities

TL;DR

The paper investigates why pendulum labs built on shared theoretical commitments diverge in design across three institutions. By analyzing Cornell, UWB, and Tufts pendulum curricula through a resource-based, framing-sensitive lens, it identifies three core sources of variation: differing expectations about student populations, distinct ancillary pedagogical goals, and nuanced theoretical perspectives. The authors argue that theory alone cannot determine curriculum design; rather, design decisions emerge from ongoing conversations between theory and local context, thereby producing multiple valid implementations. They advocate making design reasoning explicit to improve transfer, replication, and scholarship in physics education research. This work demonstrates how careful attention to framing, agency, and responsive teaching can yield diverse, effective instructional environments that still advance empirical scientific practices.

Abstract

We present three versions of a pendulum lab activity and explore how shared theoretical commitments, motivations, and aspirations can lead to divergences in curriculum design. Building on Boudreaux & Elby (2020) we provide another demonstration of how theoretical commitments and perspectives influence curriculum development. In this paper, the variations across these lab activities despite our shared theoretical bases constitutes the phenomena of interest. We argue that three main factors lead to the variations in our design decisions: different expectations and understandings of our student populations, variations in our ancillary pedagogical goals, and fine grained differences in our theoretical perspectives. By focusing on the differences between our labs, we highlight the limitations of theory alone to determine curriculum development and demonstrate the process of theory, in conversation with local particularities, guiding design.