In the category B, a distinction is made between the definition of the difference of
potential in the context of electrostatic and electrical circuits. Three quarter of the
students’ answers do explain the calculation of the potential difference in each
context but with no relation between the two equations. It seems that they consider
two different definitions of the same magnitude. A standard example:
I agree with the student E2 because the nature of the field is not the same. In an
ohmic circuit we use macroscopic laws (ΔV ¼ I R) while in electrostatic they are
microscopic”.
The results of this question show that students have difficulty in recognizing that
the magnitude difference of potential has the same meaning, although different ways
of calculating, in the context of electrostatic and electrokinetic. It should be borne in
mind that learning objective LO.1 requires a high level of comprehension effort for
students and that therefore the demand for learning in this indicator is high. Of
course, only one example is shown here, in other works the size of the learning
demands for each defined indicator will be shown with a greater number of data.
In the next section we will present an example of the evaluation of the implementation of the TLS, according to the phase test of DBR.
13.4 Testing the Quality of the TLS
As a product-oriented project, one of the essential characteristics of the TLS design
and evaluation projects is the re-elaboration of the teaching sequence based on
empirical data obtained during its implementation in an educational intervention.
The TLS design must be confronted empirically in the evaluation of the proposal
itself and the achieved learning results. In this chapter, we only will show how we
evaluate the TLS itself, which is related to the quality of the design (Nieveen 2009).
On the basis of collected data during the implementation, we will infer problematic
aspects of the activities. Following this analysis, we will define types of students’
difficulties (metacognitive difficulties, learning difficulties, related to interpretation
and comprehension of information, etc.) and we will proceed to introduce modifications to the activities and their sequencing. The instruments for the iterative
development of the TLS are standards instruments from the educational research
such as Teacher’s diary, Student’s workbook and External observers’ reports. In
Table 13.3 shows an example redesign of an activity due to students’ metacognitive
difficulties. The analysis of implementation difficulties led to consider the difficulty
of students to understand the objective of the activity. This type of metacognitive
difficulty causes students to not adequately approach the activity, even when its
objective has been explained to them (Treagust et al. 2002).
In the activity of the first version, students’ standard answers when establishing
the relation between current of electrons was to substitute the data in the equation
I ¼ e i e ¼ n e e v d A, but they do not give explanations of the meaning of each
magnitude and they do not comment the result obtained, whether correct or
13 Designing Teaching Learning Sequences Based on Design-Based Research
171
potential in the context of electrostatic and electrical circuits. Three quarter of the
students’ answers do explain the calculation of the potential difference in each
context but with no relation between the two equations. It seems that they consider
two different definitions of the same magnitude. A standard example:
I agree with the student E2 because the nature of the field is not the same. In an
ohmic circuit we use macroscopic laws (ΔV ¼ I R) while in electrostatic they are
microscopic”.
The results of this question show that students have difficulty in recognizing that
the magnitude difference of potential has the same meaning, although different ways
of calculating, in the context of electrostatic and electrokinetic. It should be borne in
mind that learning objective LO.1 requires a high level of comprehension effort for
students and that therefore the demand for learning in this indicator is high. Of
course, only one example is shown here, in other works the size of the learning
demands for each defined indicator will be shown with a greater number of data.
In the next section we will present an example of the evaluation of the implementation of the TLS, according to the phase test of DBR.
13.4 Testing the Quality of the TLS
As a product-oriented project, one of the essential characteristics of the TLS design
and evaluation projects is the re-elaboration of the teaching sequence based on
empirical data obtained during its implementation in an educational intervention.
The TLS design must be confronted empirically in the evaluation of the proposal
itself and the achieved learning results. In this chapter, we only will show how we
evaluate the TLS itself, which is related to the quality of the design (Nieveen 2009).
On the basis of collected data during the implementation, we will infer problematic
aspects of the activities. Following this analysis, we will define types of students’
difficulties (metacognitive difficulties, learning difficulties, related to interpretation
and comprehension of information, etc.) and we will proceed to introduce modifications to the activities and their sequencing. The instruments for the iterative
development of the TLS are standards instruments from the educational research
such as Teacher’s diary, Student’s workbook and External observers’ reports. In
Table 13.3 shows an example redesign of an activity due to students’ metacognitive
difficulties. The analysis of implementation difficulties led to consider the difficulty
of students to understand the objective of the activity. This type of metacognitive
difficulty causes students to not adequately approach the activity, even when its
objective has been explained to them (Treagust et al. 2002).
In the activity of the first version, students’ standard answers when establishing
the relation between current of electrons was to substitute the data in the equation
I ¼ e i e ¼ n e e v d A, but they do not give explanations of the meaning of each
magnitude and they do not comment the result obtained, whether correct or
13 Designing Teaching Learning Sequences Based on Design-Based Research
171