The "Acheret" Center and "Archimedes Fulcrum" Academy: an innovative model for project-based learning of physics

Amos Cohn; Ricardo Trumper

doi:10.51724/arise.24

Authors

Amos Cohn Oranim Academic College of Education, Israel
Ricardo Trumper Oranim Academic College of Education, Israel https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6777-6549

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51724/arise.24

Keywords:

project-based learning, Innovative model, physics learning

Abstract

This paper presents a unique and innovative model for project-based learning in physics in which students are engaged in long-term open-ended research projects in physics that are done at the laboratory in school, and in which the project advisor is a physics teacher supported by a community of teacher-researchers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abrami, P., Poulsen, C. & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24, 201 -216.

Acheret Center (2006). Retrieved from http://www.acheret.org.il.

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83, 39-43.

Chai, C. & Tan, S. (2009). Professional development of teachers for computer supported collaborative learning: a knowledge-building approach. Teachers College Record, 111, 1296-1327.

Duch, B., Groh, S. & Allen, D. (2001). Why problem-based learning? A case study of institutional change in undergraduate education. In Duch et al. (Eds.) The Power of Problem-based Learning (pp. 3-11). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (2000). What’s worth fighting in your school (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Ishler, A., Johnson, R. & Johnson, D. (1998). Long-term effectiveness of a statewide staff development program in cooperative learning. Teaching & Teacher Education, 14, 273-281.

Kapon, S. (2016). Doing research in school: Physics inquiry in the zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 1172-1197.

Kim, J. (2004). Education reform policies and classroom teaching in South Korea. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 14, 125-145.

Kirschner P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. (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, 75-86.

Lam, S., Cheng, R. & Choi, H. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 487-497.

Marina, P. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52, 1-12.

Mergendoller, J., Maxwell, N. & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1, 49-69.

Mullis, I., Martin, M., Ruddock, G., O'Sullivan, C. & Preuschoff, C. (2009). TIMSS 2011 assessment frameworks. Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

Newman F., Wehlage, G. & Lamborn, S. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newman (Ed.). Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools (pp. 11-39). New York: Teachers College Press.

NRC (2001). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academic Press.

Schvartzer, M. & Kapon, S. (2018). Teaching and learning the practices of doing science. National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference. Atlanta GA, USA.