- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Gaining insights through thematic analysis about learning dimensions in teaching learning sequences on surface phenomena in liquids

Giulia Termini*, Onofrio R. Battaglia, Ilaria Grazia, and Claudio Fazio

  • *Contact author: giulia.termini01@unipa.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020143 – Published 6 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/4vsw-m71t

Abstract

This study investigates the role of learning dimensions in planning and trialing teaching-learning sequences (TLSs) on surface phenomena in liquids for high school students. Particularly, it aims to identify how different modeling approaches—macroscopic and mesoscopic—impact students’ learning in terms of different dimensions of learning such as conceptual understanding, intellectual growth, and scientific habits of mind. Some results derived from the application of thematic analysis (TA) to qualitative data collected from students’ interviews and feedback, and allowing for the identification of key learning dimensions, are presented. By systematically linking qualitative data to learning dimensions, TA provided a structured framework for evaluating the effectiveness of different instructional strategies. The study highlights the role of both cognitive and affective factors in science learning and underscores the importance of integrating diverse modeling approaches to foster a comprehensive understanding of complex scientific topics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (74)

  1. P. L. Lijnse, Developmental research as a way to an empirically based “didactical structure” of science, Sci. Educ. 79, 189 (1995).
  2. R. Duit, H. Gropengießer, U. Kattmann, M. Komorek, and I. Parchmann, The model of educational reconstruction—A framework for improving teaching and learning science, in Science Education Research and Practice in Europe. Cultural Perspectives in Science Education, edited by D. Jorde and J. Dillon (SensePublishers, Rotterdam, 2012), Vol. 5.
  3. R. Duit, H. Gropengießer, and U. Kattmann, Towards science education that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction, in Developing Standards in Research on Science Education, edited by H. E. Fischer (Taylor & Francis, London, 2005), pp. 1–9.
  4. U. Kattmann, R. Duit, H. Gropengießer, and M. Komorek, A model of educational reconstruction, in Proceedings of the NARST Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA (ERIC Clearinghouse, 1995).
  5. Iterative Design of Teaching-Learning Sequences, edited by D. Psillos and P. Kariotoglou (Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht, 2016).
  6. M. Meheut and D. Psillos, Teaching-learning sequences: Aims and tools for science education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 26, 515 (2004).
  7. A. W. Gotwals, Learning progressions for multiple purpose, in Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions, edited by A. C. Alonzo and A. W. Gotwals (Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2012), p. 461.
  8. J. Jackson, R. Adams, U. Schwantner, and C. Waters, The role of learning progressions in global scales, Brookings (blog), retrieved February 7, 2025 from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-development/2018/05/29/the-role-of-learning-progressions-in-global-scales/ (2018).
  9. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, Investigative science learning environment—A science process approach to learning physics, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics, edited by E. Redish and P. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007), Vol. 1.
  10. C. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Updated ed. (Random House, New York, 2016).
  11. K. A. Ericsson, Deliberate practice and the modifiability of body and mind: Toward a science of the structure and acquisition of expert and elite performance, Int. J. Sport Psychol. 38, 4 (2007), https://it.scribd.com/document/351010933/8-Deliberate-Practice-and-the-Modifiability-of-Body-and-Mind-Ericsson.
  12. B. J. Sousa and A. M. Clark, Growth mindsets in academics and academia: A review of influence and interventions, J. Higher Educ. Policy Manage. 47, 38 (2024).
  13. E. A. Canning, K. Muenks, D. J. Green, and M. C. Murphy, STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes, Sci. Adv. 5, eaau4734 (2019).
  14. K. Muenks, E. A. Canning, J. LaCosse, D. J. Green, S. Zirkel, J. A. Garcia, and M. C. Murphy, Does my professor think my ability can change? Students’ perceptions of their STEM professors’ mindset beliefs predict their psychological vulnerability, engagement, and performance in class, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 2119 (2020).
  15. D. S. Yeager, J. M. Carrol, J. Buontempo, A. Cimpian, S. Woody, R. Crosnow et al., Teacher mindsets helps explain where a growth-mindset intervention does and doesn’t work, Psychol. Sci. 33, 18 (2021).
  16. D. S. Yeager, P. Hanselman, G. M. Walton et al., A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement, Nature (London) 573, 364 (2019).
  17. R. Duschl, S. Maeng, and A. Sezen, Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis, Stud. Sci. Educ. 47, 123 (2011).
  18. B. McDevitt, Learner autonomy and the need for learner training, Lang. Learn. J. 16, 34 (1997).
  19. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  20. A. Marchand, J. H. Weijs, J. H. Snoeijer, and B. Andreotti, Why is surface tension a force parallel to the interface?, Am. J. Phys. 79, 999 (2011).
  21. R. J. Marzano, A Different Kind of Classroom: Teaching with Dimensions of Learning (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA, 1992).
  22. R. J. Marzano, D. Pickering, and J. McTighe, Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions of learning model, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1250 N. Pitt St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (1993).
  23. O. Levrini, P. Fantini, G. Tasquier, B. Pecori, and M. Levin, Defining and operationalizing appropriation for science learning, J. Learn. Sci. 24, 93 (2015).
  24. B. Rogoff, Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship, in Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, edited by J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, and A. Alvarez (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1995), pp. 139–164.
  25. A. A. DiSessa and B. L. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1155 (1998).
  26. J. Ogborn, Science and commonsense, Rev. Bras. Pesqui. Educ. Ciênc. 6, 1 (2006), https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/rbpec/article/view/4050.
  27. S. J. Magnusson, M. Templin, and R. A. Boyle, Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change, J. Learn. Sci. 6, 91 (1997).
  28. S. Vosniadou, The development of students’ understanding of science, Front. Educ. 4, 32 (2019).
  29. W. Kastrinos, A study of the retention of biological facts by high school biology students, Sci. Educ. 49, 487 (1965).
  30. W. Arthur, Jr.., W. Bennett Jr., P. L. Stanush, and T. L. McNelly, Factors that influence skill decay and retention: A quantitative review and analysis, Hum. Perform. 11, 57 (1998).
  31. R. M. McFall, A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills, Behav. Assess. 4, 1 (1982).
  32. J. J. Heckman and T. Kautz, Hard evidence on soft skills, Labour Econ. 19, 451 (2012).
  33. U. Besson, Calculating and understanding: Formal models and causal explanations in science, common reasoning and physics teaching, Sci. Educ. 19, 225 (2010).
  34. C. Fazio, O. R. Battaglia, and B. Di Paola, Investigating the quality of mental models deployed by undergraduate engineering students in creating explanations: The case of thermally activated phenomena, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020101 (2013).
  35. L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010103 (2006).
  36. M. A. Gluck, E. Mercado, and C. E. Myers, Learning and Memory: From Brain to Behavior, 3rd ed. (Worth Publishers, Macmillan Learning, New York, NY, 2016).
  37. M. T. Banich and D. Caccamise, Generalization of Knowledge: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Psychology Press, New York, NY, 2011).
  38. T. M. Shea and A. M. Bauer, Behavior Management: A Practical Approach for Educators (Pearson Education, Harlow, 2007).
  39. N. D. Fleming, I’m different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom, in Research and Development in Higher Education: Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), HERDSA Vol. 18 (HERDSA, Hammondville, 1995), p. 308.
  40. R. M. Felder and L. K. Silverman, Learning and teaching styles in engineering education, Eng. Educ. 78, 674 (1988), https://engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/1QP6kBI1iQmpQbTXL-08HSl0PwJ5BYnZW/1988-LS-plus-note.pdf.
  41. N. D. Fleming and C. Mills, Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection, Improve Acad. 11, 137 (1992).
  42. R. Riding and S. Rayner, Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies: Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behavior (Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007).
  43. E. Sadler-Smith, The relationship between learning style and cognitive style, Pers. Individ. Diff. 30, 609 (2001).
  44. W. B. Barbe, R. H. Swassing, and M. N. Milone, Teaching through Modality Strengths: Concepts & Practices (Zaner-Bloser, Columbus, 1979.
  45. A. Bandura, Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning, Educ. Psychol. 28, 117 (1993).
  46. A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, NY, 1997.
  47. B. J. Zimmerman, A. Bandura, and M. Martinez-Pons, Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting, Am. Educ. Res. J. 29, 663 (1992).
  48. S. Cassidy, Resilience building in students: The role of academic self-efficacy, Front. Psychol. 6, 178 (2015).
  49. X. Tang and D. Zhang, How informal science learning experience influences students’ science performance: A cross-cultural study based on PISA 2015, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 42, 598 (2020).
  50. J. Zhang, E. Kuusisto, and K. Tirri, How teachers’ and students’ mindsets in learning have been studied: Research findings on mindset and academic achievement, Psychology 8, 1363 (2017).
  51. L. Baker, Metacognition in comprehension instruction, in Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, edited by C. C. Block and M. Pressley (Guilford Press, New York, 2002), pp. 77–95.
  52. K. R. Harris, S. Graham, M. Brindle, and K. Sandmel, Metacognition and children’s writing, in Handbook of Metacognition in Education (Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, 2009).
  53. P. R. Pintrich, The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing, Theory Pract. 41, 219 (2002).
  54. N. Noddings, Happiness and Education (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2003).
  55. A. Konu and M. Rimpelä, Well-being in schools: A conceptual model, Health Promot. Int. 17, 79 (2002).
  56. E. Sellström and S. Bremberg, Is there a “school effect” on pupil outcomes? A review of multilevel studies, J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 60, 149 (2006).
  57. M. Boekaerts, Being concerned with well-being and with learning, Educ. Psychol. 28, 149 (1993).
  58. R. S. Schwartz, N. G. Lederman, and B. A. Crawford, Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry, Sci. Educ. 88, 610 (2004).
  59. F. Abd-El-Khalick, Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34, 353 (2012).
  60. N. G. Lederman, Nature of science: Past, present, and future, in Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2007), pp. 831–879.
  61. U. Besson and L. Viennot, Using models at the mesoscopic scale in teaching physics: Two experimental interventions in solid friction and fluid statics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 26, 1083 (2004).
  62. C. Fazio, A. Agliolo Gallitto, A. Galiano, G. Giarratano, I. Grazia, G. Termini, and O. R. Battaglia, An approach to research-based design of teaching-learning sequences in the context of physics education: Theoretical frameworks, pedagogical methods, and examples of data analysis, Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. 46C (2023).
  63. G. Termini, Pedagogical approaches to surface phenomena in liquids: Investigation-based laboratory and modelling activities to improve students’ learning, Ph.D. thesis, University of Palermo, 2023.
  64. A. Pelakh, M. L. Good, E. Kuo, M. Tumminia, N. Jamal-Orozco, A. Adelman, J. Antoan, B. Galla, and T. J. Nokes-Malach, Thematic analysis of student perceptions of resources and demands experienced in introductory physics, arXiv:2502.14692.
  65. R. C. Subramaniam, N. Borse, A. Bralin, J. W. Morphew, C. M. Rebello, and N. S. Rebello, Investigating the design-science connection in a multiweek engineering design-based introductory physics laboratory task, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010118 (2025).
  66. M. Al Dehaybes, J. Deprez, P. van Kampen, and M. De Cock, Students’ understanding of two-variable calculus concepts in mathematics, and physics contexts. II. The gradient, and the Laplacian, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010132 (2025).
  67. J. Fereday and E. Muir-Cochrane, Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development, Int. J. Qual. Methods 5, 1 (2006).
  68. R. E. Boyatzis, Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998).
  69. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77 (2006).
  70. F. Almasri, Simulations to teach science subjects: Connections among students’ engagement, self-confidence, satisfaction, and learning styles, Educ. Inf. Technol. (Dordrecht) 27, 7161 (2022).
  71. R. Ariel and J. Dunlosky, When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study?, Mem. Cognit. 41, 416 (2013).
  72. R. D. Lasker and E. S. Weiss, Broadening participation in community problem solving: A multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research, J. Urban Health 80, 14 (2003), discussion 48–60.
  73. L. C. McDermott, A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: The need for special science courses for teachers, Am. J. Phys. 58, 734 (1990).
  74. E. Etkina, Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020110 (2010).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020143– Published 6 November, 2025
  • Received 19 February 2025
  • Accepted 12 August 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published 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 Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation