- 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

Material-based contextualization in physics: Student preference for household objects versus laboratory equipment in a resonance demonstration

Yajun Wei1,‡, Haitao Feng1, Chunhong Gao1,†, and Lei Bao2,*

  • *Contact author: lei.bao@outlook.com
  • †Contact author: gch0122@gzhu.edu.cn
  • ‡Contact author: weiyajun@gzhu.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020125 – Published 31 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/6q11-82vh

Abstract

Physics demonstrations are celebrated for enlivening lectures and anchoring understanding, yet remarkably little is known about how the choice of demonstration materials, namely, familiar household objects versus specialized laboratory equipment, may shape students’ affective evaluations. A total of 288 secondary and college students observed two resonance demonstrations—one using wine glasses as everyday focal objects and one using tuning forks as laboratory focal objects—and completed a survey requesting an overall preference (household/lab/no preference) and Likert ratings on seven perception items for each demonstration. Demonstration order was counterbalanced across class sessions to guard against sequence effects. Overall, students far more often preferred the wine-glass demonstration (58.3%) over the tuning-fork demonstration (14.9%), with 26.7% reporting no strong preference; this preference pattern was consistent across both secondary and college students and did not differ significantly between male and female students. Preference distributions were also independent of presentation order. Paired comparisons showed that the household demonstration was rated significantly higher in interestingness, novelty, relevance to daily life, and its ability to stimulate interest in science. Importantly, clarity of the phenomenon and self-reported support for understanding resonance did not differ significantly between the two demonstrations, supporting the interpretation that the preference for the household condition is not attributable to the phenomenon being easier to observe or the concept easier to grasp. The results are theoretically grounded in cognitive load and situated cognition frameworks to explain how material-based contextualization may enhance student engagement without increasing perceived cognitive burden. These findings suggest that a seemingly simple instructional design choice, i.e., using a recognizable household object as the focal material in a physics demonstration, can meaningfully enhance student engagement and perceived relevance without sacrificing conceptual clarity.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (32)

  1. D. R. Sokoloff and R. K. Thornton, Interactive Lecture Demonstration (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004).
  2. C. H. Crouch, A. P. Fagen, J. P. Callan, and E. Mazur, Classroom demonstrations: Learning tools or entertainment?, Am. J. Phys. 72, 835 (2004).
  3. W. M. Roth, C. J. McRobbie, K. B. Lucas, and S. Boutonné, Why may students fail to learn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning in physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 509 (1997).
  4. A. Hofstein and V. N. Lunetta, The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century, Sci. Educ. 88, 28 (2004).
  5. M. Snětinová, P. Kácovský, and J. Machalická, Hands-on experiments in the Interactive Physics Laboratory: Students’ intrinsic motivation and understanding, Cent. Educ. Policy Stud. J. 8, 55 (2018).
  6. P. Kácovský and M. Snětinová, Physics demonstrations: Who are the students appreciating them?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 43, 529 (2021).
  7. A. Nikitin, P. Kácovský, M. Snětinová, M. Chvál, J. Houfková, and Z. Koupilová, Physics demonstrations, science show, or hands-on practical work? Exploring students’ intrinsic motivation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010146 (2025).
  8. G. Kestin, K. Miller, L. S. McCarty, K. Callaghan, and L. Deslauriers, Comparing the effectiveness of online versus live lecture demonstrations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 013101 (2020).
  9. Multiple Literacy and Science Education: ICTs in Formal and Informal Learning Environments, edited by S. Rodrigues (IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 2010).
  10. J. Piaget, Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child (Orion Press, New York, 1970).
  11. J. Bennett, F. Lubben, and S. Hogarth, Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching, Sci. Educ. 91, 347 (2007).
  12. M. Stuckey, A. Hofstein, R. Mamlok-Naaman, and I. Eilks, The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum, Stud. Sci. Educ. 49, 1 (2013).
  13. J. Kuhn and A. Müller, Context-based science education by newspaper story problems: A study on motivation and learning effects, Perspect. Sci. 2, 5 (2014).
  14. P. Vogt and L. Kasper, Recording a resonance curve with smartphones and wine glasses, Phys. Teach. 60, 308 (2022).
  15. J. de Winter, Physics with everyday objects: Springy sweets, a universe in your pocket, and drawing circuits, Sci. Sch. 56 (2022).
  16. E. Cookson, Exploring magnetic resonance with a compass, Phys. Teach. 57, 633 (2019).
  17. S. K. Pal, P. Mondal, and P. Panchadhyayee, A simple classroom experiment to determine the refractive index of water with smartphone-based observations, Phys. Teach. 63, 698 (2025).
  18. Y. Wei, M. Wang, and Y. Zhang, Using a toy train set to help plot the displacement–time graph of a pendulum, Phys. Teach. 63, 806 (2025).
  19. A. J. Beehler, Demonstrating the photoelectric effect using household items, Phys. Teach. 48, 348 (2010).
  20. K. Salta, E. Ntalakou, and Z. Tsiortos, Review of hands-on laboratory experiments employing household supplies, J. Chem. Educ. 99, 2563 (2022).
  21. M. D. Sharma, I. D. Johnston, H. Johnston, K. Varvell, G. Robertson, A. Hopkins, C. Stewart, I. Cooper, and R. Thornton, Use of interactive lecture demonstrations: A ten year study, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020119 (2010).
  22. G. Kestin and K. Miller, Harnessing active engagement in educational videos: Enhanced visuals and embedded questions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010148 (2022).
  23. J. Osborne, S. Simon, and S. Collins, Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 1049 (2003).
  24. R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being, Am. Psychol. 55, 68 (2000).
  25. D. H. Palmer, Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 147 (2009).
  26. J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid, Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educ. Res. 18, 1 (1989).
  27. Y. Wei, X. Peng, Y. Zhong, F. Pi, Y. Zhai, and L. Bao, Can contextualized physics problems enhance student motivation?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020117 (2025).
  28. D. W. Chambers, Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test, Sci. Educ. 67, 255 (1983).
  29. B. M. Von der Mehden, A. E. K. Shortlidge, J. A. Powell, and J. L. Momsen, Building authentic science experiences: Students’ perceptions of authenticity in course-based undergraduate research experiences, CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 22, ar47 (2023).
  30. M. Andrée, Ways of using “everyday life” in the science classroom, in Research and the Quality of Science Education, edited by K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, and H. Eijkelhof (Springer, Dordrecht, 2005), pp. 107–116.
  31. M. Braund and M. Reiss, Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 1373 (2006).
  32. Yajun Wei, Household vs Lab equipment in physics classroom demonstrations, Mendeley Data, V1 (2026).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020125– Published 31 August, 2026
  • Received 14 May 2026
  • Accepted 4 August 2026
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