Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Epistemic agency as a critical mediator of physics learning

Nature Physics volume 20, pages 362–366 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Epistemic agency is a conceptual tool for creating effective teaching methods that involve students taking accountability for their own learning and aligns with the broader emphasis on agency in modern education. However, there is a challenge in balancing this approach with the need to cover traditional physics content within the limited timeframe of the academic year. To ensure success, carefully designed courses are needed and the potential of digital technologies holds promise in this regard. This Perspective discusses the importance of fostering epistemic agency among Generation Z students — digital natives — in the context of physics education. It explores innovative teaching approaches that empower students to take initiative in their learning. These approaches leverage digital technologies to handle complex data and address authentic (real life, complex) problems, ultimately enhancing students’ epistemic agency.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Four social revolutions caused by scientific and technological development.
Fig. 2: Elements of physics teaching and learning: the teaching and learning of physics establish a connection between students and the subject through various communication channels.
Fig. 3: A sample of the contents list of an experimental physics textbook from 1938.
Fig. 4: Falling target demonstration lab set-up.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Seemiller, C. & Grace, M. Generation Z: educating and engaging the next generation of students. About Campus 22, 21–26 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Selwyn, N. The digital native—myth and reality. Aslib Proc. New Inf. Perspect. 61, 364–379 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Collins, A. & Halverson, R. Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: the Digital Revolution and the Schools in America 2nd edn (Teachers College Press, 2018).

  4. OECD The OECD Learning Compass 2030. OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/ (2019).

  5. Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 39, 775–786 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Prensky, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On Horizon 9, 1–6 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. & Healing, G. Net generation or digital natives: is there a distinct new generation entering university? Comput. Educ. 54, 722–732 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B. & Waycott, J. Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation students. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 26, 332–343 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson, P. The digital natives as learners: technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Comput. Educ. 65, 12–33 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bennett, S. & Maton, K. Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 26, 321–331 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, C. & Czerniewicz, L. Debunking the ‘digital native’: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 26, 357–369 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jones, C. & Healing, G. Net generation students: agency and choice and the new technologies. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 26, 344–356 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Warschauer, M. & Matuchniak, T. New technology and digital worlds: analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Rev. Res. Educ. 34, 179–225 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Evans, C. & Robertson, W. The four phases of the digital natives debate. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2, 269–277 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Helsper, E. J. & Eynon, R. Digital natives: where is the evidence? Br. Educ. Res. J. 36, 503–520 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1–26 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Elgin, C. Z. Epistemic agency. Theory Res. Educ. 11, 135–152 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: the Development of the Higher Psychological Processes (Harvard Univ. Press, 1978).

  19. Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language (MIT Press, 1986/2012).

  20. Prensky, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On Horizon 9, 1–6 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cogn. Instr. 20, 399–483 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Odden, T. O. B., Silvia, D. W. & Malthe-Sørenssen, A. Using computational essays to foster disciplinary epistemic agency in undergraduate science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 60, 937–977 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Philip, T. M. & Garcia, A. D. The importance of still teaching the iGeneration: new technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harv. Educ. Rev. 83, 300–319 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sutton, R. M. Demonstration Experiments in Physics (McGraw-Hill, 1938).

  25. Sharma, M. D., et al. Use of interactive lecture demonstrations: a ten year study. Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020119 (2010).

  26. Sokoloff, D. R. & Thornton, R. K. Interactive Lecture Demonstrations: Active Learning in Introductory Physics (Wiley, 2004).

  27. White, R., & Gunstone, R. Probing Understanding (Falmer, 1992).

  28. Kang, N.-H. & Wallace, C. S. Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Sci. Educ. 89, 140–165 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  29. National Research Council America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science (National Academies Press, 2005).

  30. Wallace, C. S. & Kang, N.-H. An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 936–960 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Etkina, E., van Heuvelen, A., Brookes, D. T. & Mills, D. Role of experiments in physics instruction—a process approach. Phys. Teach. 40, 351–355 (2002).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. Holmes, N. G. & Wieman, C. E. Introductory physics labs: we can do better. Phys. Today 71, 38–45 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Holmes, N. G. & Bonn, D. A. Quantitative comparisons to promote inquiry in the introductory physics lab. Phys. Teach. 53, 352–355 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Wieman, C. Comparative cognitive task analyses of experimental science and instructional laboratory courses. Phys. Teach. 53, 349–351 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Irving, P. W., Obsniuk, M. J. & Caballero, M. D. P3: a practice focused learning environment. Eur. J. Phys. 38, 055701 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Irving, P. W., McPadden, D. & Caballero, M. D. Communities of practice as a curriculum design theory in an introductory physics class for engineers. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020143 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Korea National University of Education, Chungcheongbuk-do, South Korea

    Nam-Hwa Kang

Authors
  1. Nam-Hwa Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nam-Hwa Kang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Physics thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kang, NH. Epistemic agency as a critical mediator of physics learning. Nat. Phys. 20, 362–366 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02399-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02399-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing