Increasing student science, technology, engineering and mathematics engagement through phyphox activities: Three practical examples

Abstract

For decades, educators in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) have strived to break the vicious circle of student disengagement at both secondary and post‐secondary levels. Despite the widespread availability of technologies like smartphones, STEM pedagogies have largely remained unchanged. Too often, students learn STEM theoretically with little hands‐on experience or opportunities to engage in authentic, research‐like activities. Modern smartphones can offer unprecedented opportunities for active STEM learning, but can also serve as distractors. Therefore, it is essential for teachers to acquire the pedagogical knowledge to harness these powerful tools effectively. This paper explores the potential of integrating smartphones into physics labs to enrich STEM learning. By leveraging smartphones' advanced capabilities for experimental design, data collection, and analysis, we have implemented a smartphone‐enhanced pedagogical approach in secondary physics classes and province‐wide Physics Olympics. We also implemented smartphone‐enhanced STEM pedagogies in teacher education. Our initial pilot study has yielded promising outcomes: enhanced student engagement in physics and deeper conceptual understanding. To advance this initiative, we propose structured teacher mentorship and professional development, empowering STEM educators to seamlessly integrate smartphones into their teaching. By embracing these modern educational tools, adopting evidence‐based pedagogical approaches, and supporting future and practicing educators we can make STEM learning more engaging and relevant for all students.

INTRODUCTION

As a result of the recent pandemic, many secondary science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) teachers across Canada and around the world had to conduct their classes either in a hybrid mode (combining online and face-to-face) or entirely remotely. Consequently, educators had to consider how their students could engage with STEM both face-to-face and virtually. Not surprisingly, many K-12 STEM teachers and university professors began exploring creative approaches to STEM education, through connecting recent educational research with day-to-day STEM teaching practices. Several educators have begun to view smartphones as useful tools for student-centered inquiry-based learning in remote, as well as face-to-face settings (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2024; Milner-Bolotin & Milner, 2023a, 2023b). Some educators even argue that smartphones could become a game changer addressing the long-standing challenges in STEM classrooms (Kramer, 2024). One of these tools is a freely available smartphone application called Phyphox (Staacks, 2024), designed by the team from the RWTH Aachen University in Germany (Prior, 2021; Staacks et al., 2018).

Phyphox (Staacks, 2024) is a versatile mobile app that transforms smartphones into powerful scientific instruments by utilizing the device's built-in sensors. The app works with both Android devices (since Android 4.0) and iPhones (since iOS 8). Phyphox allows users to conduct various physics experiments, such as measuring acceleration, magnetic fields, and sound wave frequencies, and visualize the collected data in real-time. The app can also be operated remotely through a computer in case the smartphone is not accessible directly during the experiment. The app is designed for educational purposes, providing an accessible platform for students and educators to explore and analyze physical phenomena directly from their smartphones. In January of 2021, in the midst of the pandemic, Robert Prior—a science teacher from Ontario, Canada () published a detailed and insightful review of this app in the Ontario Association of Physics Teachers Newsletter to help teachers incorporate Phyphox in their physics classes (Prior, 2021). The Phyphox website (Staacks, 2024) also offers an extensive collection of resources for teachers and students who might consider using the app, including the videos with detailed instructions of science experiments that can be conducted with the help of the app. From our experience, Phyphox is a valuable tool to help actively engage students in science through asking questions and conducting authentic experiments that might help answer these questions. Engaging in scientific inquiry using tools that students can access both in school and outside the classroom can foster their curiosity about the world, ignite their scientific creativity, enhance their problem-solving abilities, and promote a sense of ownership in doing science (Milner-Bolotin, 2001), rather than just reading about it in a textbook (Milner-Bolotin & Milner, 2023a).

Yet, our experience of working with secondary STEM teachers in Canada shows that incorporating smartphones in science teaching is rarely as straightforward and seamless as it might initially seem. We have encountered many teachers, who have yet to embrace smartphones as practical tools for conducting authentic inquiry-based STEM experiments, both inside and outside the classroom. Even when the students already have smartphones in their pockets, the effective use of this technology for STEM learning is not guaranteed. The teachers need to think deliberately and creatively about how these modern tools can promote inquiry-based learning for their students (Milner-Bolotin, 2020). To achieve this, STEM educators need to familiarize themselves not only with the technical aspects of smartphone applications like Phyphox but also with modern pedagogical approaches that leverage smartphones to enhance STEM learning. Unfortunately, many provincial Ministries of Education across Canada (including British Columbia Ministry of Education) decided to take a more traditional approach to novel educational technologies: to order a blanket ban on the use of smartphones in K-12 classrooms altogether. Though the motivation behind this ban is largely unrelated to STEM education, it discouraged many teachers from even considering this technology in their teaching. While we agree that smartphones can present a distraction for student learning, we strongly believe that instead of banning the novel tools, educators should consider how to use them to promote active learning while encouraging smartphones' safe, ethical, and appropriate use. Moreover, the ban on smartphone use at schools will not prevent students from using or misusing their smartphones outside of school premises, which might only exacerbate the problem.

In this paper, we share our experiences of how we have been using Phyphox smartphone app with our secondary and post-secondary students, with future physics teachers, as well as with British Columbia STEM teachers whose students participated in the University of British Columbia (UBC) Physics Olympics (Milner-Bolotin et al., 2019) during the last 6 years with the hope of convincing more STEM teachers that Phyphox app and similar educational technologies might be useful tools for their students.

In particular, below we provide three practical examples with the hope of persuading secondary and post-secondary STEM educators to consider Phyphox in both face-to-face and virtual classrooms. First, we describe the implementation of Phyphox with the secondary school students to help them gain science skills through conducting open-ended physics labs. Second, we outline our experiences of implementing Phyphox during the “pre-built” challenges at the annual province-wide UBC Physics Olympics events (Milner-Bolotin & Milner, 2023a; UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2024). And third, we share how we chose to introduce Phyphox to future physics teachers at the UBC Teacher Education program to help them gain pedagogical experience in using smartphones in their teaching. Finally, having used Phyphox in secondary and post-secondary physics classrooms for years, we recognize its potential applications in mathematics and broader STEM education, which we will discuss in the concluding section.

SMARTPHONE-SUPPORTED PROJECT-BASED SCIENCE LEARNING CYCLE

Below, we briefly outline the pedagogical model we employed for Phyphox-supported science labs, emphasizing how they differ from more traditional secondary school labs. At the core of our pedagogical approach is project-based learning (Milner-Bolotin, 2001). We chose this pedagogy as it underscores student engagement through inquiry, emphasizes students' sense of ownership, and engages them in an authentic science investigation. Not surprisingly, this approach has been found especially effective in supporting student motivation and interest in science (Colley, 2008; English & Kitsantas, 2013), as well as promoting student creativity and engagement (Milner-Bolotin, 2012, 2018b).

Project-based learning in science education mirrors scientific challenges and processes faced by practicing scientists. For instance, identifying meaningful research problems, such as Hilbert's problems in mathematics posed by him in 1900, is a key aspect of authentic scientific research (Sfard, 2012). Only after becoming familiar with the existing state of knowledge in the field and considering their own interests, goals, and motivation, will the scientists decide on the specific research they want to undertake in their own lab. Scientists also frequently face significant challenges in their research pursuits. These obstacles might include the lack of suitable equipment or materials, time constraints, as well as operational laboratory limitations. Researchers also rarely expect that their experiments will produce immediate results and will never lead to a dead-end. Finally, researchers do not work in isolation, but share their research with colleagues for feedback and suggestions for improvement. Thus, science research is a slow and iterative process, built on the “shoulders of giants” (Hawking, 2002), where “regular” scientists most of the time do what Kuhn (1996) called “normal science”—the process of observing, experimenting, conceptualizing, and theorizing within a settled explanatory framework that he called “a scientific paradigm.” For example, classical and quantum mechanics are two different scientific paradigms. Only rarely do some of the brightest teams of scientists have an opportunity to advance science by pushing a new paradigm and being a part of a scientific revolution, such as a General Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Evolution. Yet, for secondary science students, what one might consider “normal science” might not be as mundane or straightforward as Kuhn's “puzzle-solving” (1996). For example, “normal science” has many unanswered questions that can be answered within an established paradigm, yet answering them requires ingenuity, hard work, talent, creativity, and determination. For secondary students, this means making their own scientific discoveries by pushing the boundaries of their knowledge and exploring the unknown. Thus, we strongly believe that:

• Students have a say in what they want to do in a science lab: Students should have a say in choosing their research questions or at least the method they are going to use pursuing them.

• Empirical research takes time: from reading the literature, considering available resources, formulating research questions and methods of answering them, collecting and analyzing the data, and receiving peer feedback in order to refine the experiments or the research questions. Since science research is an iterative process, students need time to complete the lab, thus unlike a traditional hour or two-hour long lab, the lab activities we propose turn into multi-week research-based projects.

• Natural sciences are grounded in experiment. They utilize empirical evidence (data) to judge the validity of arguments (Popper, 1996). Thus, students need to be able to collect and analyze authentic data that will help them make evidence-based judgements. This is when Phyphox-enabled data collection and analysis is especially valuable, as students' smartphones become tools for doing science.

• Finally, in contrast to traditional labs, where students must obtain predetermined results within a limited timeframe, often with little personal investment and minimal peer interaction, the project-based labs we advocate for may not have a predetermined answer known in advance to either the teacher or the students. The lab work evolves into an iterative process, where learning occurs through continuous problem-solving, overcoming failures, and sharing results with peers (Milner-Bolotin, 2018b). Fortunately, technology can assist students in becoming more efficient in this process, giving them time to evaluate, analyze, troubleshoot, and attempt again. Ultimately, this is what makes science so exhilarating for scientists—overcoming inevitable challenges to unravel scientific principles and share discoveries with peers (Feynman, 1999).

Figure 1 illustrates our model of SS-PBSL cycle (Milner-Bolotin & Milner, 2023a). In our approach, the teacher assumes a different role compared to that in a traditional secondary science lab. Since the research questions are generated by the students and may be unfamiliar to the teacher, designing experiments to address these questions may not be immediately apparent. This requires the teacher to collaborate with the students throughout the project. Additionally, seeking guidance and mentorship from experienced scientists in the field may be necessary to navigate this process effectively. Thus, an online resource, such as Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Teacher Research Academy (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2024) can become especially valuable. The role of mentorship and collaboration between the education and STEM research communities is important here and it will be discussed below.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Next, we describe three different examples of how this model has been implemented in a secondary science classroom. The first two experiments show different versions of the project that match a traditional secondary physics curriculum. The third example illustrates how a smartphone can help push the boundaries of school science and support students in pursuing their own interests, such as the science of music.

OPEN-ENDED PHYPHOX LABS IN SECONDARY PHYSICS: PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION

The following sections show three examples of how SS-PBSL cycles can be implemented in secondary science classrooms. The three investigations took place in a secondary physics class of 40 students during the 2021–2023 academic years. Two teachers were teaching this group (the authors of this paper): a university physics professor (VM) and a university science education professor who is also a physics educator (MMB). The teachers met with the students once a week for one and a half hours. Each one of the investigations was performed by a group of 4-5 students. The three projects below were chosen as they show different degrees of sophistication and complexity in terms of the experimental setup, data collection and analysis, and the topic of investigation chosen by the students.

Example 1: Investigating the law of energy conservation: A project in early stages

The goal of this project was to design an experiment that would help students investigate different aspects of the law of energy conservation (Hawkes et al., 2018). The students could choose to focus on mechanical energy or to expand their investigation to include other types of energy, such as heat. They had the freedom to select the experiments they wanted to perform, but were required to base their investigations on the empirical data they collected, rather than on theoretical work.

After reading relevant literature (Stage I of the SS-PBSL cycle), several experimental setups were proposed by the students. For instance, one group opted to investigate the rebound of an elastic ball off the floor, aiming to demonstrate the conversion of mechanical energy into heat and sound through the observed decrease in the height of the ball's bounce. The group's experimental setup is shown in Figure 2, as drawn by the students.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Using an Inelastic Collision Application feature found in Phyphox app (Figure 2b), the students measured the height of the rebound for each one of the consecutive ball bounces, when the ball was dropped from a specific height (Stages II and III). The students conducted the experiment for different release heights and were able to estimate the amount of mechanical energy converted into heat and sound for each one of the experiments (Figure 3).

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Following the execution of these experiments and subsequent discussions with the teachers and peers, the group came to the realization that directly measuring the quantity of mechanical energy converted into sound waves or heat was unfeasible. Their only recourse was to compare the system's initial and final energies. Moreover, the students were not able to estimate the experimental error to make sure the results they obtained were meaningful and were not due to the experimental errors. While the group calculated the percentage of energy loss in each bounce using the initial release height and the height of the rebound, they were not sure what the numbers meant and if the results were consistent with the theoretical predictions. Thus, after conducting these first two stages of the project (Figure 1), the students recognized the limitations of their original experimental setup and acknowledged the need for improvement. In the following stages of the refinement of this experiment, the students estimated the amount of mechanical energy loss due to air drag, generation of sound, and the rise in the ball's temperature. The students also discussed the inaccuracies in the measurement by the smartphone app and how they could have been reduced. This is an example of a project, where the students had a very good initial idea, but needed support in its implementation and data analysis. Moreover, traditionally, this experiment would have been concluded with the calculation of the coefficient of restitution of the ball, but with little discussion of how the amount of energy transferred to heat or sound can be found experimentally (Hawkes et al., 2018). The experiment conducted by these students was an attempt (even if not entirely successful) for a deeper analysis. The teachers provided mentorship during the final three stages of the SS-PBSL cycle, guiding students to successfully complete a meaningful STEM project that they then shared with the rest of the class during their final project presentation (Stages IV and V).

Example 2: Investigating the law of energy conservation: An advanced project

Another group decided to investigate the laws of momentum and energy conservation using two colliding metal balls. After reading the literature on the topic (Stage I of the PBL cycle shown in Figure 1), the students suggested two experimental setups (Stage II). Each one of the setups allowed testing the laws of momentum and energy conservation by measuring the speed of the balls before and after the collisions, as well as the potential energy of the balls (Stage III). To test the laws of momentum and energy conservation, the students built two independent experimental setups (Figure 4). In the first experiment (Figure 4a), the students used a collision of two metal balls on a ramp, while in the second one (Figure 4b), they used a collision of two pendulums.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

This group led an in-depth investigation by conducting a thorough literature review (Stage I) followed by their own theoretical calculations to predict expected results, and finally, by carefully interpreting the obtained data, and modifying the experimental setup (Stages II and III). The students also analyzed the sources of errors in an attempt to reduce them. In addition, they compared two methods using different sensors in their smartphones, as well as the phone's video camera to conduct a video analysis (Antimirova & Milner-Bolotin, 2009). The students also suggested areas for improvement and further investigation. Finally, during the interpretation and presentations and sharing stages, the students compared their results with the results reported by other researchers in the papers they had read earlier, and discussed possible causes for the discrepancies with the peers and the teachers (Stages IV and V).

Example 3: A non-traditional science investigation—Investigating the effect of linear string density on the generated sound frequency

In the third example, a different group of students, all with musical backgrounds, opted to delve into the science underlying sound generation in string musical instruments. Their focus was on exploring the correlation between linear string density and sound frequency. To conduct their investigation, the students constructed an experimental setup shown in Figure 5. By plucking five different “strings” of differing densities (twine, aluminum wire, copper wire, 3D print filament, and iPad charger), sounds of different frequencies were generated and consequently analyzed. In this experiment, the students varied the tensions of different strings and used their phones to detect the generated frequency of the sound. While the group originally planned to use Phyphox, they realized its limitations for the purpose of this experiment and chose to use another free online smartphone application (Stages I and II). Moreover, the group had to overcome some technical challenges, such as assuring they plucked the strings consistently and their measurements of linear densities and lengths were accurate and reliable (Stage III). The students also had to learn how to generate standing waves of desired wavelengths.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

In this experiment, the string tension was kept constant, while the team varied the string densities and analyzed the sound frequency produced by the vibrating strings (Stages II and III). Their results are shown in Figure 6.

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

This group was not able to conduct sufficiently accurate measurements, as the measuring devices had inconsistent measurement accuracy at different frequencies. This was unexpected and caused students to reconsider their original experimental setup. The Phyphox detector, which they intended to use, had variable sensitivity to different frequencies, which was initially unknown to the students and the teachers. At lower frequencies, the detector was more inaccurate, which eventually explained the deviations of the measurement results from the expected value and prompted the group to switch measuring devices from Phyphox to Online Pitch Detector app (Stages II and III). Thus, this experiment encouraged students not only to learn the science behind musical instruments, but also to understand how the limitations and affordances of the measuring instruments influence researchers' choice of scientific experiments. The consequent group presentation and discussion highlighted these findings with the rest of the class (Stages IV and V).

Preliminary outcomes: Open-ended Phyphox labs in secondary physics

Open-ended Phyphox-based labs in secondary physics offer unprecedented opportunities to promote student inquiry, creativity, and science motivation by allowing students to design their own experiments and explore topics of personal interest through data-driven investigations. With many secondary students already having access to smartphones, this hands-on, project-based approach can engage students in remote and disadvantaged schools who might not have access to advanced STEM equipment. These students will particularly benefit from experiential learning rather than relying solely on theoretical knowledge from textbooks. This SS-PBSL pedagogy encourages critical thinking and problem-solving, as students gather and analyze empirical data to answer their research questions, present their findings to the class, and respond to questions from peers and teachers. The flexibility of using smartphones and the Phyphox app makes the process more engaging and accessible, fostering a sense of ownership and excitement about student scientific discovery and science learning.

PHYSICS OUTREACH WITH PHYPHOX: UBC PHYSICS OLYMPICS

The University of British Columbia (UBC) Physics Olympics is an annual province-wide day-long science outreach event that takes place on UBC campus and attracts more than 700 secondary students and their teachers (Liao et al., 2017; UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2024). It is one of the largest and oldest events in North America that invites students to work in teams to do hands-on science, to be creative in an undergraduate science lab, as well as to meet other secondary and undergraduate science students. The event is a historic collaboration of the Faculty of Science (Department of Physics and Astronomy) and the Faculty of Education (Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy). We celebrated the 45th anniversary of the UBC Physics Olympics in 2023 and hope to continue for decades to come.

The event historically includes 6 heats: two different “pre-built” competitions that students prepare at home to solve a specific challenge, given to them a month or two in advance; two lab activities, which are conducted in undergraduate physics labs on the day of the event; and two knowledge-based team events that also happen during the Physics Olympics, such as a Fermi Questions Challenge, and a “Quizzics” championship (a conceptual physics questions' competition in a game-show format, in which teams work together to solve and answer physics/astronomy questions and problems (Milner-Bolotin et al., 2019)).

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the event had to be canceled in 2020. Then, in 2021 and 2022, Physics Olympics events were held remotely. The virtual nature of the competition prompted the organizers (both authors are the members of the UBC Physics Olympics Organizing Committee) to consider how they could engage students remotely and level the playing field in terms of the resources available to the schools. The knowledge-based events and the lab events were held via Zoom, where the labs used Physics Education Technology (PhET) interactive simulations (PhET Research Team, 2024). The pre-build events had to be primarily conducted by the students at their homes in the months leading up to the event, as many schools closed their science labs for extracurricular activities. This led us to utilize the Phyphox app as a measurement device for the 2021 pre-built challenges. This decision leveled the playing field for students across the province, ensuring equal opportunities for all. For example, in 2021, students were given the following two pre-build challenges (UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2024):

Project 1: Gravitational acceleration

In this project your task is to determine experimentally the value of the gravitational acceleration, g, while adhering to the following rules:

• a)

  Instrumentation. You may use your smartphone(s) with Phyphox and any other external instrument (e.g., ruler, thermometer, scale, etc.) provided the additional instruments are not communicating with any of the smartphones.

• b)

  Physical constants. You are not allowed to use any known physical constants, such as the density of materials, the mass of the Earth, etc., unless you determine it experimentally yourself using instrumentation outlined in a). If you determine such a constant experimentally, then you must explain how you made the measurement.

Project 2: Speed of sound at 0°C

In this project your task is to determine experimentally the value of the speed of sound in air at a temperature of 0°C. You must adhere to the following rules:

• a)

  Instrumentation. You may use a smartphone only! Any other common measuring devices, such as a ruler or a thermometer are not allowed! For example, if you say that you carried out an experiment outdoors and the temperature was 0°C, you are required to explain how you determined the outside air temperature (and using a weather forecast is not allowed either).

• b)

  Physical constants. You can use the values of any fundamental physical constants and material properties, such as the gravitational acceleration, g, thermal expansion of water, density of air, etc. However, you are not allowed to use well known facts not related to science, such as knowing that the length of a standard Letter page is 11″ or that a gallon of milk weighs 8.6 pounds.

• c)

  Physical laws. You are allowed to use the known dependence of the speed of sound on temperature, and other laws describing how a material property depends on various physical parameters.

Each one of these Pre-Build challenges required students to build the apparatus from easily accessible materials, while using Phyphox as a measuring tool.

The subsequent year, we opted for markedly distinct pre-built events. In 2022, the students were challenged “to build an apparatus that will transport a typical smartphone from the surface of a table, 1 m above the floor level, to the floor in the shortest possible time and with the smallest possible acceleration” (UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2024).

In 2023, we once again used Phyphox for the pre-build events as can be seen from the Rule Books for the UBC Physics Olympics published on our website (UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2024).

The ingenuity and creativity that the students have shown in figuring out these challenges have shown how much can be done with a “simple” smartphone in a physics lab. In addition, the Physics Olympics helped us test the power of the Phyphox app for conducting physics labs remotely both at the secondary and potentially post-secondary levels. Leveling the playing field by using a free smartphone app allowed all students, who wanted to participate in the event, to have equal access to powerful science equipment to conduct their experiments—their own smartphones. This helped us engage students from all across British Columbia in creative science explorations, even when their schools might have had limited access to science equipment. Most importantly, we showed physics teachers across the province how they could use students' smartphones during their day-to-day science lessons. This was a catalyst for many physics teachers to consider this ubiquitous technology for their “regular” teaching. However, to make it happen on a more sustainable basis, teachers needed a supportive community. We will discuss how we have attempted to create it in the next section.

SUPPORTING TEACHERS THROUGH MENTORSHIP AND COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

As discussed earlier, there are numerous reasons why secondary STEM teachers might be open to integrating smartphone-based technologies into their classrooms (Jochen & Patrik, 2013; Maciel, 2015; Prior, 2021). From reducing educational disparities between rural and urban, have and have-not schools; to facilitating hands-on science learning both in and out of school, smartphones offer considerable educational potential. Extensive evidence suggests that engaging students in active scientific inquiry differs significantly from simply having them read about scientific discoveries made by others (Bransford et al., 2002). Allowing students to experience the authentic process of scientific discovery, from planning experiments to analyzing results, can inspire them to consider careers in science, engineering or other technical fields (Chachashvili-Bolotin et al., 2016).

However, despite the availability of promising technology-based pedagogies, the novel tools often fail to be implemented in secondary STEM classrooms, even when these technologies are readily accessible to the students (Jones & Leagon, 2014). Teacher buy-in is crucial for the successful adoption of technological innovations, and effective mentorship plays a pivotal role in this process. Additionally, incorporating new pedagogical tools requires time and may initially put teachers in a vulnerable position, as they might struggle to seamlessly integrate these tools into their practice. Therefore, events like the UBC Physics Olympics, which encourage students interested in STEM to explore these tools for their own investigations, are especially valuable. The Physics Olympics allows students to engage in hands-on science and share their experiences with their teachers, who can subsequently use these tools to benefit all students in their schools.

To support science teachers in incorporating smartphones into science learning, we must provide them with opportunities to use these tools for scientific inquiry, as few of them may have experienced such learning tools as students. To achieve this, we organized several free online professional development workshops on using smartphones in science classrooms through the British Columbia Association of Physics Teachers (BCAPT) (). BCAPT is a professional network of science (mainly physics) educators dedicated to supporting each other, exchanging teaching resources, and brainstorming pedagogical opportunities. Since BCAPT operates outside the formal school environment, teachers feel comfortable asking for help and are not afraid to appear less competent or knowledgeable about new pedagogical tools. These workshops helped create a community of teachers interested in exploring this technology and supporting each other by sharing resources and experiences. As a result of these online workshops, teachers began exchanging ideas and materials on using smartphones in their classrooms.

In addition, every year, during the UBC Physics Olympics event, we organize a professional development workshop for the accompanying team leaders focused on the topic of interest to educators. Most of them are STEM (physics, chemistry, and mathematics) teachers, who lead their school's teams. Participating in this event offers teachers an opportunity to share their experiences with implementing novel technologies, such as Phyphox, in their classrooms. In the last few years, the events focused on the use of smartphone technologies in science teaching. During the UBC Physics Olympics in March of 2024, an unprecedented number of teachers (56 educators) decided to participate in this Pro-D event offered on the day that focused on Phyphox applications in STEM teaching. The event was led by physics teachers, who volunteered to share their experiences of smartphone-based pedagogies.

Organizing professional development workshops on the day of a large province-wide science event for students is especially valuable. Firstly, teachers attending the event hail from all across the province and have a few hours during the day when they are not accompanying their students. Secondly, the event provides an avenue for teachers to network with other passionate and knowledgeable STEM educators. Thirdly, by engaging in interactions with their peers and workshop facilitators they are exposed to innovative STEM pedagogies and have the opportunity to share their own teaching experiences with colleagues. We have been hosting these teacher-oriented events for over a decade now and have found them beneficial for both the teachers and ourselves—university STEM educators.

Supporting future STEM teachers

Teacher education is the first point of entry for many future teachers to research-based and evidence-based STEM education (Milner-Bolotin, 2018a). Few future teachers have experienced active STEM learning during their own K-12 education, and even fewer have had the chance to utilize modern technology for authentic scientific inquiry (Milner-Bolotin et al., 2020). To facilitate the adoption of these innovative smartphone-enhanced pedagogies and encourage deliberate integration of technology into their STEM lessons during their school practicum and beyond, it is crucial for future teachers to gain first-hand experience using these tools with secondary students. This underscores the importance of integrating modern technologies, such as smartphone applications, into STEM teacher education and pairing up prospective teachers with secondary science students who are engaged in hands-on scientific exploration with these modern tools.

Over the past few years, we have been gradually integrating smartphone-based experiments in secondary STEM teacher education. Initially, we challenged future teachers to contribute to the collection of videos, showcasing many STEM experiments which can be performed on a shoe-string budget or with the devices already at students' disposal (Milner-Bolotin & Milner, 2023a, 2023b; Tembrevilla & Milner-Bolotin, 2019). Later, we began incorporating experiments that use smartphone applications, such as Phyphox, as research tools for doing science, as described above. To help future STEM teachers appreciate the opportunities provided by these tools, we paired them up with the secondary physics students who were conducting phyphox-based experiments for their science classes. As such, future teachers were not only observing innovative science teaching, but became mentors to secondary students. In addition, a faculty member from the Faculty of Science (VM) mentored future teachers by answering their questions and providing feedback on their own design and implementation of smartphone-based experiments. We firmly believe that as science-oriented smartphone applications like Phyphox continue to proliferate, the scope of experiments available to engage students in STEM will only broaden. Our hope is that STEM teacher educators will integrate these experiments into their courses and activities for both in-service and pre-service teachers.

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

This paper explores the utilization of modern smartphones, which are readily available to many secondary students and teachers, for conducting authentic STEM investigations both in school and at home. We have highlighted the Phyphox app as a powerful and free smartphone application relevant to secondary physics learning (Staacks et al., 2018). This app enables students to collect data using their smartphones and then transfer it to their computers for further analysis. Essentially, Phyphox transforms students' smartphones into data acquisition devices, facilitating authentic scientific investigations for all students. While our focus in this paper has been on Phyphox and its application in secondary physics, it's worth noting that there are other smartphone applications that STEM teachers may find valuable. Additionally, Phyphox can also be effectively utilized in mathematics, chemistry, and biology classrooms, as discussed elsewhere (Milner-Bolotin & Milner, 2023b).

We provided practical examples of how science teachers might implement a pedagogical approach based on the SS-PBSL Cycle (Figure 1) (Milner-Bolotin & Milner, 2023a). We offered a number of examples of authentic science investigations relevant to the secondary science curriculum that can be conducted in a science lab or at home. We also discussed some strengths and limitations of these smartphone apps in the context of science (physics) learning both in face-to-face and online learning environments. Finally, we proposed how smartphone applications, such as Phyphox, can be incorporated into science methods courses for future teachers and in professional development events for practicing teachers.

One of the prominent issues currently discussed among STEM educators is the need for technology-based professional development for practicing teachers (Anderson et al., 2021). Despite the wide availability of these tools and ever-increasing student access to technology, relatively few science teachers incorporate smartphone-enhanced inquiry-based science learning. In order for teachers to be open to using these powerful tools with their students, the teachers have to experience smartphone-enabled science experiments as learners, as well as become members of the relevant community of practice. We illustrated how this could be done during teacher-education, as well as during teacher professional development events. Therefore, we call on STEM teacher educators, scientists, and science education researchers to consider incorporating smartphone-enabled science activities, such as Phyphox labs, in their professional development activities. We hope that our examples will persuade secondary and post-secondary STEM teachers to experiment with Phyphox alongside their students.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Marina Milner-Bolotin: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; project administration; resources; writing—review & editing. Valery Milner: Data curation; formal analysis; investigation; writing—review & editing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Marina Milner-Bolotin is the guest editor of the special issues pertaining to this article and is also an author of this article. To minimize bias, she was excluded from all editorial decision-making related to the acceptance of this article for publication.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This is a conceptual study. No data is available.

ETHICS STATEMENT

The paper adheres to the ethics requirements of the University of British Columbia.

References

Anderson, D., Milner‐Bolotin, M., Santos, R., & Petrina, S. (Eds.). (2021). Proceedings of the 6th international STEM in education conference (STEM 2021) [conference proceedings]. University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://stem2021.ubc.ca/

Antimirova, T., & Milner‐Bolotin, M. (2009). A brief introduction to video analysis. Physics in Canada, 65(April‐May), 74.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309070368

Chachashvili‐Bolotin, S., Milner‐Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of factors predicting secondary students’ interest in tertiary STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 366–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1143137

Colley, K. (2008). Project‐based science instruction: A premier: An introduction and learning cycle for implementing project‐based science. The Science Teacher, 75, 23–28.

English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting student self‐regulated learning in problem‐ and project‐based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem‐Based Learning, 7(2), 128–150. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541‐5015.1339

Feynman, R. P. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out: The best short works of Richard P. Feynman. Helix Books ‐ perseus Books.

Hawkes, R., Iqbal, J., Mansour, F., Milner‐Bolotin, M., & Williams, P. (2018). Physics for scientists and engineers: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Nelson Education.

Hawking, S. (2002). On the shoulders of giants: The great works of physics and astronomy. Running Press.

Jochen, K., & Patrik, V. (2013). Smartphones as experimental tools: Different methods to determine the gravitational acceleration in classroom physics by using everyday devices. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(1), 16–27.

Jones, M. G., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beleifs: Reforming practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 830–847). Routledge.

Kramer, D. (2024). Teaching physics with phones: A game changer? Physics Today, 77(1), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1063/pt.3.5378

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. (2024). Lawrence Livermore national laboratory's teacher research Academy. LLNL. Retrieved February 26 from https://st.llnl.gov/sci‐ed/teacher‐research‐academy

Liao, T., McKenna, J., & Milner‐Bolotin, M. (2017). Four decades of high school physics Olympics competitions at the university of British Columbia. Physics in Canada, 73(3), 127‐129.

Maciel, T. (2015). Smartphones in the classroom help students see inside the black box. APS News, 24(3), 5–6.

Milner‐Bolotin, M. (2001). The effects of the topic choice in project‐based instruction on undergraduate physical science students' interest, ownership, and motivation. [Doctoral Dissertation]. The University of TX at Austin.

Milner‐Bolotin, M. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems and other technologies. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(4), 477–481. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed1008443

Milner‐Bolotin, M. (2018a). Evidence‐based research in STEM teacher education: From theory to practice. Frontiers in Education: STEM Education, 02(November), 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00092

Milner‐Bolotin, M. (2018b). Nurturing creativity in future mathematics teachers through embracing technology and failure. In V. Freiman & J. Tassell (Eds.), Creativity and technology in math education (pp. 251–278). Springer. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319723792

Milner‐Bolotin, M. (2020). Deliberate pedagogical thinking with technology in STEM teacher education. In Y. Ben‐David Kolikant, D. Martinovic, & M. Milner‐Bolotin (Eds.), STEM teachers and teaching in the era of change: Professional expectations and advancement in 21st century schools (pp. 201–219). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐29396‐3

Milner‐Bolotin, M., Aminov, O., Wasserman, W., & Milner, V. (2020). Pushing the boundaries of science demonstrations using modern technology. Canadian Journal of Physics, 98(6), 571–578. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp‐2019‐0423

Milner‐Bolotin, M., Liao, T., & McKenna, J. (2019). UBC Physics Olympics: Forty‐one years of province‐wide physics outreach. International Newsletter on Physics Education: International Commission on Physics Education ‐ International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, 70(November), 5–6. https://us20.campaign‐archive.com/?u=173cff9755457424d7b6da150&id=ca7a3ba119&fbclid=IwAR3bfP9VIgSr97YXfhAi3zOxvSbH_qgjQNO84YNCSGwAb3TNbTXP‐4COa34

Milner‐Bolotin, M., & Milner, V. (2023a). Breaking the vicious circle of secondary science education with twenty‐first‐century technology: Smartphone physics labs. In G. P. Thomas & H. J. Boon (Eds.), Challenges in science education: Global perspectives for the future (pp. 177–199). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐18092‐7_9

Milner‐Bolotin, M., & Milner, V. (2023b). Smartphone applications as a catalyst for active learning in chemistry: Investigating the Ideal Gas Law. In Y. J. Dori, C. Ngai, & G. Szteinberg (Eds.), Digital learning and teaching in chemistry (pp. 266–280). Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved from https://books.rsc.org/books/edited‐volume/2075/Digital‐Learning‐and‐Teaching‐in‐Chemistry

PhET Research Team. (2024). PhET interactive simulations. University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved from https://phet.colorado.edu/

Popper, K. (1996). The Myth of the Framework: In defense of science and rationality. Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

Prior, R. (2021). Review: Phyphox. OAPT newsletter (January). Retrieved from http://newsletter.oapt.ca/files/REVIEW‐Phyphox.html 14 January 2021.

Sfard, A. (2012). Research problems in mathematics education revisited: New clothes ‐ and no emperor. For the Learning of Mathematics, 32(2, July), 2–4.

Staacks, S. (2024). Phyphox ‐ physical phone experiments. https://phyphox.org/

Staacks, S., Hütz, S., Heinke, H., & Stampfer, C. (2018). Advanced tools for smartphone‐based experiments: Phyphox. Physics Education, 53(4), 045009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361‐6552/aac05e

Tembrevilla, G., & Milner‐Bolotin, M. (2019). Engaging physics teacher‐candidates in the production of science demonstration videos. Physics Education, 54(2), 025008–025018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361‐6552/aaf95d

UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy. (2024). UBC Physics Olympics. UBC. Retrieved February 29 from http://physoly.phas.ubc.ca/