Oriented Research (OR)

For Gil (1983) Oriented Research (OR) is a response to the search for a new paradigm of science education, which is consistent with the scientific method -where students relate, differentiate and incorporate existing concepts into an inclusive dialogue, which they are then able to build. The OR is a methodology with a constructivist approach characterized by considering students' ideas, not as part of the explanation of the phenomenon but as sources of imbalance in their system of ideas.

In Europe, Abril, Ariza, Quesada and García (2014) identified or as "Inquiry Based Learning" (IBL), a suitable methodology to improve natural sciences and mathematics teaching, as it encourages students to find their own explanations, improve their understandings of natural phenomena and content, as well as develop skills such as inquiry, hypothesis formulation and verification or refutation of such hypothesis.

Some key aspects that must be considered in designing experiences that encourage students to research and to put aside the idea that such research is an activity solely for scientific scholars are highlighted by the sequence shown in figure 1. The process involves the organization of activities, which should initially create opportunities for inquiry and formulation of problems related to students' interests, they then investigate with the use of prior information about the problem or situation of interest and promote a reworking of the initial knowledge from hypothesis or possible explanations. In conclusion, students should establish the relationship between the previous information and the new information that has built to be applied in other situations, and share their findings or conclusions with others.

Figure 1: Keys to design experiences with the OR framework.

Method

The developed methodology was of the qualitative kind and interpretive manner. For data analysis, OR methodology was used -under which an approximation of how students construct explanations and give responses to situations of their interest is performed, establishing a relationship between the OR methodology phases (Vega, 2011) and the students' responses. This methodology makes it possible to identify modeling, to interpret the relationships that exist between new information and previous information within the context of comics (García & Criado, 2007).

Activities with students were developed in two main phases. The first consisted of a diagnosis to define everyday situations for students with the polarization of light. In the second phase, construction of the action plan was developed in four stages (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Stages of innovation work plan.

Q1: What do you think will happen next in the story? What sort of questions or situations does the story presented generate in you?

In summary, the first question served as an indicator of interests and expectations students might have, and allowed the researcher to know the different ideas that students brought up after they relate them to a context. At first, students attempt to relate their individual socio-cultural aspects with the comic and that is why most of the questions contain such factor. Therefore, concerns associated with a physical phenomenon pass to a second order. Only in two opportunities, situations related to the polarization of light were explained.

The other aspect displayed reflects students' intention to continue using cartoon images designed by themselves or simple two or three-line wordings within the sequence. Figures 3 and 4 are two samples of the comics produced by students that used the original drawings, however the story continuity it is not clear from the students' perspective. These constructions are based on the students' common sense and there are dialogues and explanations as a reference. Figure 4 indicates the lack of knowledge about the main topic addressed by the comics and it is therefore very difficult to think of a possible continuation.

Figure 3: Story continuity as per G2: Sample of aftermath results based on Comic 2, Cinema 3D, Annex 2. (Text: Girl on the right: "Why I can't see the movie on 3D?". Girl on the left: "Because you had the eye patch and wore the glasses over".)

Figure 4: Story continuity as per G6: Sample of aftermath results based on Comic 2, Cinema 3D, Annex 2. (Text: "The girl in the 2D room can see and enjoy the movie, then she asks herself why the 3D glasses did not allowed her clearly watch the movie.")

Q2: After defining the questions and situations, discuss with the teacher and register the agreements reached.

The groups receiving OD comic agree to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the visibility from inside the limo and not from outside. On the other hand, G1, G4 and G9 focused their attention on the role of the filter. G9 is intended to determine what physical characteristics the filter has that influence the polarization effects; G4 investigates the nature of filter materials and then shares that information with others.

Finally, in table 1, G1 ascertains the physical phenomenon involved in the filter operation, which differs from the G9 question as it relates to the environment.

G2, G6 and G8 expressed their concerns about the influence of the human eye's perception of the 3D image: G2 is interested in the difference between conventional lenses and those used for viewing a 3D movie. For G6 it is crucial to know how vision is limited to a single eye to the point of preventing the movie from being displayed in 3D; and finally, G8 wants to validate the aforementioned in the comic.

Q3: What do you understand based on the agreement with the teacher?

This question provides recognition of the students' knowledge regarding understandings of the problem and facilitates some more complex processes. The first is the graphical representation of light, which varies among students, as some of them employed solid lines, dotted lines and rays, and all had the same intention: to represent the light that was interacting in the situation. It was necessary to have a reading with each individual group about the guiding questions that were prepared to conduct the development of each question. This was followed by a continuous inquiry for the researcher to clarify the students' positions. For each of the students' statements, questions were formulated to enrich their investigative process.

About the use of examples and real-life experiences, which were developed by the students, the overall experience was positive as it broadened the discussion of the subject matter and enriched groups' constructions with new questions and conjectures. It was evident how students turned to everyday life situations to relate them to issues spoken about in class.

Q4: Which could be the answers or solutions to the situation you proposed?

The responses to this question were very brief and superficial. As García A. mentioned, intuitive knowledge prevails in the students over scientific knowledge and it is for this reason that their hypotheses and conjectures are based on their personal experiences. They pretend to test their ideas (Furió, Azcona & Guisasola, 2006) to reaffirm what they understand about the problem. Also, some groups consider it to be necessary to consult theories from textbooks or the Internet to clarify their own theories to avoid falling into errors when being heard.

Q5: What procedures, processes or methodologies would you develop to give a solution to the agreed situation?

The students recognize that solution procedures should be grounded in a research that allows them to have knowledge of the subject and then address other aspects such as design models or prototypes. Within some groups the lack of clarity on process development is evident, however, there is also an acceptance that they ignore many physical factors surrounding the situation presented by the comic. Some clear proposals raise the question of how to display their answers, whether through speech, videos or demonstrations.

Q6: How do you plan to release your results and conclusions?

Most groups considered it appropriate to develop explanatory presentations using audio-visual aids, while some students preferred to show models or prototypes built by themselves to facilitate their peers' comprehension (see figure 5). Another communication strategy is based on video editing or graphic material, accompanied by an explanation. It should be noted that not all student's plans were executed in their entirety, due to factors like inconveniences in materials, costs and physical spaces within the institution.

Figure 5: Handmade carton-board model of the Limousine, Cartoon 3, Annex 3.

Q7: Solution or Answer

All groups built up a solution to their problem through various strategies and theories of the nature of light. Using group's capabilities, they validated and rethought their hypotheses and ranked their ideas by replacing intuitive concepts for more scientific approaches.

That is how students achieved their objective as they applied their own research methods to answer a situation proposed by themselves. As far as opportunities for discussion and feedback were generated, explanations were evidently satisfactory to validate the ideas exposed by the groups.