Using skateboarding to develop a culturally relevant tutorial on static equilibrium

Culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), initially developed by Ladson-Billings, is an instructional framework for supporting diverse learners by drawing on their cultural backgrounds and experiences. In line with the CRP framework, we developed a tutorial on static equilibrium using skateboarding, a popular activity on university campuses, as a culturally relevant context. To help students refine their conceptions about static equilibrium documented in the physics education research (PER) literature, we used the elicit-confront-resolve (ECR) strategy to develop the tutorial. In this paper, we provide a detailed account of how we operationalized the ECR strategy in designing the sequences of questions in the tutorial. Additionally, we present anecdotal evidence to show that this research-based culturally relevant tutorial appears to effectively engage students and motivate their interest in learning physics.

💡 Research Summary

This paper reports the design, implementation, and preliminary evaluation of a culturally relevant tutorial on static equilibrium that uses skateboarding—a popular activity on many university campuses—as the contextual hook. Drawing on Ladson‑Billings’ framework of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), the authors argue that linking physics concepts to students’ everyday cultural practices can increase motivation and improve conceptual understanding. To refine students’ known misconceptions about static equilibrium documented in the physics education research (PER) literature, the tutorial is built around the elicit‑confront‑resolve (ECR) instructional strategy, a well‑established guided‑inquiry approach.

The tutorial is organized into three sequential sections. Section I adapts the classic two‑piece bar problem from Ortiz et al. (2005) to elicit students’ initial ideas about weight comparison and center‑of‑mass (CoM) location. The two questions are deliberately designed to surface common incorrect notions such as “a tilted object must have unbalanced forces or torques” and “the CoM divides an object into two equal‑mass halves.” Sections II and III shift the context to a skateboarding maneuver called the “manual,” where the rider balances on the rear wheels only. In Section II, the first elicit question asks whether the front foot or the rear foot exerts the greater force on the board—an analog of the weight‑comparison question. Students then progress through a confront phase that requires (a) determining the net force, (b) drawing an extended free‑body diagram with lever arms for each foot, and (c) calculating the net torque. To make the cognitive conflict explicit, a fictitious dialogue among three imagined students is presented: Student 1 claims equal forces because net torque is zero; Student 2 correctly reasons about differing lever arms and concludes the rear foot force is larger; Student 3 incorrectly attributes the larger rear‑foot force to its lower position and dismisses lever‑arm effects. By critiquing the flawed statements of Students 1 and 3, learners are guided to recognize that equal forces cannot produce zero net torque when lever arms differ. The resolve phase asks students to revisit the original bar problem, now equipped with a free‑body diagram that includes both forces and lever arms, and to explain how the diagram resolves the earlier inconsistency.

Section III mirrors the structure of Section II but focuses on the CoM of the combined skater‑board system. The elicit question asks where the CoM lies; many students initially answer that it is shifted toward the rear foot because that foot supplies the larger force. In the confront stage, students draw a free‑body diagram for the whole system and evaluate a sample diagram that incorrectly places the CoM directly over the rear foot. By analyzing torques about the pivot, they discover that a CoM positioned away from the pivot would generate a non‑zero net torque, contradicting static equilibrium. The resolve step then requires students to state that the CoM must be directly over the pivot for the torque to vanish, and to apply this insight back to the two‑piece bar problem.

The tutorial was administered in a calculus‑based introductory mechanics course delivered in a studio format (integrated lecture, tutorial, and lab). Students worked in small groups with facilitation from the instructor, a graduate teaching assistant, and an undergraduate learning assistant. Qualitative observations indicated high levels of engagement: students frequently referenced personal skateboarding experiences, one student even brought a skateboard to the classroom to demonstrate the manual, and peer‑to‑peer explanations were rich with everyday analogies. The authors interpret these observations as evidence that the culturally relevant context successfully motivated learners and helped them connect abstract physics ideas to concrete, embodied experiences.

In the conclusion, the authors highlight three contributions: (1) a concrete example of applying CRP in undergraduate physics, (2) a systematic mapping of the ECR cycle onto tutorial question sequences, and (3) the demonstration that a culturally resonant activity such as skateboarding can serve as an effective bridge between students’ lived experiences and formal physics concepts. They acknowledge that the current evidence is anecdotal and call for future work that includes systematic surveys of student motivation, pre‑ and post‑tests on static‑equilibrium concepts, and statistical analysis of learning gains. Such follow‑up studies would validate the tutorial’s efficacy and inform broader adoption of culturally relevant, inquiry‑based designs in physics education.