How do teachers, after their initial training, approach ramp research activities?

The study is situated within SDG 4 on quality, equitable, and inclusive education and emphasizes teacher training as a decisive factor for achieving educational goals. Despite extensive literature on initial teacher training and recommendations to strengthen practice-focused, transferable training, there are few analyses of actual effects on preservice teachers, particularly in Spain. The authors focus on DES-related competencies in the Primary Teacher Degree, especially competence SC6 (develop and assess curriculum content through appropriate teaching resources), by asking preservice teachers to design a laboratory script on the ramp as a machine. The research question examines which specific science education competencies are evidenced by this task, including curricular adequacy, language and conceptual accuracy, contextualization, problematization, scientific knowledge, and the key ideas addressed.

Theoretical framing adopts a competence-based view of teacher professional development, noting the need to specify the level of competence acquisition at different stages (García et al., 2021). Prior research highlights persistent gaps in disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge and the influence of school experiences and beliefs on preservice teachers (Pro and Nortes, 2016; Cantó et al., 2016). Spanish regulations (BOE, 2007) define six DES competencies for the PTD, four of which are scientific in nature, including SC6 on developing and assessing curriculum content with appropriate resources. Prior studies in Spain explored progression hypotheses and integration of content with inquiry and models (Hamed Al Lal et al., 2016; Jiménez-Liso et al., 2021). Known essential competencies at exit include selecting content, analyzing activities, class management basics, planning sequences, designing materials, and assessment. For devices and machines in PE, innovative, context-connected approaches exist (Blanchard, 2004; Criado and García-Carmona, 2011; Worth, 2022). Control of variables is cognitively demanding and not intuitive at primary levels (Pro, 1998). Students also struggle with force concepts and vector representation (Mora and Herrera, 2009), and systematic protractor use presents difficulties (Fuentes et al., 2020). The study builds on this literature to assess the competence development revealed in preservice teachers’ designed worksheets.

Design: Diagnostic and exploratory research using documentary analysis (Bowen, 2009) of preservice teachers’ productions at the end of a Science Education course. Participants and context: Initially 75 third-year PE Degree students at the University of Murcia (60 women, 15 men); complete data from 50 (40 women, 10 men). Ages: 19–20 (32), 21–30 (13), 31–40 (5). Over 80% attended public schools; just over 30% completed a Science Baccalaureate. Average DES course grades slightly above 6 (Spain’s 0–10 scale). The degree includes three DES subjects (6 ECTS each). A teaching sequence on devices, machines, and apparatus included curriculum presence, fundamental content via concept maps, everyday issues, lab experiments (levers, pulleys, ramp), resource searches, identification of learning difficulties, analysis of primary students’ answers, proposals for activity sequences at two levels, and worksheet design. Instrument: Students designed a Primary-appropriate laboratory worksheet on the ramp as a machine, including: curricular placement, contextualization, definition and construction, identification of elements, research into relations between applied force and weight and between applied force and slope, and a review section (see sub-competencies in Table 4). Two transversal variables were evaluated: text comprehensibility (readability) for PE students and appropriateness of scientific terminology (conceptual errors). Data treatment: Predominantly qualitative analysis with some quantitative indicators. Readability assessed using Fernández-Huerta (FH) revised readability index and Crawford’s schooling years index. Results are reported by worksheet sections (location, contextualization, identification and construction, research, review).

Curricular placement: 45/50 (90%) targeted 3rd cycle (5th–6th grade, 10–12 years); 2/50 (4%) targeted 1st cycle (7–8 years); 3 unspecified. Contextualization: Common use cases—load into vehicles (21; 42%), transport heavy objects (10; 20%), overcome steps/stairs (6; 12%). 36 (72%) used child-like stories with anthropomorphized characters; 3 used historical context (Egyptian pyramids). Social-context stories were rare. 40 (80%) included post-text questions. Readability (Contextualization): FH mean 75.68 (SD 10.19), 40/50 >70; difficulty very easy/easy in 18/50; Crawford: 2 texts <3 (4th), 8 <4 (5th), 13 <4.5 (6th). Conceptual/language issues included: using ramp for lowering (5; 10%); ambiguous or incorrect expressions (e.g., angle phrasing, conflating energy/force, etc.). Definition and construction: Most defined ramp as a machine (40; 80%) and effort-saving (44; 88%); also referenced incline (42; 81%), height (38; 73%), weight (24; 48%), ramp length (12; 24%). All included a drawing; 41 (82%) identified at least one element (often with errors). Representational errors included misdrawn normal, weight, applied force, and confusion between inclination and plane reaction. Materials: 15 (30%) used lab materials; 30 (60%) everyday materials; 5 unclear. Objects: 46 (92%) used a wheeled mobile; 4 (8%) used a ball or object without wheels. Measuring forces: applied force measured in 35 cases (reported as 49%); methods—spring elongation (17/35), by hand with thread/rope sensory (3/35), dynamometer (15/35). Weight measured in 4 (8%); varied weight using added items in 25 (50%). Inclination measured with protractor in 12 (24%); ways to vary slope mentioned in 28 (76%). Readability (Definition/Construction): FH mean 77.44 (SD 7.53), 46/50 >70; difficulty very easy/easy in 18/50; Crawford: 4 <3 (4th), 12 <4 (5th), 28 <4.5 (6th). Terminology and conceptual errors: misuse of mass/load/weight; confusing elements; incorrect fixed angle claims. Research (relations and conclusions): 42 (84%) included relation Fa–P; 48 (96%) included Fa–α; both studied in 42 scripts. All used explanatory drawings; 15 (30%) depicted all possible situations. Data collection: typically two measurements per relation in 70 relations and three in 20; some used qualitative force estimation via string/rope. Tabulation explicitly requested in only 10 scripts (20%). Conclusion questions: 20 scripts (40%) for Fa–P; 16 (32%) for Fa–α. Readability (Research): FH mean 77.00 (SD 8.88), 43/50 >70; difficulty very easy/easy in 19/50; Crawford: 6 <3 (4th), 17 <4 (5th), 12 <4.5 (6th). Errors included timing fall/rise instead of measuring force, confusing length vs. elongation, height vs. inclination, and incorrect dependencies. Review of learning: 31 scripts (62%) used incomplete sentences; 12 (24%) used short open questions; 5 (10%) combined both; 2 omitted the section. Content coverage in reviews: 42 allowed identifying ramp as a machine; 39 effort-saving; 12 rigid solid; all three in 10 scripts. Elements: F mentioned in 29; R (weight) in 24; slope/α in 32; all three in 15. Relations: Fa–P in 42; Fa–α in 40; both in 37. Language and readability overall: FH indices consistently >75 on average across sections; >80% exceeded 70 threshold in each. Crawford indices varied, with no scripts suitable for first cycle and mixed suitability for third cycle. Statistical tests: no significant differences among sections (t-test); significant correlations among section readability scores (Pearson r=0.44, 0.55, 0.53; p=0.01).

Participants predominantly targeted upper primary, which may reflect perceived appropriateness of content, confidence, or discomfort with lower cycles; the selection influences language and scope. Contextualization was widely adopted—a positive sign—yet often via infantilized stories that may not fit 5th–6th graders; historically and socially meaningful contexts appear more suitable. Construction instructions and illustrations were generally clear, but identification and correct representation of physical magnitudes (applied force, weight, normal, slope) proved challenging and sometimes inappropriate for primary learners. While materials and object choices were largely appropriate, authors caution that the ramp is the machine under study, not the wheeled vehicle. For research tasks, most scripts envisioned studying Fa–P and Fa–α, but controlling variables is cognitively demanding at primary level; qualitative relationships (more weight or steeper slope implies more required force) are more appropriate than quantitative treatments. Measurement methods (dynamometer, spring elongation) were suitable for third cycle; sensory approximations are acceptable for qualitative studies. Tabulation and guided questions to support comparisons and conclusions were underused despite being feasible and beneficial for inquiry. Readability was largely appropriate, with consistent ease across sections, highlighting the importance of communication competence in DES. A key concern is the persistence of terminological confusions and conceptual errors (e.g., treating descending ramps as machines, misconceptions about work and effort, inappropriate vector and trigonometric content for age), which can undermine learning. The findings indicate progress in some professional competencies (contextualization, activity structuring) but reveal enduring scientific and didactic shortcomings that need targeted attention in initial teacher education.

The task of designing a ramp laboratory worksheet revealed that preservice primary teachers have developed certain competencies—especially contextualizing activities and describing construction and procedures—but they also exhibit substantial weaknesses in scientific language use, representation of forces, and conceptual understanding. Most favored upper primary levels, potentially narrowing their pedagogical range. The widespread adoption of contextualization is encouraging, though the style should be age-appropriate and could be enriched through historical and social relevance. Over-quantification and expectations for variable control exceed what is feasible for primary pupils; qualitative reasoning about variable relationships should be emphasized. Inquiry elements such as tabulation, value comparison, and conclusion drawing were underused and merit reinforcement. While overall readability was adequate, excessive infantilization in some sections and numerous terminological and conceptual errors are concerning. The study underscores the need to strengthen scientific accuracy while cultivating professional teaching competencies, without simply repeating prior disciplinary instruction. Future efforts in DES within PE degrees should explicitly target scientific language precision, age-appropriate modeling and representation, qualitative inquiry practices, and broader grade-level adaptation.

The study uses a single task and documentary analysis, which cannot capture or measure all science education competencies (especially SC4–SC6) and limits generalizability. Only 50 of 75 participants’ data were analyzed. Readability thresholds may need updating to current reading initiation ages. Reasons for grade-level choices were not collected. Some reported percentages appear inconsistent with counts (e.g., applied force measurement), reflecting possible reporting or formatting issues. Influence of prior coursework versus task framing on outcomes cannot be disentangled.