Advertisement

IMPACT OF A REPRESENTATIONAL APPROACH ON STUDENTS’ REASONING AND CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING IN LEARNING MECHANICS

  • SutopoEmail author
  • Bruce Waldrip
Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore whether a representational approach could impact on the scores that measure students’ understanding of mechanics and their ability to reason. The sample consisted of 24 students who were undergraduate, preservice physics teachers in the State University of Malang, Indonesia. The students were asked to represent a claim, provide evidence for it, and then, after further representational manipulations, refinement, discussion, and critical thought, to reflect on and confirm or modify their original case. Data analysis was based on the pretest–posttest scores and students’ responses to relevant phenomena during the course. The results showed that students’ reasoning ability significantly improved with a d-effect size of 2.58 for the technical aspects and 2.51 for the conceptual validity aspects, with the average normalized gain being 0.62 (upper–medium) for the two aspects. Students’ conceptual understanding of mechanics significantly improved with a d-effect size of about 2.50 and an average normalized gain of 0.63. Students’ competence in mechanics shifted significantly from an under competent level to mastery level. This paper addresses statistically previously untested issues in learning mechanics through a representational approach and does this in a culture that is quite different from what has been researched so far using student-generated representational learning as a reasoning tool for understanding and reasoning.

KEY WORDS

reasoning ability representational approach understanding of mechanics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. 191–208). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V. & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alozie, N., Moje, E. & Krajcik, J. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94(3), 395–427.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, N., Furtak, E., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3), 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carolan, J., Prain, V. & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representation for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science, 54(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
  6. Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E. & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(2), 1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creagh, C. (2008). Diagrams: Useful tools for investigating a student’s understanding of buoyancy. Teaching Science, 54(4), 48–50. DEECD, (2011).Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolan, E. & Grady, J. (2010). Recognizing students’ scientific reasoning: A tool for categorizing complexity of reasoning during teaching by inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F. & Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76, 615–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrlén, K. (2009). Drawings as representations of children’s conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 41–57.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Everitt, B. S. & Skrondal, A. (2010). The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics (4th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ford, M. & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining literacy learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J. & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glynn, S. & Duit, R. (1995). Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Greeno, J. G. & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappa, 78(5), 361–368.Google Scholar
  21. Hake, R. (1987). Promoting student crossover to the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 55(10), 878–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halliday, D., Resnick, R. & Walker, J. (2011). Fundamentals of Physics (9th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Hestenes, D. & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Schwackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hubber, P., Tytler, R. & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran, and M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 3–28). Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Kohl, P. B., Rosengrant, D. & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physics Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3, 010108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kozma, R. & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 121–146). London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malone, K. L. (2008). Correlations among knowledge structures, force concept inventory, and problem-solving behaviors. Physics Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 4, 020107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McDermott, L. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, July, 24–32.Google Scholar
  32. McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L. & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. R. Luft, L. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting (pp. 121–133). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W. & Barrett, K. C. (2004). SPSS for Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Mullis, I., Martin, M., Ruddock, G., O’Sullivan, C., & Preuschoff, C. (2011). TIMSS 2011 Assessment Frameworks. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston CollegeGoogle Scholar
  37. National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington D.C: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  38. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prain, V., Tytler, R. & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: The potential role of teacher communities: A response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenblatt, R. & Heckler, A. F. (2011). Systematic study of student understanding of the relationships between the directions of force, velocity, and acceleration in one dimension. Physical Review Special Topic - Physics Education Research, 7, 020112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosengrant, D., Heuvelen, A. V. & Etkina, E. (2009). Do student use and understand free-body diagrams? Physics Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5, 010108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Serway, R. A. & Jewett, J. W., Jr. (2010). Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  44. Sokoloff, D. R. & Thornton, R. K. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sutopo, Liliasari, Waldrip, B., & Rusdiana, D. (2011, November 12). The need of representational approach to provide prospective physics teacher with better reasoning ability and conceptual understanding. Paper presented at 5th International Seminar of Science Education, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Trowbridge, D. E. & McDermott, L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1020–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trowbridge, D. E. & McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 49(3), 242–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tytler, R., Haslam, F., Hubber, P. & Prain, V. (2009). An explicit representational focus for teaching and learning about animals in the environment. Teaching Science, 55(4), 21–27.Google Scholar
  50. Visniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A. & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waldrip, B. & Prain, V. (2006). Changing representations to learn primary science concepts. Teaching Science, 54(4), 17–21.Google Scholar
  52. Waldrip, B., Prain, V. & Sellings, P. (2013). Explaining Newton’s laws of motion: Using student reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9223-8.Google Scholar
  53. Waldrip, B., Prain, V. & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  55. Young, H. D., Freedman, R. A. & Ford, A. L. (2008). Sears and Zemansky’s University Physics with Modern Physics (12th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Physics DepartmentState University of MalangMalangIndonesia
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityChurchillAustralia

Personalised recommendations