- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Long term stability of learning outcomes in undergraduates after an open-inquiry instruction on thermal science

Dominique Persano Adorno, Nicola Pizzolato*, and Claudio Fazio

  • UOP-PERG (University of Palermo-Physics Education Research Group), Dipartimento di Fisica e Chimica, Università di Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy

  • *nicola.pizzolato@unipa.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010108 – Published 7 February, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010108

Abstract

This paper investigates the efficacy of an open-inquiry approach to achieve a long term stability of physics instruction. This study represents the natural continuation of a research project started four years ago when a sample of thirty engineering undergraduates, having already attended traditional university physics instruction, were involved in a six-week long learning experience of open-inquiry research activities within the highly motivating context of developing a thermodynamically efficient space base on Mars. Four years later, we explore the effectiveness of that learning experience by analyzing the outcomes that the students achieved by answering again the same questionnaire that was administered them both prior to and immediately after those activities. As we did in the first work, students’ answers were classified within three epistemological profiles. Now, a comparison among students’ outcomes during the three phases, namely, preinstruction, postinstruction, and after four years has been carried out. Immediately after the open-inquiry experience, the students obtained significant benefits in terms of the strengthening of their practical and reasoning abilities, by proficiently applying the learned concepts to face and solve real-world problem situations. In this study, the students’ answers do not highlight any significant regress towards their preinstruction profiles. The global robustness of the teaching strategy adopted four years ago is confirmed by a statistically significant comparison with a control group of students who experienced the same curricular instruction except for the open inquiry-based workshop. Nevertheless, some changes have been observed and discussed in the light of the answers the students provided to a short interview regarding their studying or working experiences across the four-year temporal window.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (54)

  1. National Research Council (NRC, National Science Education Standards, National Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996).
  2. National Academy of Engineering (NAE, The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2004).
  3. National Academy of Engineering (NAE, Frontiers of Engineering 2011 (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  4. National Research Council (NRC, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  5. National Research Council (NRC, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013).
  6. National Research Council (NRC, Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).
  7. National Research Council (NRC, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
  8. D. Llewellyn, Inquiry Within: Implementing Inquiry-based Science Standards (Corwin Press, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002).
  9. M. Rocard, P. Csermely, D. Jorde, D. Lenzen, H. Walberg-Henriksson, and V. Hemmo, EU Research Report No. EUR 22845 (2007), https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf.
  10. R. A. Streveler, T. A. Litzinger, R. L. Miller, and P. S. Steif, Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering science: overview and future research directions, J. Eng. Educ. 97, 279 (2008).
  11. E. F. Redish and K. A. Smith, Looking beyond content: Skill development for engineers, J. Eng. Educ. 97, 295 (2008).
  12. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2003).
  13. T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020108 (2009).
  14. A. Gupta and A. Elby, Beyond Epistemological Deficits: Dynamic explanations of engineering students’ difficulties with mathematical sense-making, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 2463 (2011).
  15. E. Kuo, M. M. Hull, A. Gupta, and A. Elby, How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems, Sci. Educ. 97, 32 (2013).
  16. P. Laws, A new order for mechanics, in Proceedings Conference on Introductory Physics Course, edited by J. Wilson (Wiley, New York, 1997), pp. 125–136.
  17. P. W. Laws, M. C. Willis, and D. R. Sokoloff, Workshop physics and related curricula: A 25-year history of collaborative learning enhanced by computer tools for observation and analysis, Phys. Teach. 53, 401 (2015).
  18. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, RealTime Physics: Active learning laboratory, in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, edited by E. F. Redish and J. S. Rigden (American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, 1997), pp. 1101–1118.
  19. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
  20. D. R. Sokoloff, P. W. Laws, and R. K. Thornton, Real-Time Physics: Active learning labs transforming the introductory laboratory, Eur. J. Phys. 28, S83 (2007).
  21. J. Bernhard, Insightful learning in the laboratory: Some experiences from ten years of designing and using conceptual labs, Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 35, 271 (2010).
  22. N. Pizzolato, C. Fazio, and O. R. Battaglia, Open inquiry-based learning experiences: A case study in the context of energy exchange by thermal radiation, Eur. J. Phys. 35, 015024 (2014).
  23. N. Pizzolato, C. Fazio, R. M. Sperandeo Mineo, and D. Persano Adorno, Open-inquiry driven overcoming of epistemological difficulties in engineering undergraduates: A case study in the context of thermal science, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010107 (2014).
  24. F. Marton, Describing and improving learning, in Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, edited by R. R. Schmeck (Plenum Press, New York, 1988), p. 53.
  25. F. Marton and S. Booth, Learning and Awareness (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1997).
  26. J. T. E. Richardson, The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research, Rev. Educ. Res. 69, 53 (1999).
  27. C. Fazio, O. R. Battaglia, and B. Di Paola, Investigating the quality of mental models deployed by undergraduate engineering students in creating explanations: The case of thermally activated phenomena, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020101 (2013).
  28. G. E. Francis, J. P. Adams, and E. J. Noonan, Do they stay fixed?, Phys. Teach. 36, 488 (1998).
  29. J. Bernhard, Does active engagement curricula give long-lived conceptual understanding?, Physics Teacher Education Beyond 2000, edited by R. Pinto and S. Surinach (Elsevier, Paris, 2001), pp. 9–752.
  30. M. D. Herron, The nature of scientific enquiry, School Rev. 79, 171 (1971).
  31. R. W. Bybee, An instructional model for science education, Developing Biological Literacy (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs, CO, 1993).
  32. H. Banchi and R. Bell, The Many Levels of Inquiry, Sci. Child. 46, 26 (2008).
  33. C. A. R. Berg, V. C. B. Bergendahl, and B. K. S. Lundberg, Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 351 (2003).
  34. R. A. Krystyniak and H. W. Heikkinen, Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open-inquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 1160 (2007).
  35. M. Zion, M. Slezak, D. Shapira, E. Link, N. Bashan, M. Brumer, T. Orian, R. Nussinowitz, D. Court, B. Agrest, R. Mendelovici, and N. Valanides, Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning, Sci. Educ. 88, 728 (2004).
  36. I. Sadeh and M. Zion, The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 1137 (2009).
  37. N. Trautmann, J. MaKinster, and L. Avery, What makes inquiry so hard? (and why is it worth it), Proceeding at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, (Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004).
  38. C. Quintana, X. Zhang, and J. Krajcik, A framework for supporting meta cognitive aspects of on-line inquiry through software-based scaffolding, Educ. Psychol. 40, 235 (2005).
  39. D. Persano Adorno and N. Pizzolato, An inquiry-based approach to the Franck-Hertz experiment, Il Nuovo Cimento C 38, 109 (2015).
  40. R. S. Schwartz, N. G. Lederman, and B. A. Crawford, Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry, Sci. Educ. 88, 610 (2004).
  41. L. Flick and N. G. Lederman, Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science, in Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, edited by L. Flick and N. G. Lederman (Springer, New York, 2006), Vol. 25, ISBN [Amazon][WorldCat].
  42. C. K. Capps and B. A. Crawford, Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: are they happening?, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 24, 497 (2013).
  43. G. M. Quan and A. Elby, Connecting self-efficacy and views about the nature of science in undergraduate research experiences, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020140 (2016).
  44. B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich, Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2002).
  45. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2003).
  46. P. G. Jasien and G. E. Oberem, Understanding of elementary concepts in heat and temperature among college students and K-12 teachers, J. Chem. Educ. 79, 889 (2002).
  47. R. A. Streveler, B. M. Olds, R. L. Miller, and M. A. Nelson, Using a Delphy study to identify the most difficult concepts for students to master in thermal and transport science, in Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference (American Society for Engineering Education, Washington DC, 2003).
  48. E. F. Redish and K. A. Smith, Looking beyond content: Skill development for engineers, J. Eng. Educ. 97, 295 (2008).
  49. R. L. Miller, R. A. Streveler, D. Yang, and A. I. Santiago-Román, Identifying and repairing student misconceptions in thermal and transport science: Concept Inventories and Schema Training Studies, Chem. Eng. Educ. 45, 203 (2011).
  50. M. Prince, M. Vigeant, and K. Nottis, Development of the Heat and Energy Concept Inventory: Preliminary results on the prevalence and persistence of engineering students’ misconceptions, J. Eng. Educ. 101, 412 (2012).
  51. A. Fernàndez and S. Gòmez, Solving non-uniqueness in agglomerative hierarchical clustering using multidendrograms, J. Classif. 25, 43 (2008).
  52. R. Gras, F. Suzuki, F. Guillet, and F. Spagnolo, Statistical Implicative Analysis: Theory and Applications (Springer, New York, 2008).
  53. A. Markos, G. Menexes, and I. Papadimitriou, in Classification as a Tool for Research: Proceedings of the 11th International Federation of Classification Conference, edited by H. Loracek-Junge and C. Weihs (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010), p. 409.
  54. J. H. F. Meyer and R. Land, Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning, Higher Educ. 49, 373 (2005).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010108– Published 7 February, 2018
  • Received 30 April 2017
  • Revised 9 October 2017
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation