- Open Access
Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010108 – Published 12 June, 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010108
Abstract
Good use of multiple representations is considered key to learning physics, and so there is considerable motivation both to learn how students use multiple representations when solving problems and to learn how best to teach problem solving using multiple representations. In this study of two large-lecture algebra-based physics courses at the University of Colorado (CU) and Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, we address both issues. Students in each of the two courses solved five common electrostatics problems of varying difficulty, and we examine their solutions to clarify the relationship between multiple representation use and performance on problems involving free-body diagrams. We also compare our data across the courses, since the two physics-education-research-based courses take substantially different approaches to teaching the use of multiple representations. The course at Rutgers takes a strongly directed approach, emphasizing specific heuristics and problem-solving strategies. The course at CU takes a weakly directed approach, modeling good problem solving without teaching a specific strategy. We find that, in both courses, students make extensive use of multiple representations, and that this use (when both complete and correct) is associated with significantly increased performance. Some minor differences in representation use exist, and are consistent with the types of instruction given. Most significant are the strong and broad similarities in the results, suggesting that either instructional approach or a combination thereof can be useful for helping students learn to use multiple representations for problem solving and concept development.
Corrections
27 July, 2007
18 June, 2007
Errata
Publisher's Note: Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics [Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010108 (2007)]
Publisher's Note: Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics [Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010108 (2007)]
Article Text
References (33)
- J. H. Larkin, in Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. Stevens (Lawrence Erbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1983).
- F. Reif, Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes, Am. J. Phys. 63, 17 (1995).
- A. Van Heuvelen, Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 59, 891 (1991).
- A. Van Heuvelen and X. Zou, Multiple representations of work-energy processes, Am. J. Phys. 69, 184 (2001).
- R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, and W. J. Leonard, Solving physics problems with multiple representations, Phys. Teach. 35, 270 (1997).
- D. P. Maloney, in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, edited by D. Gabel (MacMillan, New York 1994).
- M. Chi, R. Glaser, and E. Rees, in Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, edited by R. J. Sternberg (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982), Vol. 1.
- R. B. Kozma and J. Russell, Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 949 (1997).
- R. B. Kozma, The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding, Learn. Instr. 13, 205 (2003).
- L. McDermott, in Toward a Scientific Practice of Science Education, edited by M. Gardner, J. Greeno, F. Reif, A. Schoenfeld, A. diSessa, and E. Stage (IOS, Amsterdam 2004).
- D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
- 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).
- L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
- P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping, parts i and ii, Am. J. Phys. 60, 627 (1992).
- D. Rosengrant, E. Etkina, and A. Van Heuvelen, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 2007.
- C. DeLeone and E. Gire, in Proceedings of the 2005 PERC (AIP, Melville, NY, 2006).
- D. Rosengrant, E. Etkina, and A. Van Heuvelen, in Proceedings of the 2006 PERC (AIP, Melville, NY, 2007).
- P. B. Kohl and N. D. Finkelstein, The effects of representation on students solving physics problems: A fine-grained characterization, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010106 (2006).
- J. P. Mestre, T. C. Thaden-Koch, R. J. Dufresne, and W. J. Gerace, in Research on Physics Education, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course CLVI (IOS, Amsterdam, 2004).
- A. Elby, What students’ learning of representations tells us about constructivism, J. Math. Behav. 19, 481 (2000).
- E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. T. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006).
- E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, in Proceedings of the 2001 PERC (AIP, Melville, NY, 2002), p. 17.
- A. Van Heuvelen and E. Etkina, Active Learning Guide (Addison Wesley, San Francisco, 2006).
- E. Etkina and S. Murthy, in Proceedings of the 2005 PERC (AIP, Melville, NY, 2006).
- http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~physedu/tools
- http://www.colorado.edu/physics/EducationIssues/
- http://phet.colorado.edu
- P. B. Kohl and N. D. Finkelstein, The effect of instructional environment on physics students’ representational skills, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010102 (2006).
- D. Sheshkin, Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, 3rd ed. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2004).
We emphasize that this is an evaluation of the representations contained within the problem, not necessarily an evaluation of all the representations used by the students. Students were intended to (and often did) use FBDs and pictures in many of their solutions of Rutgers exam problems that were strictly mathematical in presentation.
We had initially planned to give problem 4 separately, but changed this partway through the study, resulting in some recitation sections not receiving problem 4.
We have found that leaving the data unnormalized tends to prompt the conclusion that the Rutgers students substantially outperformed the CU students, neglecting the previously mentioned problem format difference.
We will not attempt to argue causation here. It could well be that using multiple representations leads to better performance directly. Alternatively, it could be that better students overall are more likely to use multiple representations. Or, most likely (in our opinions), these are both true, and are intertwined.
