- 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 3.0 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

Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. II. Procedures for measurement and analysis

Charles Henderson*

Edit Yerushalmi*

Vince H. Kuo†, Kenneth Heller, and Patricia Heller

  • Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008, USA

  • Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, 76100

  • University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA

  • *Previously at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
  • †Present address: Department of Physics: Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, 80401, USA.
PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020110 – Published 12 December, 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020110

Abstract

To identify and describe the basis upon which instructors make curricular and pedagogical decisions, we have developed an artifact-based interview and an analysis technique based on multilayered concept maps. The policy capturing technique used in the interview asks instructors to make judgments about concrete instructional artifacts similar to those they likely encounter in their teaching environment. The analysis procedure alternatively employs both an a priori systems view analysis and an emergent categorization to construct a multilayered concept map, which is a hierarchically arranged set of concept maps where child maps include more details than parent maps. Although our goal was to develop a model of physics faculty beliefs about the teaching and learning of problem solving in the context of an introductory calculus-based physics course, the techniques described here are applicable to a variety of situations in which instructors make decisions that influence teaching and learning.

View figure in article

See Also

Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. I. Mapping the common core

E. Yerushalmi, C. Henderson, K. Heller, P. Heller, and V. Kuo
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020109 (2007)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (52)

  1. E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2003).
  2. A. G. Thompson, in Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, edited by D. A. Grouws (MacMillan, New York, 1992), pp. 127–146.
  3. M. Prosser and K. Trigwell, Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education (St. Edmundsbury Press, Great Britain, 1999).
  4. D. Kember and K. P. Kwan, in Teacher Thinking, Beliefs and Knowledge in Higher Education, edited by N. Hative and P. Goodyear (Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002), p. 219.
  5. K. Samuelowicz and J. D. Bain, Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers, Res. Higher Educ.24, 93 (1992).
  6. J. G. Donald, Professors' and students' conceptualizations of the learning task in introductory physics courses, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 905 (1993).
  7. C. Henderson and M. Dancy, in Proceedings (peer reviewed) of the 2004 AAPT Physics Education Research Conference, edited by S. Franklin, J. Marx, and P. Heron (American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 2005).
  8. E. Yerushalmi, C. Henderson, K. Heller, P. Heller, and V. Kuo, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020109 (2007).
  9. L. Anschuetz and S. Rosenbaum, in Proceedings of 2003 Conference for Human-Computer Interaction (Association for Computing Machinery, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 2003).
  10. J. Simonsen and F. Kensing, Commun. ACM 40, 82 (1997).
  11. D. Gilmore, Business: Understanding and overcoming resistance to enthographic design research, Interactions 9, 29 (2002).
  12. M. E. Raven and A. Flanders, Using contextual inquiry to learn about your audiences, SIGDOC Asterisk J. Comput. Doc. 20, 1 (1996).
  13. L. E. Wood, Semi-structured interviewing for user-centered design, Interactions 4, 48 (1997).
  14. M. Ozer, A survey of new product evaluation models – Concepts. Methods and Strategy, Prod. Invent. Manage. J. 16, 77 (1999).
  15. H. Beyer and K. Holtzblatt, Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1998).
  16. S. Wilcox and W. Reese, Medical Device Diagnostic Ind.http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/01/09.html 68 (2001).
  17. J. Piaget, The Child’s Conception of the World (Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1929).
  18. J. Piaget, The Child’s Conception of Movement and Speed (Routledge, London, 1970).
  19. R. Driver and J. Easley, Stud. Sci. Educ. 5, 61 (1978).
  20. R. Driver, E. Guense, and A. Tiberghien, Children’s Ideas in Science (Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, 1985).
  21. F. Reif, Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes, Am. J. Phys. 63, 17 (1995).
  22. D. Maloney, in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, edited by D. Gabel (MacMillan, New York, 1994).
  23. J. P. Mestre, R. J. Dufrense, W. J. Gerace et al., Promoting skilled problem-solving behavior among beginning physics students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 303 (1993).
  24. A. Van Heuvelen, Overview, Case Study Physics, Am. J. Phys. 59, 898 (1991).
  25. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative group. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992).
  26. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 60, 627 (1992).
  27. R. J. Shavelson and P. Stern, Research on Teachers' Pedagogical Thoughts, Judgments, Decisions, and Behavior, Rev. Educ. Res. 51, 455 (1981).
  28. H. L. Swanson, J. E. O’Connor, and J. B. Cooney, An Information Processing Analysis of Expert and Novice Teachers' Problem Solving, Am. Educ. Res. J. 27, 533 (1990).
  29. K. S. Cushing, D. S. Sabers, and D. C. Berliner, Olympic Gold: Investigations of Expertise in Teaching, Educ. Horiz. 70, 108 (1992).
  30. C. LeMaistre, What is an expert instructional designer? Evidence of expert performance during formative evaluationEduc. Technol. Res. Dev. 46, 21 (1998).
  31. Farnham-Diggory, Paradigms of Knowledge and Instruction, Rev. Educ. Res. 64, 463 (1994).
  32. R. Zajchowski and J. Martin, Differences in the problem solving of stronger and weaker novices in physics: Knowledge, strategies, or knowledge structure?, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 459 (1993).
  33. A. Van Heuvelen, Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 59, 891 (1991).
  34. C. Henderson, E. Yerushalmi, V. Kuo et al., Grading Student Problem Solutions: The Challenge of Sending a Consistent Message, Am. J. Phys. 72, 164 (2004).
  35. R. J. Menges and W. C. Rando, What are your assumptions? Improving instruction by examining theories. College Teaching 37, 54 (1989).
  36. C. Argyris and D. A. Schon, Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1974).
  37. M. T. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices, Cogn. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
  38. J. W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998).
  39. S. B. Merriam, Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1998).
  40. C. Moustakas, Phenomenological Research Methods (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994).
  41. A. L. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1990).
  42. A. L. Strauss, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).
  43. M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994).
  44. J. D. Novak and D. B. Gowin, Learning How to Learn (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1984).
  45. R. H. Hycner, Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data, Hum. Stud. 8, 279 (1985).
  46. Y. S. Lincoln and E. G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1985).
  47. L. McDermott, Guest Comment: How we teach and how students learn—A mismatch?, Am. J. Phys. 61, 295 (1993).
  48. C. Henderson, K. Heller, P. Heller, V. Kuo, and E. Yerushalmi, in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by S. Franklin, K. Cummings, and J. Marx (PERC Publishing, Loudonville, NY, 2001), pp. 79–82.
  49. C. Henderson, K. Heller, P. Heller, V. Kuo, and E. Yerushalmi, in Proceedings of the 2002 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by S. Franklin, K. Cummings, and J. Marx (PERC Publishing, Loudonville, NY, 2002), pp. 31–34.
  50. V. Kuo, K. Heller, P. Heller, C. Henderson, and E. Yerushalmi, in J. MarxProceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by S. Franklin, K. Cummings, and (PERC Publishing, Loudonville, NY, 2001), pp. 87–90.
  51. V. Kuo, K. Heller, P. Heller, C. Henderson, and E. Yerushalmi, in Proceedings of the 2002 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by S. Franklin, K. Cummings, and J. Marx (PERC Publishing, Loudonville, NY, 2002), pp. 35–38.
  52. P. Heller, K. Heller, C. Henderson, V. Kuo, and E. Yerushalmi, in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by S. Franklin, K. Cummings, and J. Marx (PERC Publishing, Loudonville, NY, 2001), pp. 71–74.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020110– Published 12 December, 2007
  • Received 28 October 2005
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation