- 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

Correlations among knowledge structures, force concept inventory, and problem-solving behaviors

Kathy L. Malone

  • Shady Side Academy, 423 Fox Chapel Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020107 – Published 20 November, 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.020107

Abstract

The modeling instruction pedagogy for the teaching of physics has been proven to be quite effective at increasing the conceptual understanding and problem-solving abilities of students to a much greater extent than that of nonmodeling students. Little research has been conducted concerning the cognitive and metacognitive skills that modeling students develop that allow for these increases. Two studies were designed to answer the following question: In what ways do the knowledge structures, metacognitive skills, and problem-solving abilities differ between modeling and nonmodeling students? In study 1, the knowledge structures developed by two groups of high school physics students taught using differing pedagogies (modeling instruction in physics and traditional methods) were determined using a card-sort task. The student’s knowledge structures were then correlated with the scores they obtained on two measures: the force concept inventory (FCI) and a problem-solving task (PS task) developed for this study. The modeling students had a more expertlike knowledge structure, while the nonmodeling students produced structures that were novicelike. In addition, the expert score correlated highly with performance on both the FCI and PS task scores demonstrating that a higher expert score predicted a higher value on each of these measures while a higher surface feature score predicted a lower score on both of these measures. In study 2, a verbal protocol design allowed for a detailed study of the problem-solving and metacognitive skills utilized by the two groups. It was determined that the skills utilized by the modeling instruction students were more expertlike. In addition, the modeling students produced significantly fewer physics errors while catching and repairing a greater percentage of their errors.

View figure in article

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (30)

  1. M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhamer, A modeling method for high school physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 63, 606 (1995).
  2. 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).
  3. D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A mechanics baseline test, Phys. Teach. 30, 159 (1992).
  4. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  5. J. Vesenka, P. Beach, G. Munoz, F. Judd, and R. Key, A comparison between traditional and “modeling” approaches to undergraduate physics instruction at two universities with implications for improving physics teacher preparation, Phys. Teach. Educ. Online 1, 3 (2002) http://www.phy.ilustu.edu/jpteo/issues/jpteo1(1)june02.pdf
  6. M. T. H. Chi, P. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cogn. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
  7. M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, and E. Rees, in Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, edited by R. J. Sternberg (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982), Vol. 1.
  8. D. H. Hinsley, J. R. Hayes, and H. A. Simon, in Cognitive Process in Comprehension, edited by M. Just and P. Carpenter (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1977).
  9. P. T. Hardiman, R. Durfresne, and J. P. Mestre, The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among novices and experts, Mem. Cognit. 17, 627 (1989).
  10. J. Mestre, R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, P. T. Hardiman, and J. S. Touger, Promoting skilled problem solving behavior among beginning physics students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 303 (1993).
  11. R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, P. T. Hardiman, and J. P. Mestre, Constraining novices to perform expertlike problem analyses: Effects on schema acquisition, J. Learn. Sci. 2, 307 (1992).
  12. A. Schoenfeld, Mathematical Problem Solving (Academic, Orlando, FL, 1985).
  13. Z. Mevarech and B. Kramarski, IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms, Am. Educ. Res. J. 34, 365 (1997).
  14. E. Brewe, Inclusion of the energy thread in the introductory physics curriculum: An example of long-term conceptual and thematic coherence, Ph.D. thesis, Arizona State University, 2002.
  15. R. L. Keith, Correlation between the consistent use of a general problem solving strategy and the organization of physics knowledge, Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, 1993.
  16. E. A. Silver, Recall of mathematical problem information: Solving related problems, J. Res. Math. Educ. 12, 54 (1981).
  17. J. Schinka, I. Weiner, and W. Velicer, Handbook of Psychology, Research Methods in Psychology (Wiley, New Jersey, 2003), Vol. 2.
  18. R. Throndike, Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1997).
  19. A. Hirai, The relationship between listening and reading rates of Japanese EFL learners, Mod. Lang. J. 83, 367 (1999).
  20. Relative difference was calculated by subtracting the lowest result from the highest result dividing by the average of the two results and then multiplying by 100.
  21. Normalized gain ⟨g⟩=(%post−%pre)/(100−%pre).
  22. J. L. Snyder, An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, intermediates and novices in physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 979 (2000).
  23. A. Dhillon, Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in Physics, Sci. Educ. 82, 379 (1998).
  24. M. Hegarty, R. E. Mayer, and C. A. Monk, Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers, J. Educ. Psychol. 87, 18 (1995).
  25. J. H. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, and H. A. Simon, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science 208, 1335 (1980b).
  26. A. B. Lewis, Training students to represent arithmetic word problems, J. Educ. Psychol. 81, 521 (1989).
  27. J. Larkin and F. Reif, Understanding and teaching problem-solving in Physics, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 191 (1979).
  28. D. P. Simon and H. A. Simon, in Children’s Thinking: What Develops?, edited by R. Siegler (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978).
  29. W. Schmidt, C. McKnight, and S. Raizen, A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education (Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997).
  30. J. H. Larkin and H. A. Simon, Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words, Cogn. Sci. 11, 65 (1987).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020107– Published 20 November, 2008
  • Received 6 July 2007
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