- 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

Investigating the quality of mental models deployed by undergraduate engineering students in creating explanations: The case of thermally activated phenomena

Claudio Fazio1,*, Onofrio Rosario Battaglia1, and Benedetto Di Paola2

  • 1UOP-PERG (University of Palermo–Physics Education Research Group), Dipartimento di Fisica e Chimica, Università di Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy
  • 2GRIM (Mathematics Education Research Group), Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy

  • *claudio.fazio@unipa.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020101 – Published 1 July, 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020101

Abstract

This paper describes a method aimed at pointing out the quality of the mental models undergraduate engineering students deploy when asked to create explanations for phenomena or processes and/or use a given model in the same context. Student responses to a specially designed written questionnaire are quantitatively analyzed using researcher-generated categories of reasoning, based on the physics education research literature on student understanding of the relevant physics content. The use of statistical implicative analysis tools allows us to successfully identify clusters of students with respect to the similarity to the reasoning categories, defined as “practical or everyday,” “descriptive,” or “explicative.” Through the use of similarity and implication indexes our method also enables us to study the consistency in students’ deployment of mental models. A qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with students after they had completed the questionnaire is used to clarify some aspects which emerged from the quantitative analysis and validate the results obtained. Some implications of this joint use of quantitative and qualitative analysis for the design of a learning environment focused on the understanding of some aspects of the world at the level of causation and mechanisms of functioning are discussed.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (86)

  1. National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  2. M. Rocard, P. Csermely, D. Jorde, D. Lenzen, H. Walberg-Henriksson, and V. Hemmo, Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe, edited by European Commission (Directorate-General for Research Science, Economy & Society, Brussels, 2007), p. 17, http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.lso-observatory-documents-background-documents.9003.
  3. R. Duit, On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science, Sci. Educ. 75, 649 (1991).
  4. N. J. Nersessian, Should physicists preach what they practice? Constructive modeling in doing and learning physics, Sci. Educ. 4, 203 (1995).
  5. J. Clement, Model based learning as a key research area for science education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 1041 (2000).
  6. J. K. Gilbert and C. J. Boulter, Developing Models in Science Education (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dotrecht, The Netherlands, 2000).
  7. I. M. Greca and M. A. Moreira, Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 1 (2000).
  8. I. M. Greca and M. A. Moreira, Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics, Sci. Educ. 86, 106 (2002).
  9. R. K. Coll, B. France, and I. Taylor, The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 183 (2005).
  10. D. Hestenes, Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55, 440 (1987).
  11. M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhammer, A modeling method for high school physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 63, 606 (1995).
  12. D. Hestenes, Modeling games in the Newtonian world, Am. J. Phys. 60, 732 (1992).
  13. I. A. Halloun, Modeling Theory in Science Education (Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004).
  14. M. Niss, Issues and problems of research on the teaching and learning of applications and modeling, Modeling and Mathematics Education: ICTMA 9—Applications in Science and Technology, edited by J. F. Matos, W. Blum, S. K. Houston, and P. Carreira (Horwood Publishing, Chichester, England, 2001), p. 72.
  15. P. N. Johnson-Laird, Mental Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1983).
  16. http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html, 2013.
  17. R. Gras, F. Suzuki, F. Guillet, and F. Spagnolo, Statistical Implicative Analysis: Theory and Applications (Springer, New York, 2008).
  18. F. Marton, Describing and improving learning, in Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, edited by R. R. Schmeck (Plenum Press, New York, 1988), p. 53.
  19. F. Marton and S. Booth, Learning and Awareness (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 1997).
  20. I. Halloun, Mediated modeling in science education, Sci. Educ. 16, 653 (2007).
  21. J. K. Gilbert, C. Boulter, and M. Rutherford, Models in explanations: Part 1, Horses for courses?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 83 (1998).
  22. W. C. Salmon, Four Decades of Scientific Explanation (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1990).
  23. K. A. Ericsson and H. A. Simon, How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking, Mind Cult. Act. 5, 178 (1998).
  24. D. Hestenes, Notes for a modeling theory of science, cognition and instruction, in Modelling in Physics and Physics Education, edited by E. van den Berg, T. Ellermeijer, and O. Slooten (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006), p. 34.
  25. R. Duit and S. Glynn, Mental Modelling, in Research in Science Education in Europe, edited by G. Welford, J. Osborne, and P. Scott (Falmer, London, England, 1996), p. 166.
  26. U. Besson, Calculating and understanding: Formal models and causal explanations in science, common reasoning and physics teaching, Sci. Educ. 19, 225 (2010).
  27. D. Psillos, Adapting instruction to students’ reasoning, in European Research in Science Education, Proceedings of the 2nd Ph.D. Summer School, edited by D. Psillos (Art of Text S.A., Thessaloniki, Greece, 1995), p. 57.
  28. C. C. Silva, The role of models and analogies in the electromagnetic theory: A critical case study, Sci. Educ. 16, 835 (2007).
  29. P. D. Eggen and D. P. Kauchak, Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2004).
  30. D. A. Norman, Some Observations on Mental Models. In Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. Stevens (L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983).
  31. J. K. Gilbert and C. Boulter, Learning science through models and modelling, in International Handbook of Science Education, edited by B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998), p. 53.
  32. E. F. Redish, The implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics, Am. J. Phys. 62, 796 (1994).
  33. Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1983).
  34. S. Vosniadou, Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change, Learn. Instr. 4, 45 (1994).
  35. L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010103 (2006).
  36. D. Maloney and R. S. Siegler, Conceptual competition in physics learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 15, 283 (1993).
  37. K. Carley and M. Palmquist, Extracting, representing and analyzing mental models, Social Forces 70, 601 (1992).
  38. E. D. Corpuz and N. S. Rebello, Investigating students’ mental models and knowledge construction of microscopic friction. I. Implications for curriculum design and development, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020102 (2011).
  39. G. Chittleborough and D. F. Treagust, The modelling ability of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 8, 274 (2007).
  40. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003).
  41. J. Brewer and A. Hunter, Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 2006).
  42. R. Duval, A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics, Educ. Stud. Math. 61, 103 (2006).
  43. F. Arzarello, M. Bosch, J. Gasco, and C. Sabena, The ostensive dimension through the lenses of two didactic approaches, ZDM Int. J. Math. Educ. 40, 179 (2008).
  44. F. Arzarello, Semiosis as a multimodal process, Special Issue on Semiotics, Culture, and Mathematical Thinking [Rev. Latin. Invest. Mat. Educ. 267 (2006)].
  45. Z. Hrepic, D. A. Zollman, and N. S. Rebello, Eliciting and representing hybrid mental models, in Proceedings of the NARST 2005 Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, USA, 2005, http://web.phys.ksu.edu/papers/2005/HZR_NARST_2005.pdf
  46. L. Bao, “Dynamics of student modeling: A theory, algorithms, and application to quantum mechanics,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1999 (unpublished).
  47. A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Course CLVI, edited by E. F. Redish and M. Vicentini (IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004), p. 1.
  48. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, The Jasper Project: Lessons in Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and Professional Development (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1997).
  49. J. Lave, M. Murtaugh, and O. de la Rocha, The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping, B. Rogoff and J. LaveEveryday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context, edited by (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1984), p. 67.
  50. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, Learning and transfer, in How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, edited by J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000), Chap. 3, p. 51.
  51. L. Pauling, General Chemistry (Dover, New York, 1988), p. 564.
  52. A. Anastasi, Psychological Testing (Macmillan, New York, 1988), p. 144.
  53. G. Brousseau, Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics, edited by M. Cooper, N. Balacheff, R. Sutherland, and V. Warfield (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997).
  54. M. Jensen, Questionnaire validation: A brief guide for readers of the research literature, Clin. J. Pain 19, 345 (2003).
  55. C. Foxcroft, H. Paterson, N. Le Roux, and D. Herbst, Psychological assessment in South Africa: A needs analysis, The Test Use Patterns and Needs of Psychological Assessment Practitioners (HSRC Press, Pretoria, South Africa, 2004), http://intranet.hsrc.ac.za/research/output/outputDocuments/1716_Foxcroft_Psychologicalassessmentin%20SA.pdf, 2013.
  56. F. Spagnolo, La modélisation dans la recherche en didactiques des mathématiques: Les obstacles épistémologiques, Rech. Didact. Math. 26, 337 (2006).
  57. C. Fazio and F. Spagnolo, Conceptions on modelling processes in Italian high school prospective mathematics and physics teachers, S. Afr. J. Educ. 28, 469 (2008).
  58. C. Fazio, B. di Paola, and I. Guastella, Prospective elementary teachers’ perceptions of the processes of modeling: A case study, Phys. Rev, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010110 (2012).
  59. R. M. Sperandeo-Mineo, C. Fazio, and G. Tarantino, Pedagogical content knowledge development and pre-service physics teacher education: A case study, Res. Sci. Educ. 36, 235 (2006).
  60. R. Gras, Contribution à l’étude expérimentale et à l’analyse de certaines acquisitions cognitives et de certains objectifs en didactique des mathématiques, Ph.D. thesis, Université de Rennes, France, 1979.
  61. R. Gras, Les fondements de l’analyse statistique implicative, Quad. Ric. Didattica 9, 187 (2000) [http://dipmat.math.unipa.it/~grim/quaderno9.htm].
  62. P. Kuntz and R. Gras, An overview of the statistical R. Gras, F. Suzuki, F. Guillet, and F. Spagnoloimplicative, in Statistical Implicative Analysis: Theory and Applications, edited by (Springer, New York, 2008), p. 11.
  63. I. C. Lerman, Classification et Analyse Ordinale Des Données (Dunod, Paris, France, 1981).
  64. I. C. Lerman, R. Gras, and H. Rostam, Elaboration et évaluation d’un indice d’implication pour des données binaires I, Math. Sci. Hum. 74, 5 (1981); Élaboration et évaluation d’un indice d’implication pour des données II, 75, 5 (1981).
  65. A. D. Gordon, Classification (Chapman & Hall, London, England, 1999), 2nd ed.
  66. A. Fernàndez and Sergio Gòmez, Solving non-uniqueness in agglomerative hierarchical clustering using multidendrograms, J. Classif. 25, 43 (2008).
  67. R. Couturier, R. Gras, and F. Guillet, Reducing the number of variables using implicative analysis, in Classification, Clustering, and Data Mining Applications, in Proceedings of the Meeting of the International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS 2004) (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2004), p. 277.
  68. R. Couturier, Un systéme de recommandation basé sur l’A. S. I., in Proceedings of Troisieme Rencontre International de l’Analyse Statistique Implicative, edited by R. Gras, F. Spagnolo, and J. David [Quad. Ric. Didattica 15, Suppl. 2, 157 (2005)] [http://math.unipa.it/~grim/asi/suppl_quad_15_2.htm].
  69. A. Markos, G. Menexes, and I. Papadimitriou, The CHIC analysis software v1.0, in Classification as a Tool for Research: Proceedings of the 11th International Federation of Classification Conference, edited by H. Loracek-Junge and C. Weihs (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010), p. 409.
  70. http://ardm.eu/contenu/logiciel-d-analyse-de-donnees-chic
  71. B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Aldine, Chicago, 1967).
  72. H. P. Ginsburg, N. E. Kossan, R. Schwartz, and D. Swanson, Protocol methods in research on mathematical thinking, in The Development of Mathematical Thinking, edited by H. P. Ginsburg (Academic, New York, 1983), p. 7.
  73. R. P. Hunting, Clinical interview methods in mathematics education research and practice, J. Math. Behav. 16, 145 (1997).
  74. B. Berg, An introduction to content analysis, in Qualitative Research Methods, edited by B. Berg (Allyn & Baron Press, Boston, 1989), p. 105.
  75. R. Wegerif and N. Mercer, Using Computer-Based text analysis to integrate Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research on Collaborative Learning, Lang. Educ. 11, 271 (1997).
  76. A. J. Onwuegbuzie, N. L. Leech, J. R. Slate, M. Stark, B. Sharma, R. Frels, K. Harris, and J. P. Combs, An exemplar for teaching and learning qualitative research, Qual. Rep. 17, 16 (2012), http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17-1/onwuegbuzie.pdf.
  77. L. S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986).
  78. R. P. Weber, Basic Content Analysis (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1990).
  79. A. Kruger, Peer collaboration: Conflict, cooperation or both?, Soc. Dev. 2, 165 (1993).
  80. M. Azmita and R. Montgomery, Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning, Soc. Dev. 2, 202 (1993).
  81. N. Mercer, L. Dawes, R. Wegerif and C. Sams, Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science, Br. Educ. Res. J. 30, 359 (2004).
  82. N. L. Leech and A. J. Onwuegbuzie, An array of qualitative analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation, Sch. Psychol. Q. 22, 557 (2007).
  83. R. Duit, H. Gropengieβer and U. Kattmann, Toward Science Education Research that is Relevant for Improving Practice: The Model of Educational Reconstruction, Developing Standard in Research on Science Education, edited by H. E. Fisher (Taylor and Francis, London, U.K., 2005), p. 1.
  84. C. Fazio, I. Guastella, R. M. Sperandeo-Mineo, and G. Tarantino, Modelling mechanical wave propagation: Guidelines and experimentation of a teaching learning sequence, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 30, 1491 (2008).
  85. C. Fazio, I. Guastella, and G. Tarantino, The elastic body model: A pedagogical approach integrating real time measurements and modelling activities, Eur. J. Phys. 28, 991 (2007).
  86. G. Tarantino, C. Fazio, and R. M. Sperandeo-Mineo, A pedagogical flight simulator for longitudinal airplane flight, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 18, 144 (2010).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020101– Published 1 July, 2013
  • Received 29 June 2012
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.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation