Enseñanza

On the teaching and learning of physics problem solving

S. Rojas

Departamento de Física, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Venezuela, email: srojas@usb.ve

Recibido el 3 de marzo de 2009
Aceptado el 28 de abril de 2010

Abstract

This article presents a six–step problem–solving strategy, aimed at addressing three major problems in the learning and teaching of physics: 1) the demand by physics instructors for effective teaching strategies that could help in the teaching of intuitive conceptual and quantitative reasoning in physics, and how to teach both aspects holistically; 2) the students' need for suitable methodology that could help students to fill the gap in textbooks on enhancing their mathematical reasoning abilities, which are essential for reinforcing students' knowledge of conceptual physics; and 3) a deficiency in the teaching of physics leading to students not being taught a coherent physics problem–solving strategy that would enable them to engage in both mathematical and conceptual reasoning.

After a review of publications made by the Physics Education Research group (PER), the importance of a structured, systemic methodology to solve physics problems is considered. Then a structured, systemic methodology for solving physics problems is described by extending the well–known problem–solving steps presented by Polya. The proposed strategy includes the following steps: 1. Understand the problem, 2. Provide a qualitative description of the problem, 3. Plan a solution, 4. Carry out the plan, 5. Verify the internal consistency and coherence of the equations used, and 6. Check and evaluate the obtained solution. Finally, an illustrative example is provided: the calculation of the moment of inertia of a thin hollow right circular cone.

Keywords: Physics problem–solving; physics learning; teaching of physics; quantitative reasoning.

Resumen

Este artículo presenta una metodología de seis pasos para resolver problemas, con la intención de abordar tres grandes problemas en el aprendizaje y la enseñanza de la física: 1) la demanda de los profesores de física de estrategias de enseñanza efectivas, que permitan ayudar en la enseñanza del razonamiento conceptual y cuantitativo en física, y cómo enseñar ambos aspectos de manera integral 2) la necesidad de los estudiantes de contar con una metodología adecuada que los ayude a cubrir las deficiencias de los textos en cuanto al fortalecimiento de sus habilidades de razonamiento matemático, las cuales son esenciales para consolidar el conocimiento conceptual de física y 3) una deficiencia en la enseñanza de la física en presentarle a los estudiantes una estrategia coherente de solución de problemas, que los involucre en razonamiento tanto cuantitativivo como cualitativo.

Después de presentar una revisión bibliográfica en cuanto a publicaciones sobre el tema aparecidas en el área de Investigaciones sobre la Enseñanza de la Física (PER, por sus siglas en inglés Physics Education Research), la importancia de una metodología estructurada y sistemática para resolver problemas de física es considerada. Luego, por extensión del conocido esquema de resolución de problemas de Polya, se describe una metodología sistémica y estructurada para resolver problemas de física. La estrategia propuesta incluye los siguientes pasos: 1. Comprender el problema, 2. Proporcionar una descripción cualitativa del problema, 3. Planificar la solución, 4. Ejecutar el plan, 5. Verificar la consistencia interna y la coherencia de las ecuaciones utilizadas, y 6. Inspeccionar y evaluar la solución obtenida. Por último, se presenta un ejemplo ilustrativo: el cálculo del momento de inercia de un cono circular recto hueco muy delgado.

Descriptores: Resolución de problemas en física; aprendizaje de física; enseñanza de la física; razonamiento cuantitativo.

PACS: 01.40.gb; 01.40.Ha; 01.40.Fk

DESCARGAR ARTÍCULO EN FORMATO PDF

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Dr. Cheryl Pahaham and one anonymous referee, both of whom kindly provided useful comments on improving this article.

References

1. B. Thacker, E. Kim, K. Trefz, and S.M. Lea, Am.J.Phys. 62 (1994) 627.        [ Links ]

2. D. Hammer, Am.J.Phys. 64 (1996) 1316.        [ Links ]

3. R. Ehrlich, Am.J.Phys. 70 (2002) 24.        [ Links ]

4. D.E. Meltzer, Am.J.Phys. 70 (2002) 1259.        [ Links ]

5. C. Hoellwarth, M.J. Moelter, and R.D. Knight, Am.J.Phys. 73 (2005) 459.        [ Links ]

6. E.F. Redish, Changing Student Ways of Knowing: What should our students learn in a physics class? In Proceedings of the conference, World View on Physics Education: Focusing on Change, New Delhi, India. (World Scientific Publishing Co., 2005). In press. Available from http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/redish/IndiaPlen.pdf.        [ Links ]

7. S. Ates and E. Cataloglu, Eur.J.Phys. 28 1161 (2007).        [ Links ]

8. V.P. Coletta, J.A. Phillips, A. Savinainen, and J.J. Steinert, Eur. J. Phys. 29 (2008) L25.        [ Links ]

9. S. Ates and E. Cataloglu, Eur.J.Phys. 29 (2008) L29.        [ Links ]

10. R. Mualem and B.S. Eylon, 45 (2007) 158. See also references there in.        [ Links ]

11. M.S. Sabella and E.F. Redish, Am.J.Phys. 75 (2007) 1017.        [ Links ]

12. L.N. Walsh, R.G. Howard, and B. Bowe, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3 (2007) 1.        [ Links ]

13. D. Klein, Am.J.Phys. 75 (2007) 101.        [ Links ]

14. L.J. Atkins, Am.J.Phys. 75 (2007) 773.        [ Links ]

15. T. Millar, Am.J.Phys. 75 (2007) 775.        [ Links ]

16. D. Klein, Am.J.Phys. 75 (2007) 776.        [ Links ]

17. K.C. Yap and C.L. Wong, Phys.Educ. 42 (2007) 50.        [ Links ]

18. C.H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Am.J.Phys. 69 (2001) 970.        [ Links ]

19. M.C. James, Am.J.Phys. 74 (2006) 689.        [ Links ]

20. W. Cerbin and B. Kopp, IJTLHE, 18 (2006) 250. Available at http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/.        [ Links ]

21. P.G. Hewitt, Conceptual Physics (Addison–Wesley, 7th. edition, 1993).        [ Links ]

22. D. Halliday, R. Resnick, and J. Walker. Fundamentals of Physics (John Wiley & Sons, 6th edition, 2000).        [ Links ]

23. D. Giancoli, Physics Principles with Applications: (International Edition. Pearson Education, 6th. edition, 2004).        [ Links ]

24. L. S. Dake, Phys.Teach. 45 (2007) 416.        [ Links ]

25. M.E. Loverude, C.H. Kautz, and P.R.L. Heron, Am.J.Phys. 71 (2003) 1178.        [ Links ]

26. L.G. Rimoldini and C. Singh, Phys. Rev. ST. Phys. Educ. Res. 1 (2005) 1.        [ Links ]

27. D.C. Meredith and K.A. Marrongelle, Am. J. Phys. 76 (2008) 570.        [ Links ]

28. S. Rojas, Rev. Mex .Fís .E 54 (2008) 75.        [ Links ]

29. P.A. Tipler and G. Mosca, Physics for Scientists and Engineers (WH Freeman and Co, 5th edition, 2003).        [ Links ]

30. R.A. Serway and J.W. Jewett, Physics for Scientists and Engineers (Thomson Learning, 6th. edition, 2003).        [ Links ]

31. Just to mention an example, see for instance the way on which [29] handle the solution of example 8–4 on page 220, as compared by the solution of any other example.

32. K.M. Hamed, Phys.Teach. 46 (2008) 290.        [ Links ]

33. M.B. Schneider, Am.J.Phys. 72 (2004) 1272.        [ Links ]

34. J.P. Donohoe, Am.J.Phys. 76 (2008) 963.        [ Links ]

35. Just to mention an example, see for instance the way on which [29] deals with the subject of computing center of mass and rotational inertia of linear, superficial and volumetric mass distributions. Even though the techniques of solving these problems have some similarities, the textbook has not mention of it. Another example is the computation of gravitational and electric field. No where in the book is mentioned that the techniques for one case could be applied for the other and that students could reinforce their understanding and computational skills by looking at worked out examples in both sections.

36. M. Bunge, Journal of Socio–Economics 29 (2000) 147.        [ Links ]

37. M. Bunge, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34 (2004) 182.        [ Links ]

38. J.S. Rigden, Am. J. Phys. 55 (1987) 877.        [ Links ]

39. F. Reif, Phys. Teach. 19 (1981) 310. See also references there in.        [ Links ]

40. F. Reif and L.A. Scott, Am. J. Phys. 67 (1999) 819. See also references there in.        [ Links ]

41. J.W. Dunn and J. Barbanel,Am. J. Phys. 68 (2000) 749.        [ Links ]

42. E.M. Lifshitz, Am. J. Phys. 45 (1977) 415.        [ Links ]

43. C.V. Aufschnaiter and S.V. Aufschnaiter, Eur. J. Phys. 28 (2007) S51.        [ Links ]

44. M. Hanif, P.H. Sneddon, F.M. Al–Ahmadi, and N. Reid, Eur. J. Phys. 30 (2009) 85.        [ Links ]

45. F.R. Yeatts and J.R. Hundhausen, Am. J. Phys. 60 (1992) 716.        [ Links ]

46. P.R.L. Heron and D.E. Meltzer, Am. J. Phys. 73 (2005) 390.        [ Links ]

47. S.H. Strogatz, D.M. Abrams, A. McRobie, B. Eckhardt, and E. Ott, Nature 438 (2005) 43.        [ Links ]

48. G. Polya, How to Solve it. A new aspect of mathematical method. (Princeton University Press, Inc., 2nd. ed., second printing. edition, 1973).        [ Links ]

49. G. Polya, The American Mathematical Monthly 70 (1963) 605.        [ Links ]

50. M. Milner–Bolotin, Phys. Teach. 45 (2007) 459.        [ Links ]

51. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Am. J. Phys. 60 (1992) 627.        [ Links ]

52. A.H. Schoenfeld. (Mathematical Problem Solving. Academic Press, Inc., 1985).        [ Links ]

53. A.H. Schoenfeld, Mathematics Magazine 60 (1987) 283.        [ Links ]

54. A.H. Schoenfeld. Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense–making in mathematics. (In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, MacMillan, 1992). p.p. 334.        [ Links ]

55. E. Lederman, Phys. Teach. 47(2009)94.        [ Links ]

56. A.H. Schoenfeld, 87 (1980) 794.        [ Links ]

57. C.F. Bohren,Am. J. Phys. 77 (2009) 101.        [ Links ]

58. In order to further show students the necessity of continuosly verifying the consistency of the used equations, one could resort to the naive problem involving the wrong proof that 1=2: (after cancelling in both side)

59. F.J. Dyson, Scientific American 211 (1964) 128.        [ Links ]

60. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Am. J. Phys. 60 (1992) 637.        [ Links ]

61. J. Veysey and IIN. Goldenfeld Rev. Mod. Phys. 79 (2007) 883.        [ Links ]

62. D. Bolam and I. Wilkinson, 45 (1961) 335.        [ Links ]

63. R. Ehrlich, Am. J. Phys, 75 (2007) 374.        [ Links ]

64. A.H. Schoenfeld, The American Mathematical Monthly 84 (1977) 52.        [ Links ]

65. G. Duda and K. Garrett, Am. J. Phys. 76 (2008) 1054.        [ Links ]

66. C. Singh, Am. J. Phys. 70 (2002) 1109.        [ Links ]

67. G. Polya. With, or without, motivation? The American Mathematical Monthly, 56 (1963) 684.        [ Links ]