Enseñanza

 

Increasing the attractiveness of school physics: the effects of two different designs of physics learning

 

M. Marusic^a and J. Slisko^b

 

^a First gymnasium, Teslina 10, 21000 Split, Croatia

^b Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Apartado Postal 1152, Puebla, Puebla C.P. 72000, México.

 

Recibido el 12 de enero de 2012;
Aceptado el 7 de mayo de 2012

 

Abstract

In this research we have used a specially prepared survey in order to assess the relative efficiency of two different designs of students' learning activities, called Reading, Presenting, and Questioning (RPQ) and Experimenting and Discussion (ED), both with objective to improve students' attitudes towards the attractiveness of school physics. The data of a one-semester-long high-school project indicate that RPQ group (91 students) achived an improvement of +4% in attitudes while the ED group (85 students) got an improvement of +23% as measured by the survey designed specifically for this study. Our results suggest that the ED method is a good model for a significant improvement of students' attitudes towards the attractiveness of school physics, both for girls and boys who study high school physics.

Keywords: Active physics learning; students' attitudes toward physics; attractiveness of school physics.

 

Resumen

En esta investigación hemos utilizado una encuesta especialmente preparada con el fin de evaluar la eficiencia relativa de dos diseños diferentes de las actividades de aprendizaje de los estudiantes, llamados Leer, Presentar y Questionar (RPQ, por su nombre en inglés) y Experimentar y Discutir (ED), ambos con el objetivo de cambiar positivamente las actitudes de los estudiantes hacia la atractividad de la física escolar. Los datos del proyecto, con un semestre de duración en el nivel de bachillerato, indican que el grupo RPQ (91 alumnos) lograrón una mejora del +4% en las actitudes, mientras que el grupo ED (85 estudiantes) obtuvo una mejora del +23%. Estos resultados sugieren que el método ED es un buen modelo para una mejora significativa de las actitudes de los estudiantes hacia la atractividad de la física escolar, tanto para los alumnos y como para las alumnas, quienes estudian la física en el nivel de bachillerato.

Descriptores: Aprendizaje active de física; actitudes estudiantiles hacia física; atractividad de la física escolar.

 

PACS: 01.40.Fk; 01.40.Di; 01.40.gb

 

DESCARGAR ARTÍCULO EN FORMATO PDF

 

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr Mladen Buljubasic, prof., Ministry of Education coordinator for physics, for granting the permission for using up to a quarter of annual syllabus (16 lessons) for the project. We also want to thank Professor S. Pivac for the great support and effort she put into processing data.

 

References

1. K. Spall, S. Barrett, M. Stanisstreet, D. Dickson, and E. Boyes, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 21 (2003) 193.         [ Links ]

2. S.M. Nashon, The status of physics 12 in BC: Reflections from UBC science teacher candidates (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA, March, 2003).         [ Links ]

3. K. Juuti, J. Lavonen, A. Uitto, R. Byman, and V. Meisalo, Students' reasons to choose or reject physics (Paper presented at the GIREP Conference, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2004).         [ Links ]

4. L. Hoffman, Learn. Instr. 12 (2002) 447.         [ Links ]

5. S. Hidi and V. Andersen, Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing in K. Renninger and S. Hidi (Ed) The Role of Interest in Learning and Development (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992), pp. 215-238.         [ Links ]

6. M. Ormerod and D. Duckworth, Pupils' Attitudes to Science (Slough, National Foundation for Educational Research, 1975).         [ Links ]

7. J. Osborne, S. Simon, and S. Collins, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25 (2003) 1049.         [ Links ]

8. R. Simpson, T. Jr. Koballa, J. Oliver, and F. Crawley, Research on the affective dimension of science learning in Gabel D L (Ed) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, 1994). pp. 211-234.         [ Links ]

9. T. Lyons, Research in Science Education 36 (2006) 285.         [ Links ]

10. D. Hendley, J. Parkinson, A. Stables, and H. Tanner, Educ. Stud. 21 (1995) 85.         [ Links ]

11. M. Sundberg, M. Dini, and E. Li, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31 (1994) 679.         [ Links ]

12. J. Kahle and J. Meece, Research on gender issues in the classroom in Gabel D L (Ed) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, 1994). pp. 542-557.         [ Links ]

13. T. Lyons, Choosing physical science courses: The importance of cultural and social capital in the enrolment decisions of high achieving students (Paper presented at the XIIOSTE Symposium, Lublin, Poland 2004).         [ Links ]

14. W. Ong, Fighting for Life (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1981).         [ Links ]

15. D.R., Ridley and J.D. Novak, The Alberta journal of education research 24 (1983) 308.         [ Links ]

16. T. Lord, Innovative Higher Education 21 (1997) 197.         [ Links ]

17. D. Shepardson and E. Pizzini, School Science and Mathematics 93 (1993) 127.         [ Links ]

18. J. Osborne and S. Collins, Pupils' and Parents' Views of the School Science Curriculum (King's College, London. Publishers' Association/Education Publishers Council, 2003).         [ Links ]

19. E. Howes, Connecting Girls and Science: Constructivism, Feminism and Science Education Reform (Teachers College Press, New York, 2002).         [ Links ]

20. S. Sjoberg, Interesting all children in 'science for all.' in R.Millar, J. Leach, and J. Osborne (Ed) Improving Science Education (Open University Press, Buckingham, 2000), pp. 165-186.         [ Links ]

21. S. Sjoberg, Science and Scientists: The SAS Study (2000) online at http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/SASweb.htm        [ Links ]

22. U. Kattman, R. Duit, H. Gropengie/3er, and M. Komorek, Zeitschrift f ur Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften 3 (1997) 3.         [ Links ]

23. P. Lijnse, Sci. Educ. 79 (1995) 189.         [ Links ]

24. H. Seker, The effects of using history of science on students' interest in learning science (Paper presented at the 5th Biannual Conference of ESERA, Barcelona, Spain, 2005).         [ Links ]

25. I. Halloun, Views about science and physics achievement: The VASS story in E.F. Redish and J. Rigden (Eds.) AIP Conference Proceedings Vol. 399: The changing role of physics departments in modern universities (American Institute of Physics, 1997).         [ Links ]

26. I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Science & Education 7 (1998) 553.         [ Links ]

27. E.F. Redish, J.M. Saul, and R.N. Steinberg, Am. J. Phys. 66 (1998)212.         [ Links ]

28. W.K. Adams, K.K. Perkins, N.S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N.D. Finkelstein, and C.E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2 (2006)010101.         [ Links ]

29. J.D.H. Gaffney, A.L. Housley Gaffney, and R.J. Beichner, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6 (2010) 010102.         [ Links ]

30. V. Paar: PHYSICS 4 - coursebook for 4th grade of grammar schools (Skolska knjiga, Zagreb, 2006).         [ Links ]

31. S.M. Glynn, and K.D. Muth, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31 (1994) 1057.         [ Links ]

32. V.R. Gillis and G. MacDougall, The Science Teacher 74 (2007) 45.         [ Links ]

33. R. Bleicher, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31 (1994) 697.         [ Links ]

34. B. Daley, Phys. Teach. 42 (2004) 41.         [ Links ]

35. C. Chin, D.E. Brown, and B.C. Bruce, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24 (2002) 521.         [ Links ]

36. C. Chin, and L.G. Chia, Sci. Educ. 88 (2004) 707.         [ Links ]

37. C. Chin, and J. Osborne, Stud. Sci. Educ. 44 (2008) 1.         [ Links ]

38. R.E. Slavin, When and why does cooperative learning increase Achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives in R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & Miller (Ed) Interaction in Cooperative Groups (NY:Cambridge University Press, 1992).         [ Links ]

39. R.E. Slavin, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 21 (1996) 43.         [ Links ]

40. D. Johnson, and R. Johnson, Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1999).         [ Links ]

41. R. White and R. Gunstone, 'Prediction - Observation - Explanation? in Probing Understanding (Chapter 3 The Falmer Press, London, 1992).         [ Links ]

42. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, D.T. Brookes and D. Mills, Phys. Teach. 40 (2002) 351.         [ Links ]

43. A. Van Heuvelen and E. Etkina, The Physics Active Learning Guide (Instructor Edition, San Francisco: Addison Wewley, 2006).         [ Links ]

44. J. Clement, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30 (1993) 1241.         [ Links ]

45. L.C. McDermott and E.F. Redish, Am. J. Phys. 67 (1999) 755.         [ Links ]

46. H. Pfundt and R. Duit, Bibliography - Students alternative frameworks and science education (Kiel: Institute for Science Education, 2006).         [ Links ]

47. M. Marusic and J. Slisko, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34 (2012) 301.         [ Links ]

48. M. Marusic and J. Slisko, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8 (2012)010107.         [ Links ]

49. A.E. Lawson, Classroom test of scientific reasoning: Revised pencil paper version (Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, 1996).         [ Links ]