Students' strategies for solving partially specified physics problems
N. Ercega, M. Marusicb, J. Sliskoc
a Department of Physics, University of Rijeka, Omladinska 14, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia.
b First gymnasium, Teslina 10, 21000 Split, Croatia.
c Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Apartado Postal 1152, Puebla, 72000, Puebla, México.
]]>Recibido el 30 de septiembre de 2010
Aceptado el 29 de marzo de 2011
Abstract
In this study we present a pilot–investigation of high–school and university students' abilities to solve partially specified physics problem and ways which they handle the task. Students are asked to answer the question whether the given problem situation is physically possible or not in real–life without an explicit advice on what to calculate and how to judge. We used a combination of individual interview and written test methods. According to the type of the problem–solving approach the respondents were divided into the five categories. We found the majority belong to categories with preferably quantitative approach regardless of curriculum, level of education or research method. Our results indicate that standard numerical exercises, usually used in teaching, do not develop sufficiently critical thinking and real–life problem–solving abilities. We think that students could be given also partially specified problems to help them in preparing for real–life problem–solving situations. To our knowledge, this study is the first one to explore students' reactions to this type of a problem and we are motivated to continue research.
Keywords: Student strategy; problem solving; partially specified gravity problem.
Resumen
En este trabajo hemos presentado una investigación–prueba sobre la capacidad de los estudiantes universitarios y de secundaria para resolver problemas físicos parcialmente especificados y la manera como manejan la tarea. Hemos pedido a los estudiantes que respondieran si el problema planteado es posible o no en la vida real, sin consejos explícitos que hay que calcular y como resolverlo. Hemos combinado el método de la entrevista individual con los métodos de exámenes escritos. Según la manera de resolver el problema, los estudiantes han sido divididos en cinco categorías. La mayoría pertenece a las categorías del enfoque preferentemente cuantitativo, independientemente del currículo, nivel de educación o método de investigación. Nuestros resultados indican que los clásicos ejercicios numéricos, que suelen ser usados en la enseñanza, no desarrollan suficiente el pensamiento crítico y la capacidad para resolver los problemas en la vida real. Creemos que hay que enfrentar a los estudiantes a los problemas parcialmente especificados, que les ayudarían en desarrollar las capacidades para resolver los problemas en la vida real. Según las informaciones que tenemos, este estudio es el primero en investigar las reacciones de los estudiantes a este tipo de problema, por lo que estamos motivados para continuar con la investigación.
]]> Descriptores: Estrategia estudiantil; resolver el problema; problema de gravitación parcialmente especificado.
PACS: 01.40.Fk; 01.40Ha
DESCARGAR ARTÍCULO EN FORMATO PDF
References
1. D.P. Maloney, Research on Problem Solving: Physics in Gabel D L (Ed) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, 1994). [ Links ]
2. OECD, PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World (OECD PUBLICATIONS, Paris, 2007). [ Links ]
3. F. Reif and J.I. Heller, Educ. Psychol. 17 (1982) 102. [ Links ]
4. A. Van Heuvelen, Am. J. Phys. 59 (1991) 891. [ Links ]
5. E. Kim and S.J. Pak, Am. J. Phys. 70 (2001) 759. [ Links ]
6. W.J. Leonard, R.J. Dufresne, and J.P. Mestre, Am. J. Phys. 64 (1996) 1495. [ Links ]
7. E. Mazur, Opt. Photonics News 3 (1992) 38. [ Links ]
8. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction—A User's Manual (Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1997). [ Links ]
9. E. Redish, Changing student ways of knowing: What should our students learn in a physics class? In Proceedings of World View on Physics Education 2005: Focusing on Change, New Delhi (World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 2005) in press http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/redish/IndiaPlen.pdf. [ Links ]
10. H.R. Crane, Am. J. Phys. 12 (1968) 1137. [ Links ]
11. H.R. Crane, Physics Today March (1969) 134. [ Links ]
12. H.R. Crane, The Physics Teacher October (1969) 371. [ Links ]
13. R. Blickensderfer, The Physics Teacher 36 (1998) 524. [ Links ]
14. E. Yerushalmi and E. Magen, Physics Education 41 (2006) 161. [ Links ]
15. D. Gil–Perez, A. Dumas–Carre, M. Caillot, and J. Martínez–Torregrosa, Studies in Science Education 18 (1990) 137. [ Links ]
16. J. Slisko, Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ. 2 (2008) 137. [ Links ]
17. J. Slisko, Física 1: El encanto de pensar (Pearson Educación, Naucalpan de Juárez, México, 2002). [ Links ]
18. J. Slisko, Física 2: El encanto de pensar (Pearson Educación, Naucalpan de Juárez, México, 2003). [ Links ]
19. P. Urone, College Physics (Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, CA, 1998) p. XI. [ Links ]
20. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Am. J. Phys. 7 (1992) 637. [ Links ]
21. P. Heller, R. Keith and S. Anderson, Am. J. Phys. 7 (1992) 627. [ Links ]
22. K. Schultz and J. Lockhead, A view from physics in Toward a Unified Theory of Problem Solving: Views from the Content Domains edited by Smith M U (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1991). [ Links ]
23. L.N. Walsh, R.G. Howard, and B. Bowe, Physical review special topics – physics education research 3 (2007) 020108. [ Links ]
24. V. Kariz Merhar, The Physics Teacher 39 (2001) 338. [ Links ]
25. D. Meltzer, Am. J. Phys. 73 (2005) 463. [ Links ]
26. J.H. Larkin, J. McDermott, D.P. Simon and H. A. Simon, Science 208 (1980) 1335. [ Links ]
]]>