IMPACT OF A REPRESENTATIONAL APPROACH ON STUDENTS’ REASONING AND CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING IN LEARNING MECHANICS

The aim of this study was to explore whether a representational approach could impact on the scores that measure students’ understanding of mechanics and their ability to reason. The sample consisted of 24 students who were undergraduate, preservice physics teachers in the State University of Malang, Indonesia. The students were asked to represent a claim, provide evidence for it, and then, after further representational manipulations, refinement, discussion, and critical thought, to reflect on and confirm or modify their original case. Data analysis was based on the pretest–posttest scores and students’ responses to relevant phenomena during the course. The results showed that students’ reasoning ability significantly improved with a d-effect size of 2.58 for the technical aspects and 2.51 for the conceptual validity aspects, with the average normalized gain being 0.62 (upper–medium) for the two aspects. Students’ conceptual understanding of mechanics significantly improved with a d-effect size of about 2.50 and an average normalized gain of 0.63. Students’ competence in mechanics shifted significantly from an under competent level to mastery level. This paper addresses statistically previously untested issues in learning mechanics through a representational approach and does this in a culture that is quite different from what has been researched so far using student-generated representational learning as a reasoning tool for understanding and reasoning.

[1]  A. diSessa.  Metarepresentation: Native Competence and Targets for Instruction , 2004 .

[2]  Suzanne Peterson,et al.  Multiple Representation in Learning About Evaporation , 2009 .

[3]  Karen Murcia,et al.  Teaching for Scientific Literacy with an Interactive Whiteboard. , 2008 .

[4]  Kathy Malone,et al.  Correlations among Knowledge Structures, Force Concept Inventory, and Problem-Solving Behaviors. , 2008 .

[5]  Noah D. Finkelstein,et al.  Strongly and Weakly Directed Approaches to Teaching Multiple Representation Use in Physics , 2007 .

[6]  V. Prain,et al.  An Explicit Representational Focus for Teaching and Learning about Animals in the Environment. , 2009 .

[7]  B. S. Everitt,et al.  Comprar The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics | B. S. Everitt | 9780521766999 | Cambridge University Press , 2010 .

[8]  R. Cox.  Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences , 1999 .

[9]  D. Hestenes,et al.  Force concept inventory , 1992 .

[10]  S. Erduran,et al.  Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview , 2007 .

[11]  J. Greeno,et al.  Practicing Representation: Learning with and about Representational Forms , 1997 .

[12]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[13]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula , 1998 .

[14]  Vaughan Prain,et al.  Changing representations to learn primary science concepts , 2006 .

[15]  S. Vosniadou,et al.  Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science , 2001 .

[16]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The Educational Value of Multiple-representations when Learning Complex Scientific Concepts , 2008 .

[17]  L. McDermott,et al.  Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension , 1980 .

[18]  Shaaron E. Ainsworth,et al.  Drawing to Learn in Science , 2011, Science.

[19]  Eugenia Etkina,et al.  Do Students Use and Understand Free-Body Diagrams? , 2009 .

[20]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Visualization : theory and practice in science education , 2008 .

[21]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Students Becoming Chemists: Developing Representationl Competence , 2005 .

[22]  C. Creagh.  Diagrams: Useful tools for investigating a student’s understanding of buoyancy in teaching science , 2008 .

[23]  J. Clement.  Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics , 1982 .

[24]  L. McDermott.  Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics , 1984 .

[25]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Visualization in science education , 2005 .

[26]  L. McDermott,et al.  Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension , 1981 .

[27]  Erin Marie Furtak,et al.  A Framework for Analyzing Evidence-Based Reasoning in Science Classroom Discourse , 2010 .

[28]  Michael J. Ford,et al.  Chapter 1: Redefining Disciplinary Learning in Classroom Contexts , 2006 .

[29]  Richard R. Hake.  Promoting student crossover to the Newtonian world , 1987 .

[30]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[31]  V. Prain,et al.  Explaining Newton’s laws of motion: using student reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding , 2013 .

[32]  Jonathan Osborne,et al.  Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse , 2010, Science.

[33]  Russell Tytler,et al.  Teaching and Learning about Force with a Representational Focus: Pedagogy and Teacher Change , 2010 .

[34]  B. Everitt.  The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics , 1998 .

[35]  Nancy L. Leech,et al.  SPSS for introductory statistics : use and interpretation , 2010 .

[36]  C. Boyle,et al.  Studying conceptual change in learning physics , 1992 .

[37]  Shawn M. Glynn,et al.  Learning Science in the Schools : Research Reforming Practice , 1995 .

[38]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project‐based science , 2009 .

[39]  D. A. Roberts.  Epistemic Authority for Teacher Knowledge: The Potential Role of Teacher Communities—A Response to Robert Orton , 1996 .

[40]  Erin L. Dolan,et al.  Recognizing Students’ Scientific Reasoning: A Tool for Categorizing Complexity of Reasoning During Teaching by Inquiry , 2010, Journal of science teacher education.

[41]  Vaughan Prain,et al.  Using Multi-Modal Representations to Improve Learning in Junior Secondary Science , 2010 .

[42]  Roger A. Freedman,et al.  Sears and Zemansky's University Physics With Modern Physics , 2003 .

[43]  Karin Ehrlén,et al.  Drawings as Representations of Children's Conceptions , 2009 .

[44]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[45]  Erin Marie Furtak,et al.  The Evidence-Based Reasoning Framework: Assessing Scientific Reasoning , 2010 .

[46]  Vaughan Prain,et al.  Using Representations for Teaching and Learning in Science , 2008 .

[47]  Helen R. Quinn,et al.  A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas , 2013 .

[48]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  Science As Inquiry In The Secondary Setting , 2007 .

[49]  Nancy L. Leech,et al.  SPSS for Introductory Statistics : Use and Interpretation, Second Edition , 2004 .

[50]  Christine Y. O'Sullivan,et al.  TIMSS 2011 Assessment Frameworks. , 2009 .

[51]  L. E. Klopfer,et al.  Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics , 1980 .

[52]  Lillian C. McDermott,et al.  Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics , 1987 .

[53]  J. Dessalles,et al.  Arguing, reasoning, and the interpersonal (cultural) functions of human consciousness , 2011, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[54]  Raymond A. Serway,et al.  Printed test bank to accompany Physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics , 1982 .

[55]  Andrew F. Heckler,et al.  Systematic study of student understanding of the relationships between the directions of force, velocity, and acceleration in one dimension , 2011 .

[56]  Paul D. Ellis,et al.  The essential guide to effect sizes : statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results , 2010 .

[57]  D. Hestenes,et al.  A mechanics baseline test , 1992 .