Do Learning Activities Improve Students' Ability to Construct Explanatory Models with a Prism Foil Problem?
Keywords:
Knowledge transfer, Prism foil problem, Learning activities, Explanatory model, Prediction, laboratory activity
Abstract
The transfer of knowledge is considered to be a fundamental goal of education; therefore, knowing and understanding the conditions that influence the efficiency of the transfer from learning activity to problem solving play a decisive role in the improvement of science education. In this article, the results of a study of 196 highschool students’ ability to transfer knowledge in explanatory model construction are present. Three test groups were formed, traditional, prediction and lab groups, in which students were involved in three different learning activities. A week after instruction, students were tested with a foil test and Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning. According to the results, little knowledge transfer
from learning activities to the foil test occurred. Among the three tested learning methods, the one asking for prediction seems to best improve the transfer of knowledge. Time spent on activities had little or no effect on the transfer of knowledge. Some possible reasons for the observed results are presented, and the importance of correct scientific explanation during
the learning process is considered.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.
Ates, S., & Catalogu, E. (2007). The Effects of Students’ Reasoning Abilities on Conceptual Understandings and Problem-Solving Skills in Introductory Mechanics. European Journal of Physics,
28(6), 1161–1171.
Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45–47.
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & James, W. P. (Eds.) (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D. C.: National
Academy Press.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Garden, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness, Colorado Springs: BSCS.
Catrambone, R. (1998). The Subgoal Learning Model: Creating Better Examples So That Students Can Solve Novel Problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 355–376.
Coletta, V. P., & Phillips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI Scores: Normalized Gain, Pre-instruction Scores, and Scientific Reasoning Ability. American Journal of Physics, 73(12), 1172–1182.
Crouch, C. H., Fagen, A. P., Callan, J. P., & Mazur, E. (2004). Classroom Demonstrations: Learning Tools or Entertainment? American Journal of Physics, 72(6), 835–838.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Eraut, M. (2004). Transfer of Knowledge between Education and Workplace Settings. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & H. Munro (Eds.), Workplace Learning in Context (pp. 201-221). London: Routledge.
Etkina, E., & Heuvelen, A. V. (2001). Investigative Science Learning Environment: Using the Processes of Science and Cognitive Strategies to Learn Physics. In S. V. Franklin & K. Cummings
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 17–21). Rochester, New York.
Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-Solving Strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1–2), 99–120.
GojkoÅ¡ek, M., PlaninÅ¡iÄ, G., & SliÅ¡ko, J. (2012). Students’ Construction of the Explanatory Models for the Prismatic Foil: Influence of Cognitive Level and Task Sequencing. In A. Lindell, A.-L. Kähkönen, & J. Viiri (Eds.), Physics Alive. Proceedings of the GIREP-EPEC 2011 Conference, (pp. 37–42). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science Teaching and the Development of Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(2), 169–175.
Lawson, A. E. (1978). The Development and Validation of a Classroom Test of Formal Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11-24.
Lawson, A. E., Alkhoury, S., Benford, R., Clark, B. R., & Falconer, K. A. (2000). What Kinds of Scientific Concepts Exist? Concept Construction and Intellectual Development in College Biology.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 996–1018.
Marini, A., & Genereux, R. (1995). The Challenge of Teaching for Transfer. In A. McKeough, J. L. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning (pp. 1–19). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marušić, M., & Sliško, J. (2012). Influence of Three Different Methods of Teaching Physics on the Gain in Students’ Development of Reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 301–326.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What We Teach and What is Learned – Closing the Gap. American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301–315.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
Meltzer, D. E., & Thornton, R. K. (2012). Resource Letter ALIP–1: Active-Learning Instruction in Physics. American Journal of Physics, 80(6), 478–496.
Michael, J. A., & Modell, H. I. (2003). Active Learning in Secondary and College Science Classrooms: A Working Model for Helping the Learner to Learn. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
PlaninÅ¡iÄ, G., & GojkoÅ¡ek, M. (2011). Prism foil from an LCD monitor as a tool for teaching introductory optics. European Journal of Physics, 32(2), 601–613.
Redfors, A., & Ryder, J. (2001). University Physics Students’ Use of Models in Explanations of Phenomena Involving Interaction between Metals and Radiation. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1283–1301.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S. P., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing One Premise of Scientific Inquiry in Science Classrooms: Examining Students’ Scientific Explanations and Student Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583–608.
She, H.-C., & Lee, C.-Q. (2008). SCCR Digital Learning System for Scientific Conceptual Change and Scientific Reasoning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 724–742.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: Falmer Press.
Ates, S., & Catalogu, E. (2007). The Effects of Students’ Reasoning Abilities on Conceptual Understandings and Problem-Solving Skills in Introductory Mechanics. European Journal of Physics,
28(6), 1161–1171.
Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45–47.
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & James, W. P. (Eds.) (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D. C.: National
Academy Press.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Garden, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness, Colorado Springs: BSCS.
Catrambone, R. (1998). The Subgoal Learning Model: Creating Better Examples So That Students Can Solve Novel Problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 355–376.
Coletta, V. P., & Phillips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI Scores: Normalized Gain, Pre-instruction Scores, and Scientific Reasoning Ability. American Journal of Physics, 73(12), 1172–1182.
Crouch, C. H., Fagen, A. P., Callan, J. P., & Mazur, E. (2004). Classroom Demonstrations: Learning Tools or Entertainment? American Journal of Physics, 72(6), 835–838.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Eraut, M. (2004). Transfer of Knowledge between Education and Workplace Settings. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & H. Munro (Eds.), Workplace Learning in Context (pp. 201-221). London: Routledge.
Etkina, E., & Heuvelen, A. V. (2001). Investigative Science Learning Environment: Using the Processes of Science and Cognitive Strategies to Learn Physics. In S. V. Franklin & K. Cummings
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 17–21). Rochester, New York.
Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-Solving Strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1–2), 99–120.
GojkoÅ¡ek, M., PlaninÅ¡iÄ, G., & SliÅ¡ko, J. (2012). Students’ Construction of the Explanatory Models for the Prismatic Foil: Influence of Cognitive Level and Task Sequencing. In A. Lindell, A.-L. Kähkönen, & J. Viiri (Eds.), Physics Alive. Proceedings of the GIREP-EPEC 2011 Conference, (pp. 37–42). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science Teaching and the Development of Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(2), 169–175.
Lawson, A. E. (1978). The Development and Validation of a Classroom Test of Formal Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11-24.
Lawson, A. E., Alkhoury, S., Benford, R., Clark, B. R., & Falconer, K. A. (2000). What Kinds of Scientific Concepts Exist? Concept Construction and Intellectual Development in College Biology.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 996–1018.
Marini, A., & Genereux, R. (1995). The Challenge of Teaching for Transfer. In A. McKeough, J. L. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning (pp. 1–19). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marušić, M., & Sliško, J. (2012). Influence of Three Different Methods of Teaching Physics on the Gain in Students’ Development of Reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 301–326.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What We Teach and What is Learned – Closing the Gap. American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301–315.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
Meltzer, D. E., & Thornton, R. K. (2012). Resource Letter ALIP–1: Active-Learning Instruction in Physics. American Journal of Physics, 80(6), 478–496.
Michael, J. A., & Modell, H. I. (2003). Active Learning in Secondary and College Science Classrooms: A Working Model for Helping the Learner to Learn. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
PlaninÅ¡iÄ, G., & GojkoÅ¡ek, M. (2011). Prism foil from an LCD monitor as a tool for teaching introductory optics. European Journal of Physics, 32(2), 601–613.
Redfors, A., & Ryder, J. (2001). University Physics Students’ Use of Models in Explanations of Phenomena Involving Interaction between Metals and Radiation. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1283–1301.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S. P., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing One Premise of Scientific Inquiry in Science Classrooms: Examining Students’ Scientific Explanations and Student Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583–608.
She, H.-C., & Lee, C.-Q. (2008). SCCR Digital Learning System for Scientific Conceptual Change and Scientific Reasoning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 724–742.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: Falmer Press.
Published
2013-09-30
How to Cite
GojkoÅ¡ek, M., SliÅ¡ko, J., & PlaninÅ¡iÄG. (2013). Do Learning Activities Improve Students’ Ability to Construct Explanatory Models with a Prism Foil Problem?. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3(3), 9-28. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.229
Section
FOCUS
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
