Do students use and understand free-body diagrams?

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2009, Pages

  Rosengrant, David ^a   Van Heuvelen, Alan ^b   Etkina, Eugenia ^b  

^a KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650470577     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010108     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. J. H. Larkin and H. A. Simon, Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words, Cogn. Sci. 11, 65 (1987). 10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80026-5
2. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992). 10.1119/1.2343497
3. D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A mechanics baseline test, Phys. Teach. 30, 159 (1992). 10.1119/1.2343498
4. D. Maloney, T. O'Kuma, C. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students' conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, special issue of Phys. Educ. Res. Supplement, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001). 10.1119/1.1371296
5. Reading through Refs. shows Van Heuvelen's classes with some of the highest averages on these tests. He had a very strong multiple representation approach in each of these classes.
6. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, in Research Based Reform of University Physics, edited by, E. F. Redish, and, P. Cooney, (AAPT, Compadre, 2007).
7. N. Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C. J. Keller, P. B. Kohl, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, S. Reid, and R. LeMaster, When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010103 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103
8. M. Chi, P. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cogn. Sci. 5, 121 (1981). 10.1207/s15516709cog0502-2
9. C. Abel, Heuristics and problem solving, New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2003, 53. 10.1002/tl.113
10. H. Simon, How big is a chunk?, Science 183, 482 (1974). 10.1126/science.183.4124.482
11. J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. Simon, and H. Simon, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science 208, 1335 (1980). 10.1126/science.208.4450.1335
12. W. Gerace, Problem solving and Conceptual Understanding, Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference (AIP, Melville, NY, 2001).
13. A. Hildebrand, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1989.
14. A. Kindfield, Biology diagrams: Tools to think with, J. Learn. Sci. 3, 1 (1994). 10.1207/s15327809jls0301-1
15. A. Kindfield, Understanding a basic biological process: Expert and novice models of meiosis, Sci. Educ. 78, 255 (1994). 10.1002/sce.3730780308 (Pubitemid 24789787)
16. A. Kindfield, Generating and using diagrams to learn and reason about biological processes, Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems 14, 81 (1999).
17. D. Stylianou and E. Silver, The role of visual representations in advanced mathematical problem solving: An examination of expert-novice similarities and differences, Math. Think. Learn. 6, 353 (2004). 10.1207/s15327833mtl0604-1
18. A. Kindfield, Generating and using diagrams to learn and reason about biological processes, Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems 14, 82 (1999).
19. P. Kohl and N. Finkelstein, Expert and Novice Use of Multiple Representations During Physics Problem Solving, 2007 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (AIP, Melville, New York, 2007.
20. C. McGuinness, Problem representation: The effects of spatial arrays, Mem. Cognit. 14, 270 (1986).
21. L. R. Novick, Representational transfer in problem solving, Psychol. Sci. 1, 128 (1990). 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00081.x
22. A. Van Heuvelen, Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 59, 891 (1991). 10.1119/1.16667
23. L. R. Novick and C. E. Hmelo, Transferring symbolic representations across nonisomorphic problems, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20, 1296 (1994). 10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1296 (Pubitemid 24832299)
24. N. Lasry and M. Aulls, The effect of multiple internal representations on context-rich instruction, Am. J. Phys. 75, 1030 (2007). 10.1119/1.2785190
25. P. Kohl, D. Rosengrant, and N. Finkelstein, Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010108 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010108
26. A. Van Heuvelen, Overview, case study physics, Am. J. Phys. 59, 898 (1991). 10.1119/1.16668
27. A. Van Heuvelen, Millikan lecture 1999: The workplace, student minds, and physics learning systems, Am. J. Phys. 69, 1139 (2001). 10.1119/1.1399043
28. J. Heller and F. Reif, Prescribing effective human problem-solving processes: Problem description in physics, Cogn. Instruct. 1, 177 (1984). 10.1207/s1532690xci0102-2
29. R. Gautreau and L. Novemsky, Concepts first-A small group approach to physics learning, Am. J. Phys. 65, 418 (1997). 10.1119/1.18552
30. C. De Leone and E. Gire, Is instructional Emphasis on the Use of Non-Mathematical Representations Worth the Effort? 2005 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (AIP, Melville, New York, 2005).
31. A. Van Heuvelen and X. Zou, Multiple representations of work-energy processes, Am. J. Phys. 69, 184 (2001). 10.1119/1.1286662
32. A. Van Heuvelen and E. Etkina, Active Learning Guide, Student Edition (Addison Wesley Longmann, San Francisco, CA, 2006).
33. K. Fisher, Exercises in drawing and utilizing free-body diagrams, Phys. Teach. 37, 434 (1999). 10.1119/1.880343
34. B. Lane, Why can't physicists draw FBD's? Phys. Teach. 31, 216 (1993). 10.1119/1.2343728
35. D. Maloney, Forces as interactions, Phys. Teach. 28, 386 (1990). 10.1119/1.2343080
36. M. Mattson, Getting students to provide direction when drawing free-body diagrams, Phys. Teach. 42, 398 (2004). 10.1119/1.1804656
37. R. Newburgh, Force diagrams: How? and why? Phys. Teach. 32, 352 (1994). 10.1119/1.2344034 (Pubitemid 24819405)
38. A. Puri, The art of free-body diagrams, Phys. Educ. 31, 155 (1996). 10.1088/0031-9120/31/3/015
39. W. Sperry, Placing the forces on free-body diagrams, Phys. Teach. 32, 353 (1994). 10.1119/1.2344035 (Pubitemid 24819406)
40. B. Hinrichs, Using the System Schema Representational Tool to Promote Student Understanding of Newton's Third Law, 2004 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (AIP, Melville, New York, 2004).
41. L. Turner, System schemas, Phys. Teach. 41, 404 (2003). 10.1119/1.1616480
42. K. Harper, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2001.
43. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, Investigative Science Learning Environment: Using the Processes of Science and Cognitive Strategies to Learn Physics, Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference (AIP, Melville, New York, 2001).
44. A. Van Heuvelen, and E. Etkina, Active Learning Guide, Student Edition (Addison Wesley Longmann, San Francisco, CA, 2006), p. 1-13.
45. A. Van Heuvelen, and E. Etkina, Active Learning Guide, Student Edition (Addison Wesley Longmann, San Francisco, CA, 2006), p. 1-14.
46. A personal response system is a small electronic device that was used during formative assessments that were multiple choice. The instructor would pose a question, students would answer via their device, and then the instructor discussed the results.
47. D. Rosengrant, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The State University of New Jersey, 2007.
48. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020103
49. 10% is for students in conventionally taught Pre-Calculus courses similar to this course. The average is 20% for students in engineering physics courses.
50. K. Ericsson and H. Simon, Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1984).
51. K. Ericsson and H. Simon, How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking, Mind Cult. Act. 5, 178 (1998). 10.1207/s15327884mca0503-3
52. V. Prain and B. Waldrip, An exploratory study of teachers' and students' use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 1843 (2006). 10.1080/09500690600718294