Junior high school physics: Using a qualitative strategy for successful problem solving

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 47, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1094-1115

  Mualem, Roni ^a   Eylon, Bat Sheva ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

middle school science; physics; problem solving

Indexed keywords

BODY FORCES; COLLEGE STUDENTS; FORCE CONCEPT INVENTORY; JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS; LEARNING GOALS; MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE; MULTI-STEP; NEWTON'S LAWS; REASONING TASKS; TEACHING MECHANICS; VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS;

FORECASTING; STUDENTS;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 78249263201     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20369     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Adams, W., &, Wieman, C., (2007) Problem Solving Skill Evaluation Instrument-Validation Studies. Physics Education Research Conference, July 2006, 18-21.
2. Altshuller, G., (1999). The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation, and technical creativity. Publisher: Technical Innovation Center, Inc.
3. Arons, B.A., (1994). Homework and test questions for introductory physics teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4. Bagno, E., &, Eylon, B.S., (1997). From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics, 65, 726-736.
5. Ben Zuk, M., (2001). Interaction, force and motion. Matmon: Weizmann Institute of Science.
6. Brown, E., (2008). Sciencefocus 8. Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
7. Camp, C.W., &, Clement, J.J., (1992). Preconception in mechanics: Lessons dealing with students' conceptual difficulties. Iowa, USA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
8. Celemin, M., &, Covian, E., (1999) Misconceptions in mechanics in first year engineering students. Prague, Czech Republic: International Conference on Engineering Education.
9. Chabay, R., &, Sherwood, B., (1999). Bringing atoms into first-year physics. American Journal of Physics, 67, 1045-1050.
10. Clement, J., (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66-71.
11. diSessa, A.A., (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
12. Dunbar, (1997). How scientists think. In T.B. Ward & Smith (Eds.). Creative thought. (461-493).
13. Edelson, D.C., (2001). Learning-For-Use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (3), 355-385.
14. Eylon, B.S., &, Bagno, E., (1997). Professional Development of Physics Teachers Through Long-Term In-Service Programs: The Israeli Experience. In:, E.F. Redish, &, J.S. Rigden, (Eds.), The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of ICUPE (pp. 299-325). The American Institute of Physics: Melville, NY.
15. Galili, I., &, Lavrik, V., (1998). Flux concept in learning about light: Critique of the present situation. Journal of Science Education, 82, 591-613.
16. Hake, R.R., (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66 (1), 64-74.
17. Halloun, I., &, Hestenes, D., (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53 (11), 1043-1055.
18. Helgeson, S.L., (1994). Research on problem solving: Middle school. In:, D.L. Gabel, (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 249-268). New York: Macmillan.
19. Heller, P., Keith, R., &, Anderson, S., (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60 (7), 627-636.
20. Heller, P., (1995) Excerpted from "AAPT Orlando Workshop #15, Research in Problem Solving: Issues and Alternate Approaches, Part 3: Context-rich written problems and problem-solving labs", P. Heller, University of Minnesota.
21. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., &, Swackhamer, G., (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
22. Karplus, R., (1969). Introductory Physics: A model approach. New York: W.A. Benjamin Inc.
23. Kim, E., &, Pak, S.J., (2001). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties even after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics, 70, 759.
24. Leonard, W., Dufrense, R., &, Mestre, J., (1996). Using qualitative problem solving strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge in solving problems. American Journal of Physics, 64 (12), 1495-1502.
25. Levy Nahum, T., Krajcik, J., Mamlok-Naaman, R., &, Hofstein, A., (2006). Developing a new teaching approach for the chemical bonding concept aligned with current scientific and pedagogical knowledge. A paper presented at the NARST conference 2006 (National Association for Research in Science Teaching), April, San-Francisco.
26. Mazur, A., (1997). Peer Instruction: A user's manual. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
27. McCloskey, M., (1983). Naive theories of motion. In:, D. Gentner, &, A.L. Stevens, (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-323), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
28. McDermott, L.C., (1976). Teacher education and the implementation of elementary science curricula. American Journal of Physics, 44, 434-441.
29. McDermott, L.C., Shaffer, S., &, Constantinou, C., (2000). Preparing teachers to teach physics and physical science by inquiry. Physics Education, 35 (6), 411-416.
30. Mestre, J.P., (2002). Probing adults' conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 9-50.
31. Minstrell, J., (1983). Getting the facts straight. The Science Teacher, 50 (1), 52-54.
32. Minstrell, J., (1992). Facets of students' knowledge and relevant instruction. Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies, IPN, Kiel, Germany, pp. 110-128.
33. Mualem, R., &, Eylon, B., (2007). "Physics with a Smile"-Explaining phenomena with a qualitative problem-solving strategy. The Physics Teacher, 45, 595-600.
34. Mualem, R., &, Eylon, B., (2009). Teaching physics in junior high school: Crossing the boarders of fear. European Journal of Teacher Education (EJTE), 32, 135-150.
35. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. Nussbaum, J., (1996) Astronomy Teaching: Challenges and Problems. Barcelona, Spain: A paper presented at the 4th International Conference on "Teaching Astronomy".
37. Perkins, D., (1993) Teaching for Understanding. At: http://www. exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/workshops/teachingforunderstanding.html.
38. Perkins, D., (1998). What is understanding? In:, M.S. Wiske, (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
39. Pugh, K., (2004). Newton's laws beyond the classroom walls. Science Education, 88 (2), 182-195.
40. Quintana, C., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., &, Soloway, E., (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3), 337-386.
41. Reif, F., (1995a). Understanding basic mechanics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
42. Reif, F., (1995b). Millikan lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. American Journal of Physics, 63 (1), 17-1632.
43. Reif, F., (2008). Applying cognitive science to education. Massachusetts, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
44. Reiser, B., Krajcik, J., Moje, E., &, Marx, R., (2003) Design strategies for developing science instructional materials. Philadelphia, PA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
45. Sherin, B., (2006). Common sense clarified: The role of intuitive knowledge in physics problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (6), 535-555.
46. Singh, C., (2002). When physics intuition fails. American Journal of Physics, 70 (11), 1103-1107.
47. Smith, J.P., diSessa, A.A., &, Roschelle, J., (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (2), 115-163.
48. Steinberg, R., &, Sabella, M., (1997). Performance on multi-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems. The Physics Teacher, 35, 150-155.
49. Taber, K.S., &, Watts, M., (2000). Learners' explanations for chemical phenomena. Chemistry Education. Research and Practice in Europe, 1 (3), 329-353.
50. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). (1993) website: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/ .
51. Turner, L., (2003). System schemas. The Physics Teacher, 41, 404-408.
52. Van Heuvelen, A., (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59 (10), 891-897.
53. Vinner, S., (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 97-129.
54. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., &, Papademetriou, E., (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and instruction, 11 (4), 381-419.
55. Walsh, L., Howard, R., &, Bowe, B., (2007). Phenomenographic study of students' problem solving approaches in physics. The Phys. Rev. ST Physics Ed. Research 3, 020108.
56. Wells, M., Hestenes, D., &, Swackhamer, G., (1995). A modeling method. American Journal of Physics, 63 (7), 606-619.
57. White, B., &, Frederiksen, J., (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 24, 99-157.
58. Zuzovsky, R., (2003). Curriculum as a determinant of learning outcomes-what can be learned from international comparative studies-TIMSS-1999. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29 (4), 279-292.