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

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 741-765

  Sutopo, ^a   Waldrip, Bruce ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF MALANG   (Indonesia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BALLARAT   (Australia)

Author keywords

reasoning ability; representational approach; understanding of mechanics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84903893641     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-013-9431-y     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. 191-208). New York: Springer.
2. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V. & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096-1097.
3. Alozie, N., Moje, E. & Krajcik, J. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94(3), 395-427.
4. Brown, N., Furtak, E., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3), 123-141.
5. Carolan, J., Prain, V. & Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representation for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science, 54(1), 18-23.
6. Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E. & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(2), 1074-1079.
7. Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.
8. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343-363.
9. Creagh, C. (2008). Diagrams: Useful tools for investigating a student's understanding of buoyancy. Teaching Science, 54(4), 48-50. DEECD, (2011).
10. Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
11. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.
12. Dolan, E. & Grady, J. (2010). Recognizing students' scientific reasoning: A tool for categorizing complexity of reasoning during teaching by inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 31-55.
13. Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F. & Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76, 615-652.
14. Ehrlén, K. (2009). Drawings as representations of children's conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 41-57.
15. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Everitt, B. S. & Skrondal, A. (2010). The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics (4th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Ford, M. & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining literacy learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1-32.
18. Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J. & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3), 175-196.
19. Glynn, S. & Duit, R. (1995). Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Greeno, J. G. & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappa, 78(5), 361-368.
21. Hake, R. (1987). Promoting student crossover to the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 55(10), 878-884.
22. Hake, 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.
23. Halliday, D., Resnick, R. & Walker, J. (2011). Fundamentals of Physics (9th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
24. Hestenes, D. & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 159-166.
25. Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Schwackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
26. Hubber, P., Tytler, R. & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40, 5-28.
27. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran, and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 3-28). Springer.
28. Kohl, P. B., Rosengrant, D. & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physics Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3, 010108.
29. Kozma, R. & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 121-146). London: Kluwer.
30. Malone, K. L. (2008). Correlations among knowledge structures, force concept inventory, and problem-solving behaviors. Physics Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 4, 020107.
31. McDermott, L. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, July, 24-32.
32. McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L. & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503-513.
33. McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. R. Luft, L. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting (pp. 121-133). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
34. Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-111.
35. Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W. & Barrett, K. C. (2004). SPSS for Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
36. Mullis, I., Martin, M., Ruddock, G., O'Sullivan, C., & Preuschoff, C. (2011). TIMSS 2011 Assessment Frameworks. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
37. National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington D. C: National Academy Press.
38. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
39. Prain, V., Tytler, R. & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787-808.
40. Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: The potential role of teacher communities: A response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 417-431.
41. Rosenblatt, R. & Heckler, A. F. (2011). Systematic study of student understanding of the relationships between the directions of force, velocity, and acceleration in one dimension. Physical Review Special Topic - Physics Education Research, 7, 020112.
42. Rosengrant, D., Heuvelen, A. V. & Etkina, E. (2009). Do student use and understand free-body diagrams? Physics Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5, 010108.
43. Serway, R. A. & Jewett, J. W., Jr. (2010). Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
44. Sokoloff, D. R. & Thornton, R. K. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338-352.
45. Sutopo, Liliasari, Waldrip, B., & Rusdiana, D. (2011, November 12). The need of representational approach to provide prospective physics teacher with better reasoning ability and conceptual understanding. Paper presented at 5th International Seminar of Science Education, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung, Indonesia.
46. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
47. Trowbridge, D. E. & McDermott, L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1020-1028.
48. Trowbridge, D. E. & McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 49(3), 242-253.
49. Tytler, R., Haslam, F., Hubber, P. & Prain, V. (2009). An explicit representational focus for teaching and learning about animals in the environment. Teaching Science, 55(4), 21-27.
50. Visniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A. & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381-419.
51. Waldrip, B. & Prain, V. (2006). Changing representations to learn primary science concepts. Teaching Science, 54(4), 17-21.
52. Waldrip, B., Prain, V. & Sellings, P. (2013). Explaining Newton's laws of motion: Using student reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding. Instructional Science. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-012-9223-8.
53. Waldrip, B., Prain, V. & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40, 65-80.
54. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
55. Young, H. D., Freedman, R. A. & Ford, A. L. (2008). Sears and Zemansky's University Physics with Modern Physics (12th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Education, Inc.