Visual Representations of Situation in a Partially Defined Physics Problem: What Kinds of Drawings High-School and University Students Generate?

  • Josip Slisko Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla
  • Mirko Marušić University of Split

Abstract

In this research, we gave to technical university students (N=50) and high school students (N=75) a verbally described situation of a partially defined physics problem. The task for the both groups of the students was to generate drawings of how they imagined the situation that the problem referred to. A fully abstract drawing was generated by 48% of university students and by 28% of high-school students. Some of the students who did not provide the abstract drawing did however provide drawings with one (42%) or two (10%) concretizations of the problem. High school students have generated 58% of drawings with one concretization and 11% with two, while 2% of the drawings contain three concretizations of the observed partially defined physics problem. Our results show that numerical exercises, formulated in standard way mostly used in the teaching process, cannot develop the ability of visual representation of physics problem in a satisfying way. It is suggested that students should face partially defined problems that might enable them to develop the ability of visual representation of physics problem by using drawings and improve general problem solving strategies. In that way, they could better deal with open-ended real life problems, actively using physics principles and assumptions.

References

Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tyler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096-1097.
Blickensderfer, R. (1998). What’s wrong with this question? The Physics Teacher, 36, 524-525.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1998). Scaffolding emergent writing in the zone of proximal development. Literacy, Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1-18.
De Jong, T., Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., Van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., & Reimann, P. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology based learning environments Learning with multiple representations. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Dhillon, A. S. (1998). Individual differences within problem solving strategies used in physics. Science Education, 82(3), 379-405.
Erceg, N., Marušić, M., & Sliško, J. (2011). Students’ strategies for solving partially specified physics problems. Revista Mexicana de Física E, 57(1), 44-50.
Etkina, E., Gentile, M., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2014). College Physics. Boston: Pearson.
Fishbane, P. M., Gasiorowicz, S., & Thornton, S. T. (2005). Physics for Scientists and Engineers. 3rd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson / Prentice Hall.
Giambattista, A., McCarthty Richardson, B., & Richardson, R. C. (2004). College Physics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Giancoli, D. C. (2005). Physics. Principles with Applications. 6th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization in science education. New York: Springer.
Gil-Pérez, D., Dumas-Carré, A., Caillot, M., & Martínez-Torregrosa, J. (1990). Paper and pencil problem solving in the physical sciences as a research activity. Studies in Science Education, 18(1), 137-151.
Giordano, N. J. (2010). College Physics. Reasoning and Relationships. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Heller, P., & Heller, K. (1999). Cooperative Group Problem Solving in Physics. University of Minnesota. Retrieved [27.01.2018.] from http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Research/CGPS/GreenBook.html
Jones, E. R., & Childers, R. L. (1999). Contemporary College Physics. 3rd Edition. Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill.
Kariž Merhar, V. (2001). Nontraditional Problems. The Physics Teacher, 39(6), 338-340.
Knight, R. D. (2004). Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics. A Strategic Approach. San Francisco: Pearson/Addison Wesley.
Knight, R. D., Jones, B., & Field, S. (2010). College Physics. A Strategic Approach. 2nd Edition. Boston: Addison Wesley.
Lawson, A. E., & Renner, J. W. (1975). Relationships of science subject matter and developmental levels of learners. J of Research in Science Teaching, 12(2), 347-358.
Maloney, D. P. (1994). Research on Problem Solving: Physics in Gabel D. L. (Ed.) Handbook of research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: MacMillan Pb. Company.
Marušić, M., Erceg, N., & Sliško, J. (2011). Partially specified physics problems: university students' attitudes and performance. European Journal of Physics, 32(3), 711-722.
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.
Mazur, E. (2015). Principles & Practice of PHYSICS. Boston: Pearson.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Ohanian, H. C., & Markert, J. T. (2007). Physics for Engineers and Scientists. 3rd Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255-287.
Schultz, K., & Lochhead, J. (1991). A View from physics In Smith M. U. (Ed.) Toward a Unified Theory of Problem Solving: Views from the content domains. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scott, P., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Talk, action and visual communication in teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 84(308), 117-124.
Serway, R. A., Faughn, J. S., Vuille, C., & Bennet, C. A. (2006). College Physics. 7th Edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Slisko, J. (2002). Física 1. El encanto de pensar. Naucalpan de Juárez, México: Pearson Educación de México.
Slisko, J. (2003). Física 2. El encanto de pensar. Naucalpan de Juárez, México: Pearson Educación de México.
Sliško, J. (2008). How can formulation of physics problems and exercises aid students in thinking about their results. Latin-American J of Physics Education, 2(2), 137-142.
Urone, P. (1998). College Physics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Van Meter, P., & Garner, J., (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285-325.
Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 142-166.
Van Weeren, J. H. P., De Mul, F. F. M., Peters, M. J., Kramers-Pals, H., & Roossink, H. J. (1982). Teaching problem solving in physics: A course in electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics, 50(8), 725-732.
Walker, J. S. (2007). Physics. 3rd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
Yerushalmi, E., & Magen, E. (2006). Same old problem, new name? Alerting students to the nature of the problem-solving process. Physics Education, 41(2), 161-167.
Young, H. D., & Geller, R. M. (2007). Sears & Zemanskys College Physics. 8th Edition. San Francisco: Pearson / Addison Wesley.
Published
2018-03-14
How to Cite
SLISKO, Josip; MARUŠIĆ, Mirko. Visual Representations of Situation in a Partially Defined Physics Problem: What Kinds of Drawings High-School and University Students Generate?. European Journal of Physics Education, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 2, mar. 2018. ISSN 1309-7202. Available at: <http://eu-journal.org/index.php/EJPE/article/view/159>. Date accessed: 16 oct. 2018.
Section
Articles