High-School Students Believe School Physics Helps in Developing Logical But not Creative Thinking: Active Learning Can Change This Idea

  • Mirko Marušić University of Split
  • Josip Sliško

Abstract

This study is based on two exploratory questions with the aim of determining the relative effectiveness of two different student activities, called Reading, Presenting and Questioning (RPQ) and Experimenting and Discussing (ED), in changing students' perceptions and attitudes about the impact of physics learning on the development of logical and creative thinking. One-semester of data from this high school project for RPQ group (91 students) showed a shift of 11% in their attitudes related to the development of logical thinking, while student attitudes about the development of creative thinking showed a shift of 20.9%. The results for the ED group (85 students) showed a considerable shift in positive attitudes about the role of physics in the development of logical thinking of 31.7% while student attitudes towards the development of creative thinking made a significant progress of 36.4%. These results indicate that both forms of active learning improve student perceptions about the impact of teaching physics on the development of logical and creative thinking, although students in ED group show much bigger improvements.

References

Adams, W. K., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N. D., & Wieman, C. E. (2006). New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 2, 010101
Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D. L., Allain, R. J., Bonham, S. W., Dancy, M. H., & Risley, J. S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. In E.F. Redish and P.J. Cooney (Eds.), Reviews in PER volume 1: Research-based reform of university physics. College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
Daley, B. A (2004). Project-Based Approach: Students Describe the Physics in Movies. The Physics Teacher, 42(1), 41-44.
Diakidoy, I. N., & Kanari, E. (1999). Student Teachers' Beliefs about Creativity. British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 225-243.
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). The power of problem-based learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Etkina E., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2007). Investigative Science Learning Environment – A science process approach to learning physics. In E.F. Redish and P.J. Cooney (Eds.), Reviews in PER volume 1: Research-based reform of university physics. College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers.
Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057-1073.
Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1998). Interpreting VASS dimensions and profiles for physics students. Science Education, 7(6), 553-577.
Hammer, D. (2000). Student Resources for Learning Introductory Physics. American Journal of Physics - Physics Education Research Supplement, 68(7), S52-S59.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Personal Epistemolgy: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Hu, W., Wu, B., Jia, X., Yi, X., Duan, C., Meyer, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Increasing Students’ Scientific Creativity: The “Learn to Think” Intervention Program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 3-21.
Huitt, W. (2009). Humanism and open education. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [27.03.2014.], from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/humed.html
Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kim, K. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.
Laws, P. (1991). Calculus-based physics without lectures. Physics Today, 44(12), 24-31.
Lawson, A. E. (1996). Classroom test of scientific reasoning: Revised pencil paper version. Tempe. AZ: Arizona State University.
Mahboub, K. C., Portillo, M. B., Liu, Y., & Chandraratna, S. (2004). Measuring and enhancing creativity. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(3), 429-436.
Marušić, M., & Sliško, J. (2012a). 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.
Marušić, M., & Sliško, J. (2012b). Effects of two different types of physics learning on the results of CLASS test. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010107-1 – 010107- 12.
Masnick, A .M., Stavros Valenti, S., Cox, B. D., & Osman, C. J. (2010). A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of Students’ Attitudes about Science Careers. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 653-667.
McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755-767.
McDermott, L. C., & The Physics Education Group at the University of Washington (1996). Physics by Inquiry Volume I. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & The Physics Education Group at the University of Washington (2002). Tutorials in Introductory Physics. Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2009). Some student teachers’ conceptions of creativity in school science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(1), 45-60.
Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (2010). What Teachers See as Creative Incidents in Elementary Science Lessons, International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 1989-2005.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2006). Bibliography - Students alternative frameworks and science education. Kiel: Institute for Science Education.
Redish, E. F. (1999). Millikan Award Lecture (1998): Building a Science of Teaching Physics. American Journal of Physics, 67(7), 562-573.
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66(3), 212-224.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55-77.
Renzulli J. S., & Reis S. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how– to guide for educational exellence. Mansfield Center. CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(1), 3-54.
Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science, Science Education, 92(3), 499-525.
Siegel, S. (1956). Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (pp. 75–83.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sorensen, C. M., Churukian, A. D., Maleki, S., & Zollman, D. A. (2006). The New Studio format for instruction of introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 74(12), 1077-1082.
Sternberg, R., & Lubert, T. (1999). The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R. W., & Powell, J. C. (2000). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Van Heuvelen, A., & Etkina, E. (2006). The Physics Active Learning Guide. Instructor Edition. San Francisco: Addison Wewley.
Wells, M., Hestenes, D., & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 63(7), 606-619.
White, B., Elby, A., Frederiksen, J., & Schwarz, C. (1999). The Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Physical Science. presented at American Education Research Association, Montreal.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Chapter 3 'Prediction - Observation - Explanation? in 'Probing Understanding’. London: The Falmer Press.
Yerushalmi, E., Cohen, E., Heller, K., Heller, P., & Henderson, C. (2010). Instructors’ reasons for choosing problem features in a calculus-based introductory physics course. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020108-1– 020108-11.
Published
2017-02-28
How to Cite
MARUŠIĆ, Mirko; SLIŠKO, Josip. High-School Students Believe School Physics Helps in Developing Logical But not Creative Thinking: Active Learning Can Change This Idea. European Journal of Physics Education, [S.l.], v. 5, n. 4, p. 30-41, feb. 2017. ISSN 1309-7202. Available at: <http://eu-journal.org/index.php/EJPE/article/view/73>. Date accessed: 01 feb. 2023.
Section
Articles