 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 12, Issue 1, Article 8 (Jun., 2011) |
Two of the significant objectives of the introductory physics course are to teach students fundamental concepts and principles, and help them apply their knowledge successfully when problem solving (Leonard, Dufresne & Mestre, 1996). In addition, research on the teaching and learning of physics revealed that the traditional lecture where students are passive learners does not substantially impact students’ learning and understanding of the most basic physics concepts (Desbien et al., 2005). On the other hand, the constructivist view on learning, which has been recently developed, has been said to enhance innovation in science as well as university physics teaching (Chang, 2005). In this context, to promote learning and teaching in physics, various instructional interventions were suggested. One of them is strategy-based instruction. This paper focuses on one type of strategy-based instruction, namely learning strategy. As Weinstein and Mayer have put it, whereas some psychologists label problem-solving strategies as cognitive or learning strategies, some others name them as metacognitive or self-regulation strategies (Morse & Morse, 1995). So, in this study, problem-solving strategies, a matter of crucial importance in physics learning, have been considered within learning strategies. Although the study of learning strategies is not a new subject in physics, this research paper will definitely contribute to existing literature on learning physics as its focus is on the effects of learning strategies on students’ satisfaction when learning physics, about which there are few studies.
Learning Strategies and Physics Education
Learning strategies can be defined as the behaviors and thought that a learner engages in during learning and that are intended to influence the learners’ encoding process (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). These strategies range from simple study skills, such as underlining a main idea, to complex thought processes, such as using analogies to relate prior knowledge to new information (Weinstein et al., 1989).
Weinstein and Mayer (1986), listed some of learning strategies into eight major strategies. The categories are: (1) Basic Rehearsal Strategies (such as repeating learning material), (2) Complex Rehearsal Strategies (such as copying, underlining or shadowing learning material), (3) Basic Elaboration Strategies (such as forming a mental image of learning material), (4) Complex Elaboration Strategies (such as paraphrasing or summarizing learning material), (5) Basic Organizational Strategies (such as grouping or ordering learning material), (6) Complex Organizational Strategies (such as outlining a passage or creating a hierarchy), (7) Comprehension Monitoring Strategies (such as checking for comprehension failures) and (8) Affective and Motivational Strategies (such as being alert and relaxed, to help overcome test anxiety).
Learning strategies have long been a subject highly valued by educators. The learning-strategies-related studies conducted between the early 1990s to 2008 have become miscellaneous through the analysis of some variables such as proficiency, learning environment, ethnicity, age, gender, learning styles, motivation, and beliefs. It has been identified that an individual’s learning proficiency directly affects the range of learning strategies employed. Moreover, environmental factors play an important role in how learning takes place and also on the strategies used in the learning process (Nambiar, 2009). Moreover, the surveys that have been conducted about learning strategies over the last thirty years have focused mainly on strategy teaching that helps students to improve their performance (Simpson & Nist, 2000). The results of several studies conducted in this field have proved that effective learning strategies contribute greatly to the students’ performance and also that the strategies can be taught (Protheroe, 2002).
Although there are many studies about the teaching of learning strategies in physics literature, there are few studies related to the use of learning strategies in physics. Physics education research on learning strategy instruction reported that strategy instruction had positive influences on students’ conceptual learning (Harper, Etkina & Lin, 2003), achievement in physics (Çaliskan, Sezgin Selçuk & Erol, 2010a; Ghavami, 2003; Sezgin Selçuk, 2004; Sezgin Selçuk, Sahin & Açikgöz, 2009; van Weeren et al., 1982), reading comprehension (Koch & Eckstein, 1991; Koch, 2001; Rouet et al., 2001), problem solving performance (Austin & Shore, 1995) and the use of higher level learning strategies (Vertenten, 2002). Research also suggests that higher level strategies are expected to promote conceptual understanding (Brown et al., 1983; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983).
Unfortunately, the instruction of learning strategies in physics is neglected in Turkey and there are very few studies in the field of physics (Çaliskan, 2007; Çaliskan et al., 2010a; Gök, 2006; Sezgin Selçuk et al., 2009; Sezgin Selçuk, 2004). Furthermore, this subject are is not given sufficient importance in our training system. It is neglected as the period of training is limited, course programs are loaded, or the teachers themselves do not have sufficient knowledge in the field.
Conceptual Learning, Learning Strategies and Physics Education
Conceptual learning involves understanding and interpreting concepts and the relationship between concepts. Conceptual learning emerges as a result of combining existing input with new information enabling it to be comprehended (Arslan, 2010). When evaluating the effectiveness of specific conceptual learning, one can use various instruments such as “detailed student interviews”, “open-ended examination problems”, and “multiple-choice diagnostics” (e.g. FCI, Hestenes, Wells & Swackhamer, 1992; FMCE, Thornton & Sokollof, 1998) (Redish & Steinberg, 1999). Besides the use of these instruments, literature shows that methods like concept mapping or drawings also help students to improve conceptual learning.
Literature in physics education show that diagnostic tests have been commonly used to spot students’ conceptual learning and conceptual misunderstandings over the last 20 years. In addition, the focus of the majority of the research is particularly on mechanics and electromagnetism (e.g. Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Demirci, 2010; Savinainen & Scott, 2002). Furthermore, there are also several studies that used interviewing techniques (e.g. Osborne & Gilbert, 1980) as well as open-ended questions for analyzing various subjects in physics (e.g. Cochran & Heron, 2006; Huffman, 1997).
In the light of this information, it can be concluded that conceptual learning has a major role in the field of physics education. In addition, a number of studies analyzing the effects of learning strategies on conceptual learning have been discovered in related literature (Gaigher, Rogan & Braun, 2007; Harper et al., 2003; Leonard et al., 1996; Numan & Sobolewski, 1998; Zieneddine & Abd-El-Khalick, 2001). Moreover, although there are some studies claiming that teaching learning strategies has no influence on students’ conceptual learning (Huffman, 1997), many studies verify that teaching learning strategies has a positive effect on students’ conceptual learning.
For example, the effects of structured problem-solving instruction on students’ problem solving skills and conceptual understanding of physics were investigated in a recent experimental study (Gaigher et al., 2007). The study revealed that the structured problem-solving group showed better physics conceptual understanding and tended to use a more conceptual approach in problem solving. Harper, Etkina and Lin (2003) used structured weekly journals in order to foster student questions about the learning material. The resulting questions were collected for one quarter and coded based on difficulty and topic. Students also took several conceptual tests during the implementation. The reports contained more questions than typically observed in a college classroom, but the number of questions asked was not correlated to conceptual performance. An investigation of the relationships among different types of questions and performance on these tests revealed that deeper-level questions that focus on concepts, coherence of knowledge, and limitations were related to the variance in student conceptual performance. Using qualitative problem-solving strategies, Leonard, Dufresne and Mestre (1996) taught an introductory, calculus-based physics course by highlighting the role played by conceptual knowledge in solving problems. The study identified the strategies as effective instructional means for helping students to identify principles that could be applied to solve specific problems, as well as to recall the topics covered in the course. In another study, Numan and Sobolewski (1998) investigated the influence of explicit problem solving instruction on students' problem solving ability and conceptual understanding as compared to instruction in textbook style problem solving. The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to measure students’ conceptual understanding at the beginning and at the end of the semester. In addition to the FCI, students’ reasoning in multiple choice questions and their responses to multistep problems were analyzed to obtain a complete assessment of students’ conceptual understanding and problem solving skills in both groups. The results of the study indicated a significant difference between the explicit problem solving group and the textbook style problem solving group in students’ conceptual understanding and problem solving performance in favor of the former. Zieneddine and Abd-El-Khalick (2001) assessed the effectiveness of concept maps as learning tools (or strategies) in developing students' conceptual understanding in a physics laboratory course, and explored students' perceptions regarding the usefulness of concept maps in the laboratory.
Huffman (1997), who conducted a study to determine the effects of teaching explicit problem-solving strategies in physics teaching at high school level on students’ conceptual learning skills through three open-ended questions related to FCI and Newton’s laws, concluded that there was no significant difference between the strategy teaching group and the control group. In addition, he also put forward that female students benefit from strategy teaching more than their male peers.
Learning Satisfaction and Physics Education
As a way of monitoring and improving the quality of teaching, student evaluations have become a part of life at universities (Kwan, 2001). According to Kwan (1999), these evaluations are used as one (sometimes the only and often the most influential) measure of teaching effectiveness. As well as the helpfulness of the “Student evaluation of teaching” (SET) in improving the teaching performance of the faculty lecturers, it can be also effective at the decisions of executives about the lecturers (e.g., promotion and tenure decisions) (Loveland, 2007; Morgan, Sneed & Swinney, 2003). According to many researchers student evaluations are a valid, reliable, and worthwhile means of evaluating teaching (Wachtel, 1998). There are several reports showing that students’ evaluations of the efficiency of the teaching are commonly used to understand the quality of the teaching methods used as well as students’ satisfaction with learning physics, and also in educational psychology surveys (Marsh, 1987).
In higher education, student satisfaction is one of the important indicators of quality (Erdogan, Usak & Aydin, 2008). Student evaluations can be used to measure student satisfaction. Satisfaction measures include different dimensions such as instruction and instructors, courses, majors, student services, facilities, academic services and campus climate (Sezgin et al., 2000). Similarly, Chien (2007) claims that learning satisfaction is made up of five fundamental elements; individual characteristics, teacher’s attitude and skills, characteristics of the course, the learning environment and teaching objectives.
Hui et al (2008) define learning satisfaction as the perception of success and the positive feelings one has when he is successful. Erdogan et al (2008) describe the concept of satisfaction as an object, situation that meets a person’s needs, or his attitude towards a situation. In the light of this information, in the present study, satisfaction is defined as the degree to which students feel satisfied with physics courses (i.e., students' overall course satisfaction concerning workload of course, level of course, teaching activities and instructors' teaching effectiveness).
There have been several studies on satisfaction. They mostly analyze the effect of satisfaction, which is a very significant variable for assessing the efficiency of teaching methods like online courses, web-based courses and distance learning. (e.g. Arbaugh & Duray, 2002; Blackwell et al., 2002; Hui et al., 2008; Mourtos & McMullin, 2001; Ryan, 2000; Sue, 2005; Sahin, 2008) There are also some studies showing that teaching methods like PBL or cooperative learning have a positive effect on satisfaction (Khaki et al., 2007; Kingsland, 1996; Klein & Pridemore, 1992). So, in order to improve the quality of teaching, some studies concerning learning satisfaction have focused on discovering the factors affecting it. For example, a survey conducted by Binner et al (1994) set forth that factors such as a teacher’s attitude towards teaching, course materials and classroom management have a direct influence on learning satisfaction.
On the other hand, it has been identified that there are few studies analyzing learning satisfaction in the fields of science (e.g. Erdogan et al., 2008, 2009; Erdogan & Usak 2004, 2006, 2007; Hermanowicz, 2003; Telli, Rakici & Çakiroglu, 2003) and physics teaching (e.g. Brekelmans et al., 1997; Sezgin et al., 2000; Sezgin Selçuk & Çaliskan, 2010a; Sezgin Selçuk & Çaliskan, 2010b; Welch, 1969). To illustrate, Erdogan et al (2008) researched the facilities that a group of trainee chemistry teachers have in their departments and faculties in addition to their satisfaction with them. The researchers observed whether those students’ learning satisfaction varied depending on the universities they attend and their genders as well. They eventually came to the conclusion that gender has no effect on learning satisfaction; whereas, the universities they are enrolled at definitely has. What is more, Hermanowicz (2003) studied scientists and satisfaction. Brekelmans et al (1997), on the other hand, studied the impact of learning satisfaction on success in mathematics and physics. They discovered that learning satisfaction influences success in mathematics more than it does in physics. Welch (1969) researched the factors influencing students’ satisfaction with physics courses at high school level. Sezgin et al (2000), in their study examining university students’ satisfaction with the physics laboratory, discovered that satisfaction did not change according to gender, freshman students had a higher level of satisfaction with the teaching process when compared to other students in senior classes, and their satisfaction with the physics laboratory changed depending on their departments. Sezgin Selçuk and Çaliskan (2010a) noted that the level of learning satisfaction of the pre-service teachers’ that were taught in the Introduction to Physics course based on problem solving methods was significantly higher than the ones who were taught the same course based on traditional methods. In another study, Sezgin Selçuk and Çaliskan (2010b) put forth that the gender and academic success of pre-service teachers had no effect on their learning satisfaction.
In the literature, there is no study investigating the relationship between students’ learning satisfaction and learning strategies used in physics teaching. On the other hand, there are a few studies examining the effect of the teaching of learning strategies on learning satisfaction (Brown, 2009; Kaenin, 2004).
In brief, for all of the afore mentioned reasons regarding the necessity of investigating the effects of strategy instruction on conceptual learning in a physics course, especially on students’ learning satisfaction towards the course in the field literature, this research aims to evaluate the correlations between present research and these variables. Furthermore, this research hopes to make new contributions in the field of physics education literature.
Mestre et al. (1993) stated that two important goals of physics instruction were to help students achieve a deep, conceptual understanding of the subject and to help them develop powerful problem solving skills. In light of this statement, we designed our explicit summarizing instruction which is integrated content instruction.
Summarizing is the students’ brief restatement of the main points learnt either verbally or in written form (Açikgöz, 2002). This learning strategy strengthens the relationship between the new ideas taught in the teaching material, and enables students to establish a bond between the newly and previously learnt knowledge (Sezgin Selçuk, 2004). Hence, the main purpose of this study is to examine the effects of summarizing strategy instruction on student teachers’ conceptual learning in electricity and magnetism, and learning satisfaction. The research questions investigated in this study were as follows:
1. Are there any effects of using summarizing strategy instruction on pre-service teachers’ conceptual learning scores?
2. Are there any effects of using summarizing strategy instruction on pre-service teachers’ learning satisfaction?
