Mathematical Calculations within Physics Lessons and Their Popularity Among Learners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2020.130404Keywords:
Learners´ attitude, Mathematical calculations, Physics lesson, Semantic differentialAbstract
Mathematics is an important nature exploration tool used by all natural sciences. So it is usual that mathematical calculations are part of school science education. But how are these calculations perceived by the learners themselves? What are their attitudes to this part of the teaching process? The answer to this question is important for any teacher who seeks to improve her/his teaching experience. The paper deals with the research of learners´ attitudes towards using mathematical calculations within physics lessons. Semantic differential for the sample of 230 primary and secondary school pupils was used in order to determine their attitudes towards this aspect and investigate the influence of grade and gender on the attitudes. The analysis of acquired data shows slightly negative learners´attitude to the mathematical calculations and some particular differences between grades and genders.
References
Angell, C., Guttesrud, O., Henriksen, E. K. and Isnes, A. (2004) ‘Physic: Frightful, but fun, Pupils´ and teachers´ view of physics teaching’, Science Education, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 683–706. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10141
Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory, Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Boaler, J. (2016) Mathematical mindsets, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Brand.
Boone, H. N. and Boone, D. A. (2012) ‘Analyzing Likert Data’, Journal of Extension, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 12–16.
Chapman, O. (2006) ‘Classroom practices for context of mathematics word problems’, Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 211–230. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-7834-1
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) ‘Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests’, Psychometrika, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 297–334. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Doane, D. P. and Seward, L. E. (2011) Applied Statistics in Bussines and Economics, New York: McGraw Hill Irwin.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D. and Leifer, L. J. (2005) ‘Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning’, Journal of engineering education, Vol. 94, No.1, pp. 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes, Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1998) ‘Attitude structure and function’, in Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., and Lindzey, G. (ed.) The handbook of social psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 269–322.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hecht, S. A. and Vagi, K. J. (2012) ‘Patterns of strengths and weaknesses in children’s knowledge about fractions’, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Vol. 111, No. 2, pp. 212–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.08.012
Hewstone, M. and Stroebe, W. (2006) Sociální psychologie. Moderní učebnice sociální psychologie [Social Psychology. Modern Textbook of Social Psychology], Prague: Portál.
Kaya, H. and Böyük, U. (2011) ‘Attitude towards physics lesson and physical experiments of the high school students’, European Journal of Physics Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 38–49.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1972) Základy výzkumu chování. Pedagogický a psychologický výzkum. [Fundamentals of Behavioral Research. Pedagogical and Psychological Research]. Prague: Academia.
Lehavi, Y., Bagno, E., Eylon, B. S., Mualem, R., Pospiech, G., Böhm, U., Krey, O. and Karam, R. (2017) ‘Classroom evidence of teachers’ PCK of the interplay of physics and mathematics’, in: Greczyło, T., and Dębowska, E., (ed.), Key Competences in Physics Teaching and Learning, Vol. 190, Chum: Springer International Publishing. pp. 95–104. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44887-9_8
Leung, K. C. I. (2014) ‘Prospective Teachers' Understanding of the Constant π and their Knowledge of How to Prove its Constant Nature through the Concept of Linearity’, Research in Mathematical Education, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmed.2014.18.1.1
Likert, R. (1931) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, New York: Columbia University Press.
Maio, G. and Haddock, G. (2010) The Psychology of attitude and attitude change, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Mazur, E. (1997) ‘Understanding or memorization: Are we teaching the right thing?’, Conference on the Introductory Physics Course on the occasion of the retirement of Robert Resnick, New York, pp. 113–124.
Meek, G. E., Ozgur, C. and Dunning, K. (2007) ‘Comparison of the t vs. Wilcoxon Signed- Rank Test for Likert Scale Data and Small Samples’, Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 91–106. https://dx.doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1177992540
Mills, J. E. and Treagust, D. F. (2003) ‘Engineering education, Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer’, Australasian journal of engineering education, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 2–16.
OECD (2016) PISA 2015 Results (Volume I). Excellence and Equity in Education, Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
Ornek, F., Robinson, W. R. and Haugan, M. P. (2008) ‘What makes physics difficult?’, International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 30–34.
Osborne, J., Simon, S. and Collins, S. (2003) ‘Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications’, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 1049–1079. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
Osgood, C. (1952) ‘The nature and measurement of meaning’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 172–237. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0055737
Pospiech, G., Lehavi, Y., Bagno, E. and Eylon, B. S. (2019) ‘Views and Strategies of Teachers Concerning the Role of Mathematics and Physics in Physics Lessons’, in McLoughlin E., van Kampen P. (ed.) Concepts, Strategies and Models to Enhance Physics Teaching and Learning, pp. 181–192, Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18137-6_16
Prince, M. (2004) ‘Does active learning work? A review of the research’, Journal of engineering education, Vol. 93, No. 3, pp. 223–231. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Redish, E. F. (2017) ‘Analysing the competency of mathematical modelling in physics’, in Greczyło T., Dębowska E. (ed.) Key competences in physics teaching and learning, Vol. 190 Cham: Springer, pp. 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44887-9_3
Rittle-Johnson, B. and Star, J. R. (2011) ‘The power of comparison in learning and instruction: Learning outcomes supported by different types of comparisons’, in Mestre, J. P. and Ross, B. H. (ed.) Psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education, Vol. 55, San Diego: Elsevier, pp. 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00007-7
Rubinstein, M. F. (1986) Tools for thinking and problem solving. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Schneider, M., Grabner, R. H. and Paetsch, J. (2009) ‘Mental number line, number line estimation, and mathematical achievement: their interrelations in grades 5 and 6’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 101, No. 2, pp. 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013840
Spelke, E. S. and Tsivkin, A. (2001) ‘Language and number: A bilingual training study’, Cognition, Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 45–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00108-6
Svoboda, M. (1992) Psychologická diagnostika dospělých. [Psychological diagnostics of adults]. Prague: Portál.
Stefan, M. and Ciomos, F. (2010) ‘The 8th and 9th grade students attitude towards teaching and learning physics’, Acta Didactica Napocensia, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 7–14.
Stejskalová. I., Komárková. L., Bednářová. M. and Štrach, P. (2019) ‘Student Adoption of a Non-Traditional Teaching Method in Accounting: How Previous Experience Impedes Willingness to Change’, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1–11. https://dx.doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2019.120101
Thurstone, L. L. (1928) Implicit attitudes can be measured. [Online], Available: http://timss.bc.edu/timss2011 [1 Jul 2014].
Uz, H. and Eryilmaz, A. (1999) ‘Effects of socioeconomic status, locus of control, prior achievement, cumulative GPA, future occupation and achievement in mathematics on students´ attitude toward physics’, Hacettepe Journal of Education, Vol. 16–17, pp. 105–112.
Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G. and Vermunt, J. D. (1999) ‘Consistency and variability of learning strategies in different university courses’, Higher Education, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003573727713
Vermunt, J. and Minnaert, A. (2003) ‘Dissonance in student learning patterns: when to revise theory?’, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309301
Verschaffel, L. (2002) ‘Taking the modeling perspective seriously at the elementary level: Promises and pitfalls’, Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Norwich, pp. 64–80.
Wang, M. and Degol, J. L. (2017) ‘Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions’, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 29, pp. 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x
Yesilyurt, M. (2004) ‘Student teachers attitudes about basic physics laboratory’, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 49–57.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Petr Emanovský, Dalibor Gonda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors declare with this manuscript intended for publication to ERIES Journal that:
- all co-authors agree with the publication of the manuscript even after amendments arising from peer review;
- all co-authors agree with the posting of the full text of this work on the web page of ERIES Journal and to the inclusion of references in databases accessible on the internet;
- no results of other researchers were used in the submitted manuscript without their consent, proper citation, or acknowledgement of their cooperation or material provided;
- the results (or any part of them) used in the manuscript have not been sent for publication to any other journal nor have they already been published (or if so, that the relevant works are cited in this manuscript);
- submission of the manuscript for publication was completed in accordance with the publishing regulations pertaining to place of work;
- experiments performed comply with current laws and written consent of the Scientific Ethics Committee / National Animal Care Authority (as is mentioned in the manuscript submitted);
- grant holders confirm that they have been informed of the submitted manuscript and they agree to its publication.
Authors retain copyright and grant ERIES Journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the published work with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ERIES Journal. Moreover, authors are able to post the published work in an institutional repository with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ERIES Journal. In addition, authors are permitted and encouraged to post the published work online (e.g. institutional repositories or on their website) as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
