Implementing react strategy in a context-based physics class: Impulse ...

Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies 2012 Volume (issue) 4(1): 233-240

Implementing react strategy in a context-based physics class: Impulse and momentum example Eser Ultay* Giresun University, Giresun School of Vocational Studies, 28000, Giresun, Turkey

Received: 25 January 2011; accepted: 27 February 2011

Abstract The purpose of this study is to explore that whether students‘ conceptual learning on impulse and momentum will change with REACT strategy and to determine that which one (REACT strategy or conventional way) will improve the conceptual understanding more. The study is carried out in the form of a quasi-experimental design with 112 students. In the experiment group (58 students), REACT materials are applied during impulse and momentum teaching. In the control group (54 students), impulse and momentum are taught in a conventional way (concisely chalk and talk). Pre and post concept tests are administered both groups. The findings show that students‘ conceptual learning is improved with REACT strategy but REACT strategy needs some adjustments such as adding some new steps or extending some steps‘ content. Keywords: Context-based physics courses; Impulse and momentum; REACT strategy

©Sila Science. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Scientific literacy has become a major aim of science education [1]. According to PISA 2000 report, "Scientific literacy is the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity." [2] If a student cannot interpret the physical/chemical/biological actions happened in her/his environment, it means science education could not reach one of the most important goals which is ‗science for all‘ [3]. Because to make all students scientifically literate, after constructivist approach, context-based approach is developed. Actually, context-based approach is rooted in a constructivist approach to teaching and learning [4-8]. In constructivist ____________ *

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-454-216-2521, Fax: +90-454-216-5457. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Ultay).

234

E. Ultay / EEST Part B Social and Educational Studies

4

(2012)

233-240

approach, new knowledge is firstly related with pre-existing knowledge and then constructed. But according to Souders [9], human mind is not so successful at relating new knowledge with pre-existing knowledge, so searches experiences related to new knowledge. When it is done, new knowledge starts to make sense and students find it useful. Theoretically, contextbased approach is based on this idea and uses relevant contexts. In recent years, some countries has changed their curriculums with this new teaching approach, context-based approach. For example Salters Horners Advanced Physics in the UK, Salters Advanced Chemistry [10], Chemistry in Context [11] and ChemCom [12] in the USA, Industrial Chemistry in Israel [13], Chemie im Kontext [14] and Physics Curriculum Development Project (PLON) in the Netherlands [15-16]. The reasons of changing teaching curriculums may be that ‗failure to make students scientifically literate‘, ‗weak linkage between science/physics and daily life‘ [17-18], ‗negative image of the subject such as difficulty and requirement of mathematics‘ [19], and ‗decrease of students‘ motivation around high content overload‘ [17, 20-21]. Context-based approach aims to develop and sustain a sense of wonder and curiosity of young people about the natural world [20]. At the same time, a context can help students to connect scientific knowledge to real life [22]. The students are required to induce meanings by using contexts, thus justifying a ‗need-to-know‘ approach to content [23]. After the curriculum changes of many countries, Turkey has also changed physics curriculum. In schools, physics books based on context-based approach are being used as reference books. Because of being new of the approach, there is no enough literacy about it in Turkey. Therefore, context-based approach should be researched and discussed in terms of positive and negative sides and propriety of it in Turkey. 1. 1. Theoretical basis for REACT strategy REACT strategy is an application of context-based approach in a class setting. According to CORD‘s study [24] curricula and instruction based on this strategy will be structured to encourage five essential forms of learning: Relating, Experiencing, Applying, Cooperating, and Transferring. Table 1 shows REACT strategy and descriptions of each step [5]. Table 1. REACT strategy and descriptions of each step Description Relating Experiencing Applying Cooperating Transferring

learning in the context of one‘s life experiences or preexisting knowledge learning by doing, or through exploration, discovery, and invention learning by putting the concepts to use learning in the context of sharing, responding, and communicating with other learners using knowledge in a new context or novel situation—one that has not been covered in class

Because REACT strategy is being existed over a decade in science literature, there is a little research about its advantages or disadvantages for education. Navarra [25] used REACT strategy in his study about mathematics education. He reflected some teachers‘ opinions who use REACT methodology in their classes at least two years. According to Navarra, the success of any educational program depends ultimately on its ability to help teachers help students. The REACT methodology gives teachers the tools necessary to create those environments and teachers are very pleasent of REACT methodology and its positive effects

E. Ultay / EEST Part B Social and Educational Studies

4

(2012)

233-240

235

on students‘ attitudes, success and relationship even classmates. Navarra [25] explained REACT methodolody - he called REACT as a methodology instead of strategy being called by CORD [24] - is a cyclic process (Fig. 1). Each act of transferring is both the culmination of an iteration of the cycle and the catalyst for the next iteration.

Fig. 1. Cyclic process of REACT.

According to Navarra‘s opinions, REACT methodology can be applied in context-based teaching successfully (a) when the projects and activities are chosen that are related to students‘ daily life, (b) when students are motivated to get necessary data, (c) when students get the chance of applying of knowledge, (d) when students study cooperatively, (e) and when students are helped to discover connections that enable them to transfer knowledge from one context to another. In Turkey, there is one study using instructional materials based on REACT strategy about ratio and proportion in mathematics education [26]. The study was conducted with an elementary mathematics teacher and his seventeen 6th grade students in Trabzon. It was concluded from the teacher‘s instructions that REACT strategy was inadequate and hereby it was a necessity to add some extra traits. The other studies about REACT strategy was for only informing about the strategy itself, i.e. they cope with the theoretical part of the strategy [5, 24]. The purpose of this study is to explore that whether students‘ conceptual learning on impulse and momentum will change with REACT strategy which is based on context-based approach and to determine that which one (REACT strategy or conventional way- in which teachers write on the blackboard, students listen, memorize the facts or rules and answer when they are asked (shortly chalk and talk) -) will improve the conceptual understanding more. 2. Methodology The study is carried out in the form of a quasi-experimental design in the academic year of 2010-2011 at the Faculty of Education, Giresun University, Turkey. The sample group includes two classes with 112 prospective science teachers at the Department of Elementary Science Teacher Training. 58 students (two classes) are selected randomly as the experiment group, 54 students (two classes) are selected for the control group. In the experiment group, REACT materials are applied during impulse and momentum teaching by the researcher. The materials are prepared by the researcher and a chemistry educator whose area is context-based education and REACT strategy. In the control group, impulse and momentum are taught in a conventional way in which teachers write on the blackboard, students listen, memorize the facts or rules and answer when they are asked (shortly chalk and talk) by the researcher. Before and after the application, a concept test is administered to measure students‘ conceptual learning. The concept test includes some common misconceptions about impulse

236

E. Ultay / EEST Part B Social and Educational Studies

4

(2012)

233-240

and momentum. Misconceptions of impulse and momentum are obtained from literature review. The test consists of twelve questions and six misconceptions. Each misconception is assessed by two conceptual questions. The misconceptions are in the following: 1. When impulse is mentioned, students do think only pushing something; they do not consider pulling as an impulse. 2. Students think that impulse equals to momentum, but in fact impulse equals to the change in momentum. 3. Students confuse the concepts of moment and momentum because of the similarity of spelling. 4. Students think that momentum is scalar quantity; they do not know momentum has a direction. 5. Students suppose that momentum is conserved at every condition but it is not conserved when an external force exists. 6. Some movies on TV are caused some misconceptions. For example, when a bullet sticks into a person in a film, the person flies backward. But in fact, because of the mass of person is huge and the momentum will be conserved, the person can fly a little bit only if he is on roller-skate. Impulse and momentum concept test is prepared as a two-tier test. In order to diagnose students‘ alternative conceptions, the two-tier test has been proposed by science educators [27]. The two-tier test is a two-level question presented in a multiple-choice format. The first tier assesses students‘ knowledge about the misconception while the second tier explores students‘ reasons for their choices made in the first tier. The use of two-tier tests allows teachers to not only understand students‘ incorrect ideas, but also to explore students‘ reasoning behind these ideas. 3. Findings The data obtained from the concept test is analyzed with two independent samples one way ANOVA by SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The results of the analyses are shown in Tables 2-4. Table 2. Descriptives of the data ReactPre ControlPre ReactPost ControlPost Total

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

58 54 58 54 224

25.4138 24.4444 36.1724 32.1111 29.5804

4.76476 5.14934 4.70214 4.55849 6.81549

0.62564 0.70074 0.61742 0.62033 0.45538

According to Table 2, REACT group‘s and control group‘s average points, standard deviations were given. Before the lesson taught, REACT group‘s pre test average was 25,4, after teaching, average almost eleven points is increased, although control group‘s average is increased seven and a half. Table 3. One-way ANOVA results for two independent samples Between Groups Within Groups Total

Sum of Squares 5297,542 5061,011 10358,554

df 3 220 223

Mean Square 1765,847 23,005

F 76,761

Sig. 0,000

E. Ultay / EEST Part B Social and Educational Studies

4

(2012)

237

233-240

According to the analysis results shown in Table 3, there is a significant relation between groups at 0.05 level (F=76,761). This means students taught by REACT strategy learned the concepts significantly better than control group students. Table 4. Multiple Comparisons for Tukey HSD (I) Class

(J) Class

ReactPre

Mean Difference (I-J)

ControlPre 0.96935 ReactPost -10.75862(*) ControlPost -6.69732(*) ControlPre ReactPre -0.96935 ReactPost -11.72797(*) ControlPost -7.66667(*) ReactPost ReactPre 10.75862(*) ControlPre 11.72797(*) ControlPost 4.06130(*) ControlPost ReactPre 6.69732(*) ControlPre 7.66667(*) ReactPost -4.06130(*) * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.90700 0.89065 0.90700 0.90700 0.90700 0.92305 0.89065 0.90700 0.90700 0.90700 0.92305 0.90700

0.709 0.000 0.000 0.709 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

-1.3787 -13,0643 -9.0453 -3.3174 -14.0760 -10.0562 8.4529 9.3800 1.7133 4.3493 5.2771 -6.4093

Upper Bound 3.3174 -8.4529 -4.3493 1,3787 -9.3800 -5.2771 13.0643 14.0760 6.4093 9.0453 10.0562 -1.7133

Table 4 shows that the multiple comparisons for Tukey Test results. When the pre-tests are taken into account, there is no statistical difference between two groups (REACT group‘s pretest and Control group‘s pre-test). But when the post-tests are considered it can be seen that both groups learned impulse and momentum significantly. If we look at the both groups‘ post test results, it clearly points out a significant statistical difference. According to the findings, REACT group‘s post-test results are higher than the control group‘s post test results. Meanwhile, students in REACT group learned concepts better than students in control group. 4. Discussion and conclusion The study demonstrates that REACT strategy affected freshman students‘ conceptual learning more than conventional instruction. It is clear that both group‘s pre tests were statistically indifferent, but post tests were experiment group taught by REACT strategy learned impulse and momentum concepts better. Two example questions from the impulse and momentum concept test are given below. The first question is about the first misconception that is ―when impulse is mentioned, students do think only pushing something; they do not consider pulling as an impulse‖. According to pre-test results, 15 students in experiment group (25.86%) selected the right option, while 12 students (22.2%) in control group answered correctly. But post-test results showed that 69% of experiment group and 59% of control group answered correctly. 1.

At once, slowing down and stopping of a car is an example of impulse. a) True* b) False The reason of selecting this option; a) If the car was gained speed, it would be impulse. b) Because there is no force pushing the car when decelerating, there is no impulse.

238

E. Ultay / EEST Part B Social and Educational Studies

4

(2012)

233-240

c) Decelerating is a type of impulse because of change in momentum.* d) It cannot be talked about impulse due to fact that there is no momentum change. The second question is about the second misconception which is ―students think that impulse equals to momentum, but in fact impulse equals to the change in momentum‖. In regard to pre-test results, 15.51% of experiment group (9 students of 58) and 12.96% (7 students of 54) of control group answered correctly. When the post-tests results are taken into account, 60% of experiment group (35 students of 58) and 37% (20 students of 54) selected the right option. The reason of control group‘s very low percentage can be students‘ not reading the question well. In REACT group, when the lesson was being taught, some activities stressed that impulse equals to change in momentum, not to momentum. But in the control group, the lesson was traditional -i.e. transmissive mode of teaching and students‘ mechanical and rote manner of learning have been traditional forms of teaching and learning-. 2. In the case of a bullet’s sticking in a wall, impulse equals to momentum. a) True b) False* The reason of selecting this option; a) Impulse equals to momentum at every condition. b) Impulse equals to change in momentum.* c) There is only impulse in this case. d) In this case there is no impulse and momentum, so both are zero. While control group students had a high score at the first question, at the second question they could not be so successful. The reason can be that the first question is to measure the first misconception. It can be said that the first misconception was understood better than the second misconception being measured by the second question. Actually, the result of this study is not so surprising because Costu [26] has similar results. Costu [26] used an experiment group taught by REACT strategy and a control group taught conventionally in a mathematics class but the results were the experiment group students‘ success was better than the control group. Costu [26] proposed that some extra steps were needed to be added REACT strategy for example explanation and discussion. Actually, during the application students often asked for explanation of the topic. It can be said that REACT strategy needs some adjustments for example it can be added some explanation steps which can be done by students. In other words, students come to the board and teach their peers. Thus, students can ask unclear points without hesitation, it can make teaching more enjoyful and make students feel included in the teaching process which is one of the goals of contextbased education [21]. Another point suggested by Coştu is discussion part. In REACT strategy, discussion part can be integrated into all steps because there is no teacher talking a lot, students can feel a little adrift. To avoid this, teacher should be a mentor, a guide or a facilitator and direct students‘ discussion without stressing them. Another point to be discussed here is students‘ satisfaction of the lesson. Most of students in REACT strategy came to the researcher and asked for all lessons to be taught in REACT. It is very great pleasure to hear such wishes because physics is seen as a very difficult course and highly based on mathematics skills. But students could eventually see physics attractive because of contexts that are relevant to them. Contexts do not only make physics interesting for students but also develop positive attitudes towards science [13, 28-30]. According to the researcher‘s observation, student attitudes were more positive, and students were more willing

E. Ultay / EEST Part B Social and Educational Studies

4

(2012)

233-240

239

to accept responsibility. Students were also more open to the idea of working in groups. The views that real life contexts make physics more relevant to learning and will enhance students‘ interest in physics are similar to those of Australian academics [31-32]. Navarra [25] also found very positive results in his study and he proposed researchers applying REACT strategy in their classes and having similar results in science. The results were very similar to Navarra [25] although his study is done in mathematics. When the studies that used context-based approach as a teaching way are taken into account, it is clear that results are very hoping for education [33-37]. Whereas context-based studies are found very successful at motivating students, and attracting students‘ interest, REACT strategy is also highly promising. However, there is a little research about REACT strategy. In conclusion, context-based science and mathematics lessons improve students‘ success and conceptual learning, as well as REACT strategy. But in this area, there should be more researches and studies about especially REACT strategy. Some example materials should be presented for new researchers of context-based approach and REACT strategy. It should be some adjustments to REACT strategy such as adding explanation and discussion parts, where needed. References [1] Kortland J. Scientific literacy and context-based science curricula: Exploring the didactical friction between context and science knowledge. GDCP Conference, Potsdam, Germany, September 13-16, 2010. [2] OECD. The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework – Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2003. [3] Ng W, Nguyen VT. Investigating the integration of everyday phenomena and practical work in physics teaching in Vietnamese high schools. Int Educ J 2006;7:36-50. [4] Berns R. G, Erickson PM. Contextual teaching and learning: preparing students for the new economy. Highlight Zone Res Work 2001;5:1-8. [5] Crawford ML. Teaching Contextually: Research, Rationale, and Techniques for Improving Student Motivation and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, CCI Publishing, Waco, Texas. 2001. [6] Glynn SM, Koballa TR, Jr. The Contextual teaching and learning instructional approach. Exemplary Science: Best practices in professional development, ed. R. E. Yager, 75-84. Arlington, VA: NSTA press. 2005. [7] Imel S. Contextual learning in adult education. Pract Appl Brief 2000;12:1-6. [8] Lynch RL, Padilla MJ. Contextual teaching and learning in preservice teacher education. National Conference on Teacher Quality, January 10, Washington DC. 2000. [9] Souders J. Contextually based learning: Fad or proven practice. American Youth Policy Forum, July 9, Capitol Hill. 1999. [10] Lubben F, Bennett J, Hogarth S, Robinson A. A systematic review of the effects of context-based and Science-Technology-Society (STS) approaches in the teaching of secondary science on boys and girls, and on lower-ability pupils. Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPICentre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. 2005. [11] Schwartz AT. Contextualized chemistry education: The American experience. Int J Sci Educ 2006;28:977–998. [12] Sutman F, Bruce M. Chemistry in the community – Chemcom. J Chem Educ 1992;69:564–567. [13] Hofstein A, Kesner M. Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. Int J Sci Educ 2006;28:1017–1039. [14] Parchmann I, Gräsel C, Baer A, Nentwig P, Demuth R, Ralled, B. Chemie im Kontext: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. Int J Sci Educ 2006;28:1041–1062.

240

E. Ultay / EEST Part B Social and Educational Studies

4

(2012)

233-240

[15] Eijkelhof HMC, Kortland K. Broadening the aims of physics education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education. London, UK: Falmer Press. 1988. Cited by: Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., de Jong, O. & Pilot, A. A Research Approach to Designing Chemistry Education using Authentic Practices as Contexts. Int J Sci Educ 2006;28:1063–1086. [16] Kortland J. Physics in personal, social and scientific contexts: A retrospective view on the Dutch Physics Curriculum Development Project PLON. 2nd International IPN – YSEG Symposium. Kiel, Germany 2002. [17] Gilbert JK. On the nature of ―context‖ in chemical education. Int J Sci Educ 2006;28:957-976. [18] Pilot A, Bulte AMW. Why do you ―need to know‖? Context-based education. Int J Sci Educ 2006;28:953–956. [19] Whitelegg E, Parry M. Real-life contexts for learning physics: meanings, issues and practice. Phys Educ 1999;34:68–72. [20] Demircioglu H, Demircioglu G, Calık M. Investigating effectiveness of storylines embedded within context based approach: A case for the periodic table. Chem Educ Res Prac 2009;10:241–249. [21] Stolk MJ, Bulte AMW, de Jong O, Pilot A. Towards a framework for a professional development programme: empowering teachers for context-based chemistry education. Chem Educ Res Prac 2009;10:164–175. [22] Lye H, Fry M, Hart C. What does it mean to teach physics ‗in context‘? A first case study. Aust Sci Teach J 2001;48:16–22. [23] Yigit N. Developing presentation skills of student teachers through micro-teaching method. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:55–74. [24] CORD, CORD Algebra 1: Mathematics in Context, South-Western Educational Publishing, Cincinati, OH. 1999. [25] Navarra A. Achieving Pedagogical Equity in the Classroom, Cord Publishing. 2006. [26] Azar A. A comparison of the effects of two physics laboratory applications with different approaches on student physics achievement. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:161–185. [27] Chou C, Chan P-S, Wu H-C. Using a two-tier test to assess students‘ understanding and alternative conceptions of cyber copyright laws. British J Educ Tec 2007;38:1072–1084. [28] Bennett J, Holman J, Lubben F, Nicolson P, Prior C. Science in context: The Salters Approach. 2nd International IPN – YSEG Symposium. Kiel, Germany: October, 2002. [29] Bennett J, Gräsel C, Parchmann I, Waddington D. Context-based and conventional approaches to teaching chemistry: Comparing teachers‘ views. Int J Sci Educ 2005;27:1521–1547. [30] van Driel JH. The conceptions of chemistry teachers about teaching and learning in the context of a curriculum innovation. Int J Sci Educ 2005;27:303-322. [31] Brass C, Gunstone R, Fensham P. Quality learning of physics: Conceptions held by high school and university teachers. Res Sci Educ 2003;33:245–271. [32] Wilkinson JW. Teachers‘ perceptions of the contextual approach to teaching VCE physics. Aust Sci Teach J 1999;45:58–65. [33] Yesilyurt M. Meta-analysis of the computer assisted studies in physics: A sample of Turkey. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2011;3:173–182. [34] Demirbas A. Social, economic, environmental and policy aspects of biofuels. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:75–109. [35] Karamustafaoglu O. Active learning strategies in physics teaching. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009:1:27–50. [36] Sahin C, Calik M, Cepni S. Using different conceptual change methods embedded within 5E model: Asample teaching of liquid pressure. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:115–125. [37] Cepni S. Effects of computer supported instructional material (CSIM) in removing , students misconceptions about concepts: ―Light, light source and seeing.‖ Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:51–83.