The Pattern of Physics Education Students’ Diagrams and Answers in Solving Force Problems
Abstract
Force diagrams or some say free body diagrams (FBDs), as physics representations, are usually employed to teach and learn physics concepts such as force. Physics education studies indicate that the use of FBDs can support or hinder students’ performance in solving physics problems. This study aims to investigate the type of representations drawn by students and the patterns of students’ answers while solving force problems. By involving 230 preservice physics teachers, questions about the application of Newton’s laws were administered to students to elicit the patterns of students’ diagrams and answers. Results were analysed into three categories: complete, incomplete, and inappropriate force diagrams. In addition, some students did not draw diagrams in solving the problems. Based on students’ answers, the percentage of students drawing incomplete diagrams (54% for horizontal problems and 42% for inclined problems) is higher than drawing complete diagrams (18% for horizontal problems and 35% for inclined problems). The percentage of students who drew inappropriate diagrams in solving horizontal and inclined problems is 20% and 10%, respectively. A few students (8% and 13%) did not draw diagrams for both questions. Students who drew complete diagrams tended to obtain the correct final answer. Some students who drew incomplete diagrams were not able to find the correct answers and even finish the problem. However, some students who drew incomplete diagrams could successfully solve the problem. The group of students who drew diagrams in the inappropriate category tended to demonstrate incorrect and unfinished answers. This study suggests that instructors should not only focus on the correctness of the diagrams but also focus on the completeness of diagrams drawn by students while solving the problems.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to Learn in Science. Science, 333(6046), 1096-1097.
Aviani, I., Erceg, N., & Mešić, V. (2015). Drawing and using free body diagrams: Why it may be better not to decompose forces. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(2), 1-14.
Balta, N., & Asikainen, M. A. (2019). A comparison of Olympians' and regular students' approaches and successes in solving counterintuitive dynamics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1644-1666.
Balta, N., & Eryılmaz, A. (2017). Counterintuitive dynamics test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 411-431.
Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873.
Ceuppens, S., Deprez, J., Dehaene, W., & De Cock, M. (2018). Design and validation of a test for representational fluency of 9th-grade students in physics and mathematics: The case of linear functions. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(2), 1-19.
Chang, H. Y. (2018). Students’ representational competence with drawing technology across two domains of science. Science Education, 102(5), 1129-1149.
Chen, Z., Demirci, N., Choi, Y. J., & Pritchard, D. E. (2017). To draw or not to draw? Examining the necessity of problem diagrams using massive open online course experiments. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1), 1-12.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (Eight). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design (Fifth Edition). SAGE Publication.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (Fourth Edition). SAGE Publication.
DiSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
Ertikanto, C., Rosidin, U., Distrik, I. W., Yuberti, Y., & Rahayu, T. S. (2018). Comparison of mathematical representation skill and science learning result in classes with problem-based and discovery learning model. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 106-113.
Etkina, E., Planinsic, G., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2019). College Physics: Explore and Apply (2nd ed.). Pearson.
Gebre, E. H., & Polman, J. L. (2016). Developing young adults' representational competence through infographic-based science news reporting. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2667-2687.
Hamdani, H., Mursyid, S., & Sirait, J. (2019). Using physics representation worksheet to enhance students’ understanding and performance about force. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(3).
Heckler, A. F. (2010). Some consequences of prompting novice physics students to construct force diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 32(14), 1829–1851.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
Hung, C. S., & Wu, H. K. (2018). Tenth graders’ problem-solving performance, self-efficacy, and perceptions of physics problems with different representational formats. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(2), 1-17.
Ivanjek, L., Susac, A., Planinic, M., Andrasevic, A., & Milin-Sipus, Z. (2016). Student reasoning about graphs in different contexts. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 1-13.
Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A. M. (2016). Rethinking the Boundaries of Cognitive Load Theory in Complex Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 831–852.
Kohnle, A., Ainsworth, S. E., & Passante, G. (2020). Sketching to support visual learning with interactive tutorials. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), 1-21.
Kuo, E., Hallinen, N. R., & Conlin, L. D. (2017). When procedures discourage insight: epistemological consequences of prompting novice physics students to construct force diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 814–839.
Lin, S. Y., & Singh, C. (2015). Effect of scaffolding on helping introductory physics students solve quantitative problems involving strong alternative conceptions. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(2), 1-19.
Liu, Z., Pan, S., Zhang, X., & Bao, L. (2022). Assessment of knowledge integration in student learning of simple electric circuits. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(2), 1-16.
Lucas, L. L., & Lewis, E. B. (2019). High school students' use of representations in physics problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 119(6), 327-339.
Maries, A., & Singh, C. (2018). Case of two electrostatics problems: Can providing a diagram adversely impact introductory physics students’ problem solving performance?. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010114.
Nie, Y., Xiao, Y., Fritchman, J. C., Liu, Q., Han, J., Xiong, J., & Bao, L. (2019). Teaching towards knowledge integration in learning force and motion. International Journal of Science Education, 41(16), 2271-2295.
Nielsen, W., Turney, A., Georgiou, H., & Jones, P. (2022). Meaning making with multiple representations: a case study of a preservice teacher creating a digital explanation. Research in Science Education, 52, 871–890.
Park, J., Chang, J., Tang, K. S., Treagust, D. F., & Won, M. (2020). Sequential patterns of students’ drawing in constructing scientific explanations: focusing on the interplay among three levels of pictorial representation. International Journal of Science Education, 42(5), 677–702.
Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2022). Theorising learning in science through integrating multimodal representations. Research in Science Education, 52, 805–817.
Rau, M. A. (2017). Conditions for the Effectiveness of Multiple Visual Representations in Enhancing STEM Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 717–761.
Redish, E. F., & Kuo, E. (2015). Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology. Science & Education, 24, 561-590.
Robertson, A. D., Goodhew, L. M., Scherr, R. E., & Heron, P. R. (2021). University student conceptual resources for understanding forces. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(1), 010121.
Rosengrant, D., van Heuvelen, A., & Etkina, E. (2009). Do students use and understand free-body diagrams?. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5(1), 1-13.
Savinainen, A., Mäkynen, A., Nieminen, P., & Viiri, J. (2013). Does using a visual-representation tool foster students’ ability to identify forces and construct free-body diagrams? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(1), 1-11.
Scheid, J., Müller, A., Hettmannsperger, R., & Schnotz, W. (2019). Improving learners’ representational coherence ability with experiment-related representational activity tasks. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(010142), 1-23.
Scheid, J., Müller, A., Hettmannsperger, R., & Schnotz, W. (2019). Improving learners’ representational coherence ability with experiment-related representational activity tasks. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 010142.
Schiering, D., Sorge, S., Keller, M.M., & Neumann, K. (2022). A proficiency model for pre‐service physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)—What constitutes high‐level PCK?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(1), 136–163.
Selling, S. K. (2016). Learning to represent, representing to learn. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 191-209.
Sirait, J., Firdaus, F., Hidayatullah, M. M. S., & Habellia, R. C. (2023). Development and Validation of Force Test to Assess Physics Education Students' Representational Competence. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia (Indonesian Journal of Science Education), 11(2), 306-317.
Sirait, J. (2020). Students' Use of Representations in Solving Physics Problems: Complete and Incomplete Force Diagrams (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester).
Sirait, J. (2019). Sikap Mahasiswa Calon Guru Terhadap Representasi Fisika. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika dan IPA, 10(1), 105-115.
Sirait, J., Hamdani, & Mursyid, S. (2018). Students’ understanding of forces: Force diagrams on horizontal and inclined plane. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 997(1), 012030
Sirait, J., Hamdani, & Oktavianty, E. (2017). Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ understanding of vectors and forces. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(2), 82-95.
Sunyono, S., & Meristin, A. (2018). The effect of multiple representation-based learning (MRL) to increase students’ understanding of chemical bonding concepts. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(4), 399-406.
Svenson, K., & Campos, E. (2022). Comparison of two semiotic perspectives: How do students use representations in physics?. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(2), 1-15.
Tang, K. S. (2023). The characteristics of diagrams in scientific explanations: Multimodal integration of written and visual modes of representation in junior high school textbooks. Science Education, 107(3), 741-772.
Tay, S. L., & Yeo, J. (2018). Analysis of a physics teacher's pedagogical ‘micro-actions’ that support 17-year-olds’ learning of free body diagrams via a modelling approach. International Journal of Science Education, 40(2), 109-138.
Tippett, C. D. (2016). What recent research on diagrams suggests about learning with rather than learning from visual representations in science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 725–746.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Aranda, G., Ferguson, J., & Gorur, R. (2020). Drawing to reason and learn in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 209-231.
Van den Eynde, S., van Kampen, P., van Dooren, W., & de Cock, M. (2019). Translating between graphs and equations: The influence of context, direction of translation, and function type. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 1-13.
Vignal, M., & Wilcox, B. R. (2022). Investigating unprompted and prompted diagrams generated by physics majors during problem-solving. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(1), 1-19.
Wei, B., Wang, C., & Tan, L. (2022). Visual representation of optical content in China’s and Singapore’s junior secondary physics textbooks. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(2), 1-10.
Yaman, F. (2020). Pre-service science teachers’ development and use of multiple levels of representation and written arguments in general chemistry laboratory courses. Research in Science Education, 50, 2331–2362.
Yeo, J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2022). Producing Scientific Explanations in Physics—a Multimodal Account. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 819-852.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
