AAPT Logo
TPT Logo
 
   
 

The Physics Teacher -- March 2007 -- Volume 45, Issue 3, pp. 158

“Physics with a Smile”—Explaining Phenomena with a Qualitative Problem-Solving Strategy

Roni Mualem and Bat-Sheva Eylon

The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

Full Text: Read Online (HTML) | Download PDF FREE | View Cart
Various studies indicate that high school physics students and even college students majoring in physics have difficulties in qualitative understanding of basic concepts and principles of physics.1–5 For example, studies carried out with the Force Concept Inventory (FCI)1,6 illustrate that qualitative tasks are not easy to solve even at the college level. Consequently, “conceptual physics” courses have been designed to foster qualitative understanding, and advanced high school physics courses as well as introductory college-level courses strive to develop qualitative understanding. Many physics education researchers emphasize the importance of acquiring some qualitative understanding of basic concepts in physics as early as middle school or in the context of courses that offer “Physics First” in the ninth grade before biology or chemistry.7 This trend is consistent with the call to focus the science curriculum on a small number of basic concepts and ideas, and to instruct students in a more “meaningful way” leading to better understanding. Studies7–10 suggest that familiar everyday contexts (see Fig. 1) are useful in fostering qualitative understanding.

© 2007 American Association of Physics Teachers

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords

physics education, educational technology, problem solving, mechanics, interactive systems, force, friction

PACS

History
Online Feb 2007

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN

0031-921X (print)  

Publisher

$abstract.society.value is a Member of CrossRef American Association of Physics Teachers

ARTICLE DATA

Digital Object Identifier
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2709674

  1. Richard R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 64–74 (Jan. 1998PHTOAD000037000007000024000001).
  2. Jim Minstrell, “Getting the facts straight,” Sci. Teach. 50, 52–54 (Jan. 1983).
  3. Edward F. Redish, “Diagnosing students' problems using the results and method of physics education research,” Paper presented at the International Conference on Physics Teaching, Guilin, China (Aug. 1999).
  4. Ibrahim Halloun and David Hestenes, “The initial knowledge state of college physics students,” Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043–1055 (Nov. 1985AJPIAS000053000011001043000001). [ISI]
  5. Lillian C. McDermott, “Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics,” Phys. Today 37, 24–32 (July 1984PHTOAD000037000007000024000001). [ISI]
  6. Richard N. Steinberg and Mel S. Sabella, “Performance on multi-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems,” Phys. Teach. 35, 150–155 (March 1997PHTEAH000035000003000150000001).
  7. Physics First site, http://members.aol.com/physicsfirst.
  8. Project 2061 site, http://www.project2061.org/default.htm.
  9. Kevin Pugh, “Newton's laws beyond the classroom walls,” Sci. Educ. 88,182–195 (March 2004).
  10. Luli Stern and Andrew Ahlgren, “Analysis of students' assessment in JHS curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 39, 889–910 (May 2002).
  11. Lou Turner, “System schemas,” Phys. Teach. 41, 404–408 (Oct. 2003PHTEAH000041000007000404000001).
  12. White and Gunstone, Probing Understanding (The Falmer Press, New York, NY, 1992).
  13. Frederick Reif, “Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes,” Am. J. Phys. 63, 17–32 (Jan 1995AJPIAS000063000001000017000001). [ISI]
  14. B. White and J. Frederiksen, “Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments,” Artificial Intelligence 24, 99–157 (1990).
  15. M. T. H. Chi, M. Bassok, M. W. Lewis, P. Reimann, and R. Glaser, “Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems,” Cogn. Sci. 13, 145–182 (1989). [Inspec] [ISI]
  16. David Hestenes, Malcom Wells, and Greg Swackhamer, “Force Concept Inventory,” Phys. Teach. 30, 141–158 (March 1992PHTEAH000030000003000141000001).
  17. Edward F. Redish, Jeffery M. Saul, and Richard N. Steinberg, “On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratory,” Am. J. Phys. 65, 45–54 (Jan. 1997AJPIAS000065000001000045000001). [ISI]



Close

Your Recent History Recent History Help

Recently Viewed

  1. “Physics with a Smile”—Explaining Phenomena with a Qualitative Problem-Solving Strategy
  2. Playground Physics: Determining the Moment of Inertia of a Merry-Go-Round
  3. INSPIRE: A VLF Radio Project for High School Students
  4. Scientific American and the Silent Lie
  5. Laser Measurement of Optical Errors of the Eye

AAPT on:

close