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

Contents

• BODY OF ARTICLE
• Developing Qualitative Understanding
• The Problem-Solving Strategy and an Example
• The Teaching Process
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Approach
• Summary
• REFERENCES
• About the Author
• FIGURES
• TABLES

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.^1,2,3,4,5 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. Studies^7,8,9,10 suggest that familiar everyday contexts (see Fig. 1) are useful in fostering qualitative understanding.

Figure 1.

We describe a new teaching approach in mechanics for junior high school (JHS) and high school (as an introduction) that requires around 15–30 teaching hours. The approach guides students to explain and predict qualitatively, using physical terms, a class of everyday phenomena and situations in mechanics (see Fig. 2) by applying a qualitative understanding of Newton's laws, especially the third law. The approach also aims to change students' interest in physics and their views regarding its importance. It was tried out extensively with heterogeneous ninth-graders and has also been integrated into the teaching of mechanics at the advanced high school level.

Figure 2.

This method takes a systems approach and does not detach the object from its surroundings. It encourages students to analyze the interactions among components of the entire system before focusing on a specific object and constructing its free-body diagram. Students learn to systematically identify short and longterm interactions and to characterize the mutual influences on shape and/or speed of interacting objects. A qualitative study of basic motion concepts is followed by a qualitative study of Newton's second law, dealing mainly with situations in which objects start or stop their motion. We found that although the previously described framework helped students to construct qualitative explanations, many students were still unable to formulate such explanations. We hypothesized that in addition to the conceptual framework, students need a qualitative problem-solving strategy that would guide them through the problem-solving process.^11,12,13

The qualitative strategy is inspired by Reif's work on physics problem solving.¹³ It consists of three steps that promote a clear subdivision of the problem-solving process that are presented separately on colored index cards. One side of the card includes instructions for carrying out the relevant part of the strategy, and the other side includes guiding questions that are designed to assist the students to follow the instructions accurately. Visual representations are used in the strategy as exemplified below.

1. The first step (“system characterization”) consists of two substeps that enable the student to consider the subsystems and all the interactions before focusing on a certain object.

1.a. Representing the situation by a block diagram involving components of the system.

1.b. Constructing a table including all the interactions between objects within the system.

For example, consider the situation presented in Fig. 1. In this step, the student translates the situation, first to a block diagram [Fig. 3(a)] and then to a table of interactions [Fig. 3(b)].

Figure 3a.

Figure 3b.

2. The second step (“from systems to selected objects”) is designed to lead the student to draw a free-body diagram of a selected object. The process is performed in two stages:

2.a. Marking all the pairs of forces in the block diagram using the table of interactions.

2.b. Selecting an object and “gathering” all the forces that act on it using the block diagram.

The guiding questions emphasize Newton's third law (N3) and ensure that all the forces that act on the object appear in the free-body diagram of the step stage. The relative magnitudes of the forces that act on the object are not considered. Note that interactions at a distance are marked by a dotted line.

If we apply the second step in our example (see Fig. 1) we get Fig. 4(a). Isolating the selected object, in this case the dog, and marking the objects that exert forces on it without considering the magnitude of the forces leads to Fig. 4(b).

Figure 4a.

Figure 4b.

3. The third step (“forces and motion”) allows the students to analyze the situation by constructing a complete free-body diagram and relating it to the motion characteristics. The relative length of the arrows that represent these forces in the diagram can be determined based on information given in the problem or can be deduced from the characteristics of the object's motion. This step enables the students to link between forces and motion by delineating the relations between the forces and the observed motion (Newton's second law—N2).

This step allows the student to (a) deduce forces from motion information as described above; (b) deduce motion characteristics from a force diagram; and (c) based on Newton's laws, predict what will happen in a situation, observe the outcome, and explain it (POE¹²— Predict, Observe, and Explain).

In our example, the dog does not move (motion characteristics are known). Thus, the net force along each axis should equal zero. That means that the arrows along each axis have equal length and are in opposite directions (Fig. 5).

Figure 5.

This approach is especially useful in analyzing complex situations, as well as ill-defined problems that characterize authentic situations familiar to students.

The teaching sequence consists of presenting the conceptual framework and the qualitative strategy in a combined manner. During the teaching process several selected situations, illustrated as comic drawings (see Fig. 2), are analyzed several times. Each time the students carry out an analysis corresponding to the conceptual level that they have reached until they are able to perform the complete analysis and to employ all the concepts learned in the program (a spiral analysis).

A study was conducted with ninth-grade students (n=242) who studied according to this approach. Pre- and post-questionnaires, administered to the students, included a few items that deal with Newton's third law (N3) from the Force Concept Inventory.¹⁶ These items are considered to be difficult because of their counterintuitive nature. Table I shows the results on these items.

As indicated in the table the average <g> of these students is high as compared with achievements of college-level students studying by traditional methods (for example, a value of <g>=0.28 was reported by Redish¹⁷ et al.). These students demonstrated in interviews an improved ability to explain and predict phenomena using physics ideas. In pre-interviews conducted with some of these students (n=69), they used only intuitive reasoning and colloquial language in explaining and predicting phenomena, while in the post interviews they showed a more expert-like performance^13,14 using physical terms, physics principles, and force diagrams. The following excerpt illustrates the nature of explanations given by students after instruction (see Fig. 6):

Interviewer: What will happen to the rocket balloon when the air is released from the balloon?

Student: Because there is an interaction the air exerts a force on the balloon this way (points to the correct direction).

Interviewer: What will happen to the rocket balloon?

Student: It will move this way (correct), if the pushing force is greater than the friction force.

Interviewer: Let's take something else Suppose you release the balloon but it doesn't move?

Student: The friction force can exert a force up to a certain magnitude and when you have a larger magnitude the object will move but here this didn't happen so the balloon didn't move.

Figure 6.

In this sample, the student uses formal language and handles friction very well. He is also showing a more expert-like performance and mastery of understanding performances that were on focus (prediction and explaining).

A selected item from the Israeli matriculation examination in physics that dealt with N3 (see Fig. 7) was added to the post-questionnaire. Results on this matriculation question are shown in Table II showing that the ninth-grade students scored better in this N3 matriculation item than high school students majoring in physics.

Figure 7.

Attitude questionnaires, administered to the students after instruction, show that students believed that the strategy used in this method helped them in analyzing situations and that they would like to study other disciplines in the same manner as they had studied physics.

The teaching method was introduced to junior high school science teachers (n=150) through inservice training courses entitled “Who's Afraid of Physics?” Teachers report that they gained self-confidence in their ability to explain everyday phenomena, changed their views about the relevance and interest of physics to the students, and were willing to implement the method in their classes.

Traditionally, problem-solving strategies in high school are used for solving quantitative problems and not for tasks requiring the construction of explanations or for predictions. Qualitative problems such as the ones in the FCI are considered as “one-step” problems that do not require the use of a strategy. The present paper suggests that this assumption is unjustified and that a combination of a useful conceptual framework with a qualitative problem-solving strategy can bring ninth-grade students to impressive achievements in explaining and predicting phenomena in comparison to achievements of senior high school students in advanced physics courses. In addition, this empowerment of students and teachers led to a positive change in attitudes and confidence. We suggest that the success of this method stems from several factors:

1. The conceptual framework that emphasizes the “system's approach” and uses the interaction concept.

2. The qualitative approach that does not employ any mathematical tools, yet leads to a traditional physical description (like a force diagram).

3. The characteristics of the strategy and the procedures:

• Visual representations: block diagrams, interaction tables, force diagrams.

• The division of the problem-solving process into simple steps.

4. The tasks dealing with authentic situations that are familiar and relevant to the students.

5. The “physics with a smile” approach that employs practice cards with user-friendly drawings (see Figs. 1-2) and makes the subject of physics less threatening.

This approach is already being adopted in many ninth-grade classrooms in Israel. Modest beginnings show that teaching with this method in the ninth grade increases the number of students who choose physics in senior high school and improves their standard problem-solving skills. Introducing the qualitative approach in the ninth grade can function as a foundation and basis for the quantitative treatment in later years. The approach can also be integrated into the teaching of physics in senior high school before introducing quantitative problem solving.

References

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. 1998). first citation in article
   
2. Jim Minstrell, “Getting the facts straight,” Sci. Teach. 50, 52–54 (Jan. 1983). first citation in article
   
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). first citation in article
   
4. Ibrahim Halloun and David Hestenes, “The initial knowledge state of college physics students,” Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043–1055 (Nov. 1985). first citation in article
   
5. Lillian C. McDermott, “Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics,” Phys. Today 37, 24–32 (July 1984). first citation in article
   
6. Richard N. Steinberg and Mel S. Sabella, “Performance on multi-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems,” Phys. Teach. 35, 150–155 (March 1997). first citation in article
   
7. Physics First site, http://members.aol.com/physicsfirst. first citation in article
   
8. Project 2061 site, http://www.project2061.org/default.htm. first citation in article
   
9. Kevin Pugh, “Newton's laws beyond the classroom walls,” Sci. Educ. 88,182–195 (March 2004). first citation in article
   
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). first citation in article
    
11. Lou Turner, “System schemas,” Phys. Teach. 41, 404–408 (Oct. 2003). first citation in article
    
12. White and Gunstone, Probing Understanding (The Falmer Press, New York, NY, 1992). first citation in article
    
13. Frederick Reif, “Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes,” Am. J. Phys. 63, 17–32 (Jan 1995). first citation in article
    
14. B. White and J. Frederiksen, “Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments,” Artificial Intelligence 24, 99–157 (1990). first citation in article
    
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). first citation in article
    
16. David Hestenes, Malcom Wells, and Greg Swackhamer, “Force Concept Inventory,” Phys. Teach. 30, 141–158 (March 1992). first citation in article
    
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. 1997). first citation in article
    

Roni Mualem has been teaching physics for 15 years in middle schools, high schools, and in college. He is also a Ph.D. student in the science teaching department of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. Roni specializes in JHS teaching of physics and astronomy.

Bat-Sheva Eylon is an associate professor in the department of science teaching at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel. Her work focuses on the development and study of cognitive tools for enhancing conceptual understanding, problem solving, and knowledge integration in high school physics.Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, 76100; Roni.Mualem@weizmann.ac.il; b.eylon@weizmann.ac.il

Full figure

Fig. 1. An example of a qualitative task describing a situation—a man pulls a dog but the dog does not move. The students are asked to explain the situation by using basic concepts and ideas of physics. First citation in article

Full figure

Fig. 2. Situations with interacting objects. First citation in article

Full figure

Fig. 3a. A block diagram (step 1.a). First citation in article

Full figure

Fig. 3b. Table of interactions (1.b). First citation in article

Full figure

Fig. 4a. Marking forces in the block diagram (2.a). First citation in article

Full figure

Fig. 4b. Isolating a selected object (2.b). First citation in article

Full figure

Fig. 5. A complete force diagram. First citation in article

Full figure

Fig. 6. “A Rocket Balloon”—a balloon on a fishing line. A small balloon that is filled with air is hooked to a fishing line and is allowed to move along the line when the air is released. The student needs to explain why the balloon is moving if it is fully filled with air but does not move when only partly filled. First citation in article

Full figure

Fig. 7. The Israeli matriculation question. The student's claim is incorrect because the box is involved with two interactions: one is with the Earth and the other is with the rope. First citation in article

Table I. The FCI sub-test: the degree of progress of JHS students who ere taught with our method.
FCI item (from N3)	No. of classes	No. of students	<g>**
2	11	242	0.68
11	11	242	0.46
13	11	242	0.58
14*	3	61	0.82
average			0.64
* The question was administered only in three of the seven classes that participated in the study
** <g> is the degree of progress1 of the students and indicates the real effectiveness of the approach. <g> = (post-test score − pre-test score)/(100 − pre-test score)

First citation in article

Table II. Students' achievements in a problem taken from the physics matriculation exam. The ninth-graders studied by the method described herein.
Group	n	answered correctly (%)	explained correctly (%)
Heterogeneous ninth-graders	360	47	41
Advanced physics 12th-graders	1115	42	31

First citation in article

Up: Issue Table of Contents
Go to: Previous Article | Next Article
Other formats: HTML (smaller files) | PDF (446 kB)