Login | Register

Changing Students’ Approach to Learning Physics in Postsecondary Gateway Courses


Changing Students’ Approach to Learning Physics in Postsecondary Gateway Courses

Kalman, Calvin S., Shore, Bruce M, Aulls, Mark W, Antimirova, Tetyana, Magon, Juss Kaur, Lee, Gyoungho, Coelho, Ricardo, Coban, Gul Unal, Huang, Xiang, Ibrahim, Ahmed, Wang, Xihui, Tan, Dang Diep Minh, Fu, Guopeng and Khanam, Wahidun (2017) Changing Students’ Approach to Learning Physics in Postsecondary Gateway Courses. International Research in Higher Education, 2 (3). pp. 16-33. ISSN 2380-9183

[thumbnail of Kalman-IRHE-2017.pdf]
Text (application/pdf)
Kalman-IRHE-2017.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access.

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v2n3p16


This study investigated if and how a combined set of specially developed activities can help students change their approach to learning physics. These activities included (a) reflective-writing activities, (b) critique-writing activities, and (c) reflective write-pair-share activities combined with conceptual-conflict collaborative-group exercises. Each of these activities was previously successfully tested as a stand-alone activity. This investigation was conducted at two different institutions over a three-year period. At each institution the same instructor taught students in two sections. At the first, a university with a substantial graduate school, sections were relatively large (over 100 students each) covering a typical introductory calculus-based mechanics course. At the second, a community college, there were relatively small classes (32 students each) covering a typical algebra-based introductory course in mechanics, electricity, and magnetism. The courses at the two institutions used different textbooks and had different formats. Measured data included student interviews and writing products. We developed rubrics for evaluation of the impact of the writing products and interviews of students. The main results of this study were the changes in students’ approaches to learning physics, especially as revealed in the interviews. Students who experienced the full suite of activities (a) changed their understanding of physics from solving problems to creating a network of interrelated concepts, and they also (b) modified their approach to learning physics from repetitious review to consideration of the interconnections of the subject matter and (c) related their new learning to key concepts in an overall physics framework.

Divisions:Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Physics
Item Type:Article
Authors:Kalman, Calvin S. and Shore, Bruce M and Aulls, Mark W and Antimirova, Tetyana and Magon, Juss Kaur and Lee, Gyoungho and Coelho, Ricardo and Coban, Gul Unal and Huang, Xiang and Ibrahim, Ahmed and Wang, Xihui and Tan, Dang Diep Minh and Fu, Guopeng and Khanam, Wahidun
Journal or Publication:International Research in Higher Education
Date:September 2017
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):10.5430/irhe.v2n3p16
Keywords:science education, epistemology, inquiry, reflective writing, critical thinking
ID Code:983015
Deposited By: Danielle Dennie
Deposited On:12 Sep 2017 13:25
Last Modified:18 Jan 2018 17:56


Bielaczyc, K., & Kapur, M. (2010). Playing epistemic games in science and mathematics classrooms. Educational Technology, 50(5), 19-25

Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Mckay.

Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II Affective domain. New York, NY: Mckay.

Brownlee, J. (2003). Changes in primary school teachers’ beliefs about knowing: A longitudinal study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 87-98.

Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition (pp. 257-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. Scholnick, K. Nelson, S. A. Gelman, & P. Miller (Eds.), Piaget’s legacy (pp. 293-326). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 49-70). New York, NY: Routledge.

Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.

Clement, J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. (Eds.). (2008). Model based learning and instruction in science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

DiPietro, K. (2004). The effects of a constructivist intervention on pre-service teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 7(1), 63-77.

Discenna, J. (1998). A study of knowledge structure of expert, intermediate and novice subjects in the domain of physics. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan State University, Mallinson Institute for Science Education.

diSessa, A. A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 15–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,.

diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction 10(2 & 3), 105-225.

diSessa, A. A. (2014). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and faultlines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 88-108). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843-900.

Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2001). An invasion in the classroom: Influence of an ill-structured innovation on instructional and epistemological beliefs. Learning Environments Research, 4, 87-105. doi:10.1023/a:1011450524504.

Facione, P. A. (Ed.). (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. American Philosophical Association. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 315 423. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED315423.pdf

Festinger L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L. A. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207, 93-106.

Feyerabend, P. K. (1962). Explanation, reduction and empiricism. In H. Feigl & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Vol III (pp. 28-97). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Feyerabend, P. K. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Verso. [All information referred to in this book is also found in the first edition published in 1975.]

Gabella, M. S. (1994). Beyond the looking glass: Bringing students into the conversation of historical inquiry. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22, 340–363.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1975/1960). Truth and method (Trans. G. Barden & J. Cumming). New York, NY: Crossroads.

Gill, M. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 164-185. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.003.

Glaser, B. G. (1999). Keynote address from the Fourth Annual Qualitative Health Research Conference: The future of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 836-845.

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.

Hammer, D. (1989). Two approaches to learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 27, 664-670.

Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151-183.

Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 97-127.

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-157.

Hong, H. Y., & Lin, S. P. (2010). Teacher-education students’ epistemological belief change through collaborative knowledge building. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19, 99-110.

Huang, X. & Kalman, C. S. (2012). A Case Study on Reflective Writing. Journal of College Science Teaching. 42 (1), 92-99.

Kalman, J. & Kalman, C .S. (1996). Writing to Learn. American Journal of Physics. 64,954-956.

Kalman, C. S., Morris, S., Cottin, C. & Gordon, R. (1999). Promoting Conceptual Change Using Collaborative Groups In Quantitative Gateway Courses. Physics Educational Research Supplement. American Journal of Physics 67, S45-S51.

Kalman, C. S. (2002) Generating Effective In-Class Discussions. The Successful Professor 1, (5), 7-9.

Kalman, C. S., & Aulls, M. (2003). Can an analysis of the contrast between pre-Galilean and Newtonian theoretical frameworks help students develop a scientific mindset ? Science & Education 12, 761-772

Kalman, C. S., Rohar, S. & Wells, D. (2004). Enhancing conceptual change using argumentative essays. American Journal of Physics 72, 715-717.

Kalman, C. S. Aulls, M., Rohar, S. & Godley, J. (2008). Students Perceptions of Reflective Writing as a Tool for Exploring an Introductory Textbook. Journal of College Science Teaching 37(4), 74-81.

Kalman, C. S., Milner-Bolotin, M. & Antimirova, T. (2010). Comparison of the Effectiveness of Collaborative Groups and Peer Instruction in a Large Introductory Physics Course for Science Majors. Canadian Journal of Physics 88, (5), 325-332.

Kalman, C. S., & Rohar, S. (2010). Toolbox of activities to support students in a physics gateway course. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research. 6(2),020111,1-15.

Kalman, C. S (2011). Enhancing Students' Understanding Of Concepts By Getting Students to Approach Text in The Manner of a Hermeneutical Circle. Science & Education: 20(2), 159–172.

Kalman, C. [S.], Milner-Bolotin, M., Aulls, M. W., Charles, E. S., Coban, G. U., Shore, B. [M.], Antimirova, T., Kaur Magon, J., Huang. X., Ibrahim, A., Wang, X., Lee, G., Coelho, R. L., Tan, D. D. N., & Fu, G. (2014). Understanding the nature of science and nonscientific modes of thinking in gateway science courses. In M. F. Taşar (Ed.), Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi. (ISBN:978-605-364-658-7) (pp. 1291-1299). Proceedings of the World Conference on Physics Education, 2012

Kalman, C. S., Sobhanzadeh, M., Thompson, R., Ibrahim, A.& Wang, X. (2015) Combination of Interventions Can Change Students’ Epistemological Beliefs. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research. 11, 020136, 1-17.

Karakostas, V., & Hadzidaki, P. (2005). Realism vs. constructivism in contemporary physics: The impact of the debate on the understanding of Quantum Theory and its instructional process. Science & Education, 14, 607-629. doi:10.1007/s11191-004-5156-1.

Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. (Originally published in 1962.)

Kuhn, T. S. (2000/1981). What are scientific revolutions? In J. Conant & J. Haugeland (Eds.), The road since structure (pp. 13-32). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Lattery, M. J. (2016). Deep learning in introductory physics: Exploratory studies of modeling-based reasoning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2008). Teaching for conceptual understanding: An approach drawing on individual and sociocultural perspectives. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 647-675). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lee, G., Ha, S. & Kalman, C. S. (2013). Workshop on Friction: Understanding and Addressing Students’ Difficulties in Learning Science through a Hermeneutical perspective. Science & Education 22(6), 1405-1442.

Liu, P.-H. (2009). History as a platform for developing college students’ epistemological beliefs of mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 473-499. doi:10.1007/s10763-008-9127-x.

Logger Pro. (2013). Plotting software available from amdhttp://www.vernier.com/products/software/lp/]. Beaverton, OR: Vernier Software & Technology.

Madsen, A., McKagan, S. B., & Sayre, E. C. (2015). How physics instruction impacts students’ beliefs about learning physics: A meta-analysis of 24 studies. Physics Review Physics Education Research, 11, whole number 010115. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010115

Marra, R. (2005). Teacher beliefs: The impact of the design of constructivist learning environments on instructor epistemologies. Learning Environments Research, 8, 135-155.

Mason, L., & Scrivani, L. (2004). Enhancing students’ mathematical beliefs: An intervention study. Learning and Instruction, 14, 153-176. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.01.002.

Mazur, E. (1997a). Moving the mountain: Impediments to change. The Physics Teacher, 35(10), 1-4.

Mazur, E. (1997b). Understanding or memorization: Are we teaching the right thing? In J. Wilson (Ed.), Conference on the introductory physics course on the occasion of the retirement of Robert Resnick (pp. 113-124). New York, NY: Wiley.

Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323, 50-51.

Mazur, E. (2010). Confessions of a converted lecturer [Video talk]. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,

McCaskey, T. L. (2009). Comparing and contrasting different methods for probing student epistemology and epistemological development in introductory physics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Maryland, Department of Physics, College Park, MD. Retrieved from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/9824/McCaskey_umd_0117E_10748.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1137-1164. doi:10.1002/tea.20377.

Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 317-377.

Nelson, C. E. (1964). Critical thinking and collaborative learning. In K. Bosworth & S. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and effective techniques (pp. 49-58).,San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Norris, S. P. (Ed.). (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: How the mind overrides experience. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227

Radmacher, S. A., & Latosi-Sawin, E. (1995). Summary writing: A tool to improve student comprehension and writing in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 113-115.

Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656.

Schraw, G., & Sinatra, G. M. (Eds.). (2004). Introduction [to special issue]: Epistemological development and its impact on cognition in academic domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 95-102. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.005

Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (1999, April). Overcoming robust misconceptions through ontological training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.

Treagust, D., & Duit, R. (2009). Multiple perspectives of conceptual change in science and the challenges ahead. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 32, 89-104.

Wandersee, J., Mintzes J., & Novak J. (1994). Research on alternative student conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science learning and learning (pp. 177-210). New York, NY: Macmillan

Weinstein, M. (1993). Critical thinking: The great debate. Educational Theory, 43, 99-117.

Wilson, J. D., Buffa, A. J., & Lou, B. (2007). College physics (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72, 131-175. doi:10.3102/00346543072002131

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481-512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20010

Winter, D., Lemons, P., Bookman, J., & Hoese, W. (2001). Novice instructors and student-centered instruction: Identifying and addressing obstacles to learning in the college science laboratory. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 14-42.

Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1229-1252. doi:10.1002/tea.20380.
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
- Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
Back to top Back to top