Upload
mplukie
View
25
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
July 4, 2012 MEd thesis Power Point presentation.
Citation preview
1
In Search of Student Engagement in High School Physics Through Contextual
Teaching
Michael Lukie
2
Introductionmy philosophical perspective of teaching is
that learning should be meaningful and actively engaging for the student
this does not always align with the way I currently teach
as an out of field physics teacherpredominantly use textbook based methods the textbook method does not provide a
broad conceptual understanding or promote engaging learning activities for the students
textbook based practices are necessary but they are not sufficient
3
Background to the Studycurrently I teach electromagnetism though
textbook methods students learn formulas and practice with end of
chapter problems never been satisfied with the level of my students’
understandingstudents conveyed a negative conception about
electromagnetismdifficult unit intimidated by the amount of formulas electricity and magnetism never understoodtopic is very abstractno real world context to relate to
4
Background to the Studychallenge with electromagnetism
provide a real world context to engage and promote learning
the context I used is the electric guitar pickup formulas and theory of the electromagnetism unit can be used to describe how the electric guitar pickup works
5
Research questionsThe purpose of this study was to answer through classroom
based action research the following four questions: 1. How does the engagement of physics students compare when
they are taught using a contextual learning strategy as compared to a non-contextual learning strategy?
2. Do physics students prefer the contextual or non-contextual teaching strategy and what attitudes do physics students have about the contextual and non-contextual learning strategies?
3. How does the level of student understanding of work/energy and electromagnetism compare with my previous experience of teaching without using contextual teaching.
4. Is it possible to inspire S4 physics students in a meaningful, contextual learning activity that facilitates their deeper understanding of the concepts of electromagnetism?
6
Student Engagement and AttitudesBybee & McCrae (2011) found that physics
students had the least interest in learning about abstract scientific explanations and students were most interested in topics that they perceive as being relevant to their lives, and least interested in the topics that they perceive as being of little relevance
Raved & Assaraf (2011), and Osborne (2003), indicate that for students to have a positive attitude toward science they need to find a connection between the subjects studied in science class and their everyday lives
7
Student Engagement and AttitudesWillms, Friesen, & Milton (2009), found that
only 30% of Canadian secondary school students are intellectually engaged and that appropriate instructional challenges are required to increase their engagement
a new proposed method of measuring student's intellectual engagement developed by Klassen, S., Metz, D., McMillan, B., & Scramstad, C. (2011, in press), was used in this study
8
Methodologya one week study which examined
degree to which students were engaged in learningattitudes to two different instructional methodsextent to which learning benefited from creating an
electromagnetic guitar pickup as a contextually based activity
compared two different instructional delivery methods1.non-contextual teaching approach
using a textbook to teach the work outcomes of the mechanics unit
2.contextual teaching approach students built an electric guitar pickup and simple guitar in
order to facilitate teaching the electromagnetism outcomes of the electricity unit
9
Data Analysis
Data about student engagement and attitudes was collected from 11 student generated questions2 rotational graffiti2 exit slips2 final unit assessments8 student journals1 teacher journal
10
Research Question 1
1. How does the engagement of physics students compare when they are taught using a contextual learning strategy as compared to a non-contextual learning strategy?
11
Journal Datato measure student attitudes
at the end of every lesson students were asked to record in a journal their attitude toward instructional strategies
eight such responses, once after each of 8 lessonsLesson 1&2 were non-contextual lessonsLessons 3-8 were contextual lessonsprompting questions:
1) What did you like? 2) What did you not like?3) Comment on the way the lesson was presented. 4) Comment on your level of engagement. 5) Comment on how the lesson interested you.
12
Engagement Score Similar Student Responses 0 boring, I was not engaged, very little 1 slightly engaged, somewhat engaged, semi-engaged 2 engaged, more engaging 3 very engaged, really engaged 4 extremely engaged, totally engaged, super engaged
Journal Scoring Framework
13
Journal Data
non-contextual contextual
student gender rank J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8
1 F 3 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 2
2 F 3 0 0 absent absent 1 1 absent absent
3 M 1 1 0 1 2 2 3 3 3
4 M 1 0 0 2 2 2 3 3 3
5 F 1 0 0 2 absent 2 2 4 2
6 F 1 absent 0 absent absent 0 absent 0 0
7 F 1 absent 0 3 1 absent 2 3 4
8 M 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
9 M 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 absent
10 M 3 0 0 2 2 2 0 4 3
11 M 1 absent 0 3 2 2 2 3 3
12 M 1 1 1 absent absent 1 3 4 absent
13 M 2 2 0 absent absent absent 2 absent 4
14 M 3 2 absent absent absent absent absent 3 2
15 M 1 absent absent 4 2 0 1 3 3
16 F 2 3 0 4 2 2 2 absent absent
17 F 1 1 0 3 1 3 3 4 4
18 M 1 1 1 4 3 4 4 4 4
19 F 1 0 0 4 3 3 3 4 4
20 M 2 absent absent 2 2 4 2 2 3
21 F 1 1 0 3 2 3 2 4 3
22 F 1 1 0 absent absent 2 absent absent absent
23 F 3 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 2
24 F 3 1 0 2 1 2 2 3 2
25 F 2 absent 1 2 1 2 absent absent absent
26 M 1 absent absent 4 2 2 4 2 2
27 M 3 2 3 4 0 3 absent 3 3
28 F 1 absent absent 2 2 2 4 3 3
29 F 2 absent absent absent absent 0 1 3 2
30 F 1 absent absent 2 absent 0 0 2 0
31 F 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
32 F 3 1 absent 1 2 1 0 1 1
14
Comparing the Mean Journal Engagement Scores for Individual
Students
15
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
contextualjournalengscore 26 .00 3.83 2.2423 .88662
noncontextualjournalengsco
re
26 .00 2.50 .7115 .75064
Valid N (listwise) 26
Mean Journal Engagement Score for NC&C Lessons for Individual
Students
t = 7.695, df = 25, p-value < 0.001.
16
Comparing the Mean Journal Engagement Scores for the Individual Lessons
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
l1 22 0 3 1.00 .873
l2 24 0 3 .46 .833
l3 25 0 4 2.36 1.221
l4 23 0 3 1.74 .752
l5 29 0 4 1.93 1.193
l6 27 0 4 2.07 1.238
l7 27 0 4 2.96 1.018
l8 26 0 4 2.46 1.208
Valid N (listwise) 12
17
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
nc 2 .46 1.00 .7300 .38184
c 6 1.74 2.96 2.2533 .43707
Valid N (listwise) 2
Mean Journal Engagement Score for NC&C Lessons
for the 8 Individual Lessons
18
Question Datato measure student engagement
collected student generated questions on 11 occasions following a number of different instructional activities
students wrote down, on provided question sheets, as many questions as they had about the learning strategies
19
Student questions degree of student engagement and depth of thought
through question asking requires a categorization and ranking scheme.
Klassen et al. (2011), suggest the following: The framework is designed to facilitate the identification
of eight distinct categories of student questions in the science classroom. Student questions were rated according to the framework and coded by category.
Once the question data is collected, scoring values were assigned to the framework categories so that engagement may be statistically analyzed. (Klassen et al., 2011, pg.11).
TABLE 3 Scoring Values Assigned to Framework Categories
Peripheral Factual Conceptual Philosophical
Level 1 P1: 0 F1: 1 C1: 3 E1: 3
Level 2 P2: 2 F2: 2 C2: 4 E2: 5
20
Question Scoring Framework
2. Factual questions indicate engagement with the instructional concepts at the simplest level.a.Level 1 (F1)seeks a numerical fact or basic factual information
Who came up with field lines?
b.Level 2 (F2)Procedural: describing a process or dealing with the construction process or a definition.
Why did we have to tape before stringing the wire? Definition:What is the difference between magnetic flux and induced EMF?
1. Peripheral Questions At the lowest level, there were some questions from which it was impossible to decipher a meaning or that were wholly unrelated to either the instructional context or concepts.a.Level 1 (P1)Nonsensical, Irrelevant
Why are we doing this?
b.Level 2 (P2) Related to learning content How does this help us learn about work?
21
3. Conceptual Questions relate to scientific explanation, clarification, hypothesizing, and testing. At a slightly higher level, concept elaboration questions have the potential to lead to further inquiry. a.Level 1 (C1)Clarification or elaboration
How does the length of the string affect the pitch and volume?
b.Level 2 (C2)Hypothesis or prediction generatingWould the strength/number of magnets change the sound/volume in any way?
4. Philosophical Questionsindicate the highest level of thinking and, certainly, that critical thinking is at work.a.Ethical (E1)How should we (act based on evidence, judgment, and values)...?
b.Epistemological (E2) How do you know that (questioning foundational presupposition) … ?
22
Question Lesson Lesson Type 1 1 Non-contextual 2 1 Non-contextual 3 2 Non-contextual 4 3 Contextual 5 3 Contextual 6 3 Contextual 7 4 Contextual 8 5 Contextual 9 6 Contextual
10 7 Contextual 11 8 Contextual
Collection of Question Data Relative to Lesson Number and Type of Lesson
588 questions were analyzed146 non-contextual442 contextual
23
Question Type Frequency for Non-Contextual Lessons
Q 1, 2, 3 Sums 146 Questions frequency Peripheral Factual Conceptual Philosophical
Level 1 130 1 4 0 Level 2 8 3 0 0
Q 1, 2, 3 Percent Peripheral Factual Conceptual Philosophical Level 1 89.0 0.7 2.7 0.0 Level 2 5.5 2.1 0.0 0.0
24
Question Type Frequency for Contextual Lessons
Q 4-11 Sums 442 Questions Frequency Peripheral Factual Conceptual Philosophical
Level 1 68 42 186 0 Level 2 21 99 26 0
Q 4-11 Percent Peripheral Factual Conceptual Philosophical Level 1 15.4 9.5 42.1 0.0 Level 2 14.4 22.4 5.9 0.0
25
Question Engageme
nt Data
non-contextual contextual
student gender rank q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 q11 1 F 3 2 0 0 0 4 0 6 5 3 2 4 2 F 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 M 1 0 0 2 4 4 2 7 6 9 6 2 4 M 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 9 7 8 8 9 5 F 1 2 0 5 0 3 3 0 5 0 3 5 6 F 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 5 6 7 F 1 0 0 3 3 6 3 8 0 5 7 5 8 M 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 3 9 M 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 0
10 M 3 0 0 0 2 4 2 12 3 4 1 4 11 M 1 0 0 0 6 6 3 13 0 3 6 10 12 M 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 13 M 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9 3 9 12 14 M 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 15 M 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 6 3 7 5 16 F 2 0 2 0 2 2 6 1 2 2 0 0 17 F 1 0 0 0 4 2 6 3 3 3 2 2 18 M 1 0 0 0 4 6 26 7 7 6 10 10 19 F 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 3 3 20 M 2 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 3 2 2 3 21 F 1 4 0 2 4 3 15 7 9 10 10 11 22 F 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 23 F 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 8 13 9 7 6 24 F 3 2 0 0 2 2 9 3 8 1 3 0 25 F 2 0 0 5 0 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 26 M 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 7 3 3 3 27 M 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 F 1 0 0 0 3 6 9 6 7 15 7 19 29 F 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 4 2 3 30 F 1 0 0 0 8 4 9 4 7 2 2 0 31 F 3 5 0 0 3 5 3 4 8 5 5 7 32 F 3 3 0 0 7 7 8 6 11 0 4 6
26
Mean Questions Engagement
Score for Each Student
27
Average Mean Engagement Score for Each Student
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
nc 32 .00 2.33 .3859 .67288
c 32 .00 9.50 3.6741 2.56033
Valid N (listwise) 32
28
Mean Engagement for Each of the 11 Times Question Data was Obtained
question question engagement averages 1 0.56 2 0.06 3 0.53 4 1.94 5 2.78 6 4.41 7 4.06 8 4.53 9 3.63
10 3.72 11 4.31
nc
c
29
Mean Engagement Data for NC&C Lessons
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
nclesson1to3 3 .06 .56 .3833 .28042
clesson4to11 8 1.94 4.53 3.6725 .89745
Valid N (listwise) 3
30
non-contextual(nc) contextual(c) thesis
mean score 0-4 s.d n mean score 0-4 s.d n section
students 0.71 0.75 26 2.24 0.89 26 5.3.1.2 lessons 0.73 0.38 2 2.25 0.44 6 5.3.1.3 rank 1 0.33 0.39 12 2.40 0.92 16 5.3.1.4 rank 2 1.50 0.50 5 2.36 0.63 7 rank 3 0.78 0.91 9 1.73 0.78 9 male 1.09 0.92 11 2.63 0.46 14 5.3.1.5 female 0.43 0.46 15 1.88 0.96 18
non-contextual(nc) contextual(c) thesis
mean sum s.d n mean sum s.d n section
students 0.39 0.67 32 3.67 2.56 32 5.3.2.3 questions 0.38 0.28 3 3.67 0.90 8 5.3.2.4 rank 1 0.78 0.76 16 4.51 2.67 16 5.3.2.5 rank 2 0.33 0.64 7 2.22 1.59 7 rank 3 0.45 0.60 9 3.32 2.59 9 male 0.05 0.18
14 3.55 2.66 14 5.3.2.6
female 0.65 0.80 18 3.77 2.56
18 rot.graffiti 0.56 1.29 32 1.94 2.29 32 5.3.2.7
Questions
Journals
Data Summary
31
2. Do physics students prefer the contextual or non-contextual teaching strategy and what attitudes do physics students have about the contextual and non-contextual learning strategies?
To answer this research question the journal data obtained from the following four questions were used:
What did you like? What did you not like? Comment on the way the lesson was presented. Comment on how the lesson interested you.
Research Question 2
32
Research Question 33. How does the level of student understanding of work, energy and electromagnetism compare with my previous experience of teaching without using contextual teaching.
33
Current class Non-contextual Contextual student grade % test grade % test grade %
3 98 95 85 4 85 85 100 5 86 95 82.5 6 87 95 85 7 97 95 85 8 74 80 70
10 65 85 57.5 11 86 85 92.5 14 50 75 70 17 92 90 95 18 100 85 85 19 87 85 95 21 95 90 100 24 52 80 65 25 81 65 75 27 55 80 55 29 70 45 85 30 94 40 75 31 60 75 70 32 50 70 70
Descriptive Statistics
Mean
Std.
Deviation N
Current-grade 78.20 17.289 20
Non-contextual Grade 79.75 15.259 20
Contextual Grade 79.875 13.2654 20
Comparing Student Current Grade and Final Unit Test Grades
34
Research Question 4The fourth Research Question is: Is it possible to
inspire S4 physics students in a meaningful, contextual learning activity that facilitates their deeper understanding of the concepts of electromagnetism? “I loved everything, this was the highlight of this school year. It showed me how I can use electromagnetism at
home.”“Oh my god, this is so amazing, everybody loves the physics
of the guitar pick up, this stuff is more fun.”
“I enjoyed how hands-on this lesson was. It was fun to build something.”
“I loved that I was able to use physics to build something useful.”
35
References
Albe, V., Venturini, P., & Lascours, J. (2001). Electromagnetic concepts in mathematical representation of
physics. Journal of
Science and Technology, 10(2), 197-203.
Bacon, T. & Day, P. (1992). The fender book, a complete history of fender electric guitars. San Fransisco,
CA: GPI Books.
Belmont, M. J. & Skinner, E. A. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher
behavior and student
engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.
Bidinosti, Chris (2011). Personal communication with electromagnetism Professor at The University of
Winnipeg, rm.2C32
204.786.9718, Aug. 2011.
Brosnac, D. (1983). Guitar electronics for musicians. New York, NY: Amsco Publications.
Bybee, R. & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006
science. International
Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26.
Duchossoir, A. R. (1981). Gibson electrics. Winona, MN: Hal Leonard Publishing Corporation.
Dunleavy, J. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Exploring the concept of Student
Engagement and its
implications for Teaching and Learning in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Education Association (CEA), 1-
22.
36
References
Dunleavy, J., Milton, P. & Crawford, C. (2010). The Search for Competence in the 21stCentury. Quest Journal 2010. Leading Edge
Learning.ca (Abstract) p. 2 Retrieved June 2010 from
http://www.leadingedgelearning.ca/q2010/Docs/QuestJournal2010/Article12.pdf
Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.
Galili, I. (1995). Mechanics background influences students' conceptions in electromagnetism. International Journal of Science
Education, 17(3), 371-387.
Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2009). It Might Get Loud [Motion Picture]. United States: Sony Pictures Classics.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. , Klassen C., Klassen S. (2011). Encouraging a “Romantic Understanding” of science: The effect of the Nikola
Tesla story. Science and Education, Published online DOI: 10.1007/s11191-011-9417-5.
Ingersoll, Richard M. (2001). The realities of out-of-field teaching. Educational Leadership, May, 42-45.
Klassen, S. (2006). A theoretical framework for contextual science Teaching. Interchange, 37(1-2):31-61.
Klassen, S. (2009). The construction and analysis of a science story: A proposed methodology. Science and Education, 18:401-423.
Klassen, S., Metz, D., McMillan, B., & Scramstad, C. (2011, in press). A framework for student questions in the science classroom.
Kubli, F. (2005). Science teaching as a dialogue – Bakhtin, Vygotsky and some applications in the classroom, Science & Education
14(6): 501–534.
37
References
Manitoba Education and Training. (2005). Senior 4 Physics (40S). A Foundation for Implementation. Winnipeg: MB
Education and Training.
Martin, D. (1998). Innovation and the development of the modern six-string guitar. Galapin Society Journal, 51(7), 86-109.
Metz D., Klassen S., McMillan B., Clough M., Olson, J. (2007). Building a foundation for the use of historical narratives.
Science & Education,16(3–5):313–334.
Milan, M. (2007). Pickups windings and magnets...and the guitar became electric. Anaheim Hills, CA: Centerstream
Publishing LLC.
Milard, A. (2004). The electric guitar: a history of an American icon. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
Osgood, C.E, Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, 1
Parsons, J. & Taylor, L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do? University of Alberta.
Raved, L. & Assaraf, O. (2011). Attitudes towards science learning among 10 th-grade students: A qualitative look.
International Journal of Science Education, 1(1), 1-25.
Raymond, D. & Waring, D. (2001).Make Your Own Electric Guitar & Bass. New York, NY: Sterling Publishing Co.
38
References
Saglam, M. & Millar, R. (2006). Upper high school students' understanding of electromagnetism.
International Journal of Science Education, 28:5, 543-566.
Smith, M. (2004). The electric Guitar. How we got from Andres Segovia to Kurt Cobain. Invention and
Technology Magazine, 1(20),Summer 2004.
Stinner, A. (1992). Science textbooks and science teaching: From logic to evidence. Science Education,
76(1), 1-16.
Stinner, A. (1994). Providing a contextual base and a theoretical structure to guide the teaching of
high school physics. Physics Education, 29, 375-381.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York, NY: McMillan.
Willms, J. D., Friesen, S. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming
classrooms through social, academic and intellectual engagement. (First National Report). Toronto:
Canadian Education Association.
Winchester, I. (1989) Editorial-History, science, and science teaching. Interchange, 20(2), i-vi.