Options
The problem-solving processes in physics of junior college students in Singapore
Author
Tan, Bak Seng
Supervisor
Toh, Kok Aun
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine the problem-solving processes of the high performers and low performers in physics of year one students in junior college. The sample of this study consisted of twenty year one students randomly picked by teachers from three junior colleges. They were divided into two equal groups, a high performers group and a low performers group. The selection was based on the 1992 GCE"O" level physics grade. The high performers group consisted of students who obtained a grade of A1 for physics in their 1992 GCE "O" level examination while the low performers group consisted of students who obtained a grade of D6 for physics in their 1992 GCE "O" level examination.
In this study the thinking aloud technique was used because the method allows the externalisation of certain covert processes and hence, provide insights into problem-solving behaviours of the subjects not otherwise obtained from written answers. The thinking aloud technique requires the subjects to say out loud everything that comes into their minds while they are working on a problem. They are encouraged to state what they are doing, what is being searched for, plans and hypotheses, and which aspects or relations of the task catch their attention. The thinking aloud data were captured by recording on cassette tape each subject's verbalisation in the presence of the researcher. Encoding was then carried out on the transcript of the subjects' audiotaped protocols together with their written work. The analysis of the subjects' protocols was based on a coding system that was adapted from Foong (1990).
A pre-pilot study was carried out to test the suitability and validity of the set of word problems. In addition the pre-pilot study was also used to see whether the students exhibit the problem-solving bahaviours the researcher proposed to investigate. The set of word problems consisted of nine questions based on the mechanics section of the GCE "A" level physics course. A total of eight year two students took part in the pre-pilot study. The main reason for using the year two students was that they had undergone one year of the two-year "A" level physics course. The results of the study confirmed the suitability and validity of the set of word problems as well as the problem-solving behaviours. The validity of the set of word problems was further confirmed by an eight-member review panel. This process reduced the set of word problems to six for the pilot study. The sample used in the pilot study consisted of six students from the three colleges identified for the main study. Prior to conducting the pilot study, the researcher met the six students to brief and train them on the thinking aloud technique. The results of the pilot study further confirmed the results obtained in the pre-pilot study. For the main study, the set of word problems used consisted of four or the five problems, with the fifth one being used to get the students started on the technique of thinking aloud while solving the problems. Like the pilot study, the researcher met the twenty students from the three junior colleges prior to the experiment to brief and train them in the thinking aloud technique.
The protocol analysis data obtained were first transcripted and then coded against the system of coding that had been adapted from Foong (op. cit.). The reliability of this coding was compared with that done by an independent coder, and the overall coefficient of agreement was 0.94.
The study found that high performers in physics translate the word problems more accurately than low performers when solving physics problems. The high performers in physics were also found not only to make less errors when solving problems compared to their low performance counterparts, but was able to carry out the problem solving tasks in a shorter time. The knowledge base of these two groups was organised differently. They also differed in the way knowledge was retrieved and used. The study also confirmed that the high performers in physics make more metastatements than the low performers when solving physics problems. One counter-intuitive finding that emerged from the study was that the high performers do not make more correct meta-statement than their low performance counterparts. The study also found that both groups of students, in general, do not plan each step of their solution in detail before executing them and once they have solved a word problem, they do not check their solutions.
In this study the thinking aloud technique was used because the method allows the externalisation of certain covert processes and hence, provide insights into problem-solving behaviours of the subjects not otherwise obtained from written answers. The thinking aloud technique requires the subjects to say out loud everything that comes into their minds while they are working on a problem. They are encouraged to state what they are doing, what is being searched for, plans and hypotheses, and which aspects or relations of the task catch their attention. The thinking aloud data were captured by recording on cassette tape each subject's verbalisation in the presence of the researcher. Encoding was then carried out on the transcript of the subjects' audiotaped protocols together with their written work. The analysis of the subjects' protocols was based on a coding system that was adapted from Foong (1990).
A pre-pilot study was carried out to test the suitability and validity of the set of word problems. In addition the pre-pilot study was also used to see whether the students exhibit the problem-solving bahaviours the researcher proposed to investigate. The set of word problems consisted of nine questions based on the mechanics section of the GCE "A" level physics course. A total of eight year two students took part in the pre-pilot study. The main reason for using the year two students was that they had undergone one year of the two-year "A" level physics course. The results of the study confirmed the suitability and validity of the set of word problems as well as the problem-solving behaviours. The validity of the set of word problems was further confirmed by an eight-member review panel. This process reduced the set of word problems to six for the pilot study. The sample used in the pilot study consisted of six students from the three colleges identified for the main study. Prior to conducting the pilot study, the researcher met the six students to brief and train them on the thinking aloud technique. The results of the pilot study further confirmed the results obtained in the pre-pilot study. For the main study, the set of word problems used consisted of four or the five problems, with the fifth one being used to get the students started on the technique of thinking aloud while solving the problems. Like the pilot study, the researcher met the twenty students from the three junior colleges prior to the experiment to brief and train them in the thinking aloud technique.
The protocol analysis data obtained were first transcripted and then coded against the system of coding that had been adapted from Foong (op. cit.). The reliability of this coding was compared with that done by an independent coder, and the overall coefficient of agreement was 0.94.
The study found that high performers in physics translate the word problems more accurately than low performers when solving physics problems. The high performers in physics were also found not only to make less errors when solving problems compared to their low performance counterparts, but was able to carry out the problem solving tasks in a shorter time. The knowledge base of these two groups was organised differently. They also differed in the way knowledge was retrieved and used. The study also confirmed that the high performers in physics make more metastatements than the low performers when solving physics problems. One counter-intuitive finding that emerged from the study was that the high performers do not make more correct meta-statement than their low performance counterparts. The study also found that both groups of students, in general, do not plan each step of their solution in detail before executing them and once they have solved a word problem, they do not check their solutions.
Date Issued
1994
Call Number
QC30 Tan
Date Submitted
1994