THE ROLE OF QUANTUM PHYSICS MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONSTO ENHANCE CONCEPT MASTERY, GENERIC SCIENCE SKILLS, AND CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITION FOR PRE-SERVICE PHYSICS TEACHER STUDENTS.

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... i

DECLARATION ... iv

ABSTRACT ... v

ABSTRAK ... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ... x

LIST OF TABLES... xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xvii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1. Background ... 1

1.2. Statement of Problem and Research Question ... 9

1.3. Research Objectives ... 10

1.4. Advantages of Research ... 10

1.5. Definition of Important Terms ... 12

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 14

2.1. The Concept of Multiple Representation ... 14

2.2. Representation Use from Dual-Coding Theory (DCT) ... 24

2.3. The Role of Multiple Representation in Learning Sciences ... 27

2.4. The Multiple Representations in Learning and Teaching Physics: Some Benefits ... 39

2.5. Previous research Focusing on Quantum Physics Concept ... 47

2.6. Quantum Physics Concepts and Its Representation ... 51

2.6.1 The Photoelectric Effect... 54

2.6.2 Bohr’s Atom Model ... 57

2.6.3 The Schrodinger Equation Concept ... 62

2.7. The Concept of Critical Thinking Disposition (CTD) ... 66

viii

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ... 74

3.1. Research Paradigm and Design ... 74

3.2. The Population and the Sample of the Research ... 82

3.3. The Description of Variables of Study ... 83

3.4. Instruments ... 84

3.4.1 Pilot Study of Quantum Physics Concept Achievement... 85

3.4.2 Pilot Study of Generic Science Skills-Concept Integrated .... 89

3.4.3 Pilot Study of Critical Thinking Disposition-Concept Integrated ... 89

3.4.4 Pilot Study of Re-representation Skills Inventory ... 89

3.4.5 Focus Group Discussion Guide Question and Interview Task Protocol (ITP) ... 90

3.5. The Design of Quantum Physics Instruction Based on Multiple Representation ... 92

3.6. Data Analysis Procedure ... 99

3.6.1 Quantitative Data Analyses ... 102

3.6.2 Qualitative Data Analyses ... 102

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 104

4.1. Quantitative Data Analyses Results ... 104

4.1.1. Descriptive Analyses Results for Students’ Quantum Physics Mastery ... 104

4.1.2. Descriptive Analyses Results for Student’s Generic Skills ... 113

4.1.3. Descriptive Analyses Result for Students’ Critical Thinking Disposition ... 123

4.1.4 Descriptive Analyses Results for Students’ Re- Representation Skills Inventory (RSI) ... 134

4.1.5. Inferential Statistics Analyses for Students’ Quantum Physics Concept Achievements and Findings ... 138

4.1.6. Inferential Statistics Analyses for Students’ Generic Science Skills and Findings ... 140

ix 4.1.7. Inferential Statistics Analyses for Students’ Critical Thinking

Disposition and Findings ... 145

4.1.8. Inferential Statistics Analyses for Re-representation Skills and Findings ... 150

4.2. Qualitative Data Analyses ... 151

4.2.1. The Results of Focus Group Discussion ... 152

4.2.2. The Results of Open-Ended Semi Structure Interview ... 155

4.3. Discussion of the Research Results ... 157

4.3.1. Discussion of Results for Quantitative Study ... 158

4.3.2. Discussion of Results for Qualitative Investigation ... 184

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION ... 199

5.1. Conclusion ... 199

5.2. Implications of Study ... 200

5.3. Recommendation for Future Research ... 204

REFERENCES ... 206

x LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

Figure 2.1 A Function Taxonomy of MERs ... 15

Figure 2.2 Pictorial Representation of Two Cars ... 19

Figure 2.3 Alternative Meanings Derived from a Single Representation 19 Figure 2.4 Peirce’s Triadic Model ... 20

Figure 2.5 Four Different Representation of a car ... 24

Figure 2.6 A Model of Cognition using Multiple Representation Based on Dual Coding Theory ... 25

Figure 2.7 Teacher Imposition ... 33

Figure 2.8 Teacher Abdication ... 34

Figure 2.9 Teacher as Domain Novice ... 35

Figure 2.10 Teacher in Trialogue ... 36

Figure 2.11 Triadic Pedagogical Model ... 37

Figure 2.12 The Proposal for a Starting Point of a Novel Course for Quantum Physics ... 50

Figure 2.13 Nearly Isomorphic Problem in Graphical and Pictorial/ Diagrammatic Format Bohr-Model Electron Orbit Radii ... 51

Figure 2.14 A Schematic Representation of the Photoelectric Effect ... 55

Figure 2.15 Graphical representation that showed dependency of Photocurrent (i) on light Intensity (I) ... 56

Figure 2.16 Graphical Representation for V0 vs υ ... 57

Figure 2.17 Pictorial Representation for Hydrogen Atom’s Spectral ... 59

Figure 2.18 Pictorial Representations for Spectral Lines ... 62

Figure 3.1 Reasoning Diagram of Framework of the Research ... 76

Figure 3.2 Embedded Research Design ... 78

Figure 3.3 The Visual Representation of Research design for Quantitative Study ... 78

xi Figure 3.5 The Characteristic of the Instructional Environmental

Design of a Multiple Representation based on IF-So

Framework ... 93 Figure 3.6 The Multiple Representation of some phenomenon Photoelectric Effect ... 95 Figure 3.7 Sequential Mixed Method Data Analyses Procedure ... 101 Figure 4.1 Average Score of Students’ concepts mastery for

Control Group (CG) ... 107 Figure 4.2 Average Score of Students’ concepts mastery

for Experimental Group (EG) ... 108 Figure 4.3 N-gain Score of Students’ concepts mastery

for CG and EG ... 109 Figure 4.4 Clustered boxplot of the Pre and Post score of photoelectric

Effect concepts for CG and EG... 109 Figure 4.5 Clustered boxplot of the Pre and Post score of Bohr’s atom

model for CG and EG ... 110 Figure 4.6 Clustered boxplot of the Pre and Post score of Schrodinger

Equation concepts for CG and EG ... 111 Figure 4.7 Clustered boxplot of the N-gain of students’ concepts Achievement for the EG and CG ... 112 Figure 4.8 Pre and Post Average Score of GSSPE for both

EG and CG ... 113 Figure 4.9 N-gain Score of GSSPE for EG and CG ... 114 Figure 4.10 Clustered boxplot of the GSSPE for the CG and EG... 116 Figure 4.11 Pre and Post Average Score of GSSBA for both

EG and CG ... 117 Figure 4.12 N-gain Score of GSSBA for EG and CG ... 118 Figure 4.13 Clustered boxplot of the GSSBA for CG and EG ... 119 Figure 4.14 Pre and Post Average Score of GSSSE for both

EG and CG ... 120 Figure 4.15 N-gain Score of GSSSE ... 121 Figure 4.16 Clustered boxplot of the GSSSE for CG and EG ... 122

xii Figure 4.17 Pre and Post Average Score of CTDPE for both

EG and CG ... 124

Figure 4.18 N-gain Score for CTDPE ... 125

Figure 4.19 Clustered boxplot of the CTDIPEC for CG and EG ... 126

Figure 4.20 Pre and Post Average Score of CTDBA for both EG and CG ... 127

Figure 4.21 N-gain Score for CTDBA ... 128

Figure 4.22 Clustered boxplot of the CTDBA for CG and EG ... 129

Figure 4.23 Pre and Post Average Score of CTDSE for both EG and CG ... 131

Figure 4.24 N-gain Score for CTDSE ... 132

Figure 4.25 Clustered boxplot of the CTDSE for CG and EG... 133

Figure 4.26 Pre and Post Average Score of RSI for EG and CG ... 136

Figure 4.27 N-gain Score of RSI for both EG and CG ... 136

Figure 4.28 Clustered boxplot of the RSI for CG and EG ... 137

Figure 4.29 Clustered boxplot of the N-gain RSI for EG and CG ... 138

Figure 4.30 Photoelectric Effect Simulation from PhET ... 161

Figure 4.31 Students’ Activity in Virtual Laboratory For Photoelectric Effect Experiment ... 162

Figure 4.32 Students’ multiple Representations embedded in their arguments ... 163

Figure 4.33 Students’ Written Analogy to explain Photoelectric Effect . 165 Figure 4.34 Virtual Experiment of Hydrogen’s atom ... 167

Figure 4.35 Students’ written analogy to explain why the atom has Different energy level ... 168

Figure 4.36 Students’ Written on Bohr’s Atom Model related to other Model ... 170

Figure 4.37 Students’ Written an embedded Multiple Representation in Explaining Electron Energy in Transition (verbal, mathematical, bar-chart energy) ... 171

xiii Figure 4.39 (A) Square Barrier and (B) students’ sketch wave function

In region A, B, and C... 173

Figure 4.40 Students’ respond for tunneling energy concept ... 176 Figure 4.41 Students’ self Confidence observation ... 181

Figure 4.42 Students’ re-representations skills on photoelectric effect ... 183 Figure 4.43 The structure of teacher base knowledge ... 197

xiv LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE Table 3.1 Summary of Research design ... 80 Table 3.2 Classification of Variables... 83 Table 3.3 Internal Validity of and Difficulty Indices of QPS related to

photoelectric effect concepts ... 86 Table 3.4 Internal Validity of and Difficulty Indices of QPS related to

Bohr’s atom model concepts... 87 Table 3.5 Internal Validity of and Difficulty Indices of QPS related to

Schrodinger’s equation concepts ... 88 Table 3.6 The Construct of Lesson Plan for Experimental Group ... 98 Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics related to the scores from photoelectric

effect concepts , Bohr’s atom model concepts , and Schrodinger’s equation concepts for experimental and

control groups ... 106 Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistic Related to the Scores of RSI

for both Experimental Group and Control Group ... 135 Table 4.3 Mann-Whitney U Test Statisticsfor Pre-measure of QPS

for students’ quantum physics achievement

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 139 Table 4.4 Mann-Whitney U Test Statisticsfor Post- measure of QPS

for students’ quantum physics achievement

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 139 Table 4.5 Mann-Whitney U Test Statisticsfor N-gain of QPS

for students’ quantum physics achievement

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 140 Table 4.6 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Pre-GSSPE

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 140 Table 4.7 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Post-GSSPE

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 141 Table 4.8 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for N-gain of GSSPE

xv Table 4.9 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Pre-GSSBA

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 142 Table 4.10 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Post-GSSBA

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 143 Table 4.11Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for N-gain of GSSBA

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 143 Table 4.12 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Pre-GSSSE

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 144 Table 4.13 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Post-GSSSE

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 144 Table 4.14Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for N-gain of GSSSE

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 145 Table 4.15 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Pre-CTDPE

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 146 Table 4.16 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Post-CTDPE

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 146 Table 4.17 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for N-gain of CTDPE

(α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 147 Table 4.18 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Pre-CTDBA

(α=0.05, 2-tailed)... 147 Table 4.19 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Post-CTDBA

(α=0.05, 2-tailed)... 148 Table 4.20 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for N-gain of CTDBA

(α=0.05, 2-tailed)... 148 Table 4.21 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Pre-CTDSE

(α=0.05, 2-tailed)... 149 Table 4.22 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Post-CTDSE

(α=0.05, 2-tailed)... 149 Table 4.23 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for N-gain of CTDSE

xvi Table 4.24 Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics for Pre, Post, and N-gain

of RSI (α=0.05, 2-tailed) ... 150 Table 4.25 Summary of Important Findings of the Research ... 198

xvii LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PAGE

Appendix A Lesson Plan ... 214

Appendix B Students Worksheet ... 221

Appendix C Quantum Physics Survey (QPS) ... 227

Appendix D Re-representation Skill Inventory (RSI) ... 284

Appendix E Rubrics ... 289

Appendix F Focus Group Discussion Questions List ... 292

Appendix G Interview Task Protocol ... 294

Appendix H Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics Analyze for Concept Mastery ... 296

Appendix I Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics Analyze for GSS ... 299

Appendix J Mann-Whitney U Test Statistics Analyze for CTD ... 308

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Since the 1970’s, there has been significantly increased number of systematic investigations into students understanding of physics. A large number of empirical studies completed in the past three decades could be categorized into three areas in terms of their primary emphasis: research about student conceptual understanding and reasoning; research about student problem solving; and research about student attitudes and beliefs (McDermott & Redish, 1999). Investigation of student difficulties in conceptual understanding have been more comprehensively documented than both about student problem solving and about beliefs and attitudes. Many of the researches into student conceptual understanding have been in classical physics such as kinematics, Newtonian dynamics, electric circuits, thermodynamics, work and energy, and geometrical optics.

In that period, some physicists found that there existed a great difference between what was taught and what was learned (McDermott, 1993). Since then, systematic investigations done by physicists about how students learn physics have been growing in number and sophistication. Forming a new community and building a new area in physics, researchers have gained deep insight both into students’ difficulties understanding physics and into how to help students learn more effectively (McDermott & Redish, 1999).

At the same time, the goal of learning physics has also been examined and challenged by the needs in the 21st century workplace. Some of various Physics Institutes (Rebello & Zollman, 2005) often suggest some common skills that the

real world workplace wants employees in science and engineering to have: for example, knowing how to learn, scientific investigation skills, problem solving ability, communication and teamwork skills, and others. Therefore, the goals of physics education research are varied and different. Some focus more on understanding of physics knowledge, some emphasize developing procedural skills to meet the needs of the workplace, and some do both until students’ attitudes and beliefs. In fact all of these attributes refer to how to design learning systems as a main focus of discourses about learning physics, including learning materials, instructional strategies, instructors, classroom implementations, and so forth.

Recent research in learning and teaching physics strategies has increased greatly (Rebello & Zollman, 2005). Some researchers have investigated traditional methods of learning, while others have developed and assessed techniques such as hands-on experiments and interactive computer visualizations. Over the past ten years a number of researchers have been involved in these efforts, especially in the modern physics field. Their work is now showing some good results that can help us understand how to teach quantum physics and, perhaps, other abstract scientific concepts (Zollman, 1999; Asikainen, et al, 2005)

Many physics educators state that physics is not considered very attractive and interesting as an alternative to study for many students even though the technology that we are using in everyday life is a consequence of research in physics, especially quantum physics topics (Zollman, Rebello, & Hogg, 2002). Actually, quantum physics could be a very attractive field but students perceive quantum physics as very abstract and conceptually difficult, so that they generally

have a weak level of the understanding of quantum physics. In terms of assessing students difficulties in quantum physics, several conceptual surveys have been developed, though most are appropriate for advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate students since they address topics such as the calculation of expectation values, or the time-evolution of quantum states (Baily & Finkelstein, 2009). Wuttiprom et al (2009) reported that students had the most difficulty with six questions which they classified as interpretive; for example, the two survey items with the lowest percentage of correct responses ask whether, “according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics,” light (or an electron) is behaving like a wave or a particle when traveling from a source to a detector. The authors reported that only ~20% of students chose the correct response for each of these two questions.

Quantum physics can be built on a classical base theory, using many classical concepts and so can be rich in representations. If student understanding is weak in these areas, the learning of quantum physics may still be difficult (Bao & Redish, 2002). Although quantum physics is representationally very rich but it seems almost certain that traditional teaching ignores these richness. Student ability to build different kinds of physics representations for quantum physics can help them understand and use key physics concepts. Therefore, quantum physics lectures based on multimodality or multiple representations is an alternative way to enhance students’ understanding of quantum physics concepts.

As an importance comparative view, many novice chemistry teachers struggle to translate their domain understanding into an effective teaching practice. Because experienced teachers’ thinking is not always shared with beginning

teachers, this can result in novice teachers not fully understanding how the complex process of teaching and learning occurs (Ballet, Kelchtermans, & Loughran, 2006; Loughran, et al, 2001). Similarly, students’ thinking is not often adequately explored within the classroom. We utilized an approach (Waldrip, Prain & Carolan, 2010) that conceptualizes facilitation of student learning in terms of Roberts’ (1996) “trialogue”, a three-way reciprocal linkage between teacher, student and content knowledge. In this paper, we suggest that exploration of students’ thinking combined with teacher facilitation can lead to improved student understanding of the challenges entailed in representing concepts and processes in chemistry. This exploration entails teacher recognition that students’ thinking often diverges from the teacher’s expert domain knowledge, and that there is a need to make explicit students’ thinking around representational adequacy to facilitate learning. In many classrooms, the teacher is seen as the source of knowledge, and teaching is characterized as timely imparting of this knowledge. We see that it is important for students to generate their own understandings (Ehrlen, 2009; Creagh, 2008) through making representations of their emerging understandings, including drawing, modeling, discussions, tables, graphs, multi-media products, role plays, and photographs, in a process of guided inquiry.

There is growing agreement that learning concepts and methods in science entails understanding and conceptually linking different representational modes (Ainsworth, 1999; Saul, 2004). Students need to be able to understand different representations of science concepts and processes, translate them into one another, and understand their co-ordinated use in representing scientific explanations. Student learning and engagement can be enhanced when students identify links

between their own and authorised multiple and multimodal representations of science concepts and processes. diSessa (2004) suggested that secondary students are capable of discerning criteria by which an effective representation can be judged, criteria such as:

• Adequacy, in that all relevant information is shown.

• Conciseness, with a focus on pertinent points and avoiding distraction. • Comprehensibility, in that a representation is self-sufficient in making its

claims clear.

• Alignment, in that linkages between different parts of a representation are shown clearly.

• Conventionality, in that accepted conventions are observed.

He pointed out that judging the value of a representation is complex and content-dependent, where fit for purpose is also an important element in effectiveness. In comparing how expert chemists and chemistry students construct and use representations, Kozma (2003) noted that students had difficulty translating between representations, and connecting them. Kozma and Russell (2005) proposed a five stage conceptual structure of representational competence. It is clear that they are seeing high-level competence in using representations as a thinking tool to be used for more re-interpretive thinking.

Multimodality refers to the integration in science discourse of different modes to represent scientific reasoning and findings (Waldrip, Prain, & Carolan, 2006). The same concepts is re-represented through different forms or “multiple representations” in verbal, numerical, visual, or actional modes. A focus on multimodal thinking and representation encourages students to coordinate their

different representations of scientific knowledge. Ainsworth (1999) stated that learner engagement with expert-generated representations could support learning in three ways. These are (a) when the new representation complements past understanding by confirming past knowledge, (b) the new representation constrains interpretation by limiting the learners’ focus on key conceptual features, (c) the different representations enable learners to identify an underlying concepts or abstraction across modes or within the same mode of representation.

There are several innovative ongoing research and educational projects, especially on visual representation of quantum physics. For example, Zollman, Rebello, & Hogg (2002) have integrated quantum physics as a part of introductory level physics with developed Visual Quantum Mechanics (VQM) visualization materials. Based on the preliminary results VQM material is suitable for the teaching of quantum physics also for novice physics students or engineering students. Also Robblee, Garik, & Abegg (1999) have achieved good learning results by using Quantum Science Across Disciplines (QSAD) software in the upper secondary school teacher education. Based on the results of these studies it seems that different kinds of computer based visualization techniques can enhance the students’ understanding of quantum physics.

Furthermore, we can predict that students who learn in a multiple-representation environment would show a greater improvement in understanding quantum physics concepts than students who learned in a single-representation environment. In addition, we expect instruction environment based on multiple representation effects to be particularly strong for (1) high-achieving student understanding and solved quantum physics problem in rich formats of

representations, (2) using appropriate strategies for solving physics problems. Thus, in the science class, students should be able not only translate language about the topic between science and everyday language in the text-dominant classroom, but also have experience at re-representing the concepts discussed across the various modes used within the topic (Gunel, Hand, & Gunduz, 2007).

Besides understanding physics concepts, there is another goal in learning physics which is very important for students as the rising generation to meet their challenges and capitalize on their opportunities in future. Many instructors clearly fail in the “hidden curriculum” category to leave students with a positive attitude towards physics, especially for pre-service physics teacher students. This should be beyond simply “liking” physics; it encompasses an appreciation of how physicists think and operate, the value of physics as it applies to other fields such as engineering, biology, medicine, etc., and the applicability of physics to everyday life and various jobs in society (Brotosiswojo, 2001; Duda & Garret, 2007).

Therefore, the rich environment instruction of physics could help to achieve generic science skills that are required for everyday life and professional jobs. There are at least eight scientific generic skills which could be generated in learning physics, including ability in : (1) direct and indirect observation ; (2) sense of scale; (3) using symbolic language; (4) developing need for logical self-consistency; (5) developing logical inference ; (6) understanding causality ; (7) developing mathematical modeling ; and (8) developing concepts (Brotosiswojo, 2001).

Students’ generic science skills could be built through learning physics that is encouraging higher order thinking process, like critical thinking. Therefore, critical thinking skills as a higher order thinking is considered an important variable in the process of students’ learning science (Liliasari, 2007). Students’ ability to think critically has become a major concern among educators and psychologists as they try to study the factors influencing the acquisition of thinking skills. Much recent research focuses on the relationship of several variables, the students’ critical thinking dispositions, students’ perceptions towards teachers’ teaching approaches, the learning approaches students employ in the process of learning, and critical thinking skills as the learning outcome (Facione, 1995; Wan Sulaeman, Abdul Rahman, & Dzulkifli, 2007).

The development of critical thinking is an important step in achieving the goals of holistic education, not only through helping students gain knowledge but above all through ensuring that they think effectively. The learning of thinking skills will be even more meaningful when it is reinforced in the lessons taught. When thinking skills are infused and weaved into the lesson instruction, students are able to gain a deeper understanding of the content they are learning, resulting in meaningful and transferable knowledge (Ennis, 1996; Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990; Costa, 1985).

As noted prior that many crucial aspects of systems of external representations and the meaningful transformation of information in learning physics related to thinking ability, therefore the physics instructional design based on multiple representation is believed to enhance students’ thinking skills.

Facione, Facione & Giancarlo (2000) have hypothesized that skills in critical thinking is positively correlated with the consistent internal motivation to think; and, moreover, that specific critical thinking skills are matched with specific critical thinking dispositions. If true, these assumptions suggest that a thinking skill-focused curriculum would lead persons to be both willing and able to think.

This research has been done with focus on designing learning and teaching quantum physics with rich environment based on multimodal representation and its influence toward quantum physics concepts mastery, generic science skills, critical thinking disposition for pre-service physics teacher students.

1.2Statement of Problem and Research Questions

The main problem of this research is how to design quantum physics instructional strategies based on multiple representation for enhancing concepts mastery, critical thinking disposition, and generic science skills. This study has attempted to answer the following research questions:

a) How do the students prefer certain physics representations before experiencing the unit of quantum physics instruction based on multiple representations? b) How are the students’ conceptions about quantum physics concepts before

and after getting the unit of quantum physics instruction based on multiple representations?

c) What are the characteristics of quantum physics instruction designs based on multiple representations?

d) What are the different effects of the multiple representations-based instructions of quantum physics compared to the conventional instructions in enhancing concepts mastery, generic science skills, and critical thinking disposition?

e) What are the different effects of the multiple representations-based instructions compared to the conventional teaching method on pre-service physics teacher students to enhance re-representation skills?

f) How do the students use multiple representations when they encounter a quantum physics learning situation and solve quantum physics problem? g) What are students’ perceptions about teaching and learning quantum physics

based on multiple representations? 1.3 Research Objectives

The primary purpose of this study is to design and descript the impact of an instruction strategy based on multiple representations on pre-service physics teacher students to quantum physics concepts understanding, critical thinking disposition, and generic science skills. An embedded mixed method will be used in this research. Furthermore, this study seeks to attain the following purposes: a) to enhance quality of teaching and learning on quantum physics through

multiple representation-based instructions

b) to enhance students’ performance in quantum physics concept mastery c) to develop students’ generic science skills

d) to develop students’ high order thinking skill, especially in critical thinking disposition

e) to supply examples of how pre-service physics teachers student design innovative instruction based on multiple representations.

1.4 Advantages of Research

The major contribution of this research is an innovative teaching and learning physics invention-based on multiple representations, a reasoning

framework for analyzing and describing how students understand and use multiple representations in the context of quantum physics. The practical framework of this dissertation offers educators and researchers a technical language capable of describing students’ (correct and incorrect) use of multimodal representations in quantum physics. Also, include that no study has investigated this unique combination of representations, reasoning framework including critical thinking and generic science skills.

The advantages of the research detail were following:

a) That is, this practical framework offers a new vocabulary for pre service physics teachers (definition of the relevant internal and external representation) and grammar (relationship between internal and external representation) for analyzing and describing students’ quantum physics concepts mastery, critical thinking disposition, and generic science skills. It is useful for researchers and educators in three important ways: it synthesizes previous research into one coherent framework, it can be used as a diagnostic tool during instruction, and it can be used as a guide for future instruction and curriculum development.

b) Teaching and learning physics based on multiple representations where different modes serve different needs in relation to reasoning and recording scientific inquiry. In this way, mathematical, verbal, graphical, pictorial, simulation and others have been used individually and in coordinated ways to represent the knowledge claims of science discourse, with more recent technology which was invented as the investigation results of modern

physics or quantum physics-mediated representations of science consistent with, rather than a deviation from, this evolution of science as a discipline. c) By implication, students need to learn about the multi-modal nature of the

representations entailed in scientific inquiry, and the different modes in which the same concepts in physics can be represented as part of students’ general development of science literacy.

1.5 Definitions of the Important Terms

a) Multimodality refers to the integration in science discourse of different modes to represent scientific reasoning and findings (Waldrip, Prain & Carolan, 2006).

b) Internal representations can be defined as “individual cognitive configurations inferred from human behavior describing some aspects of the process of thinking and problem solving that formed mental configurations on students’ minds (Lasry & Aulls, 2007).

c) External representations can be defined as “structured physical situations that can be seen as embodying physics ideas that stands for, depicts, symbolizes or represents objects and/or processes. Examples in physics include words, diagrams, equations, graphs, simulation, sketches, etc (Meltzer, 2005). d) The representational mode is viewed as a cognitive mode that is dealing with

the production of external representations of a learner’s internal representation of an idea (Schnotz & Lowe, 2003).

e) Generic science skills: Fundamental skills that could be generated through innovation in learning science, such as a quantum physics class. There are eight indicators of scientific generic skills including: direct and indirect observation, sense of scale, using symbolic language, developing need for logical self-consistency, developing logical inference, understanding causality, developing mathematical modeling, and developing concepts (Brotosiswojo, 2001).

f) Critical Thinking Disposition: We propose to use the word “dispositions” as applied to humans to refer to characterological attributes of individuals. As such, a human disposition is a person’s persistent internal motivation to act toward, or to respond to, persons, events, or circumstances in habitual, and yet potentially malleable, ways. There are seven aspects of the overall disposition toward Critical Thinking: truth-seeking, open-mindedness, analyticity, systematicity, self-confidence, inquisitiveness, and cognitive maturity (Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo, 2000).

g) Multiple representations-based instructions: It is a kind of instructions strategy that involves multiple representations in concepts explanations. This means that in order to explain a concepts, a variety of external representations such as tables, graphs, pictures, symbols, equations, analogy etc. for comprehending the concepts are used (Kohl & Finkelstein, 2006) h) Conventional-based Instructions: It is a kind of instructional strategy which

used limitation of representations mode in learning and teaching physics concepts by a teacher or lecturer (Kohl & Finkelstein, 2006).

i) Quantum physics concepts is the physics subject matter concepts which describes the nature and behavior of matter and radiation, particularly at the microscopic level (Hobson, 2007). The main topics of quantum physics in this research are restricted to covering the: (1) Photoelectric Effect, (2) Bohr’s Atom Model, and (3) Solution of the Schrödinger Equation for a 1 D Quantum Box System and the Hydrogen Atom.

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the procedures for the study. It includes descriptions of the overall research design, the population and the sample, the description of the variables, the data collection instruments, the design of the instruction, the pilot study of the instruction, the treatment procedure and data analyses approach used to address each research.

3.1 Research Paradigm and Design

Recent, the issues of what instructional approaches should be used in physics classes have not been solved yet. No matter which instructional approach is used, the primary goal of physics instruction should be to help students in forming conceptual understanding. Kohl & Finkelstein (2007) suggest that if the teachers enrich their physics classrooms by using multiple representations, the students can more efficiently make connections between the meaning of physics concepts and the way of representing them, therefore they simply “go for the meaning, beware of the syntax” which results in conceptual understanding.

From a global and historical perspective, physics, as an academic subject is extremely successful in a number of areas, providing, for instance, rather generic methods in analyzing and solving complex problems (Euler, 2004). Thereby, physics instruction should build generic science skills for supplying scientific literacy and increasing the number of students in physics-related careers. Generic Science Skills, which include direct and indirect observation, sense of scale, using symbolic language, developing need for logical self-consistency,

developing logical inference, understanding causality, developing mathematical modeling, and developing concepts, are considered essential for undergraduate physics students. Since many of these skills are an indispensable part of the lifelong learning process, some even consider them more valuable than subject matter (Brotosiswojo, 2001).

The concern for teaching thinking skills is penetrating the education system everywhere in the world. All levels of society agree that thinking skills are crucial for one to remain relevant and proficient in this fast-paced and competitive world (Lang, 2006). Physics is considered abstract, difficult, boring, unattractive, not very meaningful to students and detached from every day life. Many students who begin their physics lesson with a certain level of enthusiasm and eagerness soon change their attitude and consider the subject uninteresting and even develop aversions (Euler, 2004). However, preparing pre-service physics teachers student to teach thinking skills requires more than the generic attitude, skills, and knowledge components for effective teaching. This dispositional component is closely related to the affective dimension of a particular thinking skill, i.e., the willingness and inclination to think in a particular way (Lang, 2006).

Therefore, developing enrichment instructional strategy based on multiple representations, especially on quantum physics, will be clearly an effect toward critical thinking disposition and scientific generic skills to pre-service physics teacher student. The diagram representation for the framework of reasoning of this research could be seen in figure 3.1

Figure 3.1 Reasoning Diagram of Framework of the Research

Actional Representation Quantum Physics

Concepts

Essential Topics in Quantum Physics

• The nature of physics • The nature of

quantum physics • Competence

standard for learning quantum physics for pre-service physics teacher student Cognitive Theory encoding Dual Coding Theory n-coding theory Internal representation External Representation

Representations Format for Quantum physics concepts

Instructional strategy based on multiple representations Symbolic and Mathematics Representation Visual Representation Verbal Representation Enhancement quantum physics concepts mastery Developing Generic Science Skills Enhancement of critical thinking disposition

The research was conducted using the mixed method approach. Mixed methods research is formally defined here as the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Philosophically, it is the “third wave” or third research movement, a movement that moves past the paradigm wars by offering a logical and practical alternative. Philosophically, mixed research makes use of the pragmatic method and system. Its logic of inquiry includes the use of induction (or discovery of patterns), deduction (testing of theories and hypotheses), and abduction (uncovering and relying on the best of a set of explanations for understanding one’s results). Mixed methods research also is an attempt to legitimate the use of multiple approaches in answering research questions, rather than restricting or constraining researchers’ choices (i.e., it rejects dogmatism). It is an expansive and creative form of research, not a limiting form of research. It is inclusive, pluralistic, and complementary, and it suggests that researchers take an eclectic approach to method selection and the thinking about and conduct of research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

In this research mixed method approach was designed in learning quantum physics with a rich environment based on multimodal representation and its influence toward concept achievement, critical thinking disposition, and developing growth of generic science skills in pre-service physics teacher. A sequential embedded mixed method design with embedded experimental model has been used (see figure 3.2) (Creswell & Clark, 2007).

Figure 3.2 Sequential Embedded Research Design (Creswell & Clark, 2007)

The main purpose of this study was to create and test the effect of instructional design based on multiple representation for quantum physics concepts. The effect of treatment will be examined through a quasi-experimental research design since this study does not include the use of random assignment of participants to both experimental and control groups (Creswell & Clark, 2007; Borg, Borg & Gall, 2003; Creswell, 2008). This research design can be visualized as in Figure 3.3.

Group A O1 X O2

Group B O 1 O2

Figure 3.3 The visual representation of research design for the quantitative study Qualitative

before intervention (Focus Group

Discussion )

Quantitative premeasure

intervention

Quantitative postmeasure

Qualitative after intervention

(in-depth interview)

Qualitative during intervention (informal Observation)

Interpretation based on Quantitative and Qualitative results

In Figure 3.3, the symbol of O1 represented the scores obtained through the instruments that would be used as pretests. The experimental class is represented as Group A which experienced the treatment (X) that used instructional based on multiple representations, called experiment group (EG). The Group (B) received only traditional instruction and is represented as control group (CG). The symbols O2 represent scores of the post administration test using the instruments on both experimental and control groups.

The secondary purpose will be to gather qualitative data. The first step will used structured interview through Focus Group Discussion (FGD) to investigate the representation preferences of the students before the unit of instruction, to examine the reasons of preferring certain kinds of representations, and to investigate skills of representation before the unit of instruction. Focus group discussions are a qualitative research technique used to gain an in-depth, but not representative, understanding of the attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of a specific group of people in their own language. A focus group would be facilitated, open conversation, recorded and observed by a note taker. A facilitator asked questions that stimulate interaction among participants on subjects relevant to the evaluation. Each participant should have the opportunity to speak, ask questions of other participants and respond to the comments of others, including the facilitator. Generally, it is best to hold several focus groups on the same topic. The first few focus group sessions are often longer because the facilitator is getting all new information. Thereafter, the facilitator should be able to move quickly over points that have already been covered with previous groups if similar answers are emerging.

The number of focus group discussions have been conducted depends on the project needs and resources and whether different views from separate groups are still emerging. In general, at least two focus group discussions should be conducted among each specific target group. Each group consisted of 6-12 persons. The focus group was conducted between 75 to 90 minutes (Gruden, et al., 2002).

In this study has been formed 5 groups, each group consist of 7-8 persons. The students that will be member of group are pre-service physics teachers who have taken quantum physics concept course.

The second qualitative step used informal observation during intervention of the class, and the last step used think aloud semi-structured interviews to know how the students use multiple representations when they encounter a quantum physics learning situation and students’ perception and view about learning quantum physics based on multiple representations. In semi-structured interview engaged about 6 students. Two students from high level understanding of quantum physics concept mastery, two students from medium level, and two students from low level were engaged in the interview. In overall of design of the research was summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Summary of research design General Initial Teaching and Learning Design

Proposed Strategy Resources Outcome

Focus group discussions (FGD)

Pre-service Physics teacher students

Development of a set of Treatment covering focus, attitude, content, learning and teaching based on Multiple representations.

Literature Review

Proposed Strategy Resources Outcome

Review a wide selection of related research articles in science education, especially physics education research using multiple representation

Library databases, research

articles

Clear understanding of the scope of related research

Identify Key Themes, Ideas and Concepts

Proposed Strategy Resources Outcome

Enter the field with open and responsive research outlook

Lecturer within the Physics Education Program of Mathematics and Science Education Department

Adaptation of an appropriate research methodology

Collect and analyse data from a wide range of sources

Lecturers, students, researchers, examination scripts, lectures, tutorials, virtual laboratories

Adaptation of appropriate data collection and analysis

tools

Identify key categories Analysis software Awareness of emerging concepts

Develop an Interview Based Research Instrument

Proposed Strategy Resources Outcome

Progressively focus toward the initial research questions

Adaptation of appropriate data analysis tools

Isolate the key areas of interest and the key aspects of quantum physics concept learning based on multiple representation

Development of a set of interview questions

Conduct Interviews

Proposed Strategy Resources Outcome

Interview students

6 Students Development of a

responsive interview protocol

Analyse interview data to identify themes

Categorization of responses

Investigate the Variation in Understanding of Key Quantum Physics Concepts

Proposed Strategy Resources Outcome

Step back from the data and refocus on isolating a set of key concepts relating to the teaching and learning of quantum physics concept

Interview transcripts Adaptation of appropriate research methodology and analysis tools. Mapping the variations in understanding

Link Results

Proposed Strategy Resources Outcome

Analyse the results for trends and connections

Analysis software tools (using SPSS v 16)

Research findings

3.2 The Population and Sample of The Research

The target population of this study consists of all pre-service physics students from public University, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, in Bandar Lampung, Lampung Province, Indonesia. The sample covered all student who administrated quantum physics concept course in 2009/2010 year academic that consist of 37 students. They were separated to experimental group that received instructional based on multiple representation and control group that received only conventional instructions. This class had a total population 37 of students. There were 19 students in experimental group and 18 students in control group.

3.3 The description of variables of study

In this study there were 5 variables that can be classified as dependent and independent variables. Table 3.2 presents a list of those variables.

Table 3.2 Classification of the variables

Variable Type Name Value type Scale type

Dependent Students’ concepts mastery score on Photoelectric effect, Bohr’s atom model, and Schrodinger equation.

continuous interval

Dependent Students’ Generic Science Skills score which integrated photoelectric effect concepts, Bohr’s atom model concepts, and Schrodinger equation concepts.

continuous interval

Dependent Students’ Critical Thinking Disposition score which integrated photoelectric effect concepts, Bohr’s atom model concepts, and Schrodinger equation concepts.

continuous interval

Dependent Re-representation Skill Inventory score

continuous interval

Independent Treatment categorical nominal

The first of the dependent variables is the students’ conceptual mastery in quantum physics concepts scores. These scores were obtained from pre and post test of Quantum Physics Survey (QPS) which including Photoelectric Effect Concept score, Bohr’s Atom Model Concept scores and Schrodinger’s Equations Concept scores. The next one of dependent variables is the students’ Generic Science Skills scores. These variables include Generic Science Skill-Integrated Photoelectric Effect Concept Score, Generic Science Skill Integrated Bohr’s Atom Model Concept Score, and Generic Science Skill-Integrated Schrodinger’s Equation Concept Score. The next one of dependent variables is the students’

Critical Thinking Disposition which include Critical Thinking Disposition-Integrated Photoelectric Effect Scores, Critical Thinking Disposition-Disposition-Integrated Bohr’s Atom Model Concept score, and Critical Thinking Disposition-Integrated Schrodinger Equation Concept scores. The last one of dependent variable is the students re-representation skill score.

The independent variables of this study is the treatment (Multiple representations-based instructions was experienced to experimental group and conventional instructions was experienced to control group) that considered as categorical variable.

3.4 Instruments

Two instruments were used in quantitative study for this research. There were Quantum Physics Survey (QPS) and Re-representation Skills Inventory (RSI). Quantum Physics Survey (QPS) contains 60 multiple choice items which consist of 20 items related to Photoelectric Effect Concepts, 20 items related to Bohr’s Atom Model Concepts and 20 items related to Schrodinger’s Equations Concepts. The QPS was used to measure students’ quantum physics concept mastery achievement and integrated with this also generic science skills and critical thinking disposition (see appendix C). Whereas, the Re-representation Skills Inventory (RSI) is used to assess students’ re-representation ability which it contained 9 essay items.

In addition to these instruments, for the qualitative step of the study, Focus Group Discussion guiding questions and interview task protocol (ITP) were used to collect more information and insight about both of the participants’

pre-conception and understanding of using multiple representations in quantum concepts teaching and learning situation and physics problems solving.

3.4.1 Pilot Study of Students’ Quantum Physics Concept Achievement One of the instruments measuring students’ quantum physics performance was the Quantum Physics Survey (QPS). To analyze students’ answers more deeply and to explore their understanding and problem solving skills intensively, multiple choice type questions were used in QPS. QPS consists of 60 multiple choice items: 20 items related to photoelectric effect, 20 items related to Bohr’s atom model, and 20 items related to Schrodinger’s Equations. Almost all of the test items were developed by the researcher and several items were taken from the related literature. These instruments are presented in Appendix D.

A pilot study for this instrument was conducted with 38 pre-service physics students who passed quantum physics courses or sixth grade semester chosen from physics education program, department of mathematics and science education, at a public University in Lampung Province. The given time for completing the initial version of the QPS was 80 minutes in the pilot study. The minimum and maximum possible scores from the test items are 0 and 100 points, respectively. Internal consistency reliability estimate for the QPS was measured by Cronbach alpha using SPSS v.16 to be 0.784 for photoelectric effect concept, 0.799 for Bohr’s atom model concepts, and 0.828 for Schrodinger’s equation concepts respectively. A reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher allows a norm-referenced test to be used with confidence. For internal validity and difficulty index of the instrument computed using SPSS v.16 could be seen in table 3.3 to table 3.5.

Table 3.3 Internal validity of instruments and Difficulty Indices of QPS related to photoelectric effect concept

Item

Pearson

Correlation Sig.(2-tailed) Validity

Difficulty Index

Inferred

q1 0.413 0.010 sig. 0.63 Ok

q2 0.661 0.000 sig. 0.55 Ok

q3 0.406 0.012 sig. 0.53 Ok

q4 0.648 0.000 sig. 0.58 Ok

q5 0.477 0.002 sig. 0.47 Ok

q6 0.587 0.000 Sig. 0.55 Ok

q7 0.512 0.001 sig. 0.58 Ok

q8 0.537 0.001 Sig. 0.58 Ok

q9 0.425 0.008 sig. 0.58 Ok

q10 0.334 0.041 sig. 0.34 modified

q11 0.349 0.032 sig. 0.50 Ok

q12 0.550 0.000 sig. 0.47 Ok

q13 0.390 0.016 sig. 0.26 Ok

q14 0.512 0.001 sig. 0.58 Ok

q15 0.011 0.947 Not sig. 0.34 Replaced

q16 0.618 0.000 sig. 0.50 Ok

q17 0.437 0.006 sig. 0.37 Ok

q18 0.501 0.001 sig. 0.37 Ok

q19 0.063 0.708 Not sig. 0.34 Replaced

q20 0.376 0.020 sig. 0.26 Ok

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **

Table 3.4 Internal validity of instruments and Difficulty Indices of QPS related to Bohr’s atom model concepts

Item

Pearson

Correlation Sig.(2-tailed) Validity

Difficulty Index

Inferred

q1 0.415 0.010 sig. 0.68 Ok

q2 0.516 0.001 sig. 0.79 Ok

q3 0.433 0.007 sig. 0.45 Ok

q4 0.253 0.216 sig. 0.45 modified

q5 0.533 0.001 sig. 0.47 Ok

q6 0.700 0.000 sig. 0.47 Ok

q7 0.479 0.002 sig. 0.42 Ok

q8 0.494 0.002 sig. 0.84 Ok

q9 0.388 0.016 sig. 0.63 Ok

q10 0.489 0.002 sig. 0.66 Ok

q11 0.747 0.000 sig. 0.53 Ok

q12 0.394 0.014 sig. 0.50 Ok

q13 0.346 0.033 sig. 0.42 Ok

q14 0.418 0.009 sig. 0.42 Ok

q15 0.176 0.289 Not sig. 0.42 Modified

q16 0.562 0.000 sig. 0.50 Ok

q17 0.373 0.01 sig. 0.45 Ok

q18 0.436 0.006 sig. 0.53 Ok

q19 0.466 0.003 sig. 0.39 Ok

q20 0.526 0.001 sig. 0.50 Ok

N 38

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **

Table 3.5 Internal validity of instruments and Difficulty Indices of QPS related to Schrodinger’s equation concepts

Item

Pearson

Correlation Sig.(2-tailed) Validity

Difficulty Index

Inferred

q1 0.552 0.000 sig. 0.68 Ok

q2 -0.094 0.576 Not sig. 0.26 Replaced

q3 0.788 0.000 sig. 0.55 Ok

q4 0.383 0.018 sig. 0.55 Ok

q5 0.513 0.001 sig. 0.71 Ok

q6 0.507 0.001 sig. 0.55 Ok

q7 0.665 0.000 sig. 0.63 Ok

q8 0.496 0.002 sig. 0.58 Ok

q9 0.338 0.038 sig. 0.61 Ok

q10 0.495 0.002 sig. 0.45 Ok

q11 0.822 0.000 sig. 0.55 Ok

q12 0.543 0.000 sig. 0.66 Ok

q13 0.439 0.006 sig. 0.71 Ok

q14 0.361 0.026 sig. 0.61 Ok

q15 0.608 0.000 sig. 0.55 Ok

q16 0.541 0.000 sig. 0.53 Ok

q17 0.417 0.009 sig. 0.55 Ok

q18 0.666 0.000 sig. 0.50 Ok

q19 0.642 0.000 sig. 0.53 Ok

q20 -0.059 0.725 Not sig. 0.47 Replaced

N 38

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **

.Criteria for Difficulty index : 0-0.3 difficult; 0.3-0.7 middle; 0.7-1.0 easy

For obtaining evidence about the face and content validity of this instrument, the QPS was checked by two experienced expert (lecturers) in terms of its format and content. They agreed on the appropriateness of the language, and the level of understanding the items refer to concept characteristics.

3.4.2 Pilot Study of Generic Science Skills (GSS)-Concepts Integrated

Internal consistency reliability estimate for the GSS was measured by Cronbach alpha using SPSS v.16 to be 0.806 for GSS-photoelectric concepts integrated, 0.841 for GSS-Bohr’s atom model concepts integrated, and 0.852 GSS-Schrodinger’s equation concepts integrated respectively. A reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher allows a norm-referenced test to be used with confidence. Whereas, validity analyses using Pearson correlation showed that the instruments have significance internal validity.

3.4.3 Pilot Study of Critical Thinking Disposition (CTD)-Concepts Integrated Internal consistency reliability estimate for the CTD was measured by Cronbach alpha using SPSS v.16 to be 0.739 for CTD-integrated photoelectric concepts, 0.709 for CTDI- Bohr’s atom model concepts integrated, and 0.805 for CTD-Schrodinger’s equation concepts integrated respectively. A reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher allows a norm-referenced test to be used with confidence. Whereas, validity analyses using Pearson correlation showed that the instruments have significance internal validity.

3.4.4 Pilot Study of Re-representation Skills Inventory (RSI)

The re-representation skills inventory (RSI) was developed by the researcher for this particular study, which would address the last of forth research question that is to identify the representation competence of students. It consists of 9 questions (3 questions for Photoelectric concept, 3 question for Bohr’s Atom Model concept, and 3 question for Schrodinger Equation concept) which students were given the problem and three different ways (Verbal, tabular/pictorial, and

mathematical) of representing the problem. They were asked to choose difference of the representations to solve the given problem. The crucial point of this survey was that the students were required to translate representation mode the problems to other representation in solving the solutions of problems.

The pilot study of RSI was carried out with 38 pre-service physics student. Internal consistency reliability estimate for the RSI was measured by Cronbach alpha using SPSS v.16 to be 0.747. A reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher allows a norm-referenced test to be used with confidence. Whereas, validity analyses using person correlation showed that the instruments have significance internal validity.

3.4.5 Focus Group Discussion Guiding Question and Interview Task Protocol (ITP)

Melzer (2005) stated that students` representational competence can be deduced by investigating their usage of representations in learning physics situations. Due to this reason, interviewing with students seemed to be the best method to understand the students` understanding in a multiple representation context. Focus short interview was conducted through Focus Group Discussion to explore students’ physics representation preferences and quantum physics pre-conception before the unit quantum physics concept instruction based on multiple representation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain data on how students used different representational modes when they were solving quantum physics concept problem and to obtain deeper understanding about the possible reasons of their representation preferences.

In general, there were three types of questions, the aim of asking the first type of questions is to know about students’ pre-conception and representation context in physics.

Four type of questions were aimed to obtain information about their use of multiple representations in quantum physics concept teaching and learning. Each question had one quantum physics concept context and needed generalization. The students were questioned on why they chose one type of representation over others both to engaged in learning and solve physics problem.

The interview process involved the purposeful sampling of 6 students from experimental group. Each interview lasted approximately 120 minutes. These interviews took place in the teacher’s room in college at times that suited to students’ schedules and all the interviews were audio taped with the permission of the student. During the interviews, there were some rules that the researcher must obey and situations that the researcher should provide for the participating students. First of all, the researcher informed the interview participants about the purpose and the content of the interview, and then she asked each of the participant’s permission to record all the interview session by audio recorder. For facilitating understanding of students’ thoughts, it is crucial that the participants feel comfortable and willing to give honest answers to the questions.

3.5 The design of Quantum Physics Concept Instruction based on Multiple Representation

The research has reformed an environment lecture of quantum physics concept course for pre-service physics teacher students by gradually changing both the content structures and the learning techniques implemented in lecture and homework based on multiple representations. Traditionally this course has been taught in a manner similar to the equivalent course for physics majors, focusing on mathematical solutions of abstract concept, including photoelectric concept, Bohr Atom model, and Schrodinger equation. Based on the trialogue style using IF-SO frame work in instructional design (figure 3.4), it was necessary determine that students in a reform-style quantum physics concept course are learning a broader set of representational performance than those in a more traditional course (Figure 3.5)

Figure 3.5 The characteristic of the instructional environmental design of a multiple representation based on IF-SO framework

IF-SO Frame work base on teaching Photoelectric effect, Bohr Atom Model, and

Schrodinger Equation Identify Key Concept

Focus on Characteristic of knowledge structures

Provide multiple representations Present applications

(sciences and technology)

Focus on form and function

Verbal Representation : Oral and Text vbooks

vpapers vmagazine vweb page

Visual Static Representation vTables

vGraphics vPictorial

Hands on Representation (Experiments) vvirtual

Visual Dynamic Representation vPhysics Simulations (Phet) Mathematic Representation

vGenerate own representation on equation of photoelectric effect from text book and web page

Analogy

vGenerate own representation on photoelectric effect using analogy (web page searching and create the similar analogy)

Sequence

Based on :

Pre-Conception/ Misconceptions Previous concepts Previous ideas New concepts Conceptual capture On going Assessment Diagnostic Formative Summative Assessment Alternative Multiple representation format : Verbal/textual Pictorial Graphical Mathematical/ Equation

In order to provide precise sequences this instructional environment design, we associated the idea of conceptual change, which assumes that learning is a substitution of a scientific concept for a misconception or previous ideas that the student already possessed. For this reason, we included this set of sequence of learning design and learning processes:

1) Evaluating of previous concepts

2) Determining goals of the learning and objectives in each level for knowing student’s conceptual capture (diagnostic, formative and summative)

3) Selection of resources to help to the learner (texts, images, experiment, simulation, analogy etc)

4) Producing activities (virtual task, quizzes, essays, projects, and tests) 5) Developing interaction (collaborative work, peer works, with lecturers,

web page and web blog)

6) Integral evaluation: diagnostic, formative and summative.

The second factor will contribute in learning design and learning process is the change of representation or multiple representations format in learning process; this factor is associated with the abstraction levels, like the figure 3.6. The student will passes through of an abstraction level to another one. Thus, with the multiple representation approach, we can create a constructivist-learning environment:

1) Provide different abstraction levels of certain physics concept, for example photoelectric effect concept, (physical, textual, pictorial, graphics and equations)

2 max 0

max max

2 1

,

mv eV

E

E h

E _B

= =

−

= υ

2) Work on the complexity of this microscopic phenomenon (investigation of interaction between electrons and photons using simulation and analogy) 3) Contextualize activities (experiment using virtual laboratory)

4) Provide technological applications for photoelectric effect concept (weblog and web page activity)

5) Support collaborative work and interaction with peers and lecturer (including homework activity)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 3.6 The multiple representation of same phenomenon for photoelectric effect ((a) pictorial (b) Graphical (c) mathematical/equation (d) simulation)

For details of how the students were engaged in during the treatment in this study: the experimental group was primarily given activities based on multiple representations. This approach presents and develops concepts through verbal (oral and writing), symbolic and equation, graphical, pictorial, tabular/bar , analogy and simulation. To illustrate, for understanding the concept of Einstein’s equation for photoelectric effect was first introduced from a numerically intuitive approach in which tables were used to collect the data and refine them on activity sheet from virtual laboratory. Then a verbal representation was used to verbally complement what was the relationship among the numbers in the other modes of representation. Finally, a transition and generate own representation was made to the quantum physics concept using graph, analogy and simulation.

The usage of multiple representations varied for each activity presented in this treatment. For instance, for the topic of photoelectric effect, first the pictorial representation then the verbal representations were constructed. Student was given chance to generate their own representation modes, such as developing symbolic and equation from graph or data observation from virtual laboratory experiment through simulation physics. However, for conceptualizing the concept of Planck’s constant from a graph, first, the mathematical and symbolic representation, and then the other representations including verbal and simulation were used.

The usage of multiple representations also varied for the activities. Even after the presented mathematic or equation representations were introduced to the students and conceptualized, the pictorial, verbal and graphical interpretations of these concepts were not ignored. Many times, students obtained answers in an mathematical form, they were asked to interpret them in different representational

modes as well. For example, students were not only required to translate graphical representation to mathematical/equation but also vice versa. It was aimed to make students to understand that the final achieving point is not the mathematical/equation form; the translation from an algebraic type of representation to a graphical one was also appreciated. Activities were given to the students and they were responsible to deal with them.

There were daily or sometimes weekly activities by which students were provided opportunities to demonstrate how to manipulate of abstract symbol and equation, tables, graphs, verbal expressions, using simulation and analogy representations to fit well in one context. While implementing the treatment, first of all, the class was organized with respect to the activity requirements of that particular day. Then, the researcher or one of the students distributed the activity sheet, and if applicable necessary participative. The students were given some time to read and understand the activity. After that, the class discussed the activity and its requirements. Then the phase of dealing with the activity sheets was begun. When the students were on the given task, the researcher provided feedback to the students on their errors and questions. At last, students had a chance to demonstrate their approaches including multiple representations to deal with the activities. Their works were discussed with whole class. The errors, questions or unclear parts were taken into account by the researcher when she was making conclusion for the students. Table 3.6 showed the example of construct of the lesson.

Table 3.6 The construct of the lesson plan of experimental group Learning

Structure and outcomes

Student Activity Lecturer Activity Goal of Activity

Introduction : 15 minutes

• Become aware that lesson will begin to start • Know what

lesson will cover and what will happen during the lesson

Listen to

explanation of lesson

• Open lesson • Distribute

today’s activity sheet

• Explain the main idea of today’s activity and promote some guide questions for understanding a topics

• Defining the problem

• Observing

• Forming the question

• Articulating the expectation

Body (Main

activities) : 125 Minutes

• Understand the main concept of the lesson

• Make all

necessary translations among

representations mode

• Do the

exercise physics problem solving

•Work in each group

•Take notes •Fill activity

sheet

•Discuss the

ideas to

translate among

representations mode with the other students •Group

presentation : present the results

representations

mode is

created

• Guide students when necessary

• Investigating the known • Carrying out the

study

• Communicating with others

• Examining the result

Conclusion : 10 minutes

• Recall and consolidates experiences

•Recall and share the main concept of the topic

• Review main points of lesson

• Reflecting on the finding

equipment" Physical Review Special Topics, Physics-Education Research,1, 010103.

Fischler,H., and Lichtfeldt M. (1992). Modern physics and students' conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 181-190.

Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining literacy learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1-32.

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Education Research an Introduction. (7th Edition). Pearson Education. Inc.

Giancarlo,C.A, & Facione, P.A. (2001). A Look across Four Years at the Disposition toward Critical Thinking Among Undergraduate Students. The Journal of General Education, 50, (1), 29-55.

Gibb, J., 2002. The Collection of Research Reading on Generic Skill in VET. [Online]. Available: http: //www.ncvr. edu.au.html. [7th of July 2009]

Givry, D. & Roth, W.M. (2006). Toward a new conception of conceptions: Interplay of talk, gestures, and structures in the setting”. J. Res. Sci. Teach, 43, 1086.

Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Gunduz. S. (2006). Comparing Student Understanding of Quantum Physics When Embedding Multimodal Representations into Two Different Writing Formats: Presentation Format Versus Summary Report Format. [Online]. Available: http://www.interscience.wiley.com. [21st of October 2007]

Gruden, S, Nancy, Baverlyn Lundy Allen and Kathlene Larson. (2002). Focus Group Fundamentals.[Online].Available:

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publication/PM1968B.pdf. [27th of December 2008]

Greeno, J.G., & Hall, R.P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappa, 78, (5), 361-36.

Hake, R.R. (1988). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a sixthousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses.

American Journal of Physics, 66, 6.

Herman, M. F. (2002). Relationship of college students' visual preference to use of representations: Conceptual understanding of functions in algebra. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus: Unpublished.

Hobson, A . (2007). Physics: Concept and Connections. (4th edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Inc.

Hobson, A . (1996). Teaching Quantum Theory in the Introductory Course. The Physics Teacher. April 1996, 202-210.

Johnson R.B & Onwuegbuzie A.J (2004). Mixed Method Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33, (7), 14-26.

Jones, S.M., & Barmuta, L. (2003). Challenging students to think critically: a science unit focussing on generic skills. Presented paper on HERDSA 2003

conference proceedings, Australia.

Kohl, P.B., Rosengrant, D., & Finkelstein, N.D. (2007). Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3, 010108.

Kohl, P.B., & Finkelstein, N.D. (2006). Effect of instructional environment on physics students’ representational skills. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2, 010102.

Kohl, P.B., & Finkelstein, N.D. (2005). Student representational competence and self-assessment when solving physics problems”. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 1, 010104.

Kohl, P.B., & Finkelstein, N.D. (2004). Representational Format, Student Choice, and Problem Solving in Physics. PERC Proceedings 2004. AIP Publishing MD

Kozma, R.B. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding”. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226.

Kozma, R.B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949.

Kozma, R.B., & Russell, J. (2007). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Eds.). Visualization in science education. Netherlands: Springer.

Krause, S. et al. (2009). Using Students' Previous Experience and Prior Knowledge to Facilitate Conceptual Change in an Introductory Materials Course. Presented in 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, Texas. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London, UK: Continuum. Lang, K.S. (2006). Effects of a Cognitive-Infusion Intervention on Critical Thinking

Skills and Dispositions of Pre-service Teachers. Paper presented on AARE Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Lasry N. & M.W. Aulls. (2007). The Effect of Multiple Internal Representations on Context Rich Instruction. American Journal Physics, 75, (11), 1030 -1037.

Liliasari (2007). Scientific Concepts and Generic Science Skill Relationship in The 21st Century Science Education. Proceeding The 1st International Seminar on Science Education. Bandung : Graduate Scholl Indonesia University of Education.

Loughran, J. J., et al. (2001). Science cases in action: documenting science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through PaP-eRs, Research in Science

Education, 31, (1), 267–289.

Loughran, J.J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and Developing Science Teachers Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Martinez, J. G. R. (2001). Thinking and writing mathematically: `Achilles and the Tortoise` as an algebraic word problem. Mathematics Teacher, 94,(4), 248-256.

Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?. Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.

Mayer, R.E., (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same

instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125.

McDermott, L.C. (1993). How we teach and how students learn-A mismatch?. American Journal of Physics, 61, 295.

McDermott, L. C. & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67, 755.

McKagan, S.B., Perkins, K.K., & Wieman, C.E. (2008). Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 4, 010101.

McKagan, S.B. et al. (2008). Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 76, 406.

McKagan, S. B. et al (2009). A research-based curriculum for teaching the photoelectric effect. American Journal of Physics, 77, (1), 87-94.

Meltzer, E.D. (2002). The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics : A possible :hidden variable in diagnostic pretest score. American Journal of Physics, 70, (2), 1259-1268.

Meltzer D. E. (2005). Relation between students' problem-solving performance and representational format. American Journal of Physics, 73, (5), 463.

Minium, King, & Bear. (1993). Statistical Reasoning in Psychology and Education. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Müller, R., & Wiesner, H. Students’ Conceptions of Quantum Physics. Presented at NARST 99. [Online]. Available:

http//www.phys.ksu.edu/perg/papers/narst/QM-papers.pdf. [25th of February

2009] NRC. (2003). National Science Education Standards : Standards for Science Teacher

Preparation. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Physics Education Technology Project. [Online]. Available: http://phet.colorado.edu. [19th August 2009]

Podolefsky, N.S. & Finkelstein, N.D. (2006). Use of analogy in learning physics: The role of representations. Physical Review Special Topics Physics- Education Research, 2, 020101.

Podolefsky, N.S & Finkelstein, N.D. (2007). Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: An example from electromagnetic waves.

Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3, 010109. Rimiene, Viava. (2002). Assessing and developing students’ critical thinking.

Psychology Learning and Teaching, 2, (1), 17-22.

Rebello, N.S. & Zollman, D.A. (1999). Conceptual understanding of quantum mechanics after using hands-on and visualization instructional materials. Presented at NARST 1999. [Online]. Available:

http//www.phys.ksu.edu/perg/papers/narst/QM_papers.pdf. [27th of August 2008]

Rebello, N.S. & Zollman, D.A. (2005). Trends in Phyiscs Educational Research-A personal perspective. Manhattan: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, KS 66506-2601.

Robblee, K. M., Garik, P. and Abegg, G. (1999). Using computer visualization to teach quantum science on pedagogical content knowledge. Presented at NARST 1999. [Online]. Available:

http//www.phys.ksu.edu/perg/papers/narst/QM_papers.pdf. [27th of August 2008]

Roberts, D. (1996). Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: The potential role of teacher communities: A response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26, 417-431.

Rosengrant, D., Etkina, E., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2006). An overview of recent research in multiple representations. Presented paper on Proceedings of the 2006 PERC, AIP Conference Proceedings.

Rutherford, J.I. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Saul, E.W. (Ed.) (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark DE: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.

Scherrer, R. (2006). Quantum Mechanics An Accessible Introduction. San Fransisco : Pearson Education Addison Wesley.

Scherr, R.E. (2008). Gesture analysis for physics education researchers. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 4, 010101.

Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 117-123.

Steinberg, R., Wittmann, M.C., Bao, L., and Redish, E.F. (1999). The influence of student understanding of classical physics when learning quantum mechanics. Presented paper at the annual meeting National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Sudarmin,. (2007). Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran Kimia Organik dan Keterampilan Generik Sains (MPKOKG) bagi Calon Guru Kimia. Disertasi Program Doktor Sekolah Pasca Sarjana Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia: Tidak dipublikasikan.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed method research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Thisman, Shari & Andrade, Albert. (2007). Thinking Disposition: A review of current theories, practices, and issues. [Online]. Available:

http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/Disposition.htm. [9th of September 2008]

Tytler, R., Peterson, S., & Prain. V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: Learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science. 52, (1), 12-17.

Unsworth, L. (2001). Describing visual literacies: In teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59, 891-897.

Van Heuvelen, A. (2001). Millikan Lecture 1999: The Workplace, Student Minds, and Physics Learning Systems. American Journal of Physics, 69, 1139-1146.

Van Heuvelen, A. & Zou, X., (2000). Multiple representations of work-energy processes. American Journal of Physics, 69, 184-194.

Waldrip, B & Prain, V. (2004). Enhancing learning through using multi-modal representations of concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association (AERA).

Waldrip, B, Prain, V & Carolan, J. (2006). Learning Junior Secondary Science through Multi-Modal Representations. Electronic Journal of Science Education.11, (1).

Waldrip, B. (2008). Improving learning through use of representations in science. Proceeding The 2nd International Seminar on Science Education. Science Education Program. Bandung :Graduate School Indonesia University of Education.

Waldrip, B. & Prain, V. (2010). The effects of an explicit representational focus on student summative assessment in science. Presented paper at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.

Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to

improve learning in Junior Secondary Science. Res. Science Education,40,

65-80.

Wan Sulaeman, W.S, Abdul Rahman, W.R, & Dzulkifli, M.D.(2007). Relationship between Critical Thinking Dispositions, Perceptions towards Teachers,

Learning Approaches and Critical Thinking Skills among University Students. The 4th International Postgraduate Research Colloquium IPRC Proceedings, 209-220.

Wittmann, M.C. (2006). Using resource graphs to represent conceptual change. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2, 020105. Zhang, J. and Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks.

Cog. Sci., 18, 87-122.

Zollman D. (1999) Hands-On Quantum Mechanics. Proceedings of Hands-On Experiments in Physics Education. GIREP. Lotharstrasse: University of Duisburg.

Zollman, D. A., Rebello, N. S. and Hogg, K. (2002). Quantum mechanics for

everyone: Hands-on activities integrated with technology. Am. J. Phys, 70, (3), 252-259.

Zou, X. (2001). The role of work-energy bar charts as a physical representation in problem solving. Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference. Rochester, NY, 17-21