Journals / Journal of Turkish Science Education / 2020 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 2

Students’ Mental Models of Solid Elasticity: Mixed Method Study

Pages
200–210
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This research recommends that students’ understanding of physics conceptsshould be increasedat macroscopicand sub-microscopic levels.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:A mental model (MM) is an internal representation of students’ conceptual understanding.Currently, studentshave still had difficulties in explaining the physical state of elasticity of solid materials, at sub-microscopic level.
📊
Key Findings & Data:N-Gain values of the students’mental models at PBL and conventional classes were found to be 0.64 and 0.43respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This research recommends that students’ understanding of physics conceptsshould be increasedat macroscopicand sub-microscopic levels.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

A mental model (MM) is an internal representation of students’ conceptual understanding.Currently, studentshave still had difficulties in explaining the physical state of elasticity of solid materials, at sub-microscopic level. These difficulties call forthis research. Through a mixed method, the study aimed to reveal the development and differences of students’mental models after physics learning with problem -based learning (PBL) and conventional methods. Indicators of students’ mental modelswere adapted from SMD model. Findings suggested thatthe PBL resulted in moreMM, whilst conventional classes emerged MM on theelastic and plastic objects. Meanwhile, the lowest MM achievements ware Hooke’s Lawfor the PBL,and series and parallel springsfor the conventional class. N-Gain values of the students’mental models at PBL and conventional classes were found to be 0.64 and 0.43respectively. On the other hand, mental modelscores of the PBL learning model was higher(23.77%) than those of the conventional learning model. Thus, it can be concludedthat the PBL learning model is effective in improving the students’ mental models of physics. This research recommends that students’ understanding of physics conceptsshould be increasedat macroscopicand sub-microscopic levels.

🔖

Cite This Article

BATLOLONA, J. R., DIANTORO, M., WARTONO, W., LEASA, M. (2020). Students’ Mental Models of Solid Elasticity: Mixed Method Study. Journal of Turkish Science Education, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 2, 200–210. https://ajindex.com/articles/219815

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Akaygun, S. (2016). Is the oxygen atom static or dynamic? the effect of generating animations on students’ mental models of atomic structure. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 788–807. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00067c.
  2. Akçay, B. (2009). Problem-based learning in science education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(1), 26–36.
  3. Arends, R I.(2012). Learning to Teach ninth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Altan Kurnaz, M., & Eksi, C. (2015). An analysis of high school students’ mental models of solid friction in physics.Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(3), 787–795. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.3.2526. Askell‐Williams, H., Murray‐Harvey, R., & Lawson, M. J. (2007). Teacher education students’ reflections on how problem‐based learning has changed their mental models about teaching and learning. Teacher Educator, 42(4), 237–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730709555406.
  4. Batlolona, J. R. (2017). Model mental dan keterampilan berpikir kreatif fisika siswa melalui model pembelajaran problem based learning (PBL) pada materi elastisitas. Magister Thesis. Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang. Batlolona, J R, Singerin, S., & Diantoro, M. (2020). Influence of Problem Based Learning Model on Student Mental Models. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 16(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v16i1.14253.
  5. Batlolona, John Rafafy. (2019). Creative Thinking Skills Students in Physics on Solid Material Elasticity. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10265a.
  6. Bigozzi, L., Tarchi, C., Fiorentini, C., Falsini, P., & Stefanelli, F. (2018). The influence of teaching approach on students’ conceptual learning in physics. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(DEC), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02474.
  7. Canlas, I. P. (2019). Using visual representations in identifying students’ preconceptions in friction. Research in Science and Technological Education, 00(00), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1660630.
  8. Carter, J. L., Richards, M., Hotopf, M., & Hatch, S. L. (2019). The roles of non-cognitive and cognitive skills in the life course development of adult health inequalities. Social Science and Medicine, 232, 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.04.041.
  9. Chiou, G. L. (2013). Reappraising the relationships between physics students’ mental models and predictions: An example of heat convection. Physical Review Special Topics -Physics Education Research, 9(1), 1–15.
  10. Chiou, G. L., & Anders