Journals / Online Fen Eğitimi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

Interpretation of an Energy Graph for a Mass-Spring System by Prospective Science and Mathematics Teachers: A Comparison

Pages
52–59
Publication Date
2020-12-30
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)

It is concluded that a considerable number of prospective teachers’ ability to read graphs was not at the desired level and need to be improved.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed at the investigation of skills of prospective science and mathematics teachers’ reading of a graph related to simple harmonic motion.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants were 31 mathematics and 20 prospective science teachers taking the General Physics II course in the second term of the teacher training program.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is concluded that a considerable number of prospective teachers’ ability to read graphs was not at the desired level and need to be improved.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:prospective teacher · graph · mass-spring system

Abstract

This study aimed at the investigation of skills of prospective science and mathematics teachers’ reading of a graph related to simple harmonic motion. The participants were 31 mathematics and 20 prospective science teachers taking the General Physics II course in the second term of the teacher training program. The participants were expected to determine the type, potential or kinetic, of energy and explain the variation of these energies in a written exam. Although harmonic motion is a phenomenon in science, findings showed that prospective teachers of mathematics were performed in general better than prospective science teachers. The number of prospective science teachers’answers about the energy types represented by the curves are wrong but the energy changes of the curves are right, is higher than the number of corresponding prospective mathematics teachers, although the reverse was expected. It is concluded that a considerable number of prospective teachers’ ability to read graphs was not at the desired level and need to be improved. This study showed that graph interpretation in physics was not just related to mathematics and a successful graph usage sometimes requires domain specific knowledge. It can be said that the use of graph interpretation questions in an assessment tool will contribute to determining the level of understanding the related subject in addition to the development of graph related skills of learners.

🔖

Cite This Article

EYÜBOĞLU, I. S. K. (2020). Interpretation of an Energy Graph for a Mass-Spring System by Prospective Science and Mathematics Teachers: A Comparison. Online Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 52–59. https://ajindex.com/articles/263000

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Ataíde, A. R & Greca, I. M. (2013). Epistemic views of the relationship between physics and mathematics: Its influence on the approach of undergraduate students to problem solving. Science & Education, 22(6), 1405-1421.
  2. Araujo, I. S., Veit, E. A. & Moreira, M. A. (2008). Physics students’ performance using computational modelling activities to improve kinematics graphs interpretation. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1128-1140.
  3. Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62, 750–762.
  4. Berg, C. A. & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students’ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments. Science Education, 78 (6), 527-554.
  5. Boote, S.K. (2014). Assessing and understanding line graph interpretations using a scoring rubric of organized cited factors. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 333-354.
  6. Bowen, G.M. & Roth, W.M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservices science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063-1088.
  7. Brasell, H. M. & Rowe, B. M. (1993). Graphing skills among high school physics students. School Science and Mathematics, 93(2), 63–69.
  8. Christensen, W. M. & Thompson, J. R. (2012). Investigating graphical representations of slope and derivative without a physics context. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8, 023101. Coleman, J. M., McTigue, E. M., & Smolkin, L. B. (2011). Elementary teachers’ use of graphical representations in science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(7), 613-643.
  9. Dyke, F. V., & White, A. (2004). Examining Students' Reluctance to Use Graphs. Mathematics Teacher, 98(2), 110-117.
  10. Forster, P. A. (2004). Graphing in physics: Processes and sources of error in tertiary entrance examinations in Western Australia. Research in Science Education, 34, 239-265.
  11. Gheith, E. M. & Aljaberi, N. M. (2015). Pre-Service classroom teachers’ attitudes toward graphs and their ability to read and interpret them. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(7), 113-124.
  12. Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: a review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183-210.
  13. Gültekin, C & Nakipoğlu, C. (2015). Analysis of high school chemistry textbooks in terms of graphs and graph-related activities. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, 43, 211-222.
  14. Keller, S. K. (2008). Levels of line graph q