Students should develop self-reflection skills and appropriate views about knowledge and learning, both for their own sake and because these skills and views may be related to improvements in conceptual understanding. We explored the latter issue in the context of an introductory physics course for first-year engineering honors students. As part of the course, students submitted weekly reports, in which they reflected on how they learned specific physics content. The reports by 12 students were analyzed for the quality of reflection and some of the epistemological beliefs they exhibited. Students’ conceptual learning gains were measured with standard survey instruments. We found that students with high conceptual gains tend to show reflection on learning that is more articulate and epistemologically sophisticated than students with lower conceptual gains. Some implications for instruction are suggested.
REFERENCES
1.
For example, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (G. & C. Meriam Company, Springfield, MA, 1974), p. 385, defines epistemology as “the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity.”
2.
For example, there were six talks related to epistemological issues given at the 2001 Winter Meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, 8 at the 2001 Summer Meeting, and 17 at the 2002 Winter Meeting; note that these figures do not include talks given at the Physics Education Research Conference that followed the summer meeting.
3.
E.
Etkina
, “Weekly Reports: A two-way feedback tool
,” Sci. Educ.
84
, 594
–605
(2000
). David Mills suggested additional modifications to the reports.4.
B. Hofer, “Personal epistemology research: implications for learning and instruction,” Annual Meeting (American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, 2001).
5.
W. G. Perry, Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1970);
M. F. Belenky, B. M. Clinchy, N. R. Goldberger, and J. M. Tarule, Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind (Basic Books, New York, 1986);
M. B. Baxter Magolda, Knowing and Reasoning in College: Gender-Related Patterns in Students’ Intellectual Development (Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1992);
P. M. King and K. S. Kitchener, Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1994);
D. Kuhn, The Skills of Argument (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991).
6.
Marlene
Schommer
, “The effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension
,” J. Educ. Psychol.
82
, 498
–504
(1990
).7.
M.
Schommer
, A.
Crouse
, and N.
Rhodes
, “Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so
,” J. Educ. Psychol.
84
, 435
–443
(1992
).8.
Barbara K.
Hofer
and Paul R.
Pintrich
, “The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning
,” Rev. Ed. Res.
67
, 88
–140
(1997
).9.
G.
Qian
and D.
Alvermann
, “Relationship between epistemological beliefs and conceptual change learning
,” Reading & Writing Quarterly
16
, 59
–74
(2000
).10.
D. Kuhn, “Theory of mind, metacognition, and reasoning: A life-span perspective,” in Children’s Reasoning and the Mind, edited by P. Mitchell and K. J. Riggs (Psychology Press, Hove, UK, 2000), pp. 301–326.
11.
K. S.
Kitchener
, “Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition
,” Hum. Dev.
26
, 222
–232
(1983
).12.
David M. Hammer and Andrew Elby, “On the form of a personal epistemology,” in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing, edited by B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2002).
13.
S. S.
Stodolsky
, S.
Salk
, and B.
Glaessner
, “Student views about learning math and social studies
,” Am. Ed. Res. J.
28
, 89
–116
(1991
);Barbara K. Hofer and Paul R. Pintrich, “Disciplinary ways of knowing: epistemological beliefs in science and psychology,” Annual Meeting (American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, 1997).
14.
J. Leach, R. Millar, J. Ryder, and M.-G. Séré, “An investigation of high school and university science majors’ epistemological reasoning in the context of empirical investigations,” Annual Meeting (American Educational Research Association, Montréal, PQ, 1999).
15.
Andrew
Elby
, “Helping physics students learn how to learn
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
, Suppl. 1 S54
–S64
(2001
);David M.
Hammer
, “Two approaches to learning physics
,” Phys. Teach.
27
, 664
–670
(1989
);W.-M.
Roth
and A.
Roychoudhury
, “Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
31
, 5
–30
(1994
).16.
David M.
Hammer
, “Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics
,” Cogn. Instruct.
12
, 151
–183
(1994
).17.
Edward F.
Redish
, Jeffrey M.
Saul
, and Richard N.
Steinberg
, “Student expectations in introductory physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 212
–224
(1998
).18.
N. B.
Songer
and M. C.
Linn
, “How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration?
” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
28
, 761
–785
(1991
);F.
Abd-El-Khalick
, R. L.
Bell
, and N. G.
Lederman
, “ The nature of science and instructional practice: making the unnatural natural
,” Sci. Educ.
82
, 417
–436
(1998
).19.
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Inc., Washington, DC, 1989).
20.
J. Biggs and K. Collis, Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Academic, New York, 1982);
J. Clement, “Overcoming students’ misconceptions in physics: The role of anchoring intuitions and analogical validity,” in Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, edited by J. Novak (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1987), Vol. 3, pp. 84–97.
21.
L.
Grosslight
, C.
Unger
, E.
Jay
, and C. L.
Smith
, “Understanding models and their use in science: Conception of middle and high school students and experts
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
28
, 799
–823
(1991
).22.
F.
Reif
and J.
Larkin
, “Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparisons and learning implications
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
28
, 733
–761
(1991
);K.
Sullenger
et al., “Culture wars in the classroom: Prospective teachers question science
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
37
, 895
–916
(2000
).23.
These are described in more detail by Alan Van Heuvelen and Kathleen M. Andre, “Calculus-based physics and the engineering ABET 2000 criteria,” APS Forum on Education newsletter, Spring/Summer 2000, pp. 5–6.
24.
E. Etkina, “Can we use the processes of physics to guide physics instruction?” published online at http://www.gse.rutgers.edu/people/ee.htm, 2001.
25.
Here we mean the selection of one or more observational experiments (really demonstrations) in which most students are able to see a clear pattern. For example, in a lecture where students construct the idea that for an object to move in circle with constant speed, there must be a net force pointed towards the center, students first observe the instructor rolling a bowling ball along a long table (the ball moves with constant velocity) and then tapping it in the direction of motion (the ball speeds up). Then the instructor repeats the experiment tapping the ball in the direction perpendicular to the original direction of motion (the ball follows a parabolic path). The third time, the instructor taps the ball in the direction perpendicular to the direction of motion at every point. Students are asked to construct free body diagrams for each situation and explain the motion of the ball.
26.
In these ways, this cycle is different from science learning cycles suggested by R. Karplus and C. Lavatelli, The Developmental Theory of Piaget: Conservation (Davidson Film Producers, San Francisco, 1969) or by
A. E. Lawson, M. R. Abraham, and J. W. Renner, A Theory of Instruction: Using the Learning Cycle to Teach Science Concepts and Thinking Skills (NARST, Cincinnati, OH, 1989). The Lawson et al. cycle begins with a question, rather than with an observation that generates questions. In Karplus and Lavatelli’s cycle, explanation construction is followed by application rather than testing.
27.
D.
Hestenes
, M.
Wells
, and G.
Swackhamer
, “Force Concept Inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 141
–158
(1992
).28.
D.
Hestenes
and M.
Wells
, “A Mechanics Baseline Test
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 159
–166
(1992
).29.
D.
Maloney
, T.
O’Kuma
, C.
Hieggelke
, and A.
Van Heuvelen
, “Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
, Suppl. 1S12
–S23
(2001
).30.
R. R.
Hake
, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 64
–74
(1998
).31.
In this class, the instructor made a special effort to avoid “content delivery” and to engage students in the construction of concepts (from observations or relationships to other concepts) and then by testing the concepts experimentally. Physical notions were not defined before students constructed their meaning. Mathematical relationships were either discovered as patterns in data or derived from previous relationships. All relationships were tested experimentally.
32.
Alan Van Heuvelen, ActivPhysics 1 (Addison Wesley Interactive, New York, 1997).
33.
See, for example, the ABET 2000 criteria, http://www.abet.org/eac/2000.htm; What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, DC, 1991);
D. Rosdil, What are Masters Doing? (AIP Statistics Div., College Park, MD, 1996), Publication No. R-398.1.
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2002 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2002
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
