You are on page 1of 20

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 29 OCTOBER 2004, VOL. 26, NO.

13, 1577–1595

Analysing cognitive or non-cognitive factors involved in


the process of physics problem-solving in an everyday
context

Jongwon Park; e-mail: jwpark94@chonnam.ac.kr; and Limook Lee, Department


of Physics Education, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, 500–757, Korea

Recently, the importance of an everyday context in physics learning, teaching, and problem-solving has been
International
10.1080/0950069042000230767
TSED100760.sgm
Research
Taylor
2004
Dept.
JongwonPark
0000002004
00 of&
and
Physics
Report
Francis
Francis
Journal
EducationChonnam
Ltd
Ltd
of Science Education
National UniversityGwangjuKOREA 500–757jwpark94@chonnam.ac.kr

emphasized. However, do students or physics educators really want to learn or teach physics problem-solving in
an everyday context? Are there not any obstructive factors to be considered in solving the everyday context
physics problems? To obtain the answer to these questions, 93 high school students, 36 physics teachers, and
nine university physics educators participated in this study. Using two types of physics problems—everyday
contextual problems (E-problems) and decontextualized problems (D-problems)—it was found that even
though there was no difference in the actual performance between E-problems and D-problems, subjects
predicted that E-problems were more difficult to solve. Subjects preferred E-problems on a school physics test
because they thought E-problems were better problems. Based on the observations of students’ problem-solving
processes and interviews with them, six factors were identified that could impede the successful solution of
E-problems. We also found that many physics teachers agreed that students should be able to cope with those
factors; however, teachers’ perceptions regarding the need for teaching those factors were low. Therefore, we
suggested teacher reform through in-service training courses to enhance skills for teaching problem-solving in
an everyday context.

Introduction
Nowadays, everyday context as well as physics content and inquiry processes is
being emphasized in physics teaching, learning, and problem-solving (Keeves and
Aikenhead 1995). Wilkinson (1999b) introduced and reviewed various context-
based physics courses including the Dutch PLON project, the Large Context
Problem approach in Canada, the applications-led approach in Scotland (UK),
Event Centered Learning in Brazil and the UK, the Supported Learning in Physics
Project in the UK, and the Victorian Certificate of Education physics course in
Australia.
Through previous literature, various positive effects of everyday context on
science education could be found (for example, Schwartz 1999). Ramsden (1997),
using the Salters’ Science course developed for enhancing students’ appreciation of
how science contributes to their lives and for helping them to acquire a better
understanding of the environment, observes that a context-based approach makes
the students interested in what they are studying. Lubben et al. (1996) observe that
contextualized activities, which link science to students’ everyday lives and help
students to select and apply their scientific knowledge to solve everyday problems,

International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0693 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online ©2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0950069042000230767
1578 J. PARK AND L. LEE

improve students’ conceptual understanding as well as their motivation and interest.


Harrison and Treagust (1993) showed that the use of analogy, which was familiar
to students’ everyday experiences, could help in the conceptual understanding of the
refraction of light. Literature regarding improvements in conceptual understanding
through context-based courses can be also found in other research (for example,
Baker and Miller 1999). Whitelegg and Parry (1999) and Wilkinson (1999a) cited
O’Keefe’s report that there was an increase in the number of students enrolling in
physics courses in Australia by using newly designed courses introducing real-life
contexts to the students before the core physics content.
In Korea, also, the importance of context in learning physics is described in the
seventh National Curriculum (Ministry of Education and Human Resources
Development [MEHRD] 1997): ‘Physics should be learned in everyday contexts
that can arouse students’ interest and curiosity, for instance, in the context of sports,
transportation, amusement parks, music, household electric appliances,
communication, medical treatment …’ (MEHRD 1997: 347).
In fact, it has been shown that Korean students prefer everyday contexts in
learning physics. For instance, Choi and Song (1996) examined the degree of
Korean students’ preferences with regard to different contexts in learning science,
and ranked the order of the preferred contexts as follows: (1) everyday life, (2) living
things, (3) sports, (4) military weapons, (5) laboratory, and (6) natural phenomena.
However, even though there are numerous studies showing students’
preferences for everyday contexts when they learn science or physics (for example
Dlamini et al. 1996), there are few examining students’ preferences for everyday
contexts in solving physics problems. Everyday context is a major part of the
problem-solving activity. So, in the Assessment Performance Unit science’s
assessment framework, context is recognized as one of three dimensions: scientific
concepts; scientific processes; and contexts consisting of science lessons,
non-science lessons and everyday or out-of-school situations (Archenhold et al.
1988: 2–3).
Therefore, this study originates with the following questions: Do students also
want to solve physics problems in an everyday context? Do they prefer the everyday
contextual problems to the de-contextualized ones as a physics performance test in
school? Do they think everyday contextual physics problems are better problems
than de-contextualized ones?
It is worth asking high school physics teachers and university physics educators
these questions, and comparing their responses with those of students. University
physics educators usually contribute to creating training courses for future physics
teachers, serve as instructors in in-service training courses, participate in developing
physics curriculum, write physics textbooks, and serve as members of the university
entrance examination board. Therefore, university physics educators’ perceptions of
everyday contexts in physics problem-solving may influence physics teachers’
perceptions and the methods for teaching physics problem-solving in high schools.
If physics teachers prefer teaching and assessing physics in purely scientific contexts,
even though students prefer learning and solving physics in an everyday context,
then this discrepancy may have a major impact on physics education. Therefore, a
correlation in the views of university educators, teachers, and students is considered
important.
Wilkinson (1999a) investigated teachers’ perceptions of teaching physics
through everyday contexts and found that 52% of physics teachers believe that the
ANALYSING COGNITIVE OR NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS 1579

use of contexts has improved students understanding of physics, but 25% think that
contexts do not help students understand. However, there is little investigation into
university physics educators’ or high school teachers’ perceptions on physics prob-
lem-solving through the use of everyday contexts, and/or a comparison of their
perceptions with those of students.
Our second concern is to compare students’ performances in problem-solving
through everyday context with that of pure scientific context. This is because, even
though students prefer everyday context problems, this may not guarantee high
achievement levels in problem-solving in an everyday context. Also, previous studies
show that the effect of everyday contexts on problem-solving is not consistent.
Some studies show that everyday contexts that are familiar to the students help
their problem-solving. Rennie and Parker (1996) used two sets (real-life problems
and abstract ones) of matched physics problems, and observed that seven out of
eight students performed better with real-life problems when compared with
abstract ones. In the interview, students said that everyday context problems were
easier to visualize or figure out what was happening and could create interest.
Similar research into context effect, where task familiarity has a positive influence on
the performance of a task, can also be found in the literature of cognitive science (for
example, Johnson-Laird et al. 1972).
However, when scientific concept application or higher thinking skills are
needed to solve a problem, the aforementioned positive effects of everyday contexts
on problem-solving are not so salient. According to Song and Black (1992), students
showed better performances with everyday context problems when scientific
concepts applications were not required to solve problems. However, students
showed no difference between everyday or scientific contexts in problems requiring
scientific concept application. Saunders and Jesunathadas (1988), investigating
whether the familiarity of task content affects problems-solving requiring
proportional reasoning, observed that there was a similar interaction effect between
the familiarity of content with the levels of difficulty in proportional reasoning
required for a problem.
It was also observed that the effects of everyday contexts differ according to
the different task contents or scientific inquiry skills (for example, Toh and
Woolnough 1994). Gomez et al. (1995), using chemistry problems for the
conservation of matter, observed that the pure scientific problems concerning
chemical reactions were easier for students. On the other hand, problems
concerning the physical changes were easier to solve in an everyday context. Song
and Black (1991), using the Assessment Performance Unit categorization of the
scientific process skills, observed that students showed higher levels of achieve-
ment in problems requiring interpretation skills in an everyday context, whereas
with problems requiring application skills their performances were better in a
scientific context.
The deflecting effects of everyday contexts on problem-solving can be found in
the literature. When Dreyfus and Jungwirth (1980) let pupils find out logical
fallacies involved in the problems, they found that the performance of ninth-grade
pupils, whose IQ was lower than that of normal pupils, was significantly worse in
everyday context problems.
Accordingly, it cannot be said that the effects of everyday contexts on problem-
solving are consistent. Therefore, the second aim of this study was to re-examine
whether students solve everyday context physics problems well when compared with
1580 J. PARK AND L. LEE

de-contextualized ones. In order to do this, two types of problems were developed:


everyday contextual problems (E-problems) and de-contextualized problems
(D-problems). A comparison of students’ performances with these two types of
problems was made.
The third research concern was, if students failed to solve E-problems, what was
the reason? Of course, many studies have analysed the processes of solving physics
problems and reported various factors influencing failure to solve these problems.
However, little research has been done to identify the factors that can hinder a
students’ performance in problem-solving in an everyday context, or investigate how
those factors are related to everyday contexts.
The third research question is based on the assumption that the problem-solving
processes for E-problems may be different from those of D-problems. For instance,
Reif and Larkin (1991) argue that the primary methods used by students to solve
everyday life problems rely heavily on perceptual processes, pattern recognition, and
qualitative reasoning. White also states that:
Perception of context is important in learning because it determines what the individual
thinks is the purpose of the learning. … different perceptions of context will encourage
development of different cognitive strategies, and different patterns of learning will follow.
(1988: 20)

From this assumption, if students fail to solve E-problems it can be inferred that
there are other reasons, different from those involved in the process of solving
D-problems. Because E-problems usually contain more words, an increase in verbal
information may disadvantage some students or make E-problems more difficult to
solve (Rennie and Parker 1996). Everyday context can also cause students to pay
more attention to the topical content rather than to the logical structure of the
problem (Dreyfus and Jungwirth 1980).
Based on the aforementioned findings of special features in solving everyday
problems, the current study focuses on a more in-depth analysis of students’
actual processes of solving E-problems to determine the cognitive or non-cognitive
factors that can hinder a student’s performance in problem-solving in an everyday
context. To do this, students were asked to solve problems by the ‘thinking aloud’
method, and their processes of problem-solving used in everyday contexts were
analysed and compared with those used in purely scientific contexts. When
students failed to obtain the correct answers to E-problems, special attention was
given to determining whether the failure was related to the everyday context or
not.
Even though such disturbing factors are found, if the importance of these
additional factors (for instance, reading skills or other previously mentioned
assumed factors) is disregarded due to the fact that they have not been included in
traditional physics education, then they would not be appropriately addressed in a
formal academic environment, even though they may play an important role in
solving everyday contextual problems.
Finally, physics teachers were asked whether they thought the disturbing factors
identified in the aforementioned analysis were important and should, therefore, be
taught in physics problem-solving activities. If a discrepancy is found between
teachers’ perceptions of the importance of disturbing factors in everyday contextual
physics problem-solving and the need for incorporating these factors in physics
classes, then the guidelines for teacher reform will be suggested.
ANALYSING COGNITIVE OR NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS 1581

Table 1. Subjects participating and instrument used in each step.


Step Subjects Number Instrument

1 High school students 28 Question set A to investigate subjects’


preference of E-problems
Physics teachers 14
University physics educators 9
2 High school students 93a E-problem/D-problems to examine
students’ actual performance
3 High school students 20 E-problems/D-problems with ‘thinking
aloud’ method and interview to identify
cognitive/non-cognitive factors involved
in the process of E-problems
4 Physics teachers 22b Question set B to investigate teachers’
perception about the factors found in
the third stage

a
Of the 93 students, 28 students who participated in the first step are included.
b
These teachers are different from the teachers who participated in the first step.

Procedures
This study consists of four steps (table 1): (1) determining whether students,
teachers, and university educators prefer E-problems to D-problems; (2)
comparing students’ actual performance with these two types of problems; (3)
analysing the processes of solving E-problems and identifying the additional
cognitive/non-cognitive factors that can interfere with successful E-problem
solving; and (4) exploring whether physics teachers believe the additional factors
found in the analysis are important to the teaching of physics problem-solving.
For the first step, four pairs of E-problems and D-problems were developed:
E1–D1, E2–D2, E3–D3, and E4–D4. Each pair of problems had the same concepts
as the others. The context of the E-problems was related to ‘safety in everyday life’;
two problems corresponded to ‘auto safety’ and others to ‘the safe use of home
electricity’. One pair of problems (E1 and D1) is described in appendices 1 and 2.
After reading or solving the problems, subjects (28 high school students, 14
physics teachers, and nine Korean university physics educators) answered questions
(Question set A) developed to investigate the general recognition of physics
problems in an everyday context. Details of ‘Question set A’ are presented in table 2.

Table 2. Questions set A used in the first step.


Number Question

A-I Is the E-problem distinguished from the D-problem in each pair?


A-II Which problem do you think is a better physics problem?
A-III Which problem do you want to solve on a physics test?
A-IV Which problem do you want to learn in a physics class?
A-V Which problem can you solve better?
1582 J. PARK AND L. LEE

Subjects responded to each question (table 2) by making a check on a five-point


scale, comprised of −2, −1, 0, 1, and 2. In the case of question A-I, the value of ‘−2’
corresponds to ‘strong no’, and ‘+2’ corresponds to ‘strong yes’. For questions A-II,
A-III, A-IV and A-V, ‘−2’ corresponds to ‘explicitly D-problem’ and ‘+2’
corresponds to ‘explicitly E-problem’.
Before answering ‘Question set A’, students were told which problem was an
E-problem or D-problem, so that they could identify which was which. In Korea, it
may be inferred that many high school students have experience in solving physics
problems in an everyday context because of the University Entrance Examinations
System. That is, all Korean high school students who want to go on to university
should take the national examination, governed by the MEHRD, to certify that the
student passes the fundamental abilities for study at a university level. The
framework for the national assessment of science subjects consists of three axes:
scientific contents, scientific inquiry skills, and context. Therefore, questions for the
national examination often require an ability to solve physics problems in an
everyday context.
Question A-I in table 2 investigates whether students, teachers, and university
educators agree with the classification of problem types. Results from the subjects’
responses to the question A-I confirm whether classification of the problems is appro-
priate or not. Questions A-II, III, and IV are to investigate the subjects’ preference
for E-problems on school tests or classroom learning. The purpose of question A-V
is to examine how the students predict their solving abilities of E-problems. Results
from students’ predictions for question A-V are compared with the actual perfor-
mance of E-problems in the second step of this study.
In the second step, another 93 high school students, including 28 students who
answered ‘Question set A’, solve E-problems and D-problems.
To investigate the processes of solving E-problems in the third step of this study,
20 students were selected at random and solved the problems by ‘thinking aloud’
method. Ten students solved four problems (E1, E2, D3, and D4), and the others
solved the remaining four problems (E3, E4, D1, and D2). It took each student
about 20 minutes to solve four problems. If any student failed to find the correct
answer, a researcher interviewed him/her to explore the reasons why he/she was
unsuccessful. Major concerns stated in the interview in the third step are described
in table 3.
Based on the observation of how students solved the given problems and on the
interviews with them, the sequences for the problem-solving processes were mapped
out, and additional factors, which could interfere with obtaining the correct answers
to E-problems, were identified.

Table 3. Major concerns in the third step.


Number Concern

I The processes of solving E-problems compared with D-problems

II Additional factors involved in the processes of solving E-problems


comapred with D-problems

III The reasons for failure in finding the correct answers of E-problems
ANALYSING COGNITIVE OR NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS 1583

Table 4. Question set B used in the third step.


Number Question

B-I Do you think that students should be able to cope with these factors when they solve
physics problems?

B-II Do you think that students should be taught to be able to cope with these factors in
physics class?

In the final step of this study, another 22 physics teachers were asked what they
thought of the additional factors found in the third step. The questions designated
as ‘Question set B’ in this final step are described in table 4.
From the results of these final questions, educational implications for the
teaching and learning of physics problem-solving in an everyday context are
suggested.

Results
General recognition about the physics problems in the everyday context
In Question set A, each subject answered each question four times as there were four
pairs of problems. Therefore, the total number of responses was 112 for 28 students
(56 from male students and 56 from female students), 56 from 14 teachers, and 36
responses from nine university educators. Results of Question set A, used in the first
step of this study, are summarized in table 5.

Difference in perceptions between E-problems and D-problems (question A-I).


When subjects were asked whether or not E-problems were distinguished from
D-problems, they generally responded ‘yes’. That is, students (average = 1.16),
teachers (average = 1.36), and educators (average=0.94) agreed with the separation
of each pair of problems into E-problems or D-problems. According to analysis of
variance, no significant difference was found among these three groups (F = 2.61,

Table 5. Average value from responses regarding the general recognition


of E-problems and D-problems in physics.
Students (male/female) Teachers University educators

Question set A (nmale = 56, nfemale = 56)a (n = 56) (n = 36) F

A-I 1.16 (1.02/1.30, t = 4.04*) 1.36 0.94 2.61


A-II 0.69 (0.79/0.59, t = 2.28*) 1.21 1.34 5.06**
A-III 0.08 (0.50/−0.34, t = 6.37*) 0.86 1.47 13.61**
A-IV 0.81 (1.02/0.61, t = 3.94*) 1.27 1.42 5.81**
A-V −1.11 (−1.23/−0.98, t = 2.36*) −1.38 −1.03 1.51

a
n, total number of responses from the subjects.
*p < 0.05, two tailed t-test between male and female students.
**p < 0.05, analysis of variance for comparing responses from students, teachers, and university educators.
1584 J. PARK AND L. LEE

p>0.05). Therefore, the classification of problems into E-problem and D-problem


types was found to be appropriate. Analysis with a two-tailed t-test showed that
more female students concurred with the classification into two types of problems
(t = 4.04, p < 0.01).

Preference of E-problems (questions A-II, A-III, and A-IV). In questions A-II to A-V,
a positive value for responses indicates ‘E-problems’ and a negative value indicates
‘D-problems’.
Table 5 shows that average values for question A-II from all three groups were
positive (0.69, 1.21, and 1.34, respectively); therefore, it was found that the subjects
thought that E-problems were better physics problems than D-problems, but there
were differences in responses among three groups (F = 5.06, p<0.01). Scheffe post-
analysis found a statistical difference between the student group and the teacher or
university educator group but not between the teacher and the university educator
group. That is, more teachers or university educators than students thought that
E-problems were better problems. It was also found that more male than female
students thought that E-problems were better problems (t = 2.28, p<0.05).
Implications of these results are discussed later in this section.
For question A-III, the average values for all three groups were positive but
there were differences in responses among the three groups (F = 13.61, p<0.01).
Similar to the results from question A-II, Scheffe post-analysis showed that more
teachers and university educators preferred E-problems on a physics test. Male
students also preferred E-problems while female students preferred D-problems on
a physics test (p = 6.37, p<0.01).
Results from question A-IV show that all three groups answered that they
wanted to learn or teach physics in an everyday context. They explained, ‘Because
learning physics in an everyday context can closely connect physics to students’
lives’, ‘Teaching in an everyday context can stimulate students’ interests in physics’,
or ‘We [students] can understand the basic concept via D-type problems, however,
we should be able to apply those concepts to everyday life by ourselves’. According
to Scheffe post-analysis, this degree of preference was greater for teachers or
university educators than for students, and was greater for males rather than female
students (t = 3.94, p<0.01).
In summary, it was observed that subjects generally thought E-problems were
the better problems, preferred E-problems in physics performance tests in school,
and wanted to learn or teach E-problems in physics classes. However, the preference
for E-problems was higher for teachers or university educators than students. These
discrepancies can be interpreted to mean that students place less importance or
emphasis on an everyday context in physics learning and physics problem-solving
than the teachers or university educators.
This may be because many students tend to regard the study of physics as
irrelevant to the real world or think that the world of physics is confined to an ideal
laboratory, and therefore has little significance in everyday life (Schecker 1992). The
fact that more teachers than students prefer everyday contexts does not mean
physics teachers frequently use everyday contexts when teaching physics. For
instance, Wilkinson (1999a) reported that only 15% of science teachers used
contextual methods, while 53% of them used traditional teacher-centred methods
for many reasons including time constraints, lack of resources, or limited knowledge
when they develop the materials in an everyday context. Therefore, it can be said
ANALYSING COGNITIVE OR NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS 1585

that an in-service training course for physics education in an everyday context is


needed. This point is discussed in the final section of this study.
Second, by comparing male and female responses, it was observed that male
students generally preferred the E-problems more than female students. Moreover,
in the case of problem types in physics tests (question A-III), female students
showed a preference for D-problems. Because the contexts used for this study were
about safety in everyday life, auto safety and the safe use of home electricity, these
contexts were found to relate more to male students. This means that, even though
everyday contexts can generally stimulate students’ interest in their physics learning,
the degree of preference for an everyday context depends on how closely related the
context is to students’ everyday lives. In fact, Ramsden (1992) observed that male
and female students showed different preferences for the units of ‘Slater’s Science’
course, which placed a particular emphasis on everyday contexts. Male students
preferred units such as the ‘Fire, Friend and Foe’ unit related to burning and fire
safety or the ‘Switched On’ unit involving activities for designing and making various
electrical devices. Female students were found to enjoy units such as the ‘Skin
Deep’, in which students investigated the PH levels of shampoos, or the ‘Food’ unit
related to the importance of a balanced diet. When Park and Chung (2002) taught
physics in an everyday context, they also observed that students showed no interest
in everyday contexts when they did not have any experiences with those contexts.
Therefore, researchers stress that physics teachers need to let students experience or
make inquiries into various everyday contexts before or during learning physics in
an everyday context. Doing so may help to change students’ false perceptions found
in Schecker’s (1992) study that physics is an idealized world, and therefore is little
related to the real world.

Prediction of performance of E-problems (question A-V). Results of question A-V


showed that the average values for the responses were all negative for all the
subject groups. In summary, all subject groups answered that they could solve
D-problems better than E-problems, and these responses were consistent for all
three groups (F = 1.51, p>0.05). Students explained that ‘Too much time is
needed to understand the situation in E-type problems’ or ‘In E-type problems, we
have to apply the physics concepts to a real situation, however, in D-type
problems, the use of the relevant formula is simple and straightforward’. More
male students than female students perceived E-problems as being more difficult
to solve (t = 2.36, p<0.05).
In summary, it was found that even though the students preferred E-problems
on a physics test (in question A-III) because they thought E-problems were better
problems than D-problems (in question A-II), they thought E-problems were more
difficult to solve (in question A-V).
This means that an interest in physics learning may not necessarily lead to
students’ self-confidence in their problem-solving abilities. These results lead us to
the question: Why do students feel that E-problems are more difficult to solve than
D-problems? And what factors need to be considered for students’ successful
E-problem solving? In this study, factors that could interfere with students’
problem-solving in an everyday context were studied and the results are presented
in later sections of this study: ‘Cognitive/non-cognitive factors involved in the
processes of solving E-problems in physics’ and ‘Recognition of teachers of addi-
tional cognitive/non-cognitive factors involved in E-problem solving’.
1586 J. PARK AND L. LEE

Table 6. Percentage of correct answers.


Correct answers Correct answers
E-problem (%) D-problem (%) t

E1(n=47) 31.9 < D1(n=46) 63.0 3.13*


E2(n=41) 87.8 ≈ D2(n=45)a 88.9 0.16
E3(n=40) 47.5 ≈ D3(n=46)a 50.0 0.23
E4(n=43) 72.1 > D4(n=44)a 50.0 2.15*
ETotal (n=171) 59.1 ≈ DTotal (n=181) 63.0 0.75

a
The reason that the total number of subjects is smaller than 93 is because responses classified as
‘undetermined’ are excluded.
*p<0.05, two tailed t-test.

Students’ actual performance with E-problems and D-problems


In order to compare subjects’ predictions regarding their performance with the
actual performance in solving physics problems, 93 students, including 28 students
who participated in the first step, were randomly sampled and asked to solve pairs
of problems.
For each pair of problems, students chose the correct answer and described how
they found the answer. Even if students chose the correct answer, if he/she did not
describe explicitly how to solve the problem, his/her response was classified as
‘undetermined’ and was excluded from analysis. Table 6 shows the result of
students’ performance.
The two-tailed t-test in table 6 shows that more students answered D1 correctly
than E1 (t = 3.13, p<0.01), and this result accords with their predictions in question
A-V (table 5). However, no significant differences were found in the performance
between E2 and D2 (t = 0.16, p>0.05), and between E3 and D3 (t = 0.23, p>0.05).
More students correctly answered E4 than D4 and this difference was statistically
significant (t = 2.15, p<0.05). As a result, no consistent contextual effects on physics
problem-solving were observed (t = 0.75, p>0.05). It is difficult to make generaliza-
tion with the results as only four pairs of questions were used and there may be other
factors affecting students’ performances in E-problem solving. According to other
studies reviewed in the Introduction, it is difficult to observe a consistent effect of
contexts on physics problem-solving.
In some cases, everyday context may affect students’ problem-solving positively,
but not in other cases. Therefore, it is necessary to identify which additional factors
are involved in the process of E-problems when compared with D-problems, and
determine whether such factors influence students’ problem-solving performance. If
additional factors interfere with students’ successful problem-solving, then those
factors should be considered when teaching physics in an everyday context.
The interesting point here is that even though there were no differences in
students’ actual performance regarding E-problem or D-problem solving, many
students felt that E-problems were more difficult to solve than D-ones (question
A-V). This may be due to insufficient experience with solving E-problems in
school despite National Examinations for university entrance often requiring prob-
lem-solving in an everyday context. The fact that physics teachers or university
ANALYSING COGNITIVE OR NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS 1587

Figure 1. An example of the process for solving problem E1.

educators also think E-problem solving is more difficult means they think there
may be additional factors needed in order to solve E-problems successfully and
that students have difficulty coping with these factors.

Cognitive/non-cognitive factors involved in the processes of solving E-problems


in physics
Based on an observation of the processes by which 20 students solved given
problems (two E-problems and the other two D-problems), the detailed processes
of solving physics problems could be explored. Figure 1 is a summarized example of
one such process used by a student for solving problem E1.
In this process (figure 1), this student extracted important information from the
Figure 1. An example of the process for solving problem E1.

problem, and also made correct mathematical calculations, therefore he obtained


the result that the speed of car B was over the speed limit. However, he did not
conclude that ‘car B caused the traffic accident’ because he made a personal/subjective
judgment that ‘Car A should have taken a proper action because A driver could
recognize that the speed of car B was over the speed limit’. As a result, he chose the
answer that ‘Car A caused the traffic accident’.
From this analysis, we identified the first additional factor that could interfere
with successful problem-solving in an everyday context: ‘Some students try to import
personal/subjective judgements which are not presented in the problem’.
Figure 2 is another example of the process of solving an E1 problem.
Figure 2. Another process for solving problem E1

Figure 2. Another process for solving problem E1


1588 J. PARK AND L. LEE

In this case (figure 2), several factors that kept students from finding the correct
answer can be identified. At first, the student did not understand the physical
concepts of average velocity and instantaneous velocity. Even after becoming aware
of the meaning of the concepts, she was still not able to solve the problem, as she
could not understand the situation or context of the problem. After listening to
explanations about the situation of the problem repeatedly, she was able to solve it.
Based on the analysis of the process of solving the problem E1, a second
additional factor involved with the processes of solving E-problems when compared
with D-problems was identified: ‘Some students fail to grasp the situation or context of
the problem’. This second factor could also be observed in other cases; for instance,
some students responded ‘Complex situations strain my nerves’, or ‘Because of long
sentences, it was hard to understand the situation of the problem’.
In other cases, when the researcher asked why solving the problem was so
difficult, some students answered: ‘It was difficult to understand the meaning of the
sentence that “instantaneous velocity will exceed 20m/s”, because that expression does
not indicate an exact value.’ And also, because the electric resistance of a human
body in problem E2 (the context is related to an ‘electric shock’) naturally varies
according to the human body condition, the value of current flowing through the
human body usually has a certain range rather than an exact single value. In this
case, some students responded ‘Here [indicating the problem], I read that “1∼2mA
of electric current flows through the human body when he is shocked by 220V electricity for
0.1 second”, however, I cannot decide exactly how much current flows through that
human body’. From these, a third factor could be identified: ‘Some students do not
make sense of the given information, because the numerical value of information has some
range or is not in a simple form such as an integer’. This aspect can be found frequently
when solving everyday contextual problems because it is often difficult in real
situation to determine an exact value for certain variables.
In some cases, students often missed important information, and as a result they
failed to solve the E-problem correctly. But, by recognizing that something was
missed in the first trial of solving the problem, students re-did a problem and
obtained the correct answer using the information missed in the earlier solution
process. For instance, some students responded ‘[in the second trial of solving prob-
lem E1] I missed “the car B decreased speed!” before’, and some other students said
that ‘I did not recognize that this sentence [“—to use electricity safely”] was important
when I solved it previously’. Therefore, from these responses, we could identify the
fourth factor: ‘Some students miss some important descriptive information in long
sentences’.
Problems in a scientific context are usually described concisely and compactly.
However, in everyday contextual problems a lot of information is given to describe
the situation of the problem. Therefore, even though information was not linked
directly to solving the problem, some students were often concerned about and
asked about aspects irrelevant to solving the problem. For instance, while solving
problem E1, some students asked ‘What happened to the two cars after they collided
with each other?’ And in the case of problem E3, which was related to safe driving
on a foggy expressway, some students asked ‘Why should they step hard on the
brake?’ Therefore, a fifth factor was identified from the responses: ‘Some students are
concerned about information which is irrelevant to solving the problem’.
Finally, some students said ‘This problem was difficult for me, because the style
of the problem was unfamiliar’ or ‘I was worried about attempting to solve the
ANALYSING COGNITIVE OR NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS 1589

Table 7. Cognitive/non-cognitive factors involved in the process of solving


E-problems.
Number Factor

I Some students try to import personal/subjective judgments that are not


presented in the problem
II Some students fail to grasp the situation or context of the problem
III Some students do not make sense of the given information, because the
numerical value of information has an undefined range or is not in a simple
format such as that of an integer
IV Some students miss some important descriptive information in long sentences
V Some students are concerned about information that is irrelevant to solving the
problem
VI Some students experience difficulties in solving a problem because the form of
the problem is different from that usually used in school tests

problem, because it was different from the usual problem format in school tests’.
From these responses, a sixth factor was identified: ‘Some students feel difficulty in
solving problems because the form of the problem is different from that usually used in school
tests’. From this result, it may be inferred that many physics problems that students
have solved in their schools are mainly de-contextualized; that is, the experience of
solving E-problems in schools is not yet sufficient, even though many students may
have experience in solving E-problems because the national examination for univer-
sity entrance requires an ability to solve problems in an everyday context.
Table 7 presents the aforementioned six cognitive or non-cognitive factors
additionally involved in the process of solving E-problems when compared with
D-problems. In summary, to solve E-problems successfully, students should pay
special attention to the following aspects: even though the form of problems in an
everyday context is unfamiliar to them, they should be able to grasp the situation,
extract important information from long sentences while ignoring any irrelevant
information, and also be able to treat complex variables even though these have an
undefined range and are not in a simple format (e.g. an integer). Finally, they should
be able to draw a conclusion without personal/subjective judgments.

Recognition by teachers of additional cognitive/non-cognitive factors involved


in E-problem solving
Table 8 presents the responses to ‘Question set B’ stated earlier in table 4. As already
mentioned, the average values of responses are from −2 to +2. And the values of +2,
0, and −2 mean ‘strong yes’, ‘neutral’, and ‘strong no’, respectively.
In table 8, the average teacher’s response to question B-I of factor I was 1.27
and the t-value was 6.67 (p<0.05). This means that physics teachers generally
thought that a problem-solver should exclude personal/subjective judgments when
they solve problems in an everyday context. Regarding question B-II of factor I,
the average value of 0.95 (p<0.05) indicates that teachers agreed that students
should be taught to cope with factor I in a physics class, and there was no statistical
difference between the two values of 1.27 and 0.95 (t=1.91, p>0.05). Therefore, it
1590 J. PARK AND L. LEE

Table 8. Recognition by teachers (n=22) of the additional cognitive/


non-cognitive factors.
Question set Average of
Factor number B number responses t t

I B-I 1.27 6.67* 1.91


B-II 0.95 5.31*
II B-I 1.68 16.55* 3.02**
B-II 0.77 2.70*
III B-I 1.59 10.16* 2.49**
B-II 1.14 5.38*
IV B-I 1.73 17.77* 2.24**
B-II 1.18 5.05*
V B-I 0.95 3.95* 2.22**
B-II 0.45 1.67
VI B-I 1.59 12.64* 2.59**
B-II 1.23 3.40*

*p<0.05, t-test between the average of responses and the value 0.


**p<0.05, two-tailed t-test between B-I and B-II.

may be concluded that physics teachers thought that students should have the
ability in regards to factor I and that this aspect should also be taught in physics
classes.
With factor II, physics teachers thought that students should be able to grasp
the situation or context of the problem in order to solve everyday context physics
problems successfully (average = 1.68). Furthermore, physics teachers thought
that students should be taught to improve abilities related to factor II in physics
class (average = 0.77). However, the value of 0.77 was smaller than 1.68 statisti-
cally (t = 3.02, (p<0.05), indicating that the physics teachers’ perceptions about
the need for teaching this skill (related to factor II) were lower than the perceptions
of the importance of it. This tendency was also observed in factor III (t=2.49,
p<0.05), factor IV (t=2.24, p<0.05), factor V (t=2.22, p<0.05), and factor VI
(t=2.59, p<0.05).
For factor III, physics teachers thought that students should be able to treat
complex values of variables that had an undefined range or were written in decimal
(average = 1.59), and that students should be taught how to treat such values
(average = 1.14).
In factor IV, physics teachers said that students should be able to extract
important descriptive information from long sentences (average = 1.73), and that
they should also be taught how to do this (average = 1.18).
For factor V, physics teachers responded that students should ignore informa-
tion irrelevant to solving everyday contextual problems (average = 0.95). However,
by comparing the average value of responses about question B-II (0.45) with the
value 0 (t=1.67, p>0.05), it was found that physics teachers showed a neutral atti-
tude about whether or not students should be taught the abilities related to factor V.
Finally, regarding factor VI, it was found that physics teachers thought students
should be able to deal with new types of problems even though these problems were
ANALYSING COGNITIVE OR NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS 1591

not familiar to them (average = 1.59). They also thought that students should be
taught to be able to cope with new types of problems (average = 1.23).
In short, it was found that many physics teachers generally thought that students
should have the ability to cope with the aforementioned six factors involved in
everyday contextual problem-solving. The most important factors were:
IV>II>III=VI>I>V. Except for factor I, physics teachers’ perception about the need
for teaching how to cope with these factors was lower than the perception of the
importance of it. Moreover, in the case of factor V, physics teachers showed a
neutral attitude toward whether students should be taught how to disregard infor-
mation irrelevant to solving everyday context problems.
This low perception about the need for teaching the six factors that can interfere
with students’ E-problem solving indicates that teacher reform via an in-service
training program is needed to increase teachers’ perceptions regarding these factors
and to learn teaching strategies or methods for teaching such factors in solving
E-problem situations. Suggestions for teacher reform will now be presented.

Summary and suggestions for teacher reform


In Korea, everyday contexts have been emphasized in the National Curriculum and
in national examinations for university entrance. In this study, it was found that many
students, physics teachers, and university educators wanted to learn or teach E-prob-
lem solving. It was found that students preferred solving E-problems on school tests
because they thought E-problems were better problems to solve than D-problems.
However, it was observed that the degree of preference differed among the
subject groups. Students’ preferences for E-problems were generally lower than
those of physics teachers or university educators. This result was interpreted as a
representations of students’ low perceptions about the relevance of physics to the
real world or their everyday lives. From the results, it was found that male students
generally preferred E-problems more than female students, and that preferences for
everyday contexts depended on how closely related they were to students’ everyday
lives or interests. That is, as contexts used in this study were related to auto safety
and the safe use of electricity, they could be viewed as being related more to male
students’ interests.
It was also found that a student’s preference for E-problems did not necessarily
lead to self-confidence in the ability to solve E-problems. Many students felt that
E-problems were more difficult to solve in school, even though there was no
difference in their actual performance between E-problems and D-problems. There-
fore, students’ experiences in solving E-problems in school were not found to be
sufficient yet, even though the national examinations for university entrance in
Korea often required problem-solving in an everyday context.
Based on the assumption that the cognitive or non-cognitive processes of
E-problem solving might be different from D-problem solving, students’ processes
for solving E-problems were analysed. Six factors that could interfere with obtaining
a successful solution to E-problems were found. From the results, guidelines for
successful E-problem solving are suggested as follows: even though the form of
problems in an everyday context may be unfamiliar to students, they should be able
to grasp the situation, extract the relevant information from long sentences while
ignoring any irrelevant information, and be able to use complex variables, even
1592 J. PARK AND L. LEE

though these may have an undefined range or are not written in a simple form (e.g.
an integer). Finally, they should be able to draw a conclusion without personal/
subjective judgments.
When teachers’ recognition of these six factors was investigated, it was found
that teachers generally thought that students should be able to cope with these
factors to solve E-problems; however, physics teachers’ perceptions regarding the
need for teaching how to cope with these factors was generally lower than the
perception of their importance.
There may be several reasons for this. Teachers may generally not have the
practical skills or methods for teaching E-problems. Therefore, through in-service
training programs, teachers may attain sufficient experience in developing various
types of E-problems, such as problems applying physics concepts in everyday
contexts, problems using inquiry skills to explore or investigate physical phenomena
in an everyday context, or problems requiring scientific explanation about various
phenomena that occur in an everyday context.
Physics teachers should also improve their ability to develop their teaching
strategies for successful E-problem solving. For instance, idealization methods,
which are one of the creative methods that physicists have used frequently, may be
helpful. Because the natural world is generally complex, an individual should be able
to ignore certain contextual aspects and extract only a small number of important
factors or variables, and be able to construct relationships between them as simply
as possible (Park et al. 1999). To idealize the given E-problems, several aspects
found in this study may be useful. That is, students should be able to extract
important descriptive information from long sentences (factor IV in table 7) and
ignore information irrelevant to solving the problem (factor V).
Physics teachers may allow students to use a checklist consisting of items
describing what aspects are relevant for successful E-problem solving. The following
items may be included in the checklist: Do you read long sentences carefully? Can
you grasp and summarize the situation of the problem? Do you underline important
information? Do you ignore information irrelevant to solving the problem? Do you
exclude your personal/subjective judgment and draw conclusions objectively? If, in
an in-service training course, teachers can carry out exercises to develop checklists
and invent concrete methods to apply to classroom teaching, it may be helpful for
teaching problem-solving in an everyday context.
Because it was found that many students generally experienced difficulties in
solving E-problems, physics teachers should pay attention to encouraging
students’ self-confidence in relation to problem-solving in an everyday context.
Self-confidence in E-problem solving may depend on familiarity with an everyday
context. In other studies (Park and Chung 2002), it was found that some students
did not show any interest in or curiosity with a certain everyday context where
they did not have any direct experiences related to that context; for example, the
context of a mirage. Therefore, if students have not experienced a certain context;
that context may be unfamiliar to them. Consequently, it may not be any different
from a purely scientific context even though the context under study is an every-
day one. Therefore, in an in-service training course, it will be necessary to let the
teachers develop teaching activities such as demonstrations so as to experience
various everyday contexts.
Finally, it is worth commenting that teaching E-problem solving is not the same
as teaching physics concepts in an everyday context. When we teach physics
ANALYSING COGNITIVE OR NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS 1593

concepts, the main purpose of physics learning does not generally include the
following aspects: improving reading skill of long sentences, the ability to grasp the
context of a situation under investigation, or the skills used to extract important
information and disregard any irrelevant information from descriptive learning
materials. However, when teaching physics problem-solving in an everyday context,
the aforementioned aspects are considered important.
Based on the results of this study, it was possible to identify what students, high
school physics teachers, and university physics educators understood about using an
everyday context in physics problem-solving, and which aspects might have an influ-
ence on solving these problems. Therefore, the results of this study may provide
good guidelines for developing concrete teaching strategies for teaching and assess-
ing physics in an everyday context.

Acknowledgement
This study was financially supported by a Research Fund of Chonnam National
University in 2000.

References
ARCHENHOLD, F., BELL, J., DONNELLY, J., JOHNSON, S. and WELFORD, G. (1988). Science at Age
15: A Review of APU Survey Findings 1980–84 (London: HMSO).
BAKER, V. and MILLAR, R. (1999). Students’ reasoning about chemical reactions: what changes
occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science
Education, 21(6), 645–665.
CHOI, J. and SONG, J. (1996). Students’ preference for different contexts in learning science.
Research in Science Education, 26(3), 341–352.
DLAMINI, B., LUBBEN, F. and CAMPBELL, B. (1996). Liked and disliked learning activities:
reponses of swazi students to science materials with a technological approach. Research in
Science & Technological Education, 14(2), 221–235.
DREYFUS, A. and JUNGWIRTH, E. (1980). A comparison of the ‘prompting effect’ of our-of-school
with that of in-school contexts on certain aspects of critical thinking. European Journal of
Science Education, 2, 301–310.
GOMEZ, M., POZO, J. and SANZ, A. (1995). Students’ ideas on conservation of matter: effects of
expertise and context variables. Science Education, 79(1), 77–93.
HARRISON, A.G. and TREAGUST, D.F. (1993). Teaching with analogies: a case study in grade-10
optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1291–1307.
JOHNSON-LAIRD, P.N., LEGRENZI, P. and LEGRENZI, M.S. (1972). Reasoning and a sense of
reality. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 395–400.
KEEVES, L. and AIKENHEAD, G. (1995). Science curricula in a changing world. In B.J. Fraser and
H.J. Walberg (eds.) Improving Science Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press),
13–45.
LUBBEN, F., CAMPBELL, B. and DLAMINI, B. (1996). Contextualizing science teaching in Swazilanf:
some student reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 18(3), 311–320.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (1997). High School Curricu-
lum (1): Report No. 1997–15 (Seoul: DaeHan Textbook).
PARK, J. and CHUNG, H. (2002). Analysis of the physics learning processes in an everyday
context. Paper presented at the 43rd Conference of the Korean Association for Research in
Science Education, Chongju, Korea.
PARK, J., SONG, J., KWON, S. and CHUNG, B. (1999). The use of ideal conditions in physics teach-
ing and learning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science
Education Research Association, Roturua, New Zealand.
RAMSDEN, J. (1992). If it’s enjoyable, is it science? School Science Review, 73, 65–71.
RAMSDEN, J. (1997). How does a context-based approach influence understanding of key
chemical ideas at 16+. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 697–710.
1594 J. PARK AND L. LEE

REIF, F. and LARKIN, J.H. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: comparison and
learning implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 733–760.
RENNI, L.J. and PARKER, L.H. (1996). Placing physics problems in real-life context: students’
reactions and performance. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(1), 55–59.
SAUNDERS, W.L. and JESUNATHADAS, J. (1988). The effect of task content upon prepositional
reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 59–67.
SCHECKER, H. (1992). The paradigmatic change in mechanics: implications of historical
processes for physics education. Science and Education, 1(1), 71–76.
SCHWARTZ, A.T. (1999). Creating a context for chemistry. Science and Education, 8, 605–618.
SONG, J. and BLACK, P. (1991). The effects of task contexts on pupils’ performance on science
process skills. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 49–58.
SONG, J. and BLACK, P. (1992). The effects of concept requirements and task contexts on pupils’
performance in control of variables. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 83–93.
TOH, K.A. and WOLNOUGH, B.E. (1994). Science process skills: are they generalisable? Research
in Science & Technological Education, 12(1), 31–42.
WHITE, R. (1988). Learning Science (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
WHITELEGG, E. and PARRY M. (1999). Real-life contexts for learning physics: meanings, issues
and practice. Physics Education, 32(2), 68–72.
WILKINSON, J.W. (1999a). Teachers’ perceptions of the contextual approach to teaching VCE
physics. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45(2), 58–65.
WILKINSON, J.W. (1999b). The contextual approach to teaching physics. Australian Science
Teachers Journal, 45(4), 43–50.
ANALYSING COGNITIVE OR NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS 1595

Appendix 1: E1 problem

Appendix 2: D1 problem

You might also like