Professional Documents
Culture Documents
13, 1577–1595
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
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
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
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.
III The reasons for failure in finding the correct answers of E-problems
ANALYSING COGNITIVE OR NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS 1583
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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