Advertisement

COMPARISON OF STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF LINE GRAPH SLOPE IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

  • Maja Planinic
  • Zeljka Milin-Sipus
  • Helena Katic
  • Ana Susac
  • Lana Ivanjek
Article

ABSTRACT

This study gives an insight into the differences between student understanding of line graph slope in the context of physics (kinematics) and mathematics. Two pairs of parallel physics and mathematics questions that involved estimation and interpretation of line graph slope were constructed and administered to 114 Croatian second year high school students (aged 15 to 16 years). Each pair of questions referred to the same skill in different contexts—one question in the context of mathematics and the other in the context of kinematics. A sample of Croatian physics teachers (N  =  90) was asked to rank the questions according to their expected difficulty for second year high school students. The prevalent ranking order suggests that most physics teachers expected mathematics questions to be more difficult for students than the parallel physics questions. Contrary to the prevalent teachers’ expectations, students succeeded better on mathematics than on physics questions. The analysis of student answers and explanations suggests that the lack of mathematical knowledge is not the main reason for student difficulties with graphs in kinematics. It appears that the interpretation of the meaning of line graph slope in a physics context presents the largest problem for students. However, students also showed problems with the understanding of the concept of slope in a mathematical context. Students exhibited slope/height confusion in both contexts, but much more frequently in the context of physics than in the context of mathematics.

KEY WORDS

kinematics line graph mathematics education physics education slope 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Araujo, I. S., Veit, E. A. & Moreira, M. A. (2008). Physics students’ performance using computational modeling activities to improve kinematics graphs interpretation. Computers in Education, 50, 1128–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arons, A. B. (1983). Student patterns of thinking and reasoning, part one. Physics Teacher, 21, 576–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beichner, R. J. (1990). The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 803–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62, 750–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bektasli, B. (2006). The relationships between spatial ability, logical thinking, mathematics performance and kinematics graph interpretation skills of 12th grade physics students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  6. Berg, C. A. & Phillips, D. G. (1994). An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brasell, H. M. & Rowe, B. M. (1993). Graphing skills among high school physics students. School Science and Mathematics, 93(2), 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cataloglu, E. (2007). Internet-mediated assessment portal as a pedagogical learning tool: A case study on understanding kinematics graphs. European Journal of Physics, 28, 767–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreyfus, T. & Eisenberg, T. (1990). On difficulties with diagrams: Theoretical issues. In G. Booker, P. Cobb & T. N. De Mendicuti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 27–36). Oaxtepex: PME.Google Scholar
  10. Graham, T. & Sharp, J. (1999). An investigation into able students’ understanding of motion graphs. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 18, 128–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Habre, S. & Abboud, M. (2006). Students’ conceptual understanding of a function and its derivative in an experimental calculus course. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics (Vol. 11–16, pp. 120–136). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  13. Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. (1999). Students’ use of imagery in solving qualitative problems in kinematics. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from http://www.compadre.org/portal/services/detail.cfm?ID=2760.
  14. Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Sciences, 31, 549–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kozhevnikov, M. & Thornton, R. (2006). Real-time data display, spatial visualization ability, and learning force and motion concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O. & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1–64.Google Scholar
  18. Lohman, D. F. (1996). Spatial Ability and G. In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and assessment (pp. 97–116). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L. & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P. & Hegarty, M. (1991). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130, 621–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mokros, J. R. & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Potgieter, M., Harding, A. & Engelbrecht, J. (2008). Transfer of algebraic and graphical thinking between mathematics and chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roth, W. M. & McGinn, M. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science Education, 81, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salthouse, T. A., Babcock, R. L., Mitchell, D. R. D., Palmon, R. & Skovronek, E. (1990). Sources of individual differences in spatial visualization ability. Intelligence, 14, 187–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shah, P. & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 125, 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swatton, P. & Taylor, R. M. (1994). Pupil performance in graphical tasks and its relationship to the ability to handle variables. British Educational Research Journal, 20, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wavering, M. J. (1989). Logical reasoning necessary to make line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Woolnough, J. (2000). How do students learn to apply their mathematical knowledge to interpret graphs in physics? Research in Science Education, 30, 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maja Planinic
    • 1
  • Zeljka Milin-Sipus
    • 2
  • Helena Katic
    • 3
  • Ana Susac
    • 1
  • Lana Ivanjek
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physics, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  3. 3.High school SlunjSlunjCroatia

Personalised recommendations