Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of teaching of the problem solving strategies on the students’ physics
achievement, strategy level, attitude, and achievement motivation. Experimental procedures were conducted on the
tenth grade students in Turkey. Research data were collected with Physics Achievement Test, Surveys of Problem
Solving Strategies, Problem Solving Attitude, and Achievement Motivation, and problem solving worksheets. During
this study, problem solving strategies were applied to the experimental group by the cooperative learning method and
to the control group by conventional teaching. The averages of the experimental group’s achievement, motivation,
strategy level, and attitude were found to be higher than control group’s. According to the experimental data, gender
didn’t effect the physics achievement of students. It was concluded that problem solving strategies was more effective
in cooperative learning than conventional teaching.
Resumen
El objetivo de este estudio fue examinar los efectos de la enseñanza de estrategias para la resolución de problemas en
los logros de los estudiantes de física, sus niveles de estrategia, actitud y motivación al logro. Los procedimientos
experimentales fueron conducidos en estudiantes de décimo grado en Turquía. La datos fueron recolectados a través de
exámenes para medir el éxito de los estudiantes en Física, estudios de estrategias de resolución de problemas, actitud
para la resolución de problemas, motivación al logro y hojas de cálculo para resolver problemas. Durante este estudio,
las estrategias para la resolución de problemas fueron aplicadas al grupo experimental usando el método de
aprendizaje cooperativo y al grupo de control usando enseñanza convencional. Los promedios de logro, motivación,
nivel de estrategia y actitud en el grupo experimental fueron mayores que los del grupo de control. De acuerdo a los
datos experimentales, se encontró que el género no afecta los logros de los estudiantes de Física. Se concluyó que las
técnicas de solución de problemas fueron más efectivas en aprendizaje cooperativo que en aprendizaje convencional.
index of all items were calculated. The items (10 items) less
X than 0.40 “discrimination index values” were taken out from
the test without reducing the content validity. The test was
Treatment evaluated out of 40 points. Discrimination of the items
C A
included in the test changed between 0.40 and 0.68. The
Kuder-Richardson (KR-20) reliability of the test was found
as 0.92.
Y
FIGURE 1. Two-groups control group design participants. then a table of specifications was prepared. To provide the
content validity of prepared questions, some instructors'
opinions were taken at Dokuz Eylul University. Finally the
The experimental procedures of the research were carried test completed with total 50 questions. According to Bloom
out on high school in Turkey. After according to pretest Taxonomy [66], 21 items of the questions included in test
performed on 10th grade students, two classes, equivalent to were comprehension, 22 items were application, and 7 items
one another in terms of knowledge, were chosen. One of were analysis. The test was applied to 335 students who had
them was named as experimental group; the other one as already learned these subjects and then item analysis was
control group. The experimental group consisted of 25
students (12 female and 13 male) . The control group
consisted of 21 students (8 female and 13 male). High
school education is three years in Turkey. After students
graduated to high school, for higher education students take
National University Entrance Exam done every year. 11th
grade students must prepare to take the exam. Because of
this, in this research 10th grade students were selected.
Besides, the chosen reason of “Kinematics and Dynamics”
subjects was connected with concepts.
B. Materials
The collected data from the PAT, PSSS, PSAS, and AMS
F. Problem Solving Worksheets were analyzed by SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social
Science) 15.0 program for windows. Mean (M), Standard
Problem solving worksheets had been prepared to Deviation (SD), t-test were employed. All statistical tests
determine the problem solving strategies used by students reported in this paper were conducted with a significance
while solving a physics problem. The problems were level of α = 0.05.
arranged at different difficulty level and students included
in experimental and control groups were required to solve
them. For the response to the problem solving worksheets, H. Procedure
firstly problems were to be solved individually then a
common solution of the group was to be written in the The study was performed during the spring semester in
experimental group. Evaluation of the problems solved by High School Physics II course covering “Kinematics and
groups was made by researchers. Common strategies of the Dynamics” concepts. For this research two classes were
students were determined while students were solving selected as mentioned method. The same instructional
physics problems according to achievement, behaviors, and material was used for both classes. Courses were taught by
gender. How is problem solving performance of the the same instructor using the same schedule with different
students measured? In most physics and science courses, instructional methods. The details of this research were
students’ problem solutions on homework, exams or given as follows.
worksheets were given a score based on the correctness of 1. The pre assessments were given on the day before the
the algebraic or numerical solution [8]. A standard grading implementation session during the regular physics course
practice in physics involved giving students partial credit hours.
for particular characteristics of their solution, compared 2. Before teaching of planned chapters, the students
with the ideal solution developed by the instructor. Simply included in the experimental group were informed on
comparing average scores based on this grading scheme, teaching of problem solving strategy steps and cooperative
however, did not give a satisfactory description of the learning method. Besides, the students included in the
student’s problem solving performance. At best it only control group were told only on teaching of problem
gave a suggestion of whether one solution was better than solving strategy steps. The information period was
another in terms of the prescribed grading scheme. A completed in 4 weeks.
different kind of instrument was required to determine the 3. During the experimental procedures, problem solving
nature of a student’s approach to the problem and assess a strategy steps were applied with the cooperative learning
solution in terms of characteristics of expertise in solving method to the experimental group and with the
problems. Problem solving performance of the students conventional teaching method to the control group.
was evaluated according to “evidence of conceptual Problems were solved by using the same problem solving
understanding, usefulness of description, match of strategies on both groups.
equations with description, reasonable plan, logical 4. Class structure of the experimental group was
progression, proper mathematics” [8]. The characteristics in changed in each application according to cooperative
this scheme were graded equally and normalized to obtain a groups [39]. Students included in the experimental group
score over 100 scores. Problems prepared during this were distributed as mixed groups according to achievement,
research were based on Bloom’s Taxonomy “Knowledge, strategy level, attitude, motivation, and gender. Each group
Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, consisted of three students. There were eight mixed groups
Evaluation” [66]. in the experimental group. Students included in the
Problem solving steps which would be used to solve the experimental group were given various tasks during
problem were selected as; understanding (focus on the research. These tasks were changed in the group and among
problem), planning (plan the solution), solving (execute the groups to provide changing dynamics of the groups at
plan), and checking (evaluate the answer) [8, 41]. Besides, certain times.
a solution process for such a problem required one or more 5. The activities of both groups were performed by the
of the following: (a) a correct physical interpretation of the researcher and same problems were solved in the classes.
situation, including the goals, (b) identification of a 6. In the experimental process, students in both groups
problem solution approach, including selection of studied on the problem solving worksheets prepared by
appropriate physics concepts or fundamental principles, (c) researcher.
correct implementation of the approach and application of 7. During experimental procedures, the students weren’t
the concept or principle to the situation, and (d) checking expected to submit practice problems and/or assignments.
the solution [43]. Problems included in problem solving Besides, the students didn’t take routine examinations.
Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ. Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan. 2010 14 http://www.journal.lapen.org.mx
The Effects of Problem Solving Strategies on Students’ Achievement, Attitude and Motivation
8. The post assessments were given on the same day the endeavoring (t=4.40, p<0.05), will to work (t=4.89,
immediately after the implementation session. The design p<0.05), and participating (t=4.10, p<0.05). The
of the experimental design and database tools were shown experimental group scored 6.86 % (endeavoring), 10.03 %
briefly in Table IV. (will to work), and 8.9 % (participating) higher than the
control groups. Results in Table VI showed that the scores
of the experimental group were consistently higher than
those of the control group while the standard deviations
V. RESULTS were consistently lower. Also, Cohen’s d values support
this outcome by large effect size.
The responses of the research questions were examined. The effect of applied teaching methods and gender on
The pre and post test’ arithmetic means and standard the physics achievement of the students was examined. So,
deviations of PAT, PSSS, PSAS, and AMS were two-way ANOVA test which is to search gender-method
calculated, and then t-tests for independent samples were interactions was performed. Obtained results were reported
in Table VII. According to variance analysis’s result
applied to check whether the difference between the
averages of the groups is meaningful. Results were shown revealed a significant main effect on method (F (1-
in Table V. 42)=132.545, p<0.05). However, the main effect for gender
Table V presented the mean scores and standard was not significant (F(1-42)=1.075, p>0.05) and the
deviations of the pre and post assessments for the control interaction of gender and method was not significant (F(1-
and experimental groups. There were no significant 42)=2.047, p>0.05). To find the sources of the interaction,
differences on the pre assessments; it was assumed that the the means of males and females on the post test scores for
two groups started out with equivalent means. T-tests for the control and experimental group were calculated. Table
independent samples were carried out to tests whether the VIII shows that the gender variety did not cause an
experimental and control groups differed significantly on important effect on the physics achievement of the student.
the post assessment on PAT (t=10.93, p<0.05), PSSS Further, the variances analysis was applied to check the
(t=9.97, p<0.05), PSAS (t=5.06, p<0.05), and AMS meaningful difference between strategy averages of the
(t=5.28, p<0.05). The experimental group scored 35.5 % groups. For examining the effects of gender on strategy use,
(PAT), 15.08 % (PSSS), 10.86 % (PSAS), and 8.59 % students included in groups were separated into four groups
(AMS) higher than the control group. Results in Table V according to gender: “EG-F, EG-M, CG-F, CG-M”. The
showed that the scores of the experimental group were variance analysis related to each subscales was applied to
consistently higher than those of the control group while check the meaningful difference between averages of the
the standard deviations were consistently lower. Also, female and male students. Data related to pre and post
Cohen’s d values support this outcome by large effect size. assessment were given in Table IX.
Cohen’s d value [73] was defined as any value over 0.8 as Related to applied statistical analysis, the result of
large effect size, while those between 0.5 and 0.8 are ANOVA test hadn’t been shown significant difference, F (1-
considered medium. 44)=0.313, p>0.05 (understanding), F(1-44)=1.218, p>0.05
After the main surveys subscales of the PSSS, PSAS, (planning), F(1-44)=2.071, p>0.05 (solving), and F(1-
and AMS were examined. The mean scores and standard
44)=0.533, p>0.05 (checking). According to obtained from
deviations of the groups were calculated according to
results for PSSS, the strategy average of female students
subscales to find the meaningful difference between PSSS,
included in the experimental group was higher than the
PSAS, and AMS averages of the groups. Results were strategy average of male students, and strategy average of
shown in Table VI. females and males included in the control group was almost
Table VI presented the mean scores and standard equal, it can be observed from the results in Table IX.
deviations of the pre and post assessment for the control When standard deviations were compared, the standard
and experiment groups according to subscales. There were deviation of the control group was found to be remarkably
no significant differences on the pre assessment. T-tests for higher than the standard deviation of the experimental
independent samples were carried out for subscales group. This result showed that the experimental group had
whether the experimental and control groups differed more homogeneous and the control group had more
significantly on the post assessment PSSS, PSAS, and heterogeneous structure.
AMS. According to PSSS, significant differences were
found for understanding (t=7.54, p<0.05), planning (t=7.05,
p<0.05), solving (t=4.91, p<0.05), and checking (t=8.63,
p<0.05). The experimental group scored 14.56 % VI. CONCLUSIONS
(understanding), 15.65 % (planning), 12.5 % (solving), and
18.86 % (checking) higher than the control groups. Many researchers had done many investigations while
According to PSAS, significant differences were found for using cooperative learning method by this time. As it was
the attention (t=4.41, p<0.05) and fade-phobia (t=3.82, known, cooperative learning method was generally used on
p<0.05). The experimental group scored 7.23 % (attention) social science. The present study, cooperative learning
and 15.45 % (fade-phobia) higher than the control groups. method was applied to physics education and the research
According to AMS, significant differences were found for was combined with problem solving strategies. Concerned
Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ. Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan. 2010 15 http://www.journal.lapen.org.mx
Gök, T. and Sılay, İ study examined the attitude of problem solving of the
students. For evaluation of these variables, the surveys
about problem solving strategies and problem solving
attitude were developed. Achievement motivation also 2. Were there any significant differences in a) problem
searched while students were solving problem during solving strategies and b) achievement of the students who
research. The difference between this study and other use cooperative learning vs. conventional teaching
studies was to examine many variables related to according to gender?
achievement. It could be seen that when problem solving The benefit from equality of the female and male
achievement of the students increased, the achievement students for teaching problem solving strategies in
motivation and attitude of the students increased in experimental and control groups was determined. Also,
accordance with statistical data. Besides, the effects of the students in the experimental group were found to have a
gender variable on achievement and problem solving more strategic approach to problems than students in the
strategies couldn’t be seen in this present study. The control group. The change in the experimental group was
outcomes of the research were given in the below by continuously originated from helping each other and
reporting the answers of the research questions asked. solidarity of the students. The results pointed out that the
1. Were there any significant differences in a) gender variety did not cause an important effect on the
achievement, b) problem solving strategies, c) attitude physics achievement of the students.
toward problem solving, and d) achievement motivation of 3. Were there any significant differences in using
the students who use cooperative learning vs. conventional problem solving strategies with problem solving worksheets
teaching? between the students who use cooperative learning vs.
Teaching of the problem solving strategy steps in conventional teaching according to gender?
cooperative groups was effective on physics achievements Evaluation of the problem solving worksheets pointed
of the students. out that females used the strategies of writing data, drawing
According to research data, the reasons for the figures, aimlessly solving, calculating until getting a
experimental group’s achievement were: effectiveness of meaningful result, and noticing wrong solutions. As told
the cooperative learning method for the experimental above, the behavior and strategy of “noticing wrong
group, explanation in a systematic configuration of problem solutions” was shown by the solver who answered
solving strategies, and applying these strategies in a plan. correctly. The behaviors of “aimlessly solving” and
The reasons for the failure in the control group’s problem “calculating until getting a meaningful result” were
solving strategies were: solving problems individually, typically shown in unsuccessful problem solving. The
avoiding information exchange with friends during solving, behaviors of “writing data”, “drawing figure” were not
hesitating to ask unknown topics or question to teachers or distinguishing characteristics. Assessment of the problem
friends, using solution manual of the problems etc. solving worksheets indicated that males used the finding a
The teaching of problem solving strategies was suitable solution path, noticing wrong solutions, making
affecting the attitudes of the students toward problem tables, and getting formulas. As informed above, the
solving. According to the research results, the reasons for behaviors and strategies “finding a suitable solution path”,
the increase in the experimental group’s attitude score “noticing wrong solutions”, and “making tables” were
were: systematic application of the problem solving shown for the solvers who answer correctly, while “getting
strategies, information exchange during the teamwork, formulas” and “checking the result of the problem” were
paying attention to applied methods, excitement, and not distinguishing characteristics.
supporting and helping each other. The reasons for failure In this research, female students in proportion to male
in the students’ attitude scores in control group were: students used more “writing data” strategy according to this
continuous auditing of students, teacher centered finding. This result showed that female students followed
instruction, lack of responsibility, and avoidance of helping problem solving steps and had routine thought models.
and supporting each other. “Drawing figures” was a strategy which made the problem
Besides, the essay written by students obviously easier to solve and more concrete. Females used this
showed that the students in the experimental group were strategy more than males did. Male students were more
more interested in physics lecture and developed a positive successful than female students in solving the problem,
attitude toward problem solving. transferring the information, and understanding problems.
The problem solving strategies’ teaching in cooperative But because of the fact that male students read problems
groups also affected achievement motivation of the more than female students did, the generalization of opinion
students in positive ways. The achievement motivation couldn’t be made clearly. It could be originated from the
average of the experimental group was higher than the lack of the male or tendency of not doing anything without
achievement motivation average of control group although understanding. On the other hand, the females' more
both groups were shown the same topics and solved the reading than males might not mean their quicker opinion.
same problems. Students included in the experimental Also, female students could not read problems again since
group were more active in activities, taking responsibility they got bored quickly and return occasionally, etc. As a
during group study, spending more effort, and continually result of finding, the failure in solving problems could be
wanted to succeed. related to the student’s shortage of information, hastiness,
or attention.
The strategies and behaviors much more used by the
solvers who answer correctly, according to the solvers who
Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ. Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan. 2010 16 http://www.journal.lapen.org.mx
The Effects of Problem Solving Strategies on Students’ Achievement, Attitude and Motivation
answer incorrectly, were: the evaluation of the clues, [12] Redish, E. F., Scherr, R. E., & Tuminaro, J., Reverse-
finding better solution steps, realizing use of wrong Engineering the solution of a simple physics problem: Why
solution steps, exploration, another solution, stop when one learning physics is harder than it looks, The Physics
realizes the misunderstanding, explaining the procedures Teacher 44, 293-300 (2006).
wrongly, application of the ideas immediately, and [13] Reif, F., Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and
determining equations. The strategies and behaviors more teaching important scientific thought process, American
used by the solvers who answer mistakenly, according to Journal of Physics 59, 891 (1995).
the solvers who answer correctly, was: tracing solution [14] Van Heuvelen, A., Learning to think like a physicist: a
steps incorrectly, the solving problem by guessing, and review of research-based instructional strategies, American
misleading calculations. The strategies commonly used and Journal of Physics 59, 891-897 (1991).
the behaviors shown by the solvers who answer correctly [15] McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F., Resource letter:
and incorrectly were: writing data, plotting a graph, PER-1:Physics education research, American Journal of
diagram, table, or schematic suitable for problems, use of Physics 67, 755-767 (1999).
each datum, recalling knowledge, guessing the results [16] Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A., Individual differences
without calculations, asking questions by oneself, using in solving physics problems, Children thinking: What
control strategy by estimating, finding a relationship, using develop? 325-348 (1978).
formulas, and implication. [17] Larkin, J. H., & Reif, F., Understanding and teaching
According to worksheets’ results, it was determined that problem-solving in physics, European Journal of Science
the control of the problem results wasn’t done by the Education 1, 191-203 (1979).
students. This could be caused by the anxiety of wasting [18] Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon,
their time, lack of confidence and proof, and/or shortage of H. A., Model of competence in solving physics problems,
information about these strategies. Cognitive Science 4, 317-345 (1980).
The results pointed out that teaching of the problem [19] Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R.,
solving strategies is more effective on cooperative learning Categorization and representation of physics problems by
than traditional teaching. experts and novices, Cognitive Science 5, 121-152 (1981).
[20] Larkin, J. H., Enriching formal knowledge: A model
for learning to solve textbook physics problems, Cognitive
skills and their acquisition, 311-334 (1981).
REFERENCES [21] Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E., Expertise in
problem solving, Advances in the psychology of human
[1] Dewey, J., How we think, (D. C. Heath & Company, intelligence 1, 7- 75 (1982).
London, 1910). [22] Heller, J. I., & Rief, F., Prescribing effective human
[2] Newell, A., & Simon, H. A., Human problem solving, problem-solving processes:Problem description in physics,
(Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1972). Cognition and Instruction 1, 177–216 (1984).
[3] Mayer, R. E., Thinking, problem solving, cognition 2nd [23] De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., Cognitive
ed., (W. H. Freeman & Company, New York, 1991). structures of good and poor novice problem solvers in
[4] Elshout, J. J., Problem-solving and education. Learning physics, Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 279–288
and instruction: European research in an international (1986).
context, 1, 259-274 (1987). [24] Dufrense, R. J., Gerace, W. J., & Leonard, W. J.,
[5] Garrett, R. M., Problem-solving in science education, Solving physics problems with multiple representations,
Studies in Science Education 13, 70-95 (1986). Physics Teacher 35, 270 (1997).
[6] Gil-Perez, D., Dumas-Carre, A., Caillot, M., & [25] Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J., Multimedia and
Martinez-Torregrosa, J., Paper and pencil problem solving understanding: Expert and novice responses to different
in the physical sciences as a research activity, Studies in representations of chemical phenomena, Journal Research
Science Education 18, 137-151 (1990). in Science Teaching 34, 949 (1997).
[7] Schunk, D. H., Learning theories – An educational [26] Kozma, R. B., The material features of multiple
perspective, (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2000). representations and their cognitive and social affordances
[8] Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S., Teaching for science understanding, Learning Instruction 13, 205
problem-solving through cooperative grouping Part I: (2003).
Group versus individual problem-solving, American [27] Larkin, J. H., Processing information for effective
Journal of Physics 60, 627-636 (1992). problem solving, Engineering Education 70, 285-288
[9] McDermott, L. C., Millikan Lecture 1990: What we (1979).
teach and what is learned closing the gap, American [28] Mazur, E., Peer Instruction, (NJ: Prentice-Hall, Upper
Journal of Physics 59, 301–315 (1991). Saddle River, 1997).
[10] Reif, F., Larkin, J. H., & Brackett, G. C., Teaching [29] Reif, F., & Heller, J. I., Knowledge structures and
general learning and problem-solving skills, American problem solving in physics. Educational Psychologist 17,
Journal of Physics 44, 212-217 (1976). 102-127 (1982).
[11] Reif, F., Teaching problem solving: A scientific
approach, The Physics Teacher 19, 310-316 (1981).
Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ. Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan. 2010 17 http://www.journal.lapen.org.mx
Gök, T. and Sılay, İ
[29] Priest, A. G., & Lindsay, R. O., New light on novice-
expert differences in physics problem solving, Journal of [49] Freedman, M. P., Relationship among laboratory
Psychology 83, 389 (1992). instruction, attitude toward science and achievement in
[30] Reif, F., & Allen, S., Cognition for interpreting science knowledge, Journal of Research in Science
scientific concepts, Cognitive and Instruction 9, 1 (1992). Teaching 34, 231-243 (1997).
[31] Sweller, J., Cognitive load during problem solving: [50] Koballa, Jr. T. R., Attitudes and related concepts in
Effects on learning, Cognitive Science 12, 257-285 (1988). science education, Science Education 72, 115–126 (1988).
[32] Mestre, J. P., Implication of research on learning, [51] Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C., Attitudes toward chemistry
Physics Education 36, 44-51 (2001). among 11th grade students in high schools in Greece,
[33] Heller, K., & Heller, P., The competent problem Science Education 88, 535-547(2004).
solver, a strategy for solving problems in physics, calculus [52] Atwater, M., Wiggins, J., & Gardner, C., A study of
version. 2nd ed., (MN: McGraw-Hill, Minneapolis, 1995). urban middle-school students with high and low attitudes
[34] Savage M., & Williams, J., Mechanics in action- toward science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching
modelling and practical investigations, (Cambridge 32, 665–677 (1995).
University Press, Cambridge, 1990). [53] Cannon, R., & Simpson, R., Relationships among
[35] Bagno, E., & Eylon, Bat-S., From problem solving to attitude, motivation, and achievement of ability grouped,
a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of seventh grade, life science students, Science Education 69,
electromagnetism, American Journal of Physics 65, 726- 121-138 (1985).
736 (1997). [54] Haladyna, T., & Shaughnessy, J., Attitudes toward
[36] Harskamp, E., & Ding, N., Structured collaboration science: A quantitative synthesis, Science Education 66,
versus individual learning in solving physics problems, 547–563 (1982).
International Journal of Science Education 14, 1669-1688 [55] Schibeci, R. A., & Riley, J. P., Influence of students’
(2006). background and perceptions on science attitudes and
[37] Bolton, J., & Ross, S., Developing students’ physics achievement, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23,
problem-solving skills, Physics Education 32, 176-185 177-187 (1986).
(1997). [56] Simpson, R., & Oliver, S., Attitude toward science and
[38] Pol, H., Solving physics problems with the help of achievement motivation profiles of male and female
computer-assisted instruction, International Journal of students in grades six through twelve, Science Education
Science Education, 27, 451-469 (2005). 69, 511–526 (1985).
[39] Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M., Teaching problem [57] Simpson, D., Oliver, S., A summary of major
solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing influences on attitude toward and achievement in science
problems and structuring groups, American Journal of among adolescent students, Science Education 74, 1-18
Physics 60, 637-644 (1992). (1990).
[40] Yerushalmi, E., & Magen, E., Same old problem, new [58] Maehr, M., & Meyer, H., Understanding motivation
name? Alerting students to the nature of the problem- and schooling: Where we’ve been, where we are, and
solving process, Physics Education 41, 161-167 (2006). where we need to go, Educational Psychology Review 9,
[41] Polya, G., How to solve it. 2nd ed., (Princeton 371–409 (1997).
University Press, Princeton, 1957). [59] Atkinson, J. W., An introduction to motivation. (Van
[42] Loucks, S. E., Introductory physics with algebra: Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 1964).
Mastering problem-solving. (Wiley & Sons, John-US, [60] Erickson, G. A., & Erickson, L. J., Achievement:
2007). Evidence, explanations, and implications, Science
[43] Johnson, M., Facilitating high quality practice in Education 68, 63-89 (1984).
introductory physics, American Journal of Physics 69, S 2- [61] Johnson, S., Gender differences in science: Parallels
11 (1999). in interest, experience, and performance, International
[44] Slavin, R. E., Cooperative learning theory, research Journal of Science Education 9, 467-481 (1987).
and practice, (Allyn&Bacon, Boston, 1995). [62] Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M., Gender
[45] Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. J., Differences in students’ experiences, interests, and
Cooperative in the classroom, (Interaction Book Co., attitudes toward science and scientists, Science Education
Edina, 1991). 84, 180-192 (2000).
[46] Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T., Cooperation and [63] Stadler, H., Duit, R., & Benke, G., Do boys and girls
competition: theory and research, (Interaction Book understand physics differently? Physics Education, 35 (6),
Company, Edina. MN, 1989). 417-422 (2000).
[47] Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M., Attitudes and the attitude- [64] Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J. C., Experimental and
behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes, quasi-experimental designs for research, (Rand McNally
European Review of Social Psychology, 1-33 (2000). College Pub. Co., Chicago, 1966).
[48] Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I., Belief, attitude, intention,
and behavior: An introduction to theory and research,
(Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1975).
[65] Gök, T., & Sılay, İ., The effects of problem-solving cooperative learning groups in physics education, Journal
strategies teaching on problem-solving attitude, in the of Theory and Practice in Education 4, 253-266 (2008).
Appendix
Subscales of the Survey Number of the Item Cronbach’s Alpha KMO Factor Loading Range
Understanding 18 0.83 0.91 0.44 - 0.74
Planning 13 0.78 0.82 0.47 - 0.87
Solving 8 0.75 0.81 0.57 - 0.80
Checking 6 0.63 0.70 0.40 - 0.81
Total 45 0.88 0.90 0.40 - 0.87
TABLE II. Results of statistical analysis of the problem solving attitude survey.
Subscales of the Survey Number of the Item Cronbach’s Alpha KMO Factor Loading Range
Attention 19 0.87 0.92 0.41 - 0.80
Fade-Phobia 15 0.87 0.90 0.46 - 0.84
Total 34 0.88 0.92 0.41 - 0.84
Subscales of the Survey Number of the Item Cronbach’s Alpha KMO Factor Loading Range
Endeavoring 13 0.84 0.87 0.45 - 0.76
Will to work 13 0.84 0.89 0.51 - 0.75
Participating 6 0.77 0.76 0.44 - 0.70
Total 32 0.91 0.92 0.44 - 0.75
*(p<0.05) The level of significance was taken as 0.05 for surveys; EG “Experimental Group”, CG “Control Group”
TABLE VI. Mean scores and standard deviations of pre and post assessment according to subscales.
t-values* Cohen’s d
Data Tools Subscales Groups M SD M SD
PSSS
EG 29.84 4.48 35.52 1.82
Solving 7.48 2.25
CG 29.28 4.91 30.52 4.68
TABLE VIII. Mean scores and standard deviations for females and males on the PAT.
Female
8 8.12 2.79 9.37 3.77
CG
Male
13 5.92 1.84 8.84 2.67
TABLE IX. Mean scores and standard deviations of females and males on the PSSS.
EG-F
12 46.16 7.40 55.66 3.22
EG
EG-M 13 41.61 5.79 53.69 3.79
Planning
CG-F
8 47.25 4.46 44.75 7.28
CG
CG-M 13 43.84 8.65 44.30 5.45
EG-F
12 31.33 5.05 36.08 1.92
EG
EG-M
13 28.46 3.55 35.00 1.63
EG-F
12 21.83 3.51 25.50 1.62
EG
EG-M
13 19.69 3.94 24.61 2.06
Checking
CG-F
8 18.12 2.23 19.00 2.20
CG
CG-M 13 20.07 4.46 19.61 2.81
EG-F
12 162.83 22.35 194.00 7.42
Total EG
EG-M 13 149.76 17.61 189.00 8.79
CG-F
8 162.50 19.94 157.75 15.83
CG
CG-M 13 153.53 25.22 157.30 14.03
EG-F; Experimental Group-Female, EG-M; Experimental Group-Male; CG-F; Control Group-Female; CG-M; Control Group- Male.