How hands on activities and use of simulations effect on student achievement in physics class?

User Generated

nureb

Science

Description

I need to write a literature review for my Research Literature class. " This class involves conducting a literature review on some topic in physics or physics education; the topic should not be too broad or too narrow. The literature review paper is the sole product of the class, and your grade is based on the paper, The literature review paper should be 20 pages long (double spaced, including plots and references). My topic is "How hands on activities and use of simulations effect on student achievement in physics class?" I attached one example which is provided by professor. I also attached one document which is helpful source to my topic.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1 Underrepresentation of Women in the U.S. Physics Secondary and Post-Secondary Classroom Angela Burke Texas A&M Commerce PHYS 595 – Research Literature Summer I 2016 Abstract. The gender gap is a systemic and cyclical issue in the United States, particularly as it pertains to women in physical science. The number of physics degrees being awarded to women is disproportionately low for science, even considering the gender gap. Within that gender gap is a further achievement gap for minority women who are underrepresented drastically in the physics classroom and in physics careers. This paper will examine the causes of and potential solutions to the gender gap in physics classes, both at the secondary and post-secondary level. The main trends discovered include underqualified physics teachers at the high school level, lowsocioeconomic schools offering fewer and less-advanced physics classes, and subtle negative messaging about women in science through the media and in schools. Solutions include creating a network of mentors and mentees in high school and at the university level, offering more opportunities to take physics, and encouraging positive and strong role models for young women in the field of physics. Closing these gaps is important for the future economic security of the United States. Diversity in the workplace has been shown to increase productivity and provide valuable insights from different perspectives.1 Unfortunately women, particularly women of color, are being left out of physics classrooms and research labs across the United States. In fact, this year marks the first year that a university in the US graduated more female engineering students than male student.2 This milestone shows that progress is being made, but much more work needs to be done, particularly in physics. While a dramatic gap appears between male and female enrollment in many STEM fields, one of the biggest gender gaps exists specifically in physics. B. Nelson, “The Data on Diversity”. Comm. Of The ACM, 57 (11), 86-95 (2014). F. Macdonald, “For the first time, a US college had more female engineering graduates than men,” Science Alert, 24 Jun 2016, http://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-first-time-a-us-college-just-graduated-more-womenin-engineering-than-men (26 Jun 2016). 1 2 2 Even though more than half of bachelor’s degrees in science are awarded to women, only 21% of bachelor’s degrees in physics were awarded to women in 2009, and the statistics remain about as bleak today.3 Physics, more than any other science, applies math, critical thinking, and analytical reasoning skills to real-world situations which are necessary skills for students to compete in a competitive global economy. The National Academy of Science describes in a 2007 report that the U.S. needs to “enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century.”4 Bridging the gender gap is not only ethically necessary, it is one way to make the U.S. stand out in the world once more. This paper will compile the research done about potential reasons for the underrepresentation of women and minority women in physics as well as examine suggested solutions to increasing gender and racial diversity among physics students. GLOBAL COMPARISONS In the 2015 Global Gender Gap Report, the United States was ranked 28 out of 145 countries in an overall comparison of gender equality in the economy, politics, education, and health & survival.5 This is down from just five years prior, when in 2010 the U.S. ranked 19 out of 134 countries. Interestingly, the educational gender gap (or lack thereof) put the U.S. at the #1 spot for educational equity from 2008 to 2013, until the U.S. took a nosedive to 39th and 40th place 3 L. Kost-Smith, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: The incremental effects of a smog of bias, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 6 (020112), 1-3 (2010). 4 National Academies of Science, Rising Above the Gatherings Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 109. 5 World Economic Forum, The Global Gender Gap Report 2015 (Geneva, Switzerland, 2015), pp. 306-307. 3 in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Curiously, although the U.S. was ranked well among other countries with respect to educational equity, the number of women in physics still remains low.6 Numerous studies cite the disparity between men and women in physics, both at an educational level and in careers.7 In fact, a 2013 Global Survey of Physicists found that women across the world have “fewer resources and opportunities and are more affected by cultural expectations”.8 This indicates that the gender gap prevails globally, however this paper focuses specifically on the United States. CAUSES OF UNDERREPRESENTATION Socioeconomic Factors & Race. One study carried out at the University of Colorado from fall 2004 to spring 2009 records enrollment in an introductory electricity and magnetism course. See Table 1 for a breakdown of the student population enrolled in that course over the given timeframe, and what seems to stand out is the disparity between the different recorded races, with a full 81.4% of enrolled students as white, but only 8% enrolled students identified as African American, Hispanic, or Native American combined.3 Interestingly, the gender gap is only observed among white students in this case. Slightly more females than males enrolled identified as African American, Asian, and Foreign, as well as equal amounts of males and females enrolled who identified as Native American and Hispanic. However, the gender and racial gap is clear: female underrepresented minorities only account for 2% of the program. 6 L. Kost-Smith, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 5, 010101 (2009). 7 K. Niss, B. Nordtrom, I. Bearden and M. Grage, Gender in physics in Denmark, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 94-95 (2013); M. Remskar et al., Women in physics in Slovenia, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 148-149 (2013); J. Arenzon, P. Duarte, S. Calvalcanti and M. Barbosa, Women and physics in Brazil: publications, citations and H index, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 78-79 (2013); K. El-Sayed, H. Hosny and S. Helmy, Women in physics in Egypt: challenges and progress, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 98-99 (2013). 8 R. Ivie, C. Tesfaye, R. Czujko and R. Chu, The Global Survey of Physicists: A collaborative effort illuminates the situation of women in physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 53 (2013). 4 This highlights a much bigger issue because the population of non-Asian racial minorities in the US in 2009 was estimated to be about 30.2%, and approximately 15% of the 2009 population were women of color,9 a ratio clearly not present in this program. TABLE 1. University of Colorado enrollment in second semester introductory physics from Fall 2004 to Spring 20093 While this is merely one university study, the research can be used as a snapshot of college demographics across the U.S. (Note: Asian populations are not taken into account as an underrepresented minority.) According to the Physics Teacher Education Coalition at Cornell University, “women are underrepresented by a factor of 2” while “African Americans and Latinos are underrepresented by a factor of 4 or more”.10 Intersecting both of these identities can lead to some dynamic internal United States Census Bureau, “Vintage 2009: National Tables,” Census.gov, 1 Jul 2009, https://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/ (17 Jun 2016). 10 Cornell University, “The Crisis in Physics Education,” Cornell University Physics Teacher Education Coalition, 2011, https://phystec.physics.cornell.edu/content/crisis-physics-education (18 Jun 2016). 9 5 conflicts because of the (mostly negative) messages that underrepresented minorities have been given throughout the “educational pipeline”11. This conflict is known as the double bind effect, as minority women experience both racism and sexism at a personal and systemic level, hindering their path to the STEM career of choice. More will be discussed about these negative messages later. A gender gap in achievement has been known to persist well into university level courses, however the gap in achievement can be attributed to physics and math preparedness coming into post-secondary physics courses and the attitudes and beliefs of incoming students.12 While some of the preparedness (or lack thereof) can be attributed to teacher unpreparedness (see the next section), the picture becomes clear when examining math and science courses offered at lower vs. higher socioeconomic secondary schools. The American Institute of Physics Statistical Research Center looked at the number of students enrolled in physics classes by socioeconomic status and difficulty of class for U.S. public high schools for the 2012-2013 school year and found that not only are “better off” schools enrolling more students in physics, these types of schools are enrolling students in more advanced physics classes, as compared to their “worse off” peers13 (see Figure 1). The results of this disparity can be seen in Figures 2 & 3. The disproportion between students attending better off vs. worse off schools in underrepresented minorities is obvious. While the percentage of Black and Hispanic students enrolled in a physics class is increasing, a clear gap persists between these underrepresented minorities and their fellow non-minority 11 L. Charleston, R. Adserias, N. Lang and J. Jackson, Intersectionality and STEM: the role of race and gender in the academic pursuits of African American women in STEM, J. Prog. Policy Prac. 2 (3), 275-282 (2014). 12 L. Kost, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, The persistence of the gender gap in introductory physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 139 (2008). 13 S. White, And the survey says…High school physics enrollments by socioeconomic status and type of class, Phys. Teach. 54, 17 (2016) 6 students. While the reason underrepresented minorities are often found in lower socioeconomic areas could fill libraries, it is sufficient here to note that there is a correlation. FIGURE 1. Number of students enrolled in physics classes by type of class and socioeconomic status in U.S. public high schools13 FIGURE 2. Percent of student by race or ethnicity and socioeconomic profile of the school for U.S. public high schools14 14 S. White, Socioeconomic factors affecting minority physics taking in U.S. high schools, Phys. Teach. 49, 472 (2011) 7 FIGURE 3. Proportion of students in each racial or ethnic group taking physics in U.S. high schools 15 Teacher Qualifications in Secondary Schools. While the availability of course offerings might be a contributing factor to the underrepresentation of women and minority women enrolled in secondary and post-secondary physics classes, perhaps even more jarring is the lack of qualification of some teachers in secondary physics and physical science classes. US News cited a 2008 study by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) which shows that “fewer than half of chemistry and physics teachers majored in those subjects” as compared to English, art, and music teachers who hold degrees in their subject 82%, 90% and 95% of the time, respectively.16 The article continues to explain that a 2007 report by the National Academies exposes the lack of qualifications at the middle school level: only about 10% of middle school physical science teachers hold a degree in their field or are even certified to teach their subject. Tom Luce, CEO 15 S. White, Black and Hispanic participation in high school physics still low, Phys. Teach. 49, 356 (2011) J. Koebler, “Many STEM Teachers Don’t Hold Certifications,” US News, 8 Jun 2011, http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/08/many-stem-teachers-dont-holdcertifications (17 Jun 2016). 16 8 of the National Math and Science Initiative sums up the significance of this finding, “That's when you lose a kid's interest. They don't even want to try in high school because they think, ‘I didn't like this in middle school.’” While both of these studies were conducted over a decade ago, these results do not show an improvement over the previous decade in teacher preparation, and have only minimally improved in the years since. The NCES revealed in a 2003 report that in the 1999-2000 school year, a whopping 93% of middle school physical science teachers held no major or certification in their subject and it only drops to 63% for high school teachers.17 Physics was the science with the highest number of unqualified teachers at 67% with no major or certification in their field. Fast-forward to the 2015 study by the NCES and the same rings true for the 2011-2012 year: only 7.1% of middle school physical science teachers held a degree in their subject area and were certified to teach physical science.18 At least by 2011-2012 the percent of teachers who were unqualified (no major or certification) dropped from 67% to 63% from the previous decade,19 but the numbers are still nothing of which to be proud. A strong correlation seems to be forming between unqualified teachers and a lack of students enrolling in post-secondary physics courses. The lack of qualified teachers at the high school level leads to students who may be “science-capable” but not confident in their ability10 to pursue physics at the college level. Indeed, students who came from an underwhelming high school physics program tend to struggle more at the college level, particularly women.3 More 17 National Academies of Science, Rising Above the Gatherings Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 114. 18 S. Baldi, C. Warner-Griffin and C. Tadler, Education and Certification Qualifications of Departmentalized Public Middle Grades Teachers of Selected Subjects: Evidence from the 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center for Educational Statistics, (Alexandria, VA, 2015), pp. 29. 19 J. Hill and C. Stearns, Education and Certification Qualifications of Departmentalized Public High SchoolLevel Teachers of Selected Subjects: Evidence from the 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center for Educational Statistics, (Alexandria, VA, 2015), pp. 29. 9 research needs to be done examining the strength of the correlation between students who are successful in post-secondary courses and whether they had a qualified physics teacher or not. Unintended Messages about Math and Science. Oftentimes, rhetoric that attempts to sound understanding ends up unintentionally displaying sexist and racist messages.20 One instance is the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia verbalizing the mismatch theory (the idea that disadvantaged students should have lower expectations) in December 2015 when he said, “There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school… a slower-track school where they do well.”21 Ask any woman and she will probably be able to give an example of when someone told her she could not achieve a goal simply because she was a woman. One example is when professor and self-proclaimed physicist Eileen Pollack tried to take physics and calculus in high school, and she was simply not allowed because she was told by her principal that “girls never go in science and math.”22 M. Bordanaro et al. conducted a survey as referenced by G. May and D. Chubin (2003) which noted that almost 70% of American adults claim to be interested in technology and science.23 However, this has not seemed to permeate into the media, as Pollack goes on to explain. Even one of the most popular television shows on primetime, The Big Bang Theory, portrays scientists poorly. The characters are mostly white (with the exception of Koothrappali who is an Indian male, but who does not escape negative racial comments on the show), and the two female 20 A. Johnson, Unintended consequences: how science professors discourage women of color, Sci. Ed. 91, 805 - 821 (2007). 21 D. MacIsaac, U.S. Supreme Court justices weigh in (ham-handedly) on race and equity in physics learning, Phys. Teach. 54, 126 (2016). 22 E. Pollack, “Why are there still so few women in science?”, The New York Times Magazine, 3 Oct 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html?_r=1 (17 Jun 2016) 23 G. May and D. Chubin, A Retrospective on Undergraduate Engineering Success for Underrepresented Minority Students, J. Eng. Educ., 92 (1), 27 (2003). 10 scientists are also subjected to stereotyping. For example, Penny is pretty but not-so-brainy, and the character Amy is socially awkward and dresses frumpily but, hey, she has her PhD! Because success in physics is often intrinsically tied to success in math, one of the possible reasons for the gender gap in physics is because math is “uncool.”24 One study by the American Mathematical Society concluded that the gender gap in mathematics “is not due to a lack of girls with profound intrinsic aptitude for mathematics; rather, it is due to their choosing to spend their free time on nonmathematical pursuits” because of the cultural implication that math is for “nerds”. This often alienates females who are naturally gifted in math because of the fear of having a lower social status. Within the realm of middle- and high-school physics, implicit biases sneak into the curriculum. As one physics teacher explains, when teachers discuss topics scientists responsible for those discoveries are also discussed. “The downside to this is that, whether we realize it or not, most of us implicitly communicate to students that scientists come from one demographic group—white male Europeans—and, crucially, not from others. Our students internalize that lesson.”25 Perhaps these unintended micro-messages add up in a short period of time, because one study shows that by the time students are in sixth grade, a gender gap in physical science already exists.26 Ultimately, the more a girl believes the stereotype that “women are less apt at physics than men”, the less her sense of belonging in physics.27 Simply acknowledging the fact that 24 T. Andreescu, J. Gallian, J. Kane and J. Mertz, Cross-cultural analysis of students with exceptional talent in mathematical problem solving, Not. AMS, 55 (10), 1256 (2008). 25 M. Rifkin, Addressing underrepresentation: physics teaching for all, Phys. Teach. 54, 72 (2016). 26 Z. Hazari, P. Sadler and G. Sonnert, The science identity of college students: exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity, J. College Sci. Teach. 42 (5), 83 (2013). 27 U. Kessels, A. Heyder, M. Latsch and B. Hannover, How gender differences in academic engagement relate to students’ gender identity, Ed. Res. 56 (2), 220-229 (2014); J. Stout, T. Ito, N. Finkelstein and S. Pollock, How a gender gap in belonging contributes to the gender gap in physics participation, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 404-405 (2013). 11 implicit bias exists about women and minorities in physics can actually reduce the effects of negative micro-messages.25 Further research should be conducted to examine minority women specifically and how the double bind effect might affect their perception of belonging in physics-related careers. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Recruitment & Retention in the Secondary Level. “Most leakage from the STEM career ‘pipeline’ occurs in high school and in the transition from high school to college”10 which is why recruiting young scientific minds is so important at the middle school and high school level. Unfortunately, effectively engaging young women in physics is significantly more challenging due to the drastically low number of teachers who are qualified to teach physics. One of the first steps that can be made to close the gender gap is to train and educate science teachers specifically in the area of physics. Pedagogical skills are also important in maintaining engagement, as not everyone learns the same way. Lecturing in the science class is no longer considered a best practice in any science class28, but specifically in the physics classroom evidence suggests that one way to close the gender gap is to allow more “active engagement” and structured discussions so that female students can process their thoughts more effectively.29 Providing real-world applications is not only an effective teaching strategy for high school students,28 but it can also be useful in retention of women in physics classes at the university level.2 Beyond the classroom, extra-curricular opportunities such as conferences and summer camps are important in encouraging young girls to pursue physics and other sciences.30 D. Baker, What works: using curriculum and pedagogy to increase girls’ interest and participation in science, Theory Pract. 52, 14-20 (2013). 29 M. Lorenzo, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006) 30 C. Spencer, Expanding girls’ horizons in physics and other sciences: a successful strategy since 1976, AIP Conf. Proc. 1697, 120015 (2015). 28 12 Mentorship and social networking opportunities for young girls in middle and high school would appear to be helpful in the retention of girls in STEM classes, but more research needs to be done on the effectiveness of such programs.31 Mentors can also be parents, so by educating parents about the benefits of enrolling in physics and other STEM classes, parents can better inform their children of their options. Indeed, a female student’s achievement in math was higher on average if the girl’s mother positively viewed her child’s math abilities.32 Recruitment & Retention at the Post-Secondary Level. While many of the issues in retaining females in science, particularly physics, can begin to be solved at the middle school and high school level, the efforts to maintain a strong female and minority population in physics programs must continue into post-secondary level. Because underrepresented minorities are often in a lower socioeconomic bracket (and the gender-based wage gap has been widely documented33), providing financial aid for college programs is not only intuitive, but it has shown to be effective in helping to increase minority participation in STEM programs.23, 34 It should be noted, however, that loans are not as effective as grants and scholarships as a recruitment tool. Once the student body population of females and women of color has increased at the postsecondary level, more issues need to be tackled. A recent study of African American (or otherwise identified as Black) women between the ages of 18-35 years old enrolled full-time in college exposed the factors which caused a student to consider withdrawing from the STEM program. These reasons included the consistent feeling of isolation compounded with seemingly little 31 S. Klein-Gardner, STEM summer institute increases student and parent understanding of engineering, ASEE Annual Conf. Exp., Paper ID #8493 (2014). 32 C. Leaper, T. Farkas and C. Brown, Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to the motivation in math/science and English, J. Youth Adol. 42, 268-282 (2012). 33 N. Caley, “Women and the Persisting Pay Gap,” ColoradoBiz, 43 (4) 50-55 (2016). 34 J. Tanaka and L. Gladney, Strategies for recruiting and retaining minorities in physics and biophysics, Biophys. J. 65, 552-558 (1993). 13 support from faculty.11 Clearly programs and departments promoting multiculturalism at the university level need to not only be present but be advertised and easily accessible. Said programs must also address the specific needs of the constituents, perhaps by being available in each discipline so students can feel connected with others leading to self-empowerment. Creating a network of support (see Figure 4) is an important solution to what is known as the “leaky pipeline.”35 Yet another possible solution for retaining females at the post-secondary level is to take into consideration the societal construct of parenting being the mother’s job and to anticipate that constraint as a possible reason why women withdraw from university programs.8, 11, 36 Offering childcare at the university level could alleviate some home life/work life strain allowing women to choose both career and family. FIGURE4. “Students create the weft of an inclusive female-friendly department culture”35 The Impact of Positive Role Models. The graduating class of Dartmouth produced more females than males in their engineering program, the first university in the U.S. known to have 35 B. Whitten, S. Foster and M. Duncombe, What works for women in undergraduate physics?, Phys. Today. 56 (9), 48-49 (2003). 36 L. Ko, R. Kachchaf, M. Ong and A. Hodari, Narratives of the double bind: intersectionality in life stories of women of color in physics, astrophysics and astronomy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513 (1) 222-225 (2013). 14 accomplished such an achievement. The Dean of the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth Joseph Helble explains that the change in enrollment the program came after “purposefully hiring female role models in engineering”2 and structuring the courses that female students do not feel so isolated. Helble says the school changed the program structure based off research that students who perceive themselves to be in the minority can become easily discouraged to continue participation in science and math programs.23 A sense of isolation by women in science fields, particularly male-dominated physics, could be curbed by introducing mentor programs.37 These mentor programs could be beneficial not only for the mentee but also the mentor. One study stemming from a National Science Foundation project discovered that participants, who are minority women in physics, astrophysics and astronomy, found a sense of belonging in being activists for increased diversity in STEM fields. The women “expressed the importance of seeing more scientists with a racial background similar to their own, and worked towards this ideal to encourage, and to improve conditions for, future generations.”36 One way that strong female role models in physics education can improve is simply within the demographics of most physics departments. The American Institute of Physics tracked the number of women in physics and astronomy departments across the U.S. from 2008 to 2012 and the results were astonishing (see Figure 5). Women only make up about 12% of the faculty in astronomy and physics departments, but there are only 73 non-Asian women of color employed as a faculty member in physics or astronomy departments in the entire United States.38 Without tangible results of women and minority women succeeding in academia, girls in middle and high 37 A. Borg and M. Sui, Attracting girls to physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517 (1) 35-37 (2013). R. Ivie, G. Anderson and S. White, “African Americans & Hispanics among Physics & Astronomy Faculty: Results from the 2012 Survey of Physics & Astronomy Degree-Granting Departments. Focus On,” Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics, 1 Jul 2014. 38 15 school may find little inspiration in the lack of role models and may turn to other subjects where women are more accepted. One of the perhaps most obvious but rather vague solutions to the gender gap is to develop social and cultural norms in schools and in the media which present physics learning as attainable by males and females equally.3 Classroom support can go a long way in encouraging students to pursue physics in college and as a career. FIGURE 5. Number of women in physics and astronomy departments by highest degree awarded, in 201238 CONCLUSION Unfortunately, many of the contributing factors to why females, specifically women of color, are consistently left out of physics programs in secondary and post-secondary levels seem to be part of a cyclical and systemic problem. Because there are so few women and minority 16 women in physics, others are dissuaded to join the profession. The disproportion of women and women of color in science fields, specifically physical sciences, as compared to the rest of the working force leaves much untapped potential waiting to help the U.S. compete in an increasingly multicultural global economy. Lack of teacher qualifications, lack of educational opportunities at a middle and high school level, and lack of support in the post-secondary level as well as in mainstream media are all contributing factors to why the U.S. has so few women and women of color enrolling in (or remaining enrolled in) physics classes. In order to access the vast reservoir of potential that is the diverse population of women interested in but not yet pursuing science, certain steps must be taken. Qualified teachers at the secondary level need to be recruited to start students’ interest in physics earlier, and more physics classes should be available to all socioeconomic levels. Simply making physics more available is not sufficient enough to engage young learners. Supportive programs at the university level should be developed which address the unique needs of women in a maledominated field, and positive role models and mentorships should be developed at all educational levels. Many questions remain, and these are but a few spokes of the wheel, but these cornerstones can perhaps allow the U.S. to close the gender gap allowing more women to make a mark on the field of physics. 17 REFERENCES 1. B. Nelson, “The Data on Diversity”. Comm. Of The ACM, 57 (11), 86-95 (2014). 2. F. Macdonald, “For the first time, a US college had more female engineering graduates than men,” Science Alert, 24 Jun 2016, http://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-first-time-a-us-collegejust-graduated-more-women-in-engineering-than-men (26 Jun 2016). 3. L. Kost-Smith, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: The incremental effects of a smog of bias, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 6 (020112), 1-3 (2010). 4. National Academies of Science, Rising Above the Gatherings Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 109. 5. World Economic Forum, The Global Gender Gap Report 2015 (Geneva, Switzerland, 2015), pp. 306-307. 6. L. Kost-Smith, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 5, 010101 (2009). 7. K. Niss, B. Nordtrom, I. Bearden and M. Grage, Gender in physics in Denmark, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 94-95 (2013); M. Remskar et al., Women in physics in Slovenia, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 148-149 (2013); J. Arenzon, P. Duarte, S. Calvalcanti and M. Barbosa, Women and physics in Brazil: publications, citations and H index, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 78-79 (2013); K. El-Sayed, H. Hosny and S. Helmy, Women in physics in Egypt: challenges and progress, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 98-99 (2013). 8. R. Ivie, C. Tesfaye, R. Czujko and R. Chu, The Global Survey of Physicists: A collaborative effort illuminates the situation of women in physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517, 53 (2013). 9. United States Census Bureau, “Vintage 2009: National Tables,” Census.gov, 1 Jul 2009, https://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/ (17 Jun 2016). 18 10. Cornell University, “The Crisis in Physics Education,” Cornell University Physics Teacher Education Coalition, 2011, https://phystec.physics.cornell.edu/content/crisis-physics-education (18 Jun 2016). 11. L. Charleston, R. Adserias, N. Lang and J. Jackson, Intersectionality and STEM: the role of race and gender in the academic pursuits of African American women in STEM, J. Prog. Policy Prac. 2 (3), 275-282 (2014). 12. L. Kost, S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, The persistence of the gender gap in introductory physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 139 (2008). 13. S. White, And the survey says…High school physics enrollments by socioeconomic status and type of class, Phys. Teach. 54, 17 (2016) 14. S. White, Socioeconomic factors affecting minority physics taking in U.S. high schools, Phys. Teach. 49, 472 (2011) 15. S. White, Black and Hispanic participation in high school physics still low, Phys. Teach. 49, 356 (2011) 16. J. Koebler, “Many STEM Teachers Don’t Hold Certifications,” US News, 8 Jun 2011, http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/08/many-stem-teachersdont-hold-certifications (17 Jun 2016). 17. National Academies of Science, Rising Above the Gatherings Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 114. 18. S. Baldi, C. Warner-Griffin and C. Tadler, Education and Certification Qualifications of Departmentalized Public Middle Grades Teachers of Selected Subjects: Evidence from the 201112 Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center for Educational Statistics, (Alexandria, VA, 2015), pp. 29. 19. J. Hill and C. Stearns, Education and Certification Qualifications of Departmentalized Public High School-Level Teachers of Selected Subjects: Evidence from the 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Survey, National Center for Educational Statistics, (Alexandria, VA, 2015), pp. 29. 19 20. A. Johnson, Unintended consequences: how science professors discourage women of color, Sci. Ed. 91, 805 - 821 (2007). 21. D. MacIsaac, U.S. Supreme Court justices weigh in (ham-handedly) on race and equity in physics learning, Phys. Teach. 54, 126 (2016). 22. E. Pollack, “Why are there still so few women in science?”, The New York Times Magazine, 3 Oct 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-womenin-science.html?_r=1 (17 Jun 2016) 23. G. May and D. Chubin, A Retrospective on Undergraduate Engineering Success for Underrepresented Minority Students, J. Eng. Educ., 92 (1), 27 (2003). 24. T. Andreescu, J. Gallian, J. Kane and J. Mertz, Cross-cultural analysis of students with exceptional talent in mathematical problem solving, Not. AMS, 55 (10), 1256 (2008). 25. M. Rifkin, Addressing underrepresentation: physics teaching for all, Phys. Teach. 54, 72 (2016). 26. Z. Hazari, P. Sadler and G. Sonnert, The science identity of college students: exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity, J. College Sci. Teach. 42 (5), 83 (2013). 27. U. Kessels, A. Heyder, M. Latsch and B. Hannover, How gender differences in academic engagement relate to students’ gender identity, Ed. Res. 56 (2), 220-229 (2014); J. Stout, T. Ito, N. Finkelstein and S. Pollock, How a gender gap in belonging contributes to the gender gap in physics participation, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 404-405 (2013). 28. D. Baker, What works: using curriculum and pedagogy to increase girls’ interest and participation in science, Theory Pract. 52, 14-20 (2013). 29. M. Lorenzo, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006) 30. C. Spencer, Expanding girls’ horizons in physics and other sciences: a successful strategy since 1976, AIP Conf. Proc. 1697, 120015 (2015). 20 31. S. Klein-Gardner, STEM summer institute increases student and parent understanding of engineering, ASEE Annual Conf. Exp., Paper ID #8493 (2014). 32. C. Leaper, T. Farkas and C. Brown, Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to the motivation in math/science and English, J. Youth Adol. 42, 268-282 (2012). 33. N. Caley, “Women and the Persisting Pay Gap,” ColoradoBiz, 43 (4) 50-55 (2016). 34. J. Tanaka and L. Gladney, Strategies for recruiting and retaining minorities in physics and biophysics, Biophys. J. 65, 552-558 (1993). 35. B. Whitten, S. Foster and M. Duncombe, What works for women in undergraduate physics?, Phys. Today. 56 (9), 48-49 (2003). 36. L. Ko, R. Kachchaf, M. Ong and A. Hodari, Narratives of the double bind: intersectionality in life stories of women of color in physics, astrophysics and astronomy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513 (1) 222-225 (2013). 37. A. Borg and M. Sui, Attracting girls to physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1517 (1) 35-37 (2013). 38. R. Ivie, G. Anderson and S. White, “African Americans & Hispanics among Physics & Astronomy Faculty: Results from the 2012 Survey of Physics & Astronomy Degree-Granting Departments. Focus On,” Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics, 1 Jul 2014. SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHER CLASS MANAGEMENT, LABORATORY PRACTICE, STUDENT ENGAGEMENT, CRITICAL THINKING, COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND USE OF SIMULATIONS EFFECTS ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE W A dissertation submitted by PR EV IE Muhammad Riaz Submitted in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree o f Doctor o f Education at Dowling College, School o f Education, Department o f Educational Administration, Leadership, and Technology Dowling College Oakdale, New York 2015 ProQuest Number: 10140013 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. W In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. PR EV IE ProQuest Que ProQuest 10140013 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 for (lie degree of Doctor of Education is approved W mhmiiUmti, Ed.D. IE Robert Manley, Ph.D. Design Specialist PR EV F«nasn\f nmschwig, Ph.D.. Committee Member ( Stephanie, L, Tatum, Ph.D Reader Richard J. M iter. PhD Dowling College Oakdale, New York 2015 ABSTRACT The purpose o f this study was to examine how simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and use o f simulations predicted the percentage o f students achieving a grade point average o f B or higher and their academic performance as reported by teachers in secondary school physics classes. The target population consisted o f secondary school physics teachers who were members o f Science Technology, Engineeering and,Mathematics Teachers o f New York City (STEMteachersNYC) and American W Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA). They used simulations in their physics IE classes in the 2013 and 2014 school years. Subjects for this study were volunteers. A survey was constructed based on a literature review. Eighty-two physics teachers PR EV completed the survey about instructional practice in physics. All respondents were anonymous. Classroom management was the only predictor o f the percent o f students achieving a grade point average o f B or higher in high school physics class. Cooperative learning, use o f simulations, and student engagement were predictors o f teacher’s views o f student academic performance in high school physics class. All other variables - class management, laboratory practice, critical thinking, and teacher self-efficacy - were not predictors o f teacher’s views o f student academic performance in high school physics class. The implications o f these findings were discussed and recommendations for physics teachers to improve student learning were presented. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Bashira Bibi, who left her school in class one because o f her mother’s death. She supported my education throughout her life. Thank you, Mother, for the many sacrifices you made to ensure that I received the best education in the United States. I dedicate this dissertation to my late father, Muhammad Din, brother Muhammad Shahbaz, and three jewels in my crown, my lovely daughter, Tayyba, and sons, Talha and Salam. I also dedicate this dissertation to my teachers: Mr. Ghulam Abbas, my class one W teacher who changed my life from a shepherd to an educator. Mr. Fiqar Ahmed who IE taught me mathematics in high school, James Wile who encouraged me to apply for a scholarship in doctoral studies, and Frances Schauss, who supported me for academic PR EV writing throughout my doctoral studies. V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks go to the professors who assisted me throughout the dissertation process. Dr. Elsa-Sofia Morote, my dissertation chair, helped to move this study forward. Her unwavering commitment to both this study and to me helped to make this dissertation possible. Without her patience, guidance, and support this work might not have been possible. Dr. Robert Manley, my design specialist, helped to design a survey tool and ensured that the statistical analysis conducted in this paper was on point. Dr. Manley always made himself available in dissertation seminar writing and offered much W support for this scholarship. Dr. Richard Walter and Dr. Stephanie L. Tatum served as IE readers and offered helpful comments and suggestions throughout this process. Dr. Fernand Brunnchwig, Chairman, STEM Teachers New York affiliated with American PR EV Modeling Teachers Association, supported me in my data collection and offered helpful comments and suggestion TABLE OF CONTENTS D E D IC A T IO N ........................................................................................................................................ iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ xiii CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1 W Computer Simulations...................................................................................................4 IE Student Engagement...................................................................................................... 5 Cooperative Learning.....................................................................................................5 PR EV Classroom Management................................................................................................ 6 Critical Thinking............................................................................................................ 6 Teaching Efficacy.......................................................................................................... 7 Purpose o f the Study...................................................................................................... 7 Statement o f the Problem.............................................................................................. 8 Research Questions........................................................................................................ 8 Research Question One.................................................................................... 8 Research Question T w o................................................................................... 8 Research Question Three................................................................................. 9 Research Question Four................................................................................... 9 Research Question F iv e................................................................................... 9 Definition o f Major Variables and Terms...................................................................9 vii Class Management.......................................................................................... 10 Student Engagement.......................................................................................10 Critical Thinking............................................................................................. 10 Cooperative Learning......................................................................................11 Teachers’ View o f Student Achievement....................................................11 Physics Laboratory Practice...........................................................................11 Simulations in Physics C lass.........................................................................12 Use o f Simulations.......................................................................................... 12 W Teacher Self-Efficacy.....................................................................................12 IE Conceptual Rationale...................................................................................................13 Significance o f the Study............................................................................................ 15 PR EV Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitation............................................................16 Limitations....................................................................................................... 16 Delimitations....................................................................................................16 CHAPTER II.............................................................................................................................. 17 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH LITERATURE.................................................................17 Computer Simulations.................................................................................................18 Simulations in Physics Classroom............................................................................. 19 Use o f Simulations.......................................................................................................20 Presentation Methods in Simulations........................................................................ 24 Classroom Management.............................................................................................. 31 Student Engagement....................................................................................................33 Cooperative Learning...................................................................................................34 viii Critical Thinking.......................................................................................................... 38 Laboratory Practice......................................................................................................43 Teacher Self-Efficacy..................................................................................................51 Student Academic Achievement................................................................................ 54 Summary....................................................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER III............................................................................................................................60 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY............................................................... 60 Introduction................................................................................................................... 60 W Setting............................................................................................................................60 IE Selection o f Subjects....................................................................................................60 Instrumentation............................................................................................................ 61 PR EV Content Validity.............................................................................................. 63 Construct Validity...........................................................................................63 Reliability......................................................................................................... 63 Data Gathering Techniques.........................................................................................64 Data Analysis................................................................................................................65 Research Questions.........................................................................................65 Research Question One................................................................... 65 Research Question T w o.................................................................. 65 Research Question Three................................................................ 65 Research Question Four.................................................................. 66 Research Question F iv e .................................................................. 66 CHAPTER IV ............................................................................................................................67 ix DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.................................................................................. 67 Introduction................................................................................................................... 67 Research Question One............................................................................................... 69 Research Question T w o.............................................................................................. 70 Research Question Three............................................................................................ 73 Research Question Four.............................................................................................. 75 Research Question F ive.............................................................................................. 77 Step One........................................................................................................... 77 W Step T w o.......................................................................................................... 79 IE Summary........................................................................................................................81 CHAPTER V .............................................................................................................................83 PR EV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................... 83 Introduction................................................................................................................... 83 Summary........................................................................................................................84 Research Question One.................................................................................. 84 Research Question T w o................................................................................. 87 Research Question Three...............................................................................89 Research Question Four................................................................................. 90 Research Question F iv e................................................................................. 91 Recommendations........................................................................................................ 93 Recommendations for Future Research....................................................................97 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................99 Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. I l l X Survey Form............................................................................................................................111 Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 121 invitation to participate...........................................................................................................121 Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 122 Reliability: Simulations effects on students Physics Class.............................................. 122 Appendix D .............................................................................................................................. 123 Reliability: Use o f simulation................................................................................................123 Appendix E .............................................................................................................................. 124 W Reliability: Classroom Management.....................................................................................124 IE Appendix F................................................................................................................................126 Reliability: Laboratory Practice............................................................................................ 126 PR EV Appendix G .............................................................................................................................. 127 Reliability: Student Engagement.......................................................................................... 127 Appendix H .............................................................................................................................. 128 Reliability Statistics: Critical Thinking Minus 38 Minus 3 6 ............................................ 128 Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................129 Reliability: Cooperative Learning Minus 4 3 .......................................................................129 Appendix J ................................................................................................................................131 Student Performance............................................................................................................... 131 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 2 .1 ....................................................................................................................................... 49 Laboratory Instructional Styles..................................................................................................49 Table 3 .1 .......................................................................................................................................62 Survey Instrument Dimensions and Items............................................................................... 62 Table 3 .2 .......................................................................................................................................64 Revised Survey Dimensions - Reliability Coefficients......................................................... 64 Table 4 .1 ....................................................................................................................................... 68 W Number o f Years Using Simulations in C lass.........................................................................68 IE Table 4 .2 ....................................................................................................................................... 68 Use o f Simulation in Physics C lass.......................................................................................... 68 PR EV Table 4 .3 ....................................................................................................................................... 69 Gender o f STEMteachersNYC andAMTA Respondents.....................................................69 Table 4 .4 ....................................................................................................................................... 69 Physics Teachers Mean Scores..................................................................................................69 Table 4 .5 ....................................................................................................................................... 71 Distribution o f Correlation Coefficients (Hemphill, 2 0 0 3 ).................................................. 71 Table 4 .6 ....................................................................................................................................... 72 Correlations with Student Academic Performance and Variables........................................72 Table 4 .7 ....................................................................................................................................... 74 Correlations with students GPA greater than B....................................................................... 74 Table 4 .8 ....................................................................................................................................... 78 Regression Model: Percentage o f Students Achieving a Grade Point Average o f B or Higher............................................................................................................................................78 Table 4 .9 ....................................................................................................................................... 78 ANOVA: Percentage o f Students Achieving a Grade Point Average o f B or Higher 78 Table 4 .1 0 ..................................................................................................................................... 78 Regression Coefficient: Percentage o f Students Achieving a Grade Point Average o f B or Better..............................................................................................................................................78 Table 4 .1 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 79 Regression Model: Student Performance in High School Physics Class............................. 79 W Table 4 .1 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 80 IE ANOVA: Student performance in high school physics class................................................ 80 Table 4 .1 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 80 PR EV Regression Coefficient: Performance in high school physics class......................................80 xiii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1. Conceptual framework for academic performance......................................15 FIGURE 2.1. Student attitude toward practical work..........................................................44 FIGURE 2.2. Information processing model o f learning................................................... 47 PR EV IE W FIGURE 4.1. Structural equation model for teacher views o f student performance 75 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Physics education was a national priority o f many countries because their future economic prosperity was closely linked with student success in science and technology. (Miller, Michalski, & Stevens, 2012). Carl (1980) stated that: IE W It [science] is not perfect. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool. We have, self-correcting, ongoing, [and] applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised, (p. 333) Knapp (1997) urged researchers to explore the contexts and processes intervening PR EV between reform initiatives and actual practice in school physics classrooms. How could the physics class become a place where students were encouraged to find their answers and draw their conclusions? Collis and Moonen (2001) suggested [that] engaged students in physics classroom shared ideas where learning on the spot took place, where self-confidence was built and exercised, and where personal interactions with others were nurtured and developed. In 2009, Carpenter argued that science was a reality and must be taught in the concrete world. In the teaching system in 2015, the physics classroom was one o f the most underutilized resources in teaching and learning instead o f being the engine o f conceptual understanding o f physics. This trend led to rote learning and a majority o f students did not have the deep understanding o f foundational physics. Mazur (2014) argued that a classroom was a place where learning was actually accomplished and time 2 was not misused. Class time was a valuable asset for future knowledge and skills, but how often did we stop to think about it and how was it being used? He posed the following questions: Should class activities merely transmit information that was already printed in the student’s textbook and electronic media? Did our students actually learn during class, or did they simply record everything we said, hoping somehow to understand the material later? Are large lectures stimulating inactiveness, sleep-inducing or both in the physics teaching classroom? The most important single indicator influencing learning was what the learner W already knew (Ausubel, 1963). West and Frensham (1974) suggested that meaningful IE learning occured when the learner's appropriate existing knowledge interacted with the new learning. Rote learning occured when no such interaction took place. Robinson PR EV (1969) pointed out a number o f causes o f rote learning: (a) thoughts which were not clear in the human brain, resulted in rote learning, (b) the material to be learned lacked logical meaning, (c) the learner lacked the relevant ideas in his own cognitive structure, (d) the individual lacked a meaningful learning disposition to link new concepts, and propositions, and examples, to prior knowledge and experience. Kelly, Bradley, and Gratch (2008) stated that “learning is often reduced to students’ passivity while the teachers become the content messenger, pouring knowledge into the empty vessel” (p. 2). In 2015, the focal issue for educators and policymakers was that students had lost interest in physics as a major subject (Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003). Wieman and Perkins (2005) commented that educators and policymakers needed to ask themselves how they were educating all students in science and especially in physics class. Wieman (2008) indicated that traditional science teaching was almost ineffective in developing 3 expert thinking about physics laboratory work. After recieving 17 years o f successful science education, physics graduate students came into the laboratory clueless about the experimental work o f physics and after conducting research for two to four years, they worked as practiced physicists (Wieman, 2008). Perkins, Beale, Pollock, and Wieman (2011) asked three questions for educators and policy makers: (a) what should students leam, (b) what were they learning, and (c) how could teaching be changed to improve student learning? To change instruction in physics class, Brown (2006) suggested a number o f W powerful instruments and simulation models that could be remotely accessed by learning IE communities, both in and out o f the classroom under the guidance o f the teacher. Three main objectives o f integrating computer simulations into physics education were: (a) PR EV becoming familiar with when, how, and why computer simulations had been used, (b) exploring different ways o f using them in teaching; and (c) using research findings around simulations to guide that use in class. Computer simulations were effective for teaching and learning physics because they gave students the opportunity to observe a real world experience and interactions between teachers and students. A large and growing body o f literature supported the effectiveness o f simulations in teaching and learning. Computer simulations were o f special importance in physics teaching and learning. Simulations were new educational environments which aimed to enhance teachers' instructional potentialities and to facilitate students' active engagement (Jimoyiannis & Komis, 2001). Simulations contributed to conceptual change (Zietsman, 1986; Stieff, 2003); provided open-ended experiences for students (Sadler et al. 1999); provided tools for scientific inquiry (Mintz, 4 1993; White & Frederiksen, 2000; Windschitl, 2000; Dwyer & Lopez, 2001) and problem-solving experiences (Woodward et al., 133 1988;Howse, 1998). Computer simulations were developed and used to support and promote conceptual understanding o f physics phenomena (Kelly, Bradley, & Gratch, 2008). Computer Simulations Choi and Gennnaro (1987) found that computer simulations were more effective than hands-on experiments. The computer simulations replaced hands-on experiments such as the relationship between volume and displacement in an experiment. W Combinations o f simulations with experimental work reduced the time o f laboratory IE practice and provided slightly better knowledge to students (Kennepohl, 2001). Gorrell and Downing (1989) found that computer simulations were best at helping students learn PR EV to analyze classroom behaviors for solving problems. They divided the students in four groups: computer simulation group, extended-instruction group, problem solving group, and control group.The computer simulation group was the only group to show significantly higher level o f performance on the total measure over the control group. Hsu and Thomas (2002) conducted the mountain simulation experiment in which students analyzed the effects o f a mountain lifting the air on the windward side and lowering the air on the leeward side for different dimensions o f the air. They found that computer simulations were best for student understanding o f the phenomenon. Sahin (2006) stated that computer simulations could be supportive tools for classroom instruction and laboratory practice because students interacted and watched a real world experience through them. For highly interesting laboratory experiments, computer simulation could be used in 2 or 3-dimensional shapes (Sahin, 2006). Sahin (2006) asked 5 can simulations be as actual as a schematic laboratory or exchange it? Can greater classroom management, student engagement, cooperative learning, critical thinking, selfefficacy, and laboratory expriences result in higher levels o f student achievement? Numerous researchers attempted to find relationships among class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, teacher self efficacy, and high student achievement in high school physics teachers' classes. Student Engagement Student engagement was an important component to motivate students in learning W experiences and willingness to attempt continuous effort (Blumenfeld, Kempler, & IE Krajcik, 2006; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011). Walker, Green, and Mansel (2006) suggested that students’ engagement was a predictor o f students’ achievement and performance in a PR EV number o f environments. The teacher engaged students to work as scientists as they analyzed data and created a theory and hypotheses. For this, the teachers adopted a specific form o f teaching, thinking via web-based computer simulation which were available and approachable through internet access (Abdullah & Shariff, 2008). Cooperative Learning Cooperative learning was an instructional technique in which students worked together in designed small groups to achieve shared goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Slavin (1995) argued that the achievement effects o f cooperative learning had taken place in all major subjects, at all grade levels, in all types o f schools in many countries. Both field studies and laboratory studies had produced a great deal o f knowledge about the effects o f many types o f cooperative interventions and the mechanisms responsible for these effects. Slavin (1983) found that cooperative learning affected student achievement 6 when students worked in small groups and read academic materials in classrooms. Johnsen (2009) explored cooperative learning groups and whether working in groups changed students’ individual achievement.He found that there was no real change in students’ individual achievement. Classroom Management Allen (1986) investigated classroom management from the perspective o f high school students and found that from the student's perspective, effective classroom management involved clear communication o f behavioral and academic expectations, as W well as a cooperative learning environment. Taylor (2009) stated that classroom IE management was one o f the greatest concerns o f teachers and administrators when addressing the safety and well-being o f students. Classroom management ranked at or PR EV near the top for beginning teachers as a general concern. Classroom instruction affected student achievement more than anything else, and one could not have quality classroom instruction without quality classroom management skills (Taylor,2009). Critical Thinking Critical thinking was defined many ways by many different scholars (Aretz, Bolen, & Debereux, 1997; Burbach, Matkin, & Fritz, 2004). However, it was universally accepted that critical thinking was the process o f purposeful thinking, which encompassed interpreting and understanding, analyzing, drawing inferences, evaluating, explaining, and self-regulation o f and pertaining to concepts, issues, questions, and problems (Facione, 1998; Scriven & Paul, 2003). The ability to think critically influenced one’s worldview and approach to life and learning. McPeck (1981) described critical thinking as the tendency and skill to engage in an activity with reflective 7 skepticism. “Critical thinking is a technique in which students are encouraged to find their own answers and draw their own conclusions” (McPeck, p. 170). Teaching Efficacy As defined by Bandura (1977), self-efficacy was “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce outcomes” (p. 193). Teacher efficacy was a simple idea with major implications. A teacher’s efficacy belief was a judgment o f his or her capabilities to bring about the desired outcomes o f student engagement and learning, even among those students who were difficult or unmotivated W (Armor et al., 1976; Bandura, 1977). This judgment had powerful effects. Teacher’s IE sense o f efficacy was related to student outcomes such as achievement (Armor et al., 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992), students’ own PR EV sense o f efficacy (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988). In addition, teachers' selfefficacy beliefs related to their behavior in the classroom. Efficacy affected the efforts they invested in teaching, the goals they set, and their levels o f aspiration. Teachers with a strong sense o f efficacy tended to exhibit greater levels o f planning and organization (Allinder, 1994). They were more open to new ideas and were more willing to experiment with new methods to meet the needs o f their students better (Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977; Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988). Purpose o f the Study The purpose o f this study was to examine how simulations in physics class, classroom management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and use o f simulations predicted student academic performance as reported by teachers in secondary school physics classes. 8 Additionaly, how simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, and cooperative learning, teacher selfefficacy predicted the percent o f students achieving a grade point average o f B or higher as reported by teachers in secondary school physics classes. The target population consisted o f members o f the Science Technology, Engineeering and,Mathematics Teachers o f New York City (STEMteachersNYC) and American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA) who used simulations from 2013 to 2014 in their physics classes. W Statement o f the Problem IE How did simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning moderated by teacher self- PR EV efficacy and mediated by uses o f simulations predict student academic performance and percent o f students achieving a grade point average o f B or higher in high school physics class as reported by the teachers in secondary school physics classes? Research Questions The following research questions guided this study. Research Question One How do high school physics teachers describe the use o f simulations in physics class, classroom management, laboratory practice, students’ engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, teacher efficacy, teacher views o f student performance and percentage o f students with a grade point average o f B or higher? Research Question Two What relationships exist among high school physics teachers' descriptions o f their 9 students academic performance and uses o f simulations in physics class, classroom management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and teachers’ efficacy and teachers’ view o f student academic performance? Research Question Three What relationships exist among high school physics teachers’ descriptions o f their uses o f simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and teacher self-efficacy, the use o f simulation in class, and the percentage o f students achieving a grade point average o f B W or higher? IE Research Question Four How do the use o f simulation mediate the effects o f simulations in physics class, PR EV class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and teacher self-efficacy on student academic performance? Research Question Five How do high school physics teachers’ descriptions o f their uses o f simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and teacher self-efficacy predict teachers’ views o f student performance and percentage o f students achieving a grade point average o f B or higher? Definition o f Major Variables and Terms For the purpose o f this research study, the following terms and meanings were used throughout this dissertation. 10 Class Management While a variety o f definitions o f the term classroom management were suggested, the definition first suggested by Evertson and Weinstein (2006) was used by this study who recognized it as “the actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates both academic and social-emotional learning” (p. 4). Evertson and Weinstein suggested three actions for classroom management: (a) actions taken before students’ arrival to prepare the physical, social, and instructional space students would enter, (b) preparation for interactions with students once they arrived considered the emerging W relationships with and instruction o f a class o f students; (c) anticipating reactions to emerging difficulties. IE students’ misbehavior by preparing consistent, productive, and instructional responses to PR EV Student Engagement Students’ engagement was an important element to motivate students in learning experiences and willingness to endeavor continuous effort (Blumenfeld, Kempler, & Krajcik, 2006; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011). Walker et al. (2006) suggested that student engagement was a predictor o f students’ performance in a number o f environments. The engagement premise is straightforward and easily understood: the more students study a subject, the more they know about it, and the more students practice and get feedback from faculty and staff members on their writing and collaborative problem solving, the deeper they come to understand what they are learning and the more adept they become at managing complexity, tolerating ambiguity, and working with people from different backgrounds or with different views. (Kuh, 2009, p. 5) Critical Thinking Critical thinking was the process o f purposeful thinking that encompassed interpreting and understanding, analyzing, drawing inferences, evaluating, explaining,
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Here you go, this was a rather large paper consisting of 24 pages in length. Please review and let me know if you need any revisions!

Simulations Effect on Student Achievement in Physics Class
Literature Review
Instructor
Class
Date
Name

Numerous understudies think and say, "Physics is troublesome" (Ornek, 2008).
Educators have been endeavoring to research understudies' contemplations and difficulties
on physical thoughts and methods all through the past a quarter century (Driver, Guesne, and
Tiberghien, 1985; Goldberg and Nidderer, 1991). Redish (1994) inspected why understudies
portray material science as troublesome: material science as a train obliges learners to utilize
an assortment of techniques for comprehension and to make an interpretation of from one to
alternate words, tables of numbers, charts, conditions, outlines and guide to different types
of clarifications.
Physics in science requires the capacity to utilize polynomial math and geometry and
to go from the particular to the general and back. This makes learning material science,
especially troublesome for some understudies (p. 801). Angell and Isnes (2004) studied the
perspectives of secondary school understudies and material science instructors about
material science trouble. They revealed that understudies discovered material science
troublesome on the grounds that they needed to fight with various portrayals, for example,
examinations, recipes and estimations, charts, and theoretical clarifications in the meantime.
Besides, they needed to make changes among them. For instance, understudies must have
the capacity to exchange from graphical portrayals to scientific portrayals. Wieman and
Perkins (2005) remarked that instructors and policymakers must ask themselves how they
are demonstrating understudies in material science classes.
Wieman (2008) called attention to that conventional science instructing is practically
inadequate to create master considering material science research facility work. Wieman
expressed that "in the wake of having 17 years of viable science guideline, material science
graduate understudies come into the lab unmindful in regards to the trial work of material

science and in the wake of driving investigation 2 to 4 years, they fill in as physicists"
(Wieman, (2008). Chasteen, Perkins, Beale, Pollock and Weiman (2011) approached three
inquiries for teachers and strategy creators: (a) what ought to understudy realize? (b) What
are they learning? (c) How can instructing be changed to enhance understudy learning?
Chestnut (2006) recommended various intense instruments and recreation models
that can be remotely gotten to by the learning groups, both all through the classroom under
the direction of the educator. This is to change the direction in a material science class. He
trusted that for better learning educators ought to coordinate PC recreation in learning
material science. Hands-on learning recreations are effective to instruct and learning material
science since they allow understudies to watch an authentic difficulty and have associations
among teachers and understudies. A vast and developing assemblage of writing has bolstered
the adequacy of recreations in educating and learning. PC reenactments are of exceptional
significance in material science educating and learning.
Reproductions are new instructive conditions, which plan to improve educators'
instructional possibilities and to encourage understudies' dynamic engagement (Jimoyiannis
and Komis, 2001). Simulations can contribute to conceptual change (Zietsman, 1986; Stieff,
2003); provide open-ended experiences for students (Sadler & Scott, 2007); provide tools for
scientific inquiry (Mintz, 1993); White & Frederiksen, 2000; Windschitl, 2000; Dwyer &
Lopez, 2001) and problem solving experiences (Woodward et al., 1988; Howse, 1998).
Hand’s on experiments have been developed and used to support and promote conceptual
understanding of physics phenomena (Kelly, Bradley, & Gratch, 2008).
Various analysts have found that recreations are upgraded understudies'
accomplishment (Steinberg, 2000; Stieff and Wilenskey, 2003; Zacharia, 2003; Sethi, 2005;

Adegoke and Chukwunenye 2013). All the more as of late, studies showed a solid connection
amongst reenactments and understudy accomplishment in the classroom. Adegoke and
Chukwunenye (2013) directed exploratory research in the secondary school material science
class. They found that understudies who utilized both the PC recreated investigations and
hands-on tests performed best among the three gatherings.
Understudies in the hands-on investigation bunch just performed inadequately in
manipulative aptitudes in viable material science applications on the material science
accomplishment test. They inferred that hands-on analyses improved understudy
accomplishment in material science for the down to earth test and the physical science
accomplishment test which was like discoveries of Steinberg (2000); Stieff and Wilenskey
(2003); Zacharia (2003) and Sethi (2005). Bayrak (2008) reached a similar conclusion and
reported that the students involved in experimental groups that had the instruction through
the hand’s on experiments were more successful than the students who had a face to face
instruction during a lecture method.
Understudies engagement is an essential calculate to inspire understudies learning
encounters and eagerness to endeavor ceaseless exertion (Blumenfeld, Kempler, & Krajcik,
2006; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011). Walker, Green, and Mansel (2006) suggested that student
engagement is a predictor of students’ performance in a number of environments. The teacher
should engage students to work as scientists do as they analyze data and create theory and
hypotheses.
Basic speculation is a system in which understudies are urged to locate their own
answers and make their own determinations. It is generally acknowledged that basic
deduction is the procedure of intentional imagining that includes deciphering and

understanding, dissecting, drawing surmisings, assessing, clarifying, and self-control of and
relating to ideas, issues, inquiries, and issues (Facione, 1998; Scriven and Paul, 2003). The
capacity to think basically impacts one's perspective and way to deal with life and learning.
McPeck (1981) depicted basic thinking as the inclination and expertise to participate in
movement with intelligent wariness." Agreeable learning is an instructional strategy in which
understudies cooperate in planned little gatherings to accomplish shared objectives (Johnson
and Johnson, 1989).
Slavin (1995) battled that the achievement effects of pleasing learning have happened
in each and every noteworthy subject, at all survey levels, in an extensive variety of schools
in various countries. Both field studies and lab considers have made a great deal of finding
out about the effects of many sorts of supportive intercessions and about the instruments
accountable for these effects. Slavin (1983) found that pleasing learning impacts understudy
achievement in which understudies work in little social occasions to examine academic
materials in classrooms. Johnsen (2009) researched supportive learning packs and whether
working in social affairs changed understudies' individual achievement.
In 2009, Carpenter argued that science is reality...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags