Investigation of Learning Behaviors and Achievement of Simple Pendulum for Vocational High School Students with Ubiquitous-Physics App
More details
Hide details
Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology, National Central University, Jhongli City, TAIWAN
Online publish date: 2018-05-11
Publish date: 2018-05-11
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(7):2877–2893
In this study, Ubiquitous-Physics was designed and proposed for facilitating students to learn simple pendulum concepts. U-Physics can facilitate collecting experimental data and drawing the corresponding graphs during the experiment, whereby students can focus on how to interpret graphs and solve problems through applying formulas. The participants were second grade female vocational high school students who are fewer interests in physics, while hopefully using U-Physics in the physical experiment can motivate their interests and help their learning in physics. The findings showed that significant correlations existed among hypothesis-making, interpreting graphs, applying formulas, conclusion-making, conceptual understanding, and post-test. After an in-depth investigation, we found that interpreting graphs and conceptual understanding were the two most important factors to affect learning achievement. Additionally, students perceived that U-Physics was beneficial to their physics learning.
1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131-152.
2. Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62(8), 750-762.
3. Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in US and Chinese students’ mathematical problem solving and problem posing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 401-421.
4. Chung, J., & Tan, F. B. (2004). Antecedents of perceived playfulness: an exploratory study on user acceptance of general information-searching websites. Information & Management, 41(7), 869-881.
5. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8.
6. De Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research, 107-128.
7. DeWindt-King, A., & Goldin, G. (2003). Children’s visual imagery: Aspects of cognitive representation in solving problems with fractions. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1-42.
8. Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice. Journal of research in science teaching, 28(9), 839-858.
9. Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F., & Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76(6), 615-652.
10. Etkina, E., Murthy, S., & Zou, X. (2006). Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design. American journal of Physics, 74(11), 979-986.
11. Fortus, D. (2009). The importance of learning to make assumptions. Science Education, 93(1), 86-108.
12. Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in mathematics Education, 124-158.
13. Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer assisted language learning, 27(1), 70-105.
14. Greca, I. M., & de Ataíde, A. R. P. (2017). The Influence of Epistemic ViewsEpistemic views About the Relationship between Physics and Mathematics in Understanding Physics Concepts and Problem Solving. Key Competences in Physics Teaching and Learning (pp. 55-64): Springer.
15. Huffaker, D. (2004). Spinning yarns around the digital fire: Storytelling and dialogue among youth on the Internet. First Monday, 9(1).
16. Hwang, W. Y., Chen, N. S., Shadiev, R., & Li, J. S. (2011). Effects of reviewing annotations and homework solutions on math learning achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1016-1028.
17. Hwang, W.-Y., Chen, H. S., Shadiev, R., Huang, R. Y.-M., & Chen, C.-Y. (2014). Improving English as a foreign language writing in elementary schools using mobile devices in familiar situational contexts. Computer assisted language learning, 27(5), 359-378.
18. Hwang, W.-Y., Chen, N.-S., Dung, J.-J., & Yang, Y.-L. (2007). Multiple Representation Skills and Creativity Effects on Mathematical Problem Solving using a Multimedia Whiteboard System. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2).
19. Hwang, W.-Y., Huang, Y.-M., Shadiev, R., Wu, S.-Y., & Chen, S.-L. (2014). Effects of using mobile devices on English listening diversity and speaking for EFL elementary students. Australasian journal of educational technology, 30(5).
20. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of educational psychology, 92(1), 126.
21. Kiernan, P. J., & Aizawa, K. (2004). Cell phones in task based learning-Are cell phones useful language learning tools? ReCALL, 16(1), 71-84.
22. Kim, P., Suh, E., & Song, D. (2015). Development of a design-based learning curriculum through design-based research for a technology-enabled science classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 575-602.
23. Kim, S.-y., & Kim, M.-r. (2012). Kolb’s learning styles and educational outcome: Using Digital Mind Map as a study tool in Elementary English class. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 6(1), 4-13.
24. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive science, 12(1), 1-48.
25. Kohl, P. B., Rosengrant, D., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(1), 010108.
26. Larkin, J. H., & Reif, F. (1979). Understanding and teaching problem‐solving in physics. European journal of science education, 1(2), 191-203.
27. Lee, K. M., Nicoll, G., & Brooks, D. W. (2004). A comparison of inquiry and worked example web-based instruction using physlets. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 81-88.
28. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics, 21, 33-40.
29. Leslie, K. C., Low, R., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (2012). Redundancy and expertise reversal effects when using educational technology to learn primary school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 1-13.
30. Lin, T.-J., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2015). Identifying Taiwanese university students’ physics learning profiles and their role in physics learning self-efficacy. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 605-624.
31. Lingefjärd, T., & Farahani, D. (2017). The Elusive Slope. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-20.
32. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition: WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
33. McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49-85.
34. McKenzie, D. L., & Padilla, M. J. (1986). The construction and validation of the test of graphing in science (TOGS). Journal of research in science teaching, 23(7), 571-579.
35. McLeod, J. D., & Kaiser, K. (2004). Childhood emotional and behavioral problems and educational attainment. American sociological review, 69(5), 636-658.
36. Milrad, M. (2002). Using construction kits, modeling tools and system dynamics simulations to support collaborative discovery learning. Educational Technology & Society, 5(4), 76-87.
37. Mullis, I. V., & Martin, M. O. (2008). Overview of TIMSS 2007. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS.
38. Nievelstein, F., Van Gog, T., Van Dijck, G., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2013). The worked example and expertise reversal effect in less structured tasks: Learning to reason about legal cases. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(2), 118-125.
39. Nishida, H. (2005). Cultural schema theory. Theorizing about intercultural communication, 401418.
40. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
41. Purba, S. W. D., & Hwang, W.-Y. (2017a). Investigation of Learning Behaviors and Achievement of Vocational High School Students Using an Ubiquitous Physics Tablet PC App. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(3), 322-331.
42. Purba, S. W. D., & Hwang, W.-Y. (2017b). Investigation of Learning Behaviors and Their Effects to Learning Achievement Using Ubiquitous-Physics App. Paper presented at the Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on.
43. Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and instruction, 19(4), 479-541.
44. Stylianou, D. A., & Silver, E. A. (2004). The role of visual representations in advanced mathematical problem solving: An examination of expert-novice similarities and differences. Mathematical thinking and learning, 6(4), 353-387.
45. Sullivan, S. A., & Puntambekar, S. (2015). Learning with digital texts: Exploring the impact of prior domain knowledge and reading comprehension ability on navigation and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 299-313.
46. Supalo, C. A., Humphrey, J. R., Mallouk, T. E., Wohlers, H. D., & Carlsen, W. S. (2016). Examining the use of adaptive technologies to increase the hands-on participation of students with blindness or low vision in secondary-school chemistry and physics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1174-1189.
47. Wang, J.-Y., Wu, H.-K., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2017). Using mobile applications for learning: Effects of simulation design, visual-motor integration, and spatial ability on high school students’ conceptual understanding. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 103-113.
48. Zebehazy, K. T., & Wilton, A. P. (2014). Straight from the Source: Perceptions of Students with Visual Impairments about Graphic Use. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 108(4), 275-286.
49. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive science, 21(2), 179-217.