You are here

Home » Content

THE STUDENTS’ PROCEDURAL FLUENCY AND WRITTEN-MATHEMATICAL EXPLANATION ON CONSTRUCTED RESPONSE TASKS IN PHYSICS

Journal Name:

  • Journal of Technology and Science Education

Publication Year:

  • 2013
DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.68

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
This study was designed to analyze the procedural fluency and written-mathematical explanation to select constructed response tasks of students in Thermodynamics problems. The study made use of 2 sections, composed of 26 students, in University Physics 1 to conclude on the research problem. It made use of the assumption that mathematical and English abilities control the students’ performance to problem solving. Using Pearson-r and One-way ANOVA, it was found out that their procedural fluency on constructed response tasks is significantly related to their written-mathematical explanation ability, and a significant difference on their performance when grouped according to their mathematical and English ability. Bonferroni Correction Post Hoc Test results confirmed the assumptions of the study: the students’ procedural fluency is dependent to their mathematical ability, both algebraic and trigonometric, while their written-mathematical explanation is associated to their English ability.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-students-procedural-fluency-and-written-mathematical-explanation-constructed-response-tasks-physics.pdf
  • 1
49-56
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Bautista, Romiro G. (2012a). The Convergence of Mayer’s Model and Constructivist Model towards Problem
Solving in Physics. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol. 3, No. 10, 33-41.
Bautista, Romiro G. (2012b). Students’ Attitude and Performance towards Algebraic Word Problem Solving
through Personalized Instruction. Conference Paper: Proceedings of IATED – EDULEARN12. Barcelona, Spain. Pp.
3294-3301.
Bransford, J. & Stein, B.S. (1983). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and
creativity. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Funkhouser, C.P. & Dennis, J. R. (1992). The Effects of Problem Solving Software on ProblemSolving Ability.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 338-347.
Gick, M.L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychology, 22, 99-120.Ginsburg, D. (2012). Building Procedural Fluency and Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics. Edutopia.org:
University of Pheonix.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington
DC: National Academy Press.
Mellony, G. & Stott, D. (2012). Conceptualising Procedural Fluency as a Spectum of Proficiency. Rhodes
University, South Africa.
Pugalee, D.K. (2004). A comparison of verbal and written descriptions of students' problem solving processes.
Educational Studies in Mathematics: An International Journal, 55, 27-47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000017666.11367.c7
Pugalee, D.K. (2005). Writing to develop mathematical understanding (2005). Massachusetts: Christopher
Gordon.
Russell, S.J. (2000). Developing computational fluency with whole numbers in the elementary grades. Keene,
NH: Association of Teachers of Mathematics in New England. The New England Math Journal, XXXII(2), 40-54.
Samuelsson, Joakim (2010). The Impact of Teaching Approaches on Students’ Mathematical Proficiency in
Sweden. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(2), 61-78.
Suh, J.M. & Moyer-Packenham, P.S. (2007). Developing Students’ Representative Fluency using Virtual and
Physical Algebra Balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155-173.
Wambagu, P. & Changeiywo, J. (2006). Effects of Mastery Learning Approach on Secondary School Students’ in
Physics Achievement. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com