| Summary: | A research project submitted to the Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Science Education.
September 2017 === National diagnostic reports have shown that learners perform dismally in Physical sciences, with Vertical projectile motion as one of the most problematic topics (National Senior Certificate Diagnostic reports, 2012-2015). Yet, there is no clear-cut instructional strategy aimed at improving the conceptual understanding of the topic in South Africa, in spite of learners’ misconceptions and alternative frameworks being well documented in the extant literature including yearly NSC diagnostic reports.
The study explored the impact of an Integrative learning model - an intervention study I designed, underpinned by Toulmin’s argumentation pattern (TAP), Predict-Observe-Explanation (POE) and Contiguity argumentation theory (CAT) - designed to shift students’ perceptions towards scientifically accepted ideas though dialogical argumentation. The benefits of dialogical argumentation in sense-making are well documented (Msimanga and Lelliot, 2012). The pinnacle of the ILM, itself embedded on dialogical argumentation, is eliciting for learners’ pre-conceived ideas and crafting an instructional package based on these ideas.
Two Grade 12 classes from one school in Gauteng province, South Africa were involved in the study: one as an experimental group (n=38) and the other as a control group (n=36). Data were collected using a pre-post test approach in the main and focus group interviews on selected learners, making it a mixed method approach.
Data were analyzed using the cross tabs method, from which Chi square values and bar graphs were obtained. The level of significance for Chi square values was set at 0.05. By comparing the performance of the two groups in the pre-test using Chi square values, it was discovered that – save for only three items – learners shared common pre-instructional ideas on most items, confirming that the two groups shared common ideas possibly gained from similar experiences with falling objects. This was understandable given that participants came from similar backgrounds, hence potentially share similar or closely related experiences, making it possible to do inter-group performance in the pre-post test on items where the two groups performed comparably. Three items that showed huge significant differences were excluded from discussion involving inter-group comparison of performance to improve results validity.
Further, the findings confirm that learners have common misconceptions, lack of skills and alternative conceptions about vertical projectile motion, some of which are resistant to change in the wake of instruction. This confirms findings in NSC diagnostic reports.
In addition, these misconceptions were then characterized and further probed using focus group interviews with a view to gaining deeper insights in learners’ thinking reflective of these misconceptions. The reasoning behind the misconceptions was probed using focus group interviews. The analysis was mixed-method approach since it combined quantitative and qualitative techniques, with the former being the predominant analysis method used in this study.
The success of the Integrated learning method (LIM) – an instructional strategy proposed in this study - on the EG group was more significant on most items judging by the Chi-square values obtained from comparing the impact of the two teaching methods namely the ILM and the traditional methods in the post-test. Thus, the ILM produced more learning gains on the experimental group than the learning gains realized from the traditional methods on the control group. For instance, the ILM produced significant learning gains on item 4 (see Appendix A), while traditional methods failed to produce any shifts towards the science view on the same item, pointing to the effectiveness of the ILM in comparison to traditional methods.
However, it was difficult to use the TAP to assess and compare the quality of arguments of learners in the two groups on the topic. This was because most learners struggled to construct at least level 2 arguments, restricting themselves instead to lower level argumentations. This calls into question the need to develop teachers on how to use argumentation-based lessons in the teaching of science concepts. Teachers will in turn train learners to engage in debates in science lessons as they co-construct knowledge through what Msimanga and Lelliot (2012) refer to as sense-making. === MT2018
|
|---|
