SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHERS CLASS MANAGEMENT, LABORATORY PRACTICE, STUDENT ENGAGEMENT,

CRITICAL THINKING, COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND USE OF SIMULATIONS EFFECTS ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Muhammad Riaz

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine how Simulations in physics class, Classroom management, Laboratory practice, Student engagement, Critical thinking, Cooperative learning, Teacher self-efficacy, Uses of simulations predict Student performance and Percentage of students with a grade point average of B or higher as reported by the teachers in secondary school physics classes.

Introduction

(Miller, Michalski, & Stevens, 2012).

• Physics education is a national priority of many countries because their future economic prosperity is closely linked with student success in science and technology.

Perkins, Beale, Pollock, and Wieman (2011)

• what should students learn?• What are they learning?• How can Physics teaching be changed to

improve student learning?

(Carpenter, 2009)• Science is a reality and must be taught in

the concrete world.

Statement of the Problem

How simulations in physics class, classroom management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative

learning, teacher self-efficacy ,and uses of simulations predict student performance and

percentage of students with a grade point average of B or higher as reported by the

teachers in secondary school physics classes.

Conceptual Design Diagram

(Baron and Kenny,1986)

Simulations in Physics class

• Computer simulations are effective for teaching and learning physics because they give students the opportunity to observe a real world experience and interactions among teachers and students.

Jimoyiannis, and Komis(2001)

• The simulations can be used to improve teaching in high school physics teaching, especially in classroom activities, but simulations cannot replace teachers.

(Wieman, Adams, Loeblein and Perkins(2010)

Classroom Management

• Classroom management is one of the greatest concerns of teachers and administrators when addressing the safety and well-being of students.

(Allen (1986) )

• Effective classroom management involved clear behavioral communication, academic expectations and supportive physical learning environment.

Taylor (2009)

Laboratory Practice • The hands-on experiment format and the computer simulation

format provide the highest cumulative scores for the examinations. The use of computer simulations as part of post laboratory activities reinforce learning and support the learning process.

Bourque and Carlson (1987)

• The laboratory experience, both real and simulated, provides opportunity for the student to experience science through investigation.

Kelly, Bradley and Gratch (2008)

Student Engagement

• If teachers use the scientific model to describe, explain, predict control physical phenomena, they engage students actively in understanding the physical world.

Wells, Hestenes and Swackhmer (1995)

• Students’ engagement is an important factor to motivate students in learning experiences willingness to endeavor continuous effort.

Rotgans and Schmidt( 2012)

Critical Thinking • A combination of effective teaching and strategic

instructional processes in combination with computer simulations increase factual and higher order thinking skill of students.

Woodward and Gersten (1988)

• Critical thinking skills and life experiences extend far beyond the classroom habits attitudes related to critical thinking, move to business, medical, legal, aviation and general choices.

Browne( 2010)

Cooperative Learning • Problem solutions can be done in group work rather

than individuals working alone. • In group, students can share their ideas and make

better understanding of scientific concepts.

Heller, Keith, and Anderson (1992)

• Cooperative learning can reduce lecture time with approaches structured to get students actively participating during the class period.

Nembhard (2005)

Uses of Simulations

• Science instruction that employs conceptual change strategies is effective, especially when provided by computer simulation.

Zietsman and Hewson (1986) )

• The computer simulated experiment approach and the problem solving approach produced significantly greater achievement in science process skills than the conventional approach did.

Gabon and Ozkan (1992)

Teachers’ Efficacy

• A teacher’s level of efficacy's influence said teacher’s behavior which in turn affects the behavior of the students leads to changes in student achievement levels .

(McLaughlin and Marsh(1978)

• Teachers with personal teacher efficacy have demonstrated an increased willingness to experiment in the classroom with various strategies and have students with higher scores achievement tests.

Tschannen-Moran et al., (1998)

Teachers’ views of Student Performance

• Student interest and some gender preferences also influence

performance in the simulation and affect measurement results.

• Computer simulations create images in students' brains of complex scientific phenomenon provide an interactive, engaging and visual environment that promotes and supports conceptual understandings. understandings enable the students to form connections and relationships between ideas and concepts and improve their performance in real life

Well, Hestenes and Swackhmer (1995)

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study may promote: -interactive learning connecting physical phenomena with

practical training-change of Physics classroom environment

-provide opportunities to review conceptual understanding of high school physics students contribute to knowledge about

computer simulations-changes in science instruction in physics Teaching.

Selection of Subjects

Eighty four subjects for this study were chosen from male and female high school physics teachers who are members of the STEM Teachers New York- American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA ) participated in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) teaching practice workshops and used simulations in their teaching practice from 2013 to 2014.

Instrumentation

The survey was constructed based on the literature review by the researcher.

A six-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the response on simulations in physics class, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, and cooperative learning

Student performance was determined by the teacher self reported percentage of students achieving a grade of B or

higher in physics.

Dimensions: Survey item number

Number of items

Raw Score

Items created by the researchers based on

Theorists

Independent Variables

Simulations in Physics class

1, 2, 3, 4,5,6,7 7 7-49 (Zacharia, 2003);(Ferguson, 2003)

Classroom Management

15,16, 17,18,19, 20, 21

7 7-49 (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006)

Laboratory practice

22, 23, 24, 25, 16, 27, 28

7 7-49 Weiman (2005); (Sahin, 2006)

Students Engagement

29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,

7 7-49 (Mazur E. , 2009)

Survey Instrument

Critical Thinking 36, 37, 38, 39,40, 41, 42 7 7-49 (Burbach, Matkin & Fritz, 2004; Aretz, Bolen & Debereux, 1997).

Cooperative Learning 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 7 7-49 (Heller, Keith, & Anderson, 1992)

Mediator Variable

Uses of Simulations 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 7 7-49 (Carl, 2008); (Carpenter, 2009)

Moderate Variable

Teachers' Efficacy Dependent Variable

50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,57 8 8-56 (Bandura, 1977); (Blumenfeld, Kempler, & Krajcik, 2006)

Teachers views of students performance

58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 7 7-49 (Steinberg, 2000; Stieff & Wilenskey, 2003; Zacharia, 2003)

Validity and Reliability

Survey Dimensions Survey item number #of items

Raw Score Alpha

Independent Variables

Simulations in Physics class 1, 2, 3, 4,5,6,7 7 7-49 0.941

Classroom Management 15,16, 17,18,19, 20 6 7-42 0.709

Laboratory practice 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 7 7-49 0.860

Students' Engagement 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 7 7-49 0.865

Critical Thinking 37, 39,40, 41, 42 5 5-30 0.861

Cooperative Learning 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 6 7-42 0.922

Use of Simulations 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 7 7-49 0.892

Teachers' efficacy 50, 51, 52, 54, 56 5 5-30 0.790

Dependent Variable

Teachers' views of student Academic performance 59, 61, 62 3 3-18 0.668

Content validity was established by a panel of five physics Teachers

Limitations: STEMteachersNYC

This study was limited to Eighty- four Secondary school physics teachers:• Members of STEMteachersNYC• Participated in STEMteachersNYC teaching practice workshops • Used simulations in their teaching practice from 2013 to 2014.

Demographics of the Participants

Years (0-40) Teachers Percentage (%)

0 1 1.921 0 0.002 3 5.773 5 9.624 6 11.545 9 17.316 5 9.627 0 0.008 3 5.779 2 3.85

10 10 19.2311 0 0.0012 1 1.9213 1 1.9214 1 1.9215 1 1.9225 2 3.8530 1 1.9238 1 1.92

Twenty nine percent of the respondents used simulations for four and less years

Fifty six percent use simulations between five to ten years

Fifteen percent use simulations for eleven years or more

Types of Simulations

Teachers used the following types of simulations in physics class during 2013

and 2014: -PhET, interactive physics,

-applets, -video loops of phenomena,

-flash simulations, -visual quantum mechanics,

-poets, -physical analog and computer,

-Electronic workbench, -Vpython other java apps

Simulations

Use of simulation in physics class

Group Nos Uses of Simulations No of Teachers Percentage

1 Before Hands-on experiments 5 9.3%

2 After Hands-on experiments 8 14.8%

3 Both before and after hands-on

experiments

27 50%

4 Instead of hands- on experiments 10 18.5%

5 I do not use-simulations 4 7.4%

Research Question One:How do high school physics teachers describe the use of simulations in physics class, classroom management, laboratory practice, students’ engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, teacher efficacy by teacher views of percentage of students with a grade point average of B or higher?

Descriptive Statistics

Variables N Min Max Mean SD

Simulations Physics 52 7 42 30.62 5.92 SLA

Class Management 52 21 36 29.33 3.89 A

Lab Practice 52 12 42 31.65 5.57 SLA

Student Engagement 52 16 42 33.02 4.60 A

Critical Thinking 52 14 30 23.62 3.72 A

Cooperative Learning 52 18 36 29.71 4.43 SLA

Use Simulations 52 7 42 30.23 7.18 SLA

Student performance 52 7 17 11.42 2.54 SLA

Teacher Efficacy 52 18 36 29.75 5.24 SA

Percent 52 0 95 59.75 24.14

The average percent of students in their physics classes with a grade point average of B or better was 59.75%.

Research Question two: What relationships exist among high school physics teachers' descriptions of their students academic performance and uses of simulations in physics class, classroom management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and teachers’ efficacy and teachers’ view of student academic performance?

Performance

(TP) SP CM LP SE CT CL USsimulations in physics (SP) r 0.427

r2 18p .002

classroom management (CM)

r 0.365 0.312r2 13 10p .008 .024

Laboratory Practice(LP) r 0.492 0.314 0.486r2 24 10 24p .000 .024 .000

Student Engagement(SE) r 0.613 .191 0.519 0.377r2 38 4 27 14p .000 .176 .000 .006

Critical Thinking(CT) r 0.482 .081 0.478 0.604 0.673r2 23 1 23 36 45p .000 .566 .000 .000 .000

Cooperative Learning(CL) r 0.377 .244 0.28 0.379 .259 0.483r2 14 6 8 14 7 23p .006 .081 .044 .006 .064 .000

Use of simulations(US) r 0.483 0.727 .255 0.274 .138 .112 0.386r2 23 53 7 8 2 1 15p .000 .000 .068 .050 .330 .428 .005

Teacher Efficacy (TE) r 0.316 -.012 .231 0.361 0.29 0.324 0.281 -.053r2 10 0 5 13 8 10 8 0p .023 .933 .099 .008 .037 .019 .043 .708

Student academic Performance and student engagement was significant accounted for 38 percent of the variance.

Research Question three : What relationships are there among high school Physics teachers’ descriptions of their uses of simulations in physics class, classroom management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and teacher self-efficacy. How are they moderated by uses of simulation in the class, as well as their teachers’ view of percentage of students achieving a grade point average of B or higher?

GPA SP CM LP SE CT CL US TEsimulations in physics (SP)

r -.003 r2 0.00 p .981

classroom management (CM)

r 0.354 0.312 r2 12.53 9.73 p .010 .024

Laboratory Practice(LP)

r .112 0.314 0.486 r2 1.26 9.86 23.62 p .429 .024 .000

Student Engagement(SE)

r 0.333 .191 0.519 0.377 r2 11.09 3.63 26.94 14.21 p .016 .176 .000 .006

Critical Thinking(CT)

r 0.289 .081 0.478 0.604 0.673 r2 8.35 0.66 22.B 36.48 45.29 p .038 .566 .000 .000 .000

Cooperative Learning(CL)

r .163 .244 0.28 0.379 .259 0.483 r2 2.65 5.97 7.84 14.36 6.69 23.33 p .249 .081 .044 .006 .064 .000

Use of simulations(US)

r .044 0.727 .255 0.274 .138 .112 0.386 r2 0.19 52.B 6.50 7.51 1.90 1.26 14.90 p .759 .000 .068 .050 .330 .428 .005

Teacher Efficacy (TE)

r .082 -.012 .231 0.361 0.29 0.324 0.281 -.053 r2 0.68 0.01 5.35 13.03 8.41 10.50 7.90 0.28 p .562 .933 .099 .008 .037 .019 .043 .708

Teachers views of Student Academic Performance (TP)

r .079 0.427 0.365 0.492 0.613 0.482 0.377 0.483 0.316r2 0.62 18.23 13.32 24.21 37.58 23.23 14.21 23.33 9.99p .578 .002 .008 .000 .000 .000 .006 .000 .023

The correlation between percent of student grade point average and classroom management was significant accounting for 12.53 percent of the variance

Q4: How do the use of simulation moderate the effects of simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and teacher self-efficacy

Research Question 5 A: How do high school Physics teachers’ descriptions of their uses of simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and teacher self-efficacy predicts teachers’ views of percentage of students achieving a grade point average of B or higher?

Statistical analysis: Research question five was answered using a multiple regression analysis to predict the percentage of students achieving a grade point average of B or higher

Model R R Square Adjusted R SquareStd. Error of the

Estimate

1 .354a .125 .108 22.8

Predictors: (Constant), Classroom Management

• Results: The R square of .125 indicates that the constructs in model 1 predict 12.5% of the variance of the percentage of students achieving a grade point average of B or higher.

• Classroom management describes 12.5% of the predictive ability.• uses of simulations in physics class, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical

thinking, cooperative learning, and teacher self-efficacy do not describe predictive ability of percentage of students achieving a grade point average of B or higher.

Research Question 5 B : How do high school Physics teachers’ descriptions of their uses of simulations in physics class, class management, laboratory practice, student engagement, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and teacher self-efficacy predicts teachers’ views of student performance?

Statistical analysis: Research question five was answered using a multiple regression analysis to predict student academic performance in high school physics class.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .561a .315 .301 2.12

2 .643b .414 .390 1.98

3 .680c .463 .429 1.91

Results: The R square of .463 indicates that the constructs in model 3 predict 46.3% of the variance in predicting Student performance in high school physics class.

Cooperative learning describes 31.5 % of the predictive ability, Use of simulations describes 41.4%, Student engagement 46.3% of the predictive ability.

Predictors: (Constant, Cooperative Learning, Use of simulations, Student Engagement

Recommendations from Findings

To improve their students academic performance, teachers should focus on student engagement, laboratory practice, use of simulations and critical thinking. computer simulations are best at

helping students learn to analyze phenomena and solved problems (Gorrel& Downing,1989).

To improve the percent of students who achieve a grade point average of B or higher, teachers should focus on classroom

management. Classroom instruction impacts student achievement more than anything else, quality classroom

instruction requires quality classroom management skills (Taylor, 2009).

Recommendations from Findings

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 a

theory and hypotheses; Adopt web-based computer simulation that are available and approachable

through internet access (Abdullah & Sharif, 2008);Use the scientific model to describe, explain, predict and control physical

phenomena, they would engage students actively in understanding the physical world( Wells, Hestenes & Swackhmer 1995);

Combine simulations with experimental work to reduce the time delivered laboratory practice and provide slightly better knowledge to students

(Kennepohl, 2001).

Recommendations for Future Research

Expand the work outlined in this paper to incorporate more high schools STEM teachers of the American

Modeling Teachers Association.Consider replicating this study using different subjects Chemistry, Biology and Mathemtics) for measures of

student Performance. Conduct experimental research with STEMteachesNYC, AMTA, AAPT, and APS physics teachers during summer

workshops where teachers use simulations.

Recommendations for Future Research

The potential research area: -what are the topic specific questions student formulate

in working with the simulations?-How do they address these questions?

-How does that result in their understanding?By exploring these issues with a number of students, it

will provide a greater understanding of topic specific learning and how better to teach physics with or without

the use of simulations.

Questions?

Elsa Sofia Morote Ed.D. Chair

Robert Manley Ph.D.Design Specialist

Fernand Brunschwig Ph.D.Committee member

Stephanie Tatum Ph.D. Reader

Richard Walter Ph.D.Reader

Acknowledgements