1

In Search of Student Engagement in High School Physics Through Contextual

Teaching

Michael Lukie

2

Introductionmy philosophical perspective of teaching is

that learning should be meaningful and actively engaging for the student

this does not always align with the way I currently teach

as an out of field physics teacherpredominantly use textbook based methods the textbook method does not provide a

broad conceptual understanding or promote engaging learning activities for the students

textbook based practices are necessary but they are not sufficient

3

Background to the Studycurrently I teach electromagnetism though

textbook methods students learn formulas and practice with end of

chapter problems never been satisfied with the level of my students’

understandingstudents conveyed a negative conception about

electromagnetismdifficult unit intimidated by the amount of formulas electricity and magnetism never understoodtopic is very abstractno real world context to relate to

4

Background to the Studychallenge with electromagnetism

provide a real world context to engage and promote learning

the context I used is the electric guitar pickup formulas and theory of the electromagnetism unit can be used to describe how the electric guitar pickup works

5

Research questionsThe purpose of this study was to answer through classroom

based action research the following four questions: 1. How does the engagement of physics students compare when

they are taught using a contextual learning strategy as compared to a non-contextual learning strategy?

2. Do physics students prefer the contextual or non-contextual teaching strategy and what attitudes do physics students have about the contextual and non-contextual learning strategies?

3. How does the level of student understanding of work/energy and electromagnetism compare with my previous experience of teaching without using contextual teaching.

4. Is it possible to inspire S4 physics students in a meaningful, contextual learning activity that facilitates their deeper understanding of the concepts of electromagnetism?

6

Student Engagement and AttitudesBybee & McCrae (2011) found that physics

students had the least interest in learning about abstract scientific explanations and students were most interested in topics that they perceive as being relevant to their lives, and least interested in the topics that they perceive as being of little relevance

Raved & Assaraf (2011), and Osborne (2003), indicate that for students to have a positive attitude toward science they need to find a connection between the subjects studied in science class and their everyday lives

7

Student Engagement and AttitudesWillms, Friesen, & Milton (2009), found that

only 30% of Canadian secondary school students are intellectually engaged and that appropriate instructional challenges are required to increase their engagement

a new proposed method of measuring student's intellectual engagement developed by Klassen, S., Metz, D., McMillan, B., & Scramstad, C. (2011, in press), was used in this study

8

Methodologya one week study which examined

degree to which students were engaged in learningattitudes to two different instructional methodsextent to which learning benefited from creating an

electromagnetic guitar pickup as a contextually based activity

compared two different instructional delivery methods1.non-contextual teaching approach

using a textbook to teach the work outcomes of the mechanics unit

2.contextual teaching approach students built an electric guitar pickup and simple guitar in

order to facilitate teaching the electromagnetism outcomes of the electricity unit

9

Data Analysis

Data about student engagement and attitudes was collected from 11 student generated questions2 rotational graffiti2 exit slips2 final unit assessments8 student journals1 teacher journal

10

Research Question 1

1. How does the engagement of physics students compare when they are taught using a contextual learning strategy as compared to a non-contextual learning strategy?

11

Journal Datato measure student attitudes

at the end of every lesson students were asked to record in a journal their attitude toward instructional strategies

eight such responses, once after each of 8 lessonsLesson 1&2 were non-contextual lessonsLessons 3-8 were contextual lessonsprompting questions:

1) What did you like? 2) What did you not like?3) Comment on the way the lesson was presented. 4) Comment on your level of engagement. 5) Comment on how the lesson interested you.

12

Engagement Score Similar Student Responses 0 boring, I was not engaged, very little 1 slightly engaged, somewhat engaged, semi-engaged 2 engaged, more engaging 3 very engaged, really engaged 4 extremely engaged, totally engaged, super engaged

Journal Scoring Framework

13

Journal Data

non-contextual contextual

student gender rank J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8

1 F 3 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 2

2 F 3 0 0 absent absent 1 1 absent absent

3 M 1 1 0 1 2 2 3 3 3

4 M 1 0 0 2 2 2 3 3 3

5 F 1 0 0 2 absent 2 2 4 2

6 F 1 absent 0 absent absent 0 absent 0 0

7 F 1 absent 0 3 1 absent 2 3 4

8 M 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

9 M 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 absent

10 M 3 0 0 2 2 2 0 4 3

11 M 1 absent 0 3 2 2 2 3 3

12 M 1 1 1 absent absent 1 3 4 absent

13 M 2 2 0 absent absent absent 2 absent 4

14 M 3 2 absent absent absent absent absent 3 2

15 M 1 absent absent 4 2 0 1 3 3

16 F 2 3 0 4 2 2 2 absent absent

17 F 1 1 0 3 1 3 3 4 4

18 M 1 1 1 4 3 4 4 4 4

19 F 1 0 0 4 3 3 3 4 4

20 M 2 absent absent 2 2 4 2 2 3

21 F 1 1 0 3 2 3 2 4 3

22 F 1 1 0 absent absent 2 absent absent absent

23 F 3 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 2

24 F 3 1 0 2 1 2 2 3 2

25 F 2 absent 1 2 1 2 absent absent absent

26 M 1 absent absent 4 2 2 4 2 2

27 M 3 2 3 4 0 3 absent 3 3

28 F 1 absent absent 2 2 2 4 3 3

29 F 2 absent absent absent absent 0 1 3 2

30 F 1 absent absent 2 absent 0 0 2 0

31 F 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

32 F 3 1 absent 1 2 1 0 1 1

14

Comparing the Mean Journal Engagement Scores for Individual

Students

15

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

contextualjournalengscore 26 .00 3.83 2.2423 .88662

noncontextualjournalengsco

re

26 .00 2.50 .7115 .75064

Valid N (listwise) 26

Mean Journal Engagement Score for NC&C Lessons for Individual

Students

t = 7.695, df = 25, p-value < 0.001.

16

Comparing the Mean Journal Engagement Scores for the Individual Lessons

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

l1 22 0 3 1.00 .873

l2 24 0 3 .46 .833

l3 25 0 4 2.36 1.221

l4 23 0 3 1.74 .752

l5 29 0 4 1.93 1.193

l6 27 0 4 2.07 1.238

l7 27 0 4 2.96 1.018

l8 26 0 4 2.46 1.208

Valid N (listwise) 12

17

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

nc 2 .46 1.00 .7300 .38184

c 6 1.74 2.96 2.2533 .43707

Valid N (listwise) 2

Mean Journal Engagement Score for NC&C Lessons

for the 8 Individual Lessons

18

Question Datato measure student engagement

collected student generated questions on 11 occasions following a number of different instructional activities

students wrote down, on provided question sheets, as many questions as they had about the learning strategies

19

Student questions degree of student engagement and depth of thought

through question asking requires a categorization and ranking scheme.

Klassen et al. (2011), suggest the following: The framework is designed to facilitate the identification

of eight distinct categories of student questions in the science classroom. Student questions were rated according to the framework and coded by category.

Once the question data is collected, scoring values were assigned to the framework categories so that engagement may be statistically analyzed. (Klassen et al., 2011, pg.11).

TABLE 3 Scoring Values Assigned to Framework Categories

Peripheral Factual Conceptual Philosophical

Level 1 P1: 0 F1: 1 C1: 3 E1: 3

Level 2 P2: 2 F2: 2 C2: 4 E2: 5

20

Question Scoring Framework

2. Factual questions indicate engagement with the instructional concepts at the simplest level.a.Level 1 (F1)seeks a numerical fact or basic factual information

Who came up with field lines?

b.Level 2 (F2)Procedural: describing a process or dealing with the construction process or a definition.

Why did we have to tape before stringing the wire? Definition:What is the difference between magnetic flux and induced EMF?

1. Peripheral Questions At the lowest level, there were some questions from which it was impossible to decipher a meaning or that were wholly unrelated to either the instructional context or concepts.a.Level 1 (P1)Nonsensical, Irrelevant

Why are we doing this?

b.Level 2 (P2) Related to learning content How does this help us learn about work?

21

3. Conceptual Questions relate to scientific explanation, clarification, hypothesizing, and testing. At a slightly higher level, concept elaboration questions have the potential to lead to further inquiry. a.Level 1 (C1)Clarification or elaboration

How does the length of the string affect the pitch and volume?

b.Level 2 (C2)Hypothesis or prediction generatingWould the strength/number of magnets change the sound/volume in any way?

4. Philosophical Questionsindicate the highest level of thinking and, certainly, that critical thinking is at work.a.Ethical (E1)How should we (act based on evidence, judgment, and values)...?

b.Epistemological (E2) How do you know that (questioning foundational presupposition) … ?

22

Question Lesson Lesson Type 1 1 Non-contextual 2 1 Non-contextual 3 2 Non-contextual 4 3 Contextual 5 3 Contextual 6 3 Contextual 7 4 Contextual 8 5 Contextual 9 6 Contextual

10 7 Contextual 11 8 Contextual

Collection of Question Data Relative to Lesson Number and Type of Lesson

588 questions were analyzed146 non-contextual442 contextual

23

Question Type Frequency for Non-Contextual Lessons

Q 1, 2, 3 Sums 146 Questions frequency Peripheral Factual Conceptual Philosophical

Level 1 130 1 4 0 Level 2 8 3 0 0

Q 1, 2, 3 Percent Peripheral Factual Conceptual Philosophical Level 1 89.0 0.7 2.7 0.0 Level 2 5.5 2.1 0.0 0.0

24

Question Type Frequency for Contextual Lessons

Q 4-11 Sums 442 Questions Frequency Peripheral Factual Conceptual Philosophical

Level 1 68 42 186 0 Level 2 21 99 26 0

Q 4-11 Percent Peripheral Factual Conceptual Philosophical Level 1 15.4 9.5 42.1 0.0 Level 2 14.4 22.4 5.9 0.0

25

Question Engageme

nt Data

non-contextual contextual

student gender rank q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 q11 1 F 3 2 0 0 0 4 0 6 5 3 2 4 2 F 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 M 1 0 0 2 4 4 2 7 6 9 6 2 4 M 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 9 7 8 8 9 5 F 1 2 0 5 0 3 3 0 5 0 3 5 6 F 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 5 6 7 F 1 0 0 3 3 6 3 8 0 5 7 5 8 M 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 3 9 M 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 0

10 M 3 0 0 0 2 4 2 12 3 4 1 4 11 M 1 0 0 0 6 6 3 13 0 3 6 10 12 M 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 13 M 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9 3 9 12 14 M 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 15 M 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 6 3 7 5 16 F 2 0 2 0 2 2 6 1 2 2 0 0 17 F 1 0 0 0 4 2 6 3 3 3 2 2 18 M 1 0 0 0 4 6 26 7 7 6 10 10 19 F 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 3 3 20 M 2 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 3 2 2 3 21 F 1 4 0 2 4 3 15 7 9 10 10 11 22 F 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 23 F 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 8 13 9 7 6 24 F 3 2 0 0 2 2 9 3 8 1 3 0 25 F 2 0 0 5 0 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 26 M 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 7 3 3 3 27 M 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 F 1 0 0 0 3 6 9 6 7 15 7 19 29 F 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 4 2 3 30 F 1 0 0 0 8 4 9 4 7 2 2 0 31 F 3 5 0 0 3 5 3 4 8 5 5 7 32 F 3 3 0 0 7 7 8 6 11 0 4 6

26

Mean Questions Engagement

Score for Each Student

27

Average Mean Engagement Score for Each Student

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

nc 32 .00 2.33 .3859 .67288

c 32 .00 9.50 3.6741 2.56033

Valid N (listwise) 32

28

Mean Engagement for Each of the 11 Times Question Data was Obtained

question question engagement averages 1 0.56 2 0.06 3 0.53 4 1.94 5 2.78 6 4.41 7 4.06 8 4.53 9 3.63

10 3.72 11 4.31

nc

c

29

Mean Engagement Data for NC&C Lessons

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

nclesson1to3 3 .06 .56 .3833 .28042

clesson4to11 8 1.94 4.53 3.6725 .89745

Valid N (listwise) 3

30

non-contextual(nc) contextual(c) thesis

mean score 0-4 s.d n mean score 0-4 s.d n section

students 0.71 0.75 26 2.24 0.89 26 5.3.1.2 lessons 0.73 0.38 2 2.25 0.44 6 5.3.1.3 rank 1 0.33 0.39 12 2.40 0.92 16 5.3.1.4 rank 2 1.50 0.50 5 2.36 0.63 7 rank 3 0.78 0.91 9 1.73 0.78 9 male 1.09 0.92 11 2.63 0.46 14 5.3.1.5 female 0.43 0.46 15 1.88 0.96 18

non-contextual(nc) contextual(c) thesis

mean sum s.d n mean sum s.d n section

students 0.39 0.67 32 3.67 2.56 32 5.3.2.3 questions 0.38 0.28 3 3.67 0.90 8 5.3.2.4 rank 1 0.78 0.76 16 4.51 2.67 16 5.3.2.5 rank 2 0.33 0.64 7 2.22 1.59 7 rank 3 0.45 0.60 9 3.32 2.59 9 male 0.05 0.18

14 3.55 2.66 14 5.3.2.6

female 0.65 0.80 18 3.77 2.56

18 rot.graffiti 0.56 1.29 32 1.94 2.29 32 5.3.2.7

Questions

Journals

Data Summary

31

2. Do physics students prefer the contextual or non-contextual teaching strategy and what attitudes do physics students have about the contextual and non-contextual learning strategies?

To answer this research question the journal data obtained from the following four questions were used:

What did you like? What did you not like? Comment on the way the lesson was presented. Comment on how the lesson interested you.

Research Question 2

32

Research Question 33. How does the level of student understanding of work, energy and electromagnetism compare with my previous experience of teaching without using contextual teaching.

33

Current class Non-contextual Contextual student grade % test grade % test grade %

3 98 95 85 4 85 85 100 5 86 95 82.5 6 87 95 85 7 97 95 85 8 74 80 70

10 65 85 57.5 11 86 85 92.5 14 50 75 70 17 92 90 95 18 100 85 85 19 87 85 95 21 95 90 100 24 52 80 65 25 81 65 75 27 55 80 55 29 70 45 85 30 94 40 75 31 60 75 70 32 50 70 70

Descriptive Statistics

Mean

Std.

Deviation N

Current-grade 78.20 17.289 20

Non-contextual Grade 79.75 15.259 20

Contextual Grade 79.875 13.2654 20

Comparing Student Current Grade and Final Unit Test Grades

34

Research Question 4The fourth Research Question is: Is it possible to

inspire S4 physics students in a meaningful, contextual learning activity that facilitates their deeper understanding of the concepts of electromagnetism? “I loved everything, this was the highlight of this school year. It showed me how I can use electromagnetism at

home.”“Oh my god, this is so amazing, everybody loves the physics

of the guitar pick up, this stuff is more fun.”

“I enjoyed how hands-on this lesson was. It was fun to build something.”

“I loved that I was able to use physics to build something useful.”

35

References

Albe, V., Venturini, P., & Lascours, J. (2001). Electromagnetic concepts in mathematical representation of

physics. Journal of

Science and Technology, 10(2), 197-203.

Bacon, T. & Day, P. (1992). The fender book, a complete history of fender electric guitars. San Fransisco,

CA: GPI Books.

Belmont, M. J. & Skinner, E. A. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher

behavior and student

engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.

Bidinosti, Chris (2011). Personal communication with electromagnetism Professor at The University of

Winnipeg, rm.2C32

204.786.9718, Aug. 2011.

Brosnac, D. (1983). Guitar electronics for musicians. New York, NY: Amsco Publications.

Bybee, R. & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006

science. International

Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26.

Duchossoir, A. R. (1981). Gibson electrics. Winona, MN: Hal Leonard Publishing Corporation.

Dunleavy, J. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Exploring the concept of Student

Engagement and its

implications for Teaching and Learning in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Education Association (CEA), 1-

22.

36

References

Dunleavy, J., Milton, P. & Crawford, C. (2010). The Search for Competence in the 21stCentury. Quest Journal 2010. Leading Edge

Learning.ca (Abstract) p. 2 Retrieved June 2010 from

http://www.leadingedgelearning.ca/q2010/Docs/QuestJournal2010/Article12.pdf

Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.

Galili, I. (1995). Mechanics background influences students' conceptions in electromagnetism. International Journal of Science

Education, 17(3), 371-387.

Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2009). It Might Get Loud [Motion Picture]. United States: Sony Pictures Classics.

Hadzigeorgiou, Y. , Klassen C., Klassen S. (2011). Encouraging a “Romantic Understanding” of science: The effect of the Nikola

Tesla story. Science and Education, Published online DOI: 10.1007/s11191-011-9417-5.

Ingersoll, Richard M. (2001). The realities of out-of-field teaching. Educational Leadership, May, 42-45.

Klassen, S. (2006). A theoretical framework for contextual science Teaching. Interchange, 37(1-2):31-61.

Klassen, S. (2009). The construction and analysis of a science story: A proposed methodology. Science and Education, 18:401-423.

Klassen, S., Metz, D., McMillan, B., & Scramstad, C. (2011, in press). A framework for student questions in the science classroom.

Kubli, F. (2005). Science teaching as a dialogue – Bakhtin, Vygotsky and some applications in the classroom, Science & Education

14(6): 501–534.

37

References

Manitoba Education and Training. (2005). Senior 4 Physics (40S). A Foundation for Implementation. Winnipeg: MB

Education and Training.

Martin, D. (1998). Innovation and the development of the modern six-string guitar. Galapin Society Journal, 51(7), 86-109.

Metz D., Klassen S., McMillan B., Clough M., Olson, J. (2007). Building a foundation for the use of historical narratives.

Science & Education,16(3–5):313–334.

Milan, M. (2007). Pickups windings and magnets...and the guitar became electric. Anaheim Hills, CA: Centerstream

Publishing LLC.

Milard, A. (2004). The electric guitar: a history of an American icon. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of

Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.

Osgood, C.E,  Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, 1

Parsons, J. & Taylor, L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do? University of Alberta.

Raved, L. & Assaraf, O. (2011). Attitudes towards science learning among 10 th-grade students: A qualitative look.

International Journal of Science Education, 1(1), 1-25.

Raymond, D. & Waring, D. (2001).Make Your Own Electric Guitar & Bass. New York, NY: Sterling Publishing Co.

38

References

Saglam, M. & Millar, R. (2006). Upper high school students' understanding of electromagnetism.

International Journal of Science Education, 28:5, 543-566.

Smith, M. (2004). The electric Guitar. How we got from Andres Segovia to Kurt Cobain. Invention and

Technology Magazine, 1(20),Summer 2004.

Stinner, A. (1992). Science textbooks and science teaching: From logic to evidence. Science Education,

76(1), 1-16.

Stinner, A. (1994). Providing a contextual base and a theoretical structure to guide the teaching of

high school physics. Physics Education, 29, 375-381.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York, NY: McMillan.

Willms, J. D., Friesen, S. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming

classrooms through social, academic and intellectual engagement. (First National Report). Toronto:

Canadian Education Association.

Winchester, I. (1989) Editorial-History, science, and science teaching. Interchange, 20(2), i-vi.