WEINSTEIN AND MAYERS THINKING STRATEGIES

Introduction
Two of the significant objectives of the introductory physics course are to teach
students fundamental concepts and principles, and help them apply their knowledge
successfully when problem solving (Leonard, Dufresne & Mestre, 1996). In addition,
research on the teaching and learning of physics revealed that the traditional lecture
where students are passive learners does not substantially impact students’ learning
and understanding of the most basic physics concepts (Desbien et al., 2005). On the
other hand, the constructivist view on learning, which has been recently developed,
has been said to enhance innovation in science as well as university physics teaching
(Chang, 2005). In this context, to promote learning and teaching in physics, various
instructional interventions were suggested. One of them is strategy-based instruction.
This paper focuses on one type of strategy-based instruction, namely learning
strategy. As Weinstein and Mayer have put it, whereas some psychologists label
problem-solving strategies as cognitive or learning strategies, some others name
them as metacognitive or self-regulation strategies (Morse & Morse, 1995). So, in
this study, problem-solving strategies, a matter of crucial importance in physics
learning, have been considered within learning strategies. Although the study of
learning strategies is not a new subject in physics, this research paper will definitely
contribute to existing literature on learning physics as its focus is on the effects of
learning strategies on students’ satisfaction when learning physics, about which there
are few studies.

Learning Strategies and Physics Education

Learning strategies can be defined as the behaviors and thought that a learner engages
in during learning and that are intended to influence the learners’ encoding process
(Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). These strategies range from simple study skills, such as
underlining a main idea, to complex thought processes, such as using analogies to
relate prior knowledge to new information (Weinstein et al., 1989).

Weinstein and Mayer (1986), listed some of learning strategies into eight major
strategies. The categories are: (1) Basic Rehearsal Strategies (such as repeating
learning material), (2) Complex Rehearsal Strategies (such as copying, underlining or
shadowing learning material), (3) Basic Elaboration Strategies (such as forming a
mental image of learning material), (4) Complex Elaboration Strategies (such as
paraphrasing or summarizing learning material), (5) Basic Organizational Strategies
(such as grouping or ordering learning material), (6) Complex Organizational
Strategies (such as outlining a passage or creating a hierarchy), (7) Comprehension
Monitoring Strategies (such as checking for comprehension failures) and (8) Affective
and Motivational Strategies (such as being alert and relaxed, to help overcome test
anxiety).

Learning strategies have long been a subject highly valued by educators. The
learning-strategies-related studies conducted between the early 1990s to 2008 have
become miscellaneous through the analysis of some variables such as proficiency,
learning environment, ethnicity, age, gender, learning styles, motivation, and beliefs.
It has been identified that an individual’s learning proficiency directly affects the
range of learning strategies employed. Moreover, environmental factors play an
important role in how learning takes place and also on the strategies used in the
learning process (Nambiar, 2009). Moreover, the surveys that have been conducted
about learning strategies over the last thirty years have focused mainly on strategy
teaching that helps students to improve their performance (Simpson & Nist, 2000).
The results of several studies conducted in this field have proved that effective
learning strategies contribute greatly to the students’ performance and also that the
strategies can be taught (Protheroe, 2002).

Although there are many studies about the teaching of learning strategies in physics
literature, there are few studies related to the use of learning strategies in physics.
Physics education research on learning strategy instruction reported that strategy
instruction had positive influences on students’ conceptual learning (Harper, Etkina &
Lin, 2003), achievement in physics (Çaliskan, Sezgin Selçuk & Erol, 2010a;
Ghavami, 2003; Sezgin Selçuk, 2004; Sezgin Selçuk, Sahin & Açikgöz, 2009; van
Weeren et al., 1982), reading comprehension (Koch & Eckstein, 1991; Koch, 2001;
Rouet et al., 2001), problem solving performance (Austin & Shore, 1995) and the use
of higher level learning strategies (Vertenten, 2002). Research also suggests that
higher level strategies are expected to promote conceptual understanding (Brown et
al., 1983; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983).

Unfortunately, the instruction of learning strategies in physics is neglected in Turkey

and there are very few studies in the field of physics (Çaliskan, 2007; Çaliskan et al.,
2010a; Gök, 2006; Sezgin Selçuk et al., 2009; Sezgin Selçuk, 2004). Furthermore, this
subject are is not given sufficient importance in our training system. It is neglected as
the period of training is limited, course programs are loaded, or the teachers
themselves do not have sufficient knowledge in the field.

Conceptual Learning, Learning Strategies and Physics Education

Conceptual learning involves understanding and interpreting concepts and the
relationship between concepts. Conceptual learning emerges as a result of combining
existing input with new information enabling it to be comprehended (Arslan, 2010).
When evaluating the effectiveness of specific conceptual learning, one can use various
instruments such as “detailed student interviews”, “open-ended examination
problems”, and “multiple-choice diagnostics” (e.g. FCI, Hestenes, Wells &
Swackhamer, 1992; FMCE, Thornton & Sokollof, 1998) (Redish & Steinberg, 1999).
Besides the use of these instruments, literature shows that methods like concept
mapping or drawings also help students to improve conceptual learning.

Literature in physics education show that diagnostic tests have been commonly used
to spot students’ conceptual learning and conceptual misunderstandings over the last
20 years. In addition, the focus of the majority of the research is particularly on
mechanics and electromagnetism (e.g. Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Demirci, 2010;
Savinainen & Scott, 2002). Furthermore, there are also several studies that used
interviewing techniques (e.g. Osborne & Gilbert, 1980) as well as open-ended
questions for analyzing various subjects in physics (e.g. Cochran & Heron, 2006;
Huffman, 1997).

In the light of this information, it can be concluded that conceptual learning has a
major role in the field of physics education. In addition, a number of studies analyzing
the effects of learning strategies on conceptual learning have been discovered in
related literature (Gaigher, Rogan & Braun, 2007; Harper et al., 2003; Leonard et al.,
1996; Numan & Sobolewski, 1998; Zieneddine & Abd-El-Khalick, 2001). Moreover,
although there are some studies claiming that teaching learning strategies has no
influence on students’ conceptual learning (Huffman, 1997), many studies verify that
teaching learning strategies has a positive effect on students’ conceptual learning.

For example, the effects of structured problem-solving instruction on students’

problem solving skills and conceptual understanding of physics were investigated in a
recent experimental study (Gaigher et al., 2007). The study revealed that the
structured problem-solving group showed better physics conceptual understanding
and tended to use a more conceptual approach in problem solving. Harper, Etkina and
Lin (2003) used structured weekly journals in order to foster student questions about
the learning material. The resulting questions were collected for one quarter and
coded based on difficulty and topic. Students also took several conceptual tests during
the implementation. The reports contained more questions than typically observed in a
college classroom, but the number of questions asked was not correlated to conceptual
performance. An investigation of the relationships among different types of questions
and performance on these tests revealed that deeper-level questions that focus on
concepts, coherence of knowledge, and limitations were related to the variance in
student conceptual performance. Using qualitative problem-solving strategies,
Leonard, Dufresne and Mestre (1996) taught an introductory, calculus-based physics
course by highlighting the role played by conceptual knowledge in solving problems.
The study identified the strategies as effective instructional means for helping students
to identify principles that could be applied to solve specific problems, as well as to
recall the topics covered in the course. In another study, Numan and Sobolewski
(1998) investigated the influence of explicit problem solving instruction on students'
problem solving ability and conceptual understanding as compared to instruction in
textbook style problem solving. The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to
measure students’ conceptual understanding at the beginning and at the end of the
semester. In addition to the FCI, students’ reasoning in multiple choice questions and
their responses to multistep problems were analyzed to obtain a complete assessment
of students’ conceptual understanding and problem solving skills in both groups. The
results of the study indicated a significant difference between the explicit problem
solving group and the textbook style problem solving group in students’ conceptual
understanding and problem solving performance in favor of the former. Zieneddine
and Abd-El-Khalick (2001) assessed the effectiveness of concept maps as learning
tools (or strategies) in developing students' conceptual understanding in a physics
laboratory course, and explored students' perceptions regarding the usefulness of
concept maps in the laboratory.

Huffman (1997), who conducted a study to determine the effects of teaching explicit
problem-solving strategies in physics teaching at high school level on students’
conceptual learning skills through three open-ended questions related to FCI and
Newton’s laws, concluded that there was no significant difference between the
strategy teaching group and the control group. In addition, he also put forward that
female students benefit from strategy teaching more than their male peers.

Learning Satisfaction and Physics Education

As a way of monitoring and improving the quality of teaching, student evaluations

have become a part of life at universities (Kwan, 2001). According to Kwan (1999),
these evaluations are used as one (sometimes the only and often the most influential)
measure of teaching effectiveness. As well as the helpfulness of the “Student
evaluation of teaching” (SET) in improving the teaching performance of the faculty
lecturers, it can be also effective at the decisions of executives about the lecturers
(e.g., promotion and tenure decisions) (Loveland, 2007; Morgan, Sneed & Swinney,
2003). According to many researchers student evaluations are a valid, reliable, and
worthwhile means of evaluating teaching (Wachtel, 1998). There are several reports
showing that students’ evaluations of the efficiency of the teaching are commonly
used to understand the quality of the teaching methods used as well as students’
satisfaction with learning physics, and also in educational psychology surveys (Marsh,
1987).

In higher education, student satisfaction is one of the important indicators of quality

(Erdogan, Usak & Aydin, 2008). Student evaluations can be used to measure student
satisfaction. Satisfaction measures include different dimensions such as instruction
and instructors, courses, majors, student services, facilities, academic services and
campus climate (Sezgin et al., 2000). Similarly, Chien (2007) claims that learning
satisfaction is made up of five fundamental elements; individual characteristics,
teacher’s attitude and skills, characteristics of the course, the learning environment
and teaching objectives.

Hui et al (2008) define learning satisfaction as the perception of success and the
positive feelings one has when he is successful. Erdogan et al (2008) describe the
concept of satisfaction as an object, situation that meets a person’s needs, or his
attitude towards a situation. In the light of this information, in the present study,
satisfaction is defined as the degree to which students feel satisfied with physics
courses (i.e., students' overall course satisfaction concerning workload of course, level
of course, teaching activities and instructors' teaching effectiveness).

There have been several studies on satisfaction. They mostly analyze the effect of
satisfaction, which is a very significant variable for assessing the efficiency of
teaching methods like online courses, web-based courses and distance learning. (e.g.
Arbaugh & Duray, 2002; Blackwell et al., 2002; Hui et al., 2008; Mourtos &
McMullin, 2001; Ryan, 2000; Sue, 2005; Sahin, 2008) There are also some studies
showing that teaching methods like PBL or cooperative learning have a positive effect
on satisfaction (Khaki et al., 2007; Kingsland, 1996; Klein & Pridemore, 1992). So, in
order to improve the quality of teaching, some studies concerning learning satisfaction
have focused on discovering the factors affecting it. For example, a survey conducted
by Binner et al (1994) set forth that factors such as a teacher’s attitude towards
teaching, course materials and classroom management have a direct influence on
learning satisfaction.

On the other hand, it has been identified that there are few studies analyzing learning
satisfaction in the fields of science (e.g. Erdogan et al., 2008, 2009; Erdogan & Usak
2004, 2006, 2007; Hermanowicz, 2003; Telli, Rakici & Çakiroglu, 2003) and physics
teaching (e.g. Brekelmans et al., 1997; Sezgin et al., 2000; Sezgin Selçuk & Çaliskan,
2010a; Sezgin Selçuk & Çaliskan, 2010b; Welch, 1969). To illustrate, Erdogan et al
(2008) researched the facilities that a group of trainee chemistry teachers have in their
departments and faculties in addition to their satisfaction with them. The researchers
observed whether those students’ learning satisfaction varied depending on the
universities they attend and their genders as well. They eventually came to the
conclusion that gender has no effect on learning satisfaction; whereas, the universities
they are enrolled at definitely has. What is more, Hermanowicz (2003) studied
scientists and satisfaction. Brekelmans et al (1997), on the other hand, studied the
impact of learning satisfaction on success in mathematics and physics. They
discovered that learning satisfaction influences success in mathematics more than it
does in physics. Welch (1969) researched the factors influencing students’ satisfaction
with physics courses at high school level. Sezgin et al (2000), in their study examining
university students’ satisfaction with the physics laboratory, discovered that
satisfaction did not change according to gender, freshman students had a higher level
of satisfaction with the teaching process when compared to other students in senior
classes, and their satisfaction with the physics laboratory changed depending on their
departments. Sezgin Selçuk and Çaliskan (2010a) noted that the level of learning
satisfaction of the pre-service teachers’ that were taught in the Introduction to Physics
course based on problem solving methods was significantly higher than the ones who
were taught the same course based on traditional methods. In another study, Sezgin
Selçuk and Çaliskan (2010b) put forth that the gender and academic success of pre-
service teachers had no effect on their learning satisfaction.

In the literature, there is no study investigating the relationship between students’

learning satisfaction and learning strategies used in physics teaching. On the other
hand, there are a few studies examining the effect of the teaching of learning
strategies on learning satisfaction (Brown, 2009; Kaenin, 2004).

In brief, for all of the afore mentioned reasons regarding the necessity of investigating
the effects of strategy instruction on conceptual learning in a physics course,
especially on students’ learning satisfaction towards the course in the field literature,
this research aims to evaluate the correlations between present research and these
variables. Furthermore, this research hopes to make new contributions in the field of
physics education literature.

The present study

Mestre et al. (1993) stated that two important goals of physics instruction were to help
students achieve a deep, conceptual understanding of the subject and to help them
develop powerful problem solving skills. In light of this statement, we designed our
explicit summarizing instruction which is integrated content instruction.

Summarizing is the students’ brief restatement of the main points learnt either
verbally or in written form (Açikgöz, 2002). This learning strategy strengthens the
relationship between the new ideas taught in the teaching material, and enables
students to establish a bond between the newly and previously learnt knowledge
(Sezgin Selçuk, 2004). Hence, the main purpose of this study is to examine the effects
of summarizing strategy instruction on student teachers’ conceptual learning in
electricity and magnetism, and learning satisfaction. The research questions
investigated in this study were as follows:

1. Are there any effects of using summarizing strategy instruction on pre-service

teachers’ conceptual learning scores?

2. Are there any effects of using summarizing strategy instruction on pre-service

teachers’ learning satisfaction?