Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It Paper used Oxford Physics pdf GRAdE 12 PHYSICAL SCIENCES - Everything. Everything Maths Grade 11 - Everything Maths and Science. Pages·· MB·23, GRAdE 12 PHYSICAL SCIENCES - Everything Science. Grade 11 physical science learners‟ difficulties in constructing and interpreting graphs I. Kibirige, N. S. Ngobeni Department of Mathematics, Science.

Author:BARABARA GENTRY
Language:English, Spanish, German
Country:Micronesia
Genre:Children & Youth
Pages:562
Published (Last):12.11.2015
ISBN:781-4-68960-677-9
Distribution:Free* [*Registration Required]
Uploaded by: MERLE

73506 downloads 154516 Views 30.87MB PDF Size Report


Physical Science Grade 11 Pdf

Vectors in two dimensions ; Newton's laws ; Atomic combinations ; Intermolecular forces ; Geometrical optics ; 2D and 3D wavefronts ; Ideal. Siyavula's open Physical Sciences Grade 11 textbook. Learner's book and teacher's guide (PDF). Learner's book (ePub). Reference material. Physics. In contrast to the first two laws, the third law of motion deals with pairs of object. This is because all forces come in pairs. The Newton's Third Law states that for.

The same content, but different versions branded or not have different licenses, as explained: CC-BY-ND branded versions You are allowed and encouraged to freely copy these versions. You can photocopy, print and distribute them as often as you like. You can download them onto your mobile phone, iPad, PC or flash drive. You can burn them to CD, email them around or upload them to your website. The only restriction is that you cannot adapt or change these versions of the textbooks, their content or covers in any way as they contain the relevant Siyavula brands, the sponsorship logos and are endorsed by the Department of Basic Education. Find out more here about the sponsorships and partnerships with others that made the production of each of the open textbooks possible. CC-BY unbranded versions These unbranded versions of the same content are available for you to share, adapt, transform, modify or build upon in any way, with the only requirement being to give appropriate credit to Siyavula. For more information, visit Creative Commons Attribution 3.

In this study, the dialectical principles was used on graphs and the interpretations produced by learners. The dialectical theory uses argumentation and discussions where a consensus is reached and also uses acceptance of defeat for those ideas that are not congruent with the vast majority of the group. In this way, learners are expected to interact with their fellow learners, the environment that includes social and cultural: thus learner-environment-others interaction plays a major role in consensus development in the group.

Consequently, learners recall better interlocutors of their presentations that lead to the consensus in the group Suthers and Hundhausen, Methodology Research design This study used a pre-post quasi-experimental research design with non-equivalent control. This method was chosen because the experimental and control groups consisted of pre-existing classes; and pre-experimental sampling equivalence could not be guaranteed. Also, the experimental group would allow the testing of collaborative learning approach intervention as opposed to traditional whole class teaching approach.

Sample The sample consisted of 48 Physical Sciences Grade 11 learners from two neighboring schools selected using purposive sampling technique. Experimental group School A consisted of the whole class of 33 learners 8 girls: 25 boys and the control group consisted of whole class of 15 learners 8 girls: 7 boys from school B and their mean ages was The learners were homogenous in terms of ability when judged from their classroom test performances.

These two schools were selected because they offered Grade 11 Physical Science learning area and also have similar social economic environments. Instruments Teacher designed activities sample Appendices A and B were used as pre- and post- tests for both experimental and control groups.

In the post-test, question numbers were rearranged to minimize recognition effect. Sample lessons 1 and 5 are presented in Appendix C.

The designed lessons, pre- and post-tests were presented to the expert from the University for content validity. Also, two neighboring high school science teachers were consulted to check on the suitability of the two sets of tools. All the three expert and two teachers mapped concepts and ideas related to graphs and subsequently each one was asked to score the pre- and post-tests as well as the designed lessons.

The scores from the three did not significantly differ, suggesting consistency in the content and any recommended adjustments were effected before the study commenced. For reliability, the researcher piloted the pre- and post-tests on 20 Grade 11 learners from School C, which is located in the same circuit as Schools A and B.

The calculated Cronbach Alpha was 0. Procedure Experimental and control groups were given a pre-test at the same time at their individual schools, with the help of colleagues of the second author.

The EG was taught using collaborative learning intervention over a period of 3 weeks where all learners were encouraged to construction and interpret graphs in small groups. They asked and challenged each other and then agreed on a common understanding. The teacher sought to understand what led each group of learners to decide on a graph and on its interpretation.

The control group was also taught for three weeks like the EG, but there was no collaborative learning. At the end of three weeks a post-test was administered to both groups at the same time, in order to assess achievements. In addition, during the intervention for EG and during the teaching processes of the CG, the teacher pen-recorded in a notebook the learning difficulties regarding graphs.

Pen and pencil was used to record learning difficulties by noting preconceptions one aspect of generative theory and consensus reached after considering different parts of the graphs or texts one aspect of dialectic theory. Preconceptions from CG were noted and categorised into themes such as types of graphs, caption writing, labelling etcetera during teaching because learners responded orally to the posed questions.

Textbook Physical Science Grade 11 pdf

Thereafter, the teacher told learners the correct answers. In the case of the EG, preconceptions before a consensus were noted like the CG, their counterpart. In addition, the answers reached by consensus in EG after discussions were recorded. The teacher during discussions specifically asked various groups where and why they chose to start answering the question, how they proceeded and how they ended Roth and Lee, The teacher used these answers to probe reasons behind the consensus reached and challenged various groups.

Here learners provided diverse answers that generated heated debates and at times the teacher intervened to guide them to a consensus. It is during this time that some learners admitted that they had it wrong and changed to acceptable answers.

Data analysis Answer sheets were marked and summative results were tabulated and analysed using Statistica statistical package version 5. T-test was used to test for any significance differences between pre- and post-tests and between the achievements of boys and girls.

Analysis of Covariance ANCOVA , using pre-test scores as a covariate to statistically control the initial group differences was used to show any changes after the intervention. Also, the pen-recorded and observed learning difficulties during the lessons and during marking of the scripts were grouped into common categories.

Results Generally the results show that learners had difficulties in constructing graphs including labeling of the co-ordinates, how to record data and how to read information from graphs. Pre- and post-test results for experimental group are tabulated below in Table 1.

T-test results of pre- and post-test for experimental group. Pre- and post-test results for control group are tabulated in Table 2. Table 2. T-test results from pre- and post-test for control group.

Post-test results of both experimental and control groups are tabulated in Table 3. Results of T-test for both experimental and control groups post-test. The mean and standard deviation of Table 4. Table 6. Analysis of the pre-test for both the experimental and control groups show that the vast majority of learners lacked the knowledge required in constructing and in interpreting graphs.

Seventy five percent of both experimental and control groups interpreted each variable in isolation of the other. Thus, the vast majority of the learners failed to recognize the interdependence that exists between x and y axes.

In addition, a few learners had written the right answers and then crossed them out and ended up with the wrong ones. Table 7.

Table 8. Another possible explanation is that constructing a graph is by nature is more difficult than interpreting it. Constructing involves the generation of new features that are not visible, at first sight, to learners.

On the other hand, making a conclusion from a graph requires the use of multiple strategies to identify common trends and relate the variables involved, thus such a procedure involves higher level thinking skills Phillips, Also, embedded in the process of graph interpretation is the tendency to rely on perceptual strategies to make sense of the graphical information Roth et al.

The leaning difficulties identified in this study, among others, include: deciding the type of graph to use; plotting variables on x and y axes; reading from the graph the relationship between x and y axes; differentiating between histogram and bar graph; and writing the caption of the graph.

Everything Science - Physical Science in English Grade 11 ‹ OpenCurriculum

To understand the context one needs to examine where the learner starts, proceeds and ends graph interpretation Roth and Lee, The latter is common because a learner sees incompleteness of information in graphs. The more a learner thinks about graphs, the more conflicting ideas develop and hence a need to resolve those conflicts.

When conflicts are resolved, then the process of graph interpretation can end Roth and Lee, and when they are not resolved, learners may develop negative attitudes towards graphs. For instance, in cases where the right answers were deleted in favour of the wrong ones, it is a clear indication of a conflict at dialectical level Hershkowitz et al.

In addition, the failure to resolve such conflict should not be confused with cognitive ability of learners because other factors like language may be involved and may need further study. The findings from this study concur with the study of Roth et al. The increase in the EG may be attributed to the collaborative learning process.

This finding is in agreement with what Leinhardt, et al. They contend that graph activities have been under-represented in many science curricula and as a result graphs continue to pose learning difficulties to a great number of learners. For CG the results can be attributed to the traditional method of teaching graph concepts. Learners were shown how to draw or read data from graphs and most of the time learners were passive.

You might also like: PHYSICS SERWAY PDF

The final results were that learners did not improve on their preconception. On the other hand, results from EG were astounding, suggesting that the intervention must have been plausible and fruitful Hewson and Hewson, This could be attributed to the collaborative learning process where learners participated in three important roles.

First, they negotiated meaning and as such they were committed to their own conclusions. Second, they determined their unique ways of understanding, which characterized their complexity of learning. Finally, they must have established a foundation to remember the interlocutors of their presentations in the group Suthers and Hundhausen, Another factor tested in this study was gender differences among participants.

Girls performed on average 3. Also, the survey found that girls outstripped their male counterparts in achieving distinctions Govender, Conversely, the performance of girls in post- test results of the experimental group in this study was similar to those of the boys, suggesting that the intervention was not gender biased. Therefore, authors recommend that science teachers should adopt collaborative learning approach to teach graphs.

This study was limited to two rural schools and therefore the interpretation of the result should take into account this context. Nevertheless, this research may as well be extended to other schools in the province.

Other learning areas like Mathematics, Computer Science, may be used and also, a comparative study may be undertaken with reference to semi-urban and urban schools. Finally, how language as a medium of instruction affect the development and understanding of how to construct and interpret graphs remains largely unknown and further study is highly recommended. References Archibald, P. Boys vs girls in reading, mathematics and science: The results.

Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 40 1 : Berg, C. An investigation of the relationship between the logical thinking structures and ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 4 : Brasell, H.

Bowen, G. Interpretation of graphs by University Biology students and practicing scientists: Towards a social practice view of scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 9 , p — Denzin, N. Forster, P. Graphing in physics: Processes and sources of error in tertiary Entrance examinations in Western Australia. Research in Science Education — Govender, P. Exclusive: We reveal SA's top schools. Single-sex institutions lead field, girls smarter than boys in our survey.

Hewson, M. Journal of Research in Science Education, 40 1 , 86 — Hawkins, J. Oxford College, University of London. Hershkowitz, R. Kerslake, D. The concepts of graphs in secondary school pupils aged 12 — 14 years. Science Educational Journal, 9: — King, K. Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices.

On the other hand, several studies proposed a cultural-historical activity theory to deal with the interaction between the graph and the interpreter based on dialectical principles Hershkowitz et al.

In this study, the dialectical principles was used on graphs and the interpretations produced by learners. In this way, learners are expected to interact with their fellow learners, the environment that includes social and cultural: Consequently, learners recall better interlocutors of their presentations that lead to the consensus in the group Suthers and Hundhausen, Methodology Research design This study used a pre-post quasi-experimental research design with non-equivalent control.

Material Detail

This method was chosen because the experimental and control groups consisted of pre-existing classes; and pre-experimental sampling equivalence could not be guaranteed. Also, the experimental group would allow the testing of collaborative learning approach intervention as opposed to traditional whole class teaching approach.

Sample The sample consisted of 48 Physical Sciences Grade 11 learners from two neighboring schools selected using purposive sampling technique. Experimental group School A consisted of the whole class of 33 learners 8 girls: The learners were homogenous in terms of ability when judged from their classroom test performances.

These two schools were selected because they offered Grade 11 Physical Science learning area and also have similar social economic environments. Instruments Teacher designed activities sample Appendices A and B were used as pre- and post- tests for both experimental and control groups.

In the post-test, question numbers were rearranged to minimize recognition effect. Sample lessons 1 and 5 are presented in Appendix C. The designed lessons, pre- and post-tests were presented to the expert from the University for content validity.

Also, two neighboring high school science teachers were consulted to check on the suitability of the two sets of tools. All the three expert and two teachers mapped concepts and ideas related to graphs and subsequently each one was asked to score the pre- and post-tests as well as the designed lessons. The scores from the three did not significantly differ, suggesting consistency in the content and any recommended adjustments were effected before the study commenced.

For reliability, the researcher piloted the pre- and post-tests on 20 Grade 11 learners from School C, which is located in the same circuit as Schools A and B. The calculated Cronbach Alpha was 0. Procedure Experimental and control groups were given a pre-test at the same time at their individual schools, with the help of colleagues of the second author. They asked and challenged each other and then agreed on a common understanding.

The teacher sought to understand what led each group of learners to decide on a graph and on its interpretation. The control group was also taught for three weeks like the EG, but there was no collaborative learning. At the end of three weeks a post-test was administered to both groups at the same time, in order to assess achievements. In addition, during the intervention for EG and during the teaching processes of the CG, the teacher pen-recorded in a notebook the learning difficulties regarding graphs.

Pen and pencil was used to record learning difficulties by noting preconceptions one aspect of generative theory and consensus reached after considering different parts of the graphs or texts one aspect of dialectic theory. Preconceptions from CG were noted and categorised into themes such as types of graphs, caption writing, labelling etcetera during teaching because learners responded orally to the posed questions.

Thereafter, the teacher told learners the correct answers. In the case of the EG, preconceptions before a consensus were noted like the CG, their counterpart. In addition, the answers reached by consensus in EG after discussions were recorded. The teacher during discussions specifically asked various groups where and why they chose to start answering the question, how they proceeded and how they ended Roth and Lee, The teacher used these answers to probe reasons behind the consensus reached and challenged various groups.

Here learners provided diverse answers that generated heated debates and at times the teacher intervened to guide them to a consensus. It is during this time that some learners admitted that they had it wrong and changed to acceptable answers. Data analysis Answer sheets were marked and summative results were tabulated and analysed using Statistica statistical package version 5. T-test was used to test for any significance differences between pre- and post-tests and between the achievements of boys and girls.

Analysis of Covariance ANCOVA , using pre-test scores as a covariate to statistically control the initial group differences was used to show any changes after the intervention.

Also, the pen-recorded and observed learning difficulties during the lessons and during marking of the scripts were grouped into common categories. Results Generally the results show that learners had difficulties in constructing graphs including labeling of the co-ordinates, how to record data and how to read information from graphs.

Pre- and post-test results for experimental group are tabulated below in Table 1. T-test results of pre- and post-test for experimental group. Pre- and post-test results for control group are tabulated in Table 2. Table 2. T-test results from pre- and post-test for control group. Post-test results of both experimental and control groups are tabulated in Table 3.

Results of T-test for both experimental and control groups post-test. The mean and standard deviation of Table 4. Table 5: Table 6. Analysis of the pre-test for both the experimental and control groups show that the vast majority of learners lacked the knowledge required in constructing and in interpreting graphs.

Seventy five percent of both experimental and control groups interpreted each variable in isolation of the other. Thus, the vast majority of the learners failed to recognize the interdependence that exists between x and y axes. In addition, a few learners had written the right answers and then crossed them out and ended up with the wrong ones.

Table 7. Table 8. Another possible explanation is that constructing a graph is by nature is more difficult than interpreting it. Constructing involves the generation of new features that are not visible, at first sight, to learners. On the other hand, making a conclusion from a graph requires the use of multiple strategies to identify common trends and relate the variables involved, thus such a procedure involves higher level thinking skills Phillips, Also, embedded in the process of graph interpretation is the tendency to rely on perceptual strategies to make sense of the graphical information Roth et al.

The leaning difficulties identified in this study, among others, include: To understand the context one needs to examine where the learner starts, proceeds and ends graph interpretation Roth and Lee, The latter is common because a learner sees incompleteness of information in graphs.

The more a learner thinks about graphs, the more conflicting ideas develop and hence a need to resolve those conflicts.

When conflicts are resolved, then the process of graph interpretation can end Roth and Lee, and when they are not resolved, learners may develop negative attitudes towards graphs.

For instance, in cases where the right answers were deleted in favour of the wrong ones, it is a clear indication of a conflict at dialectical level Hershkowitz et al.

In addition, the failure to resolve such conflict should not be confused with cognitive ability of learners because other factors like language may be involved and may need further study. The findings from this study concur with the study of Roth et al.

The increase in the EG may be attributed to the collaborative learning process. This finding is in agreement with what Leinhardt, et al. They contend that graph activities have been under-represented in many science curricula and as a result graphs continue to pose learning difficulties to a great number of learners. For CG the results can be attributed to the traditional method of teaching graph concepts. Learners were shown how to draw or read data from graphs and most of the time learners were passive.

The final results were that learners did not improve on their preconception. On the other hand, results from EG were astounding, suggesting that the intervention must have been plausible and fruitful Hewson and Hewson, This could be attributed to the collaborative learning process where learners participated in three important roles. First, they negotiated meaning and as such they were committed to their own conclusions.

Second, they determined their unique ways of understanding, which characterized their complexity of learning. Finally, they must have established a foundation to remember the interlocutors of their presentations in the group Suthers and Hundhausen, Another factor tested in this study was gender differences among participants. Girls performed on average 3. In South Africa, a survey of matric results show that indeed girls outperformed boys where: Also, the survey found that girls outstripped their male counterparts in achieving distinctions Govender, Conversely, the performance of girls in post- test results of the experimental group in this study was similar to those of the boys, suggesting that the intervention was not gender biased.

Therefore, authors recommend that science teachers should adopt collaborative learning approach to teach graphs. This study was limited to two rural schools and therefore the interpretation of the result should take into account this context. Nevertheless, this research may as well be extended to other schools in the province. Other learning areas like Mathematics, Computer Science, may be used and also, a comparative study may be undertaken with reference to semi-urban and urban schools.

Finally, how language as a medium of instruction affect the development and understanding of how to construct and interpret graphs remains largely unknown and further study is highly recommended. References Archibald, P. Boys vs girls in reading, mathematics and science: The results. Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 40 1: Berg, C.

An investigation of the relationship between the logical thinking structures and ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 4: Brasell, H. Bowen, G. Interpretation of graphs by University Biology students and practicing scientists: Towards a social practice view of scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 9 , p — Denzin, N.

Handbook of qualitiative Research, 2nd Edition, Carlifonia: Sage Publishers, Thousand Oaks. Forster, P. Graphing in physics: Processes and sources of error in tertiary Entrance examinations in Western Australia. Research in Science Education Govender, P. We reveal SA's top schools. Single-sex institutions lead field, girls smarter than boys in our survey.

Hewson, M. Journal of Research in Science Education, 40 1 , 86 — Hawkins, J. Oxford College, University of London. Hershkowitz, R. Kerslake, D. The concepts of graphs in secondary school pupils aged 12 — 14 years. Science Educational Journal, 9: King, K. Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices.

Journal for Science Education, Leinhardt, G. Functions, graphs and graphing: Tasks and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 6: Mokros, J. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 4: Maleunberg, I.

TOP Related


Copyright © 2019 osakeya.info. All rights reserved.
DMCA |Contact Us