Enhancing critical thinking, metacognition, and conceptual understanding in introductory physics: The impact of direct and experiential instructional models
More details
Hide details
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA
Madda Walabu University, Bale Robe, ETHIOPIA
Online publication date: 2023-05-15
Publication date: 2023-07-01
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2023;19(7):em2287
This study investigates the impact of three different instructional models, direct instructional model (DIM), experiential learning model (ELM), and their combinations (DIM-ELM) on enhancing critical thinking, metacognition, and conceptual understanding in an introductory physics course. The study included 84 first-year pre-engineering students aged 18-24 years who were enrolled in the introductory physics course at two public science and technology universities in Ethiopia. A quasi-experimental design was used with three intact classes randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: ELM, DIM, and DIM-ELM. The instruments used to measure the outcomes were the critical thinking test in electricity and magnetism, electricity and magnetism conceptual assessment, and metacognitive awareness and regulation scale in electricity and magnetism. The study used one-way analysis of covariance to examine the impact of instructional models on students’ conceptual understanding and critical thinking on the topic of electricity and magnetism, while a one-way analysis of variance was used to analyze the effects of instructional models on metacognition. Results showed that ELM was more effective than DIM and DIM-ELM in enhancing post-test conceptual understanding scores. ELM was also more effective than DIM-ELM method in improving post-test critical thinking scores, with the DIM-ELM showing better results than DIM. However, there were no significant differences in the effects of instructional approaches on metacognition. These findings suggest that ELM may be more effective than DIM and DIM-ELM in improving students’ conceptual understanding and critical thinking in physics.
Alkan, F. (2016). Experiential learning: Its effects on achievement and scientific process skills. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(2), 15-26.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. Grune & Stratton.
Avargil, S., Lavi, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2018). Students’ metacognition and metacognitive strategies in science education. In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education (pp. 33-66). Springer.
Bao, L., & Koenig, K. (2019). Physics education research for 21st century learning. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1-12.
Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414-436.
Burch, G. F., Giambatista, R., Batchelor, J. H., Burch, J. J., Hoover, J. D., & Heller, N. A. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relationship between experiential learning and learning outcomes. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 17(3), 239-273.
Bustami, Y., Syafruddin, D., & Afriani, R. (2018). The implementation of contextual learning to enhance biology students’ critical thinking skills. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia [Journal of Indonesian Science Education], 7(4), 451-457.
Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2006). Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 329-336.
Chinaka, T. W. (2021). The effect of PhET simulation vs. phenomenon-based experiential learning on students’ integration of motion along two independent axes in projectile motion. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 25(2), 185-196.
Committee on STEM Education. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. National Science and Technology Council.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.
Davies, M. (2013). Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(4), 529-544.
de Jong, T. (2019). Moving towards engaged learning in STEM domains; there is no simple answer, but clearly a road ahead. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 153-167.
Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384-397.
Dega, B. G. (2012). Conceptual change through cognitive perturbation using simulations in electricity and magnetism: A case study in Ambo University , Ethiopia [PhD thesis, University of South Africa].
Dega, B. G. (2019). Prevalence of random and null-model student’s responses using concentration analysis: An example from electromagnetism concepts. Science Education International, 30(3), 217-222.
Dega, B. G., Kriek, J., & Mogese, T. F. (2013). Students’ conceptual change in electricity and magnetism using simulations: A comparison of cognitive perturbation and cognitive conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 677-698.
Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50(3), 241-252.
Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2011). Strategies and models for teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills. Pearson.
Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 179-186.
Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An experiential learning theoretical analysis. Computers and Education, 135, 138-159.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365-383.
Gunstone, R. F. (2013). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 143-158). Routledge.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
Harrison, S., & Gibbons, C. (2013). Nursing student perceptions of concept maps: From theory to practice. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34(6), 395-399.
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99(5), 185-195.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Hushman, C. J., & Marley, S. C. (2015). Guided instruction improves elementary student learning and self-efficacy in science. Journal of Educational Research, 108(5), 371-381.
Kang, H., Windschitl, M., Stroupe, D., & Thompson, J. (2016). Designing, launching, and implementing high quality learning opportunities for students that advance scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1316-1340.
Kervinen, A., Roth, W. M., Juuti, K., & Uitto, A. (2020). The resurgence of everyday experiences in school science learning activities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(4), 1019-1045.
Kim, M., Yoon, H., Ji, Y. R., & Song, J. (2012). The dynamics of learning science in everyday contexts: A case study of everyday science class in Korea. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 71-97.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Köhler, C., Hartig, J., & Naumann, A. (2021). Detecting instruction effects–Deciding between covariance analytical and change-score approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1191-1211.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development. SAGE.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). The process of experiential learning. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT Press.
Kolb, D. A. (2017). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Konak, A. (2018). Experiential learning builds cybersecurity self-efficacy in K-12 students. Journal of Cybersecurity Education, Research and Practice, 2018(1), 6.
Kruit, P. M., Oostdam, R. J., van den Berg, E., & Schuitema, J. A. (2018). Effects of explicit instruction on the acquisition of students’ science inquiry skills in grades 5 and 6 of primary education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(4), 421-441.
Levy, A. R., & Moore Mensah, F. (2020). Learning through the experience of water in elementary school science. Water, 13(1), 43.
Liou, P. Y. (2021). Students’ attitudes toward science and science achievement: An analysis of the differential effects of science instructional practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 310-334.
Mbonyiryivuze, A., Yadav, L. L., & Amadalo, M. M. (2019). Students’ conceptual understanding of electricity and magnetism and its implications: A review. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 15(2), 55-67.
McColgan, M. W., Finn, R. A., Broder, D. L., & Hassel, G. E. (2017). Assessing students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(2), 1-19.
McMullan, W. E., & Cahoon, A. (1979). Integrating abstract conceptualizing with experiential learning. Academy of Management Review, 4(3), 453-458.
Mills, S. (2016). Conceptual understanding: A concept analysis. Qualitative Report, 21(3), 546-557.
Murrell, P. H., & Claxton, C. S. (1987). Experiential learning theory as a guide for effective teaching. Counselor Education and Supervision, 27(1), 4-14.
Na, J., & Song, J. (2014). Why everyday experience? Interpreting primary students’ science discourse from the perspective of John Dewey. Science and Education, 23(5), 1031-1049.
Ngajie, B. N., Li, Y., Tiruneh, D. T., Cheng, M., Ramlo, S., Ward, C. W., & Willingham, D. T. (2020). Investigating the effects of a systematic and model-based design of computer-supported argument visualization on critical thinking. Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses, 15(5), 100742.
NRC. (2011). Assessing 21st century skills: Summary of a workshop. National Academies Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill.
Putra, P. D. A., Sulaeman, N. F., & Wahyuni, S. (2021). Exploring students' critical thinking skills using the engineering design process in a physics classroom. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1-9.
Radović, S., Hummel, H. G. K., & Vermeulen, M. (2021). The challenge of designing ‘more’ experiential learning in higher education programs in the field of teacher education: A systematic review study. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 40(5-6), 545-560.
Roberts, J. (2018). From the editor: The possibilities and limitations of experiential learning research in higher education. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(1), 3-7.
Samba, R., Achor, E. E., Bash, A., & Iortim, S. (2020). Fostering students’ critical thinking and achievement in basic science using graphic organizer and experiential learning strategies with feedback. Science Education International, 31(2), 220-225.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
Schuster, D., Cobern, W. W., Adams, B. A. J., Undreiu, A., & Pleasants, B. (2018). Learning of core disciplinary ideas: Efficacy comparison of two contrasting modes of science instruction. Research in Science Education, 48, 389-435.
Shaikh, U. A. S., Magana, A. J., Neri, L., Escobar-Castillejos, D., Noguez, J., & Benes, B. (2017). Undergraduate students’ conceptual interpretation and perceptions of haptic-enabled learning experiences. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, 15.
Shen, J., Liu, O. L., & Chang, H.-Y. (2017). Assessing students’ deep conceptual understanding in physical sciences: An example on sinking and floating. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 57-70.
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479-507.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1-16.
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
Teferra, T., Asgedom, A., & Oumer, J. (2018). Ethiopian education development roadmap (2018-30). UNESCO. https://planipolis.iiep.unesco....
Thomas, G. P. (2013). Changing the metacognitive orientation of a classroom environment to stimulate metacognitive reflection regarding the nature of physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1183-1207.
Thomas, G., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2008). Development of an instrument designed to investigate elements of science students’ metacognition, self-efficacy and learning processes: The SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1701-1724.
Tiruneh, D. T., De Cock, M., & Elen, J. (2018). Designing learning environments for critical thinking: Examining effective instructional approaches. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(6), 1065-1089.
Tiruneh, D. T., De Cock, M., Weldeslassie, A. G., Elen, J., & Janssen, R. (2017). Measuring critical thinking in physics: Development and validation of a critical thinking test in electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 663-682.
Tiruneh, D. T., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2014). Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education: A systematic review of intervention studies. Higher Education Studies, 4(1).
Viennot, L. (2019). Conceptual development and critical attitude in physics education: A pathway in the search for coherence. In M. Pietrocola (Ed.), Upgrading physics education to meet the needs of society (pp. 189-198). Springer.
Viennot, L., & Décamp, N. (2015). Codevelopment of conceptual understanding and critical attitude: Toward a systemic analysis of the survival blanket. European Journal of Physics, 37(1), 1-25.
Wang, C. Y. (2015). Exploring general versus task-specific assessments of metacognition in university chemistry students: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 555-579.
Weinberg, A. E., Basile, C. G., & Albright, L. (2011). The effect of an experiential learning program on middle school students’ motivation toward mathematics and science. RMLE Online, 35(3), 1-12.
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21-32.
You, H. (2022a). Methodology for multilevel modeling in educational research. Springer.
Yuruk, N., Beeth, M. E., & Andersen, C. (2009). Analyzing the effect of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ understanding of force and motion concepts. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 449-475.
Zhai, X., Gu, J., Liu, H., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2017). An experiential learning perspective on students’ satisfaction model in a flipped classroom context. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 198-210.
Zhang, L. (2019). “Hands-on” plus “inquiry”? Effects of withholding answers coupled with physical manipulations on students’ learning of energy-related science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 60, 199-205.
Zhao, N., Teng, X., Li, W., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wen, H., & Yi, M. (2019). A path model for metacognition and its relation to problem-solving strategies and achievement for different tasks. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 51(4), 641-653.
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121-169.
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2015). Metacognition and teaching higher order thinking (HOT) in science education: Students’ learning, teachers’ knowledge and instructional practices. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 229-242). Routledge.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top