Enhancing teacher agentic learning in physics education: The impact of cognitively guided instruction on prospective teachers' cognitive engagement
Abstract
This study aims to explore the impact of teacher agentic learning applied through the Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) approach on the cognitive engagement of prospective physics teachers in thermodynamics laboratory activities, specifically in determining the coefficient of performance of a heat pump. This study employs a one-group pre-post design. Thirty-eight prospective physics teachers participated in a three-week learning program with pre-test and post-test assessments measuring their knowledge of thermodynamics concepts, problem-solving abilities, and experimental data evaluation. The results showed a significant improvement in teacher agentic learning, reflected in their abilities to manage cognitive resources, solve cognitive tasks, and evaluate experimental data more effectively. Statistical tests indicated a significant increase (t = –0.129, p = 0.001). Thus, CGI can enhance the agentic learning of prospective physics teachers. The implications of this study emphasize the importance of applying agentic-based learning in physics education to improve critical thinking skills and understanding of more complex physics concepts.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
J. Reeve and S. H. Shin, “How teachers can support students’ agentic engagement,” Theory Pract., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 150–161, 2020, doi: 10.1080/00405841.2019.1702451
S. Lau and R. W. Roeser, “Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in science achievement and engagement: A person-centered analysis,” Spec. Issue Creat., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 497–504, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.002
I. Erdogan and T. Campbell, “Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with differing levels of constructivist teaching practices,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 30, no. 14, pp. 1891–1914, 2008, doi: 10.1080/09500690701587028
L. Bao et al., “Learning and scientific reasoning,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5914, pp. 586–587, 2009, doi: 10.1126/science.1167740, doi: 10.1126/science.1167740
R. S. Jansen, A. van Leeuwen, J. Janssen, S. Jak, and L. Kester, “Self-regulated learning partially mediates the effect of self-regulated learning interventions on achievement in higher education: A meta-analysis,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1-20, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100292
Y. Lee and M. B. Kinzie, “Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use,” Instr. Sci., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 857–874, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9193-2
N. M. Webb, “The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom,” Br. J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2009, doi: 10.1348/000709908X380772
P. Iwuanyanwu, “Nature of problem-solving skills for 21st century STEM learners: What teachers need to know,” J. STEM Teach. Educ., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 26-40, 2020, doi: 10.30707/JSTE55.1/MMDZ8325
J. Reeve and C.-M. Tseng, “Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 257–267, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
R. E. Mayer, “Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?,” Am. Psychol., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 14-19, 2004, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
K. Koenig, K. E. Wood, L. J. Bortner, and L. Bao, “Modifying traditional labs to target scientific reasoning,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 28–35, 2019, doi: 10.1080/0047231X.2019.12290473
P. Iwuanyanwu, “Students’ understanding of calculus based kinematics and the arguments they generated for problem solving: The case of understanding physics,” J. Educ. Sci. Environ. Health, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 283–295, 2019, doi: 10.21891/jeseh.581588
J. P. Walker and V. Sampson, “Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument‐driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 561–596, 2013, doi: 10.1002/tea.21082
C. Chin, “Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1315–1346, 2006, doi: 10.1080/09500690600621100
S. Erduran and W. Park, “Argumentation in physics education research: Recent trends and key themes,” Int. Handb. Phys. Educ. Res. Learn. Phys., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 16–32, 2023, doi: 10.1063/9780735425477_016
S. I. Hofer, R. Schumacher, H. Rubin, and E. Stern, “Enhancing physics learning with cognitively activating instruction: A quasi-experimental classroom intervention study.,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 110, no. 8, pp. 1-17, 2018, doi: 10.1037/edu0000266
C. Borgnakke and R. E. Sonntag, Fundamentals of thermodynamics, 8th edition - student companion site. Singapore: Wiley, 2017.
L. Hansson and L. Leden, “Working with the nature of science in physics class: Turning ‘ordinary’classroom situations into nature of science learning situations,” Phys. Educ., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1-4, 2016, doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/51/5/055001
J. F. Osborne, “Not "hands on" but" minds on": A response to furtak and penuel,” Sci. Educ., vol. 103, no. 5, pp. 1280-1283, 2019, doi: 10.1002/sce.21543
M. M. Keller, K. Neumann, and H. E. Fischer, “The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 586–614, 2017, doi: 10.1002/tea.21378
J. C. Moore and L. J. Rubbo, “Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010106
A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2001, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
P. N. Iwuanyanwu, “When science is taught this way, students become critical friends: setting the stage for student teachers,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1063–1079, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11165-023-10122-9
G. Tarekegn, J. Osborne, and M. Tadesse, “Impact of dialogic argumentation pedagogy on grade 8 students’ epistemic knowledge of science,” in Advances in Research in STEM Education, IntechOpen, 2022, doi: 10.5772/intechopen.104536
J. C. Marshall, J. B. Smart, and D. M. Alston, “Inquiry-based instruction: A possible solution to improving student learning of both science concepts and scientific practices,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 777–796, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10763-016-9718-x
E. Etkina, D. Brookes, and G. Planinsic, “Examples of ISLE-based learning of traditional physics topics and examples of ISLE-based physics problems,” Investig. Sci. Learn. Environ. Learn. Phys. Mirrors Doing Phys., 2019, ch. 2, pp. 2–1, doi: 10.1088/2053-2571/ab3ebdch2
E. Kuo, M. M. Hull, A. Gupta, and A. Elby, “How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems,” Sci. Educ., vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 32–57, 2013, doi: 10.1002/sce.21043
E. F. Redish, “Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 796–803, 1994, doi: 10.1119/1.17461
T. Zafitri, P. Siahaan, and W. Liliawati, “Design of scientific reasoning test instruments on simple harmonic motion topics,” presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing, 2019, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032064
C. O. Houle, The inquiring mind. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961.
V. K. Otero, “Cognitive processes and the learning of physics part I: The evolution of knowledge from a vygotskian perspective,” in Research on Physics Education, IOS Press, 2004, pp. 409–445. doi: 10.3254/978-1-61499-012-3-409.
S. Zhou et al., “Assessment of scientific reasoning: The effects of task context, data, and design on student reasoning in control of variables,” Think. Ski. Creat., vol. 19, pp. 175–187, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.11.004
R. A. Dixon and M. Lammi, “Cognitive mapping techniques: Implications for research in engineering and technology education,” J. Technol. Educ., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 2-17, 2014, doi: 10.21061/jte.v25i2.a.1
L. Ding, X. Wei, and X. Liu, “Variations in university students’ scientific reasoning skills across majors, years, and types of institutions,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 613–632, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11165-015-9473-y
P. Iwuanyanwu, “Teaching pre-service teachers who perceive fear and ignorance of chemicals: Why should this be a concern to chemistry teachers,” Int. J. Sci. Res. Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 15–33, 2019.
C. Gürel and E. Süzük, “Pre-service physics teachers’ argumentation in a model rocketry physics experience,” Educ. Sci. Theory Pract., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 83-104, 2017.
G. Fauconnier and M. Turner, The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York : Basic Books, 2002.
G. J. Geldhof, K. J. Preacher, and M. J. Zyphur, “Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework,” Psychol. Methods, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 72–91, 2014, doi: 10.1037/a0032138
V. Jurik, A. Gröschner, and T. Seidel, “Predicting students’ cognitive learning activity and intrinsic learning motivation: How powerful are teacher statements, student profiles, and gender?,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 132–139, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.01.005
F. Han, “The relations between teaching strategies, students’ engagement in learning, and teachers’ self-concept,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1-15, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13095020
M. Bordbar, “Autonomy-supportive faculty and students’ agentic engagement: The mediating role of activating positive achievement emotions,” Int. J. Behav. Sci., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 14–19, 2019.
Y. Dong and S. Liu, “An investigation into students’ agentic engagement in online English listening learning,” J. Lang. Teach. Res., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 409–417, 2020, doi: 10.17507/jltr.1103.09
C. Mameli and S. Passini, “Development and validation of an enlarged version of the student agentic engagement scale,” J. Psychoeduc. Assess., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 450–463, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0734282918757849
M. Fatouh and E. Elgendy, “Experimental investigation of a vapor compression heat pump used for cooling and heating applications,” Energy, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 2788–2795, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2011.02.019
A. Nehring, K. H. Nowak, A. U. zu Belzen, and R. Tiemann, “Predicting students’ skills in the context of scientific inquiry with cognitive, motivational, and sociodemographic variables,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1343–1363, 2015, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1035358
P.-H. Wu and H.-K. Wu, “Constructing a model of engagement in scientific inquiry: Investigating relationships between inquiry-related curiosity, dimensions of engagement, and inquiry abilities,” Instr. Sci., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 79–113, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11251-020-09503-8
M. Richardson, C. Abraham, and R. Bond, “Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 138, no. 2, pp. 1-21, 2012, doi: 10.1037/a0026838
M. Reith and A. Nehring, “Scientific reasoning and views on the nature of scientific inquiry: Testing a new framework to understand and model epistemic cognition in science,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 42, no. 16, pp. 2716–2741, 2020, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2020.1834168
H. S. Woo, J. H. Ahn, M. S. Oh, H. Kang, and Y. Kim, “Study on the heating performance characteristics of a heat pump system utilizing air and waste heat source for electric vehicles,” Korean J. Air-Cond. Refrig. Eng., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 180–186, 2013, doi: 10.6110/KJACR.2013.25.4.180
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24042/ijsme.v7i3.21527
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Unit Riset dan Publikasi Ilmiah FTK UIN Raden Intan Lampung
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Indonesian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.